What’s that you say?

Though it’s taken a good while to come into focus, I’ve slowly become aware just how much I have come to dislike a currently popular word.

“Problematic.”

There are a number of reasons for that, several not confined to the word itself. The major ones come down to my dislike of buzz-words in general (I despise “woke”, for instance, though it didn’t bother me a bit until its current assigned meaning manifested) and the way glib labels are so often used as a substitute for reasoned argument or actual thought. There’s a bit more to it than that, though; there is a specific form of intellectual laziness, even of genuine dishonesty, in the way that word is applied these days.

If I say, “I have a problem with Plrbfy,” the focus is where it should be: on me, on my objections, on my reasons for objecting. I can make a sound argument, a poor one, a specious one, but the starting-point I chose necessitates that I make at least some attempt to justify my opinion.

If instead I say, “Plrbfy is problematic,” the balance shifts. The thing to which I am objecting — or policy, or principle, or person — becomes the focus, and I’ve applied a label to it (accurately or not), and the overall sense is that Plrbfy or some defender of Plrbfy must refute my opinion or the label sticks. My contention is not proven by any means, and I may indeed follow that contention with arguments or examples, but I have started with a label that I haven’t (yet) bothered to justify.

If you genuinely don’t see a difference between the two, then fine: do it my way. After all, if there’s no difference, what does it cost you?

If you do see the difference, and prefer to stick with “problematic” … well, then I have a problem with that.