|
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 06:13 PM by Igel
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 %.
|