Critics now apply
pejorative labels like «fuzzy math» or «new new math» to this sensible effort to ratchet up expectations in mathematics classrooms.
Clearly exhibiting a desire to smear the candidates and parties concerned,
these pejorative labels represent a gross interference with the independence of voters to assess the character of the persons and entities coming before them.
Why do you assume Marxism is
a pejorative label?
I find these charges of «alarmism» by right - leaning pundits and «cherry picking» by conservatives like, Roger Pielke Jr., as little more than
pejorative labelling.
Women with borderline personality disorder expressed they were living with
a pejorative label, with self destructive behaviour viewed as manipulative, and with limited access to care
Not exact matches
Your point seems to be that this concept should not be saddled with a
pejorative sounding
label like «Dutch disease».
Couple of thoughts struck me: 1) While some «
labelling» is
pejorative;
labelling is essential to communicating & comprehension.
Many of the media outlets targeted by the Trump administration are
labelled as liberal which is a term used in the USA a
pejorative by non-liberal voters.
He went big and weighty in 2015 with Spotlight, but McCarthy's small - scale debut could hardly be more different, the rare kind of quirky indie drama where such a
label isn't a
pejorative.
The contemporary
label of «terrorist» is highly
pejorative and it denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality.
Bluhm acknowledged his artistic debt to artists of the New York School, but he also rejected the
label of «second - generation abstract expressionist,» which he saw as limiting and
pejorative.
(Contrarians will sometimes pick the latter with which to smear all — so the
label «environmentalist» has become
pejorative nowadays.)
That notwithstanding, my main concern with
labels is not that we shouldn't have them, but that if we do, they shouldn't be
pejorative, or, to some extent, elitist / exclusionary.
Now, taking even the most wildly optimistic statement of certainty of AGW — the «very likely (> 90 % probability) stated by IPCC in AR4, this hardy makes AGW a «fact» such as gravity, and thus subject to the
pejorative denialist
label (Catastrophic AGW and effectiveness of mitigations would have certainty far far below this 90 %).
Perhaps more significantly, it does send a strong signal to the Federal government against arbitrarily
labeling public individuals with the highly contentious and
pejorative term of «terrorist.»