Problems with ‘problematic’ and other forms of linguistic laziness

To the editor: Meghan Daum describes “problematic” as a weasel word. I have issues with other words and phrases. (“Why the weasel word ‘problematic’ should be banned,” Opinion, July 21)

So, first, there’s the very common and inappropriate use of the word “so” when a person is answering a question. There’s also barking the word “listen” while answering a question and beginning a response with “sure.”

Also, I’m tired of people who believe that using youthful jargon makes them seem hip, as in “takeaway” instead of “what I learned was.” Even the word “conversation” has become the only word used to describe talking between two or more people.

There’s also the ubiquitous use of the word “folks.” I suppose that folks forgot the word “people.” It came from the mouth of President George W. Bush when he referred to terrorists as “folks” — such a casual, cozy term for “terrorist.”

The act of talking has become lazy.

Lynn Leatart, Sherman Oaks

..

To the editor: How ironic that in Thursday’s Opinion section, the word “problematic” (the subject of Daum’s analysis and condemnation for its abuse, with which I heartily agree) should appear inches away in your editorial concerning rising healthcare premiums:

“Slowing the rise in the cost of any other form of care is problematic, however, because of the risks posed to the development and availability of treatments.”

A cynical examination of the context of your use of the word might even demonstrate her point exactly. Now, that’s problematic.

Harold Sriro, Santa Monica

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook