Alright folks, I've got a question

about the word 'folks'. Lately I seem to be noticing the word 'folks' used every time someone, particularly in politics, refers to individuals and groups in general. I've noticed it more so in American media, but it seems to be spreading to Canadian media too. I have a few questions about this new or resurgent phenomenon:

1) Am I actually noticing an increase in the use of 'folks', or is it merely confirmation bias?
2) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what is the reason? Is it an attempt to sound more 'folksy' or 'down-to-earth'?
3) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what do you think about it? Is it merely an evolution of language, or would you rather see the words 'people', 'citizens', 'individuals', 'Canadians/Americans,etc.,' used instead?

1) Merely confirmation bias.
2) Yes.  It's an old term that adds some kind of "kinship" meaning when talking about a group.
3) Don't care myself.

1) Keith stone is always smooth.
2) People are attempting to hook back to there Germanic Volk and also emulate Porky pig
3) W/e

about the word 'folks'. Lately I seem to be noticing the word 'folks' used every time someone, particularly in politics, refers to individuals and groups in general. I've noticed it more so in American media, but it seems to be spreading to Canadian media too. I have a few questions about this new or resurgent phenomenon:

1) Am I actually noticing an increase in the use of 'folks', or is it merely confirmation bias?
2) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what is the reason? Is it an attempt to sound more 'folksy' or 'down-to-earth'?
3) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what do you think about it? Is it merely an evolution of language, or would you rather see the words 'people', 'citizens', 'individuals', 'Canadians/Americans,etc.,' used instead?

1) Yes, it's increasing.
2) Because politicians, particularly republicans, want to be people you can "have a beer with." This is seriously the only thing a lot of Americans consider when choosing who to vote for.
3) I think it's kind of condescending in that they think we'll fall for something stupid like that, and saddening that we actually do.

The pres does it quite a lot too.

The pres does it quite a lot too.

That's what I was noticing, and didn't really want to slog through video clips to see if he's increased usage.

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

Yes. It groups large amounts of people together very well. Much less formal and jokey than people or citizens.

I say folkies more often than folks. This is when I'm referring to people who go to a folk music course that I go to every summer, but that's just me.

"Folks" is for people that are generally OK but may be confused.

Tyrannical regimes, terrorists and or other baddies are not folks.

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

Quote from: General Disarray on February 26, 2011, 11:16:24 PM

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

It's easier and generates more ratings to say that then to say

"Dr. Algregor has conducted research that suggests that in certain cases x has a 65% chance to occur when A, B, and C are true."

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 27, 2011, 07:13:15 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 26, 2011, 11:16:24 PM

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

It's easier and generates more ratings to say that then to say

"Dr. Algregor has conducted research that suggests that in certain cases x has a 65% chance to occur when A, B, and C are true."

But the second statement is orders of magnitude more accurate.

Quote from: Lorddave on February 27, 2011, 07:33:41 AM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 27, 2011, 07:13:15 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 26, 2011, 11:16:24 PM

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

It's easier and generates more ratings to say that then to say

"Dr. Algregor has conducted research that suggests that in certain cases x has a 65% chance to occur when A, B, and C are true."

But the second statement is orders of magnitude more accurate.

And what does Mass Media care about accuracy?

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 27, 2011, 07:13:15 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 26, 2011, 11:16:24 PM

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

It's easier and generates more ratings to say that then to say

"Dr. Algregor has conducted research that suggests that in certain cases x has a 65% chance to occur when A, B, and C are true."

True, but they could make some kind of effort. 'Scientists in London think x' would be a step in the right direction, and just as easy to say.

Quote from: Lorddave on February 27, 2011, 07:33:41 AM

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on February 27, 2011, 07:13:15 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on February 26, 2011, 11:16:24 PM

It bothers me almost as much as when politicians say "the American people" as if they're speaking for everyone.

The one that really scratches my scrotum is when the media say 'scientists think x', as if all scientists everywhere are in perfect agreement.

It's easier and generates more ratings to say that then to say

"Dr. Algregor has conducted research that suggests that in certain cases x has a 65% chance to occur when A, B, and C are true."

True, but they could make some kind of effort. 'Scientists in London think x' would be a step in the right direction, and just as easy to say.

You forget: the effort they make is to make the story vague and popular (ie lots of viewers/readers). It takes effort to change something specific into something vague but not a total lie.

I'm not sure why you're hearing more folks say it. Maybe Sarah Palin is rubbing off on them.

I'm not sure why you're hearing more folks say it. Maybe they are rubbing off on Sarah Palin.

Fix'd 

Quote from: Fortuna on February 27, 2011, 07:27:23 PM

I'm not sure why you're hearing more folks say it. Maybe they are rubbing off on Sarah Palin.

Fix'd 

That's just wrong.

about the word 'folks'. Lately I seem to be noticing the word 'folks' used every time someone, particularly in politics, refers to individuals and groups in general. I've noticed it more so in American media, but it seems to be spreading to Canadian media too. I have a few questions about this new or resurgent phenomenon:

1) Am I actually noticing an increase in the use of 'folks', or is it merely confirmation bias?
2) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what is the reason? Is it an attempt to sound more 'folksy' or 'down-to-earth'?
3) Assuming the word is becoming more popular, what do you think about it? Is it merely an evolution of language, or would you rather see the words 'people', 'citizens', 'individuals', 'Canadians/Americans,etc.,' used instead?

 I see nothing wrong with folks.
        Example:  You're having a party, you need to put a table where people are standing.
                      I would say," would you folks        mind moving over a little bit"
                 I would not say,"     "     "   individuals   "        "       "    "    "    "  "
                                     ,  "    "     "   Canadians  "         "       "    "    "    "  "

      I don't know why I spent so much time answering this.

That's not the usage I was inquiring about.