Because words matter

[Pat Riot]

Can we please stop using the word "entitlement" to refer to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? That's "their" word. It carries connotations of lazy unemployed people who live high on the hog, off the sweat of others who work hard, as opposed to the decent thing to do: helping poor children and old people who are sick. It's reminiscent of the rhetoric used in the Reagan days of the myth of the welfare queen. I'm trying to keep supporting the President I voted for, but it is more and more difficult when even he used their word.

It reminds me of the rhetoric of fundie fanatics regarding abortion. I'm not pro-abortion; I happen to be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. I guess that's hard for rigid minded folk who kill doctors yet claim to be pro life to wrap their heads around.

Know what I mean? Anyone else feel the same?

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Exactly.

Happy to rec.

:hi:



TG, TT

[valerief]

2. What's wrong with being entitled to what you've paid in? nt

[PATRICK]

3. Our right and what is owed

backed up by the very existence of the US government and treasury. Toning down liberalism to populism and progressivism
led to the further demonization of the latter term and co-option of the first according to RW judgment and control of the corrupted national forums(government, MSM, thinkspeak tanks). Safety nets? That is the last line of defense and visually expressed. Minimalism won't be enough when rights are rolled back.

[valerief]

6. Huh? nt

[pipi_k]

4. Is that what entitlements means to you?

fat lazy slobs collecting money they don't deserve?


No. Entitlements means people have earned whatever they're getting.

[Pat Riot]

10. No, I agree with you.

Having paid into it for almost 40 years, I really do feel entitled to my entitlements! ha.
What I was trying, I guess not too clearly, to say, is that "fat lazy slobs collecting money they don't deserve" is the spin that the republicans are putting on the word. I hadn't heard the word so much until recently. We used to just call Social Security, Social Security. I was hoping my example of "pro-abortion" vs. pro-choice would have made that clearer.

[valerief]

5. Well, they'd better rewrite all the Social Security Acts, because the

word "entitled" is sprinkled throughout.

It makes our country looks like it takes care of its aged and sick. Like they're entitled for a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How retro is that?

[Enrique]

7. its a technical term n/t

[CleanGreenFuture]

8. So, now we change the meaning of words? That's called "Newspeak".

[PATRICK]

9. What I was trying to say

Thanks.

[bahrbearian]

11. It really matters who your talking to, if its a repug than you have to make it clear.

I was talking to a repug and she was griping about how all the new employees where complaining about losing their entitlements, She was referring about them losing tel-commute days, she never telecommutes because she can't use a computer. So I had to clear that up because thats what they lump into 'entitlements', nonsense.

[theaocp]

12. I disagree.

As Tyrion Lannister "said," "Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you." The conservatives constantly try to throw dirt on all manner of words. Fuck that. I'm armoring up and going to throw entitlements back in their face, since I paid into it, I'm entitled to it. Otherwise, it'd be a gift. No more letting them frame the terminology and debate.

[Igel]

13. Context matters. Style and register matter.

As a matter of technical terminology, they're entitlements.

For a lot of people "entitlement" doesn't have the derogatory connotation. They go with strict denotation.

Others have inferred (not the right word, but "abduced" won't probably help you much) that the word only has a derogatory meaning. That happens--connotations from the referent, the thing named or involved, "rub off" on words.

Sometimes exposing people to usage of the word outside their narrow, little universe does the trick. Sometimes not. Language is far richer than words having a single meaning and single connotation that holds for all contexts and all registers.

It's not "their" word. It's "their" connotation. *Obama* isn't using their connotation, he's using the legally appropriate word, one that many people consider to be fairly neutral. *You*, however, are using "their" connotation and appear oblivious to any other usage.

"Their" connotation isn't entirely wrong. Just mostly. It *does* cover people who abuse the system, and arose in a time when welfare and benefits were far easier to obtain and to abuse. Such people deserve no respect but do deserve some contempt--and from those few the word's connotation spread. But don't commit the same whole-part fallacy that they do: Because some people abuse some aspects of the entitlements system, therefore all entitlements to all people acquires a whiff of laziness and self-seeking, a sense that they deserve to be supported by others but owe no debt in return. That's overgeneralization from what some sluggards do to what most people who actually need them do. It's little worse, though, than saying because most people use most entitlements to meet basic living requirements based on actual need that *all* people use all entitlements in this way and are properly thankful for having their needs met. It's usually the case that some do and some don't. After that the absolutes are already ruled out and we're talking %.