Edwin Newman termed this phenomenon “language pollution” in the 1970s. The leftists of that day were just as caught up in this foolishness as the current crop. The best concealment for fundamentally stupid, destructive ideas is a dog’s breakfast of polysyllabic, pseudoscientific, made-up jargon. Trustworthy operators who want to convince the public accept the fact that their ideas will be compared to competing claims. Conveying their ideas clearly through words actually found in the dictionary shows respect, honesty, and honorable intentions to the public. So-called “activist language” shows the opposite and earns suspicion from normal people. It registers as cheap manipulation.
Voters do reject the underlying ideas of "birthing person" and "defund the police." If you don't believe me, get team D to make they/them and "defund the police" the centerpiece of the next election.
The other thing Democrats have done is remove humor from life. Jokes have always been funny BECAUSE they aren’t politically correct. And the scold wing of the party (the same wing that comes up with ridiculous terms like cis gender and sex assigned at birth) won’t let the rest of us laugh at ourselves anymore. I really think this is a big draw of Trump ( much as I despise the man)- he isn’t politically correct and he makes his followers laugh. Is the humor cruel or incomprehensible to those on the left? Yes (although I confess to an outright appalled chuckle or two),but people were allowed to laugh at things that weren’t politically correct. We have made everything politically incorrect/forbidden on the left with nothing allowed to be funny, and just turned into superior awkward-fancy phrases-that everyone is required to use or they are racist/sexist/transphobic-wielding SCOLDS!!!
Despite the so-called joy”campaign of Harris/Walz- that aspect lasted a hot minute before it was back to scolding as a campaign strategy.
Jargon is a tool for people to display the coolness/smarts/virtue and their status within the “in” group this separating themselves from the uncool/dimb/evil people. It is required to constantly change and be updated to preserve that separation
I would challenge the idea that these phrases are meant with good intentions.
There are many possible malevolent intentions which make more sense.
A simple one is to minimize actual problems, like “unhoused” versus drugged-addled vagrant. Lowered mortgage rates are a poor treatment for heroin addiction. Not wanting these people to get treatment seems to be the intention, since both malign or good “intentions” have the same functional result.
Another one is to insult minorities by ignoring the language they use to describe themselves. Calling black people the N-word is precisely the same level of insult which gay and lesbians are to endure being called “queer”, and if they protest they are the problem. It comes down to self-centered malign intent.
Active condescension is what happens when Black disappears into BIPOC as gay disappears in LGBTQ+.
It’s neither good nor benign intention to condescendingly ignore an audience claimed to be spoken about. Condescension is not well-meaning.
Sex language corruption is even more malign. “Uterus bearing person” is intended to maintain the fiction of compulsive sex mimics as women, by implying that actual women don’t quite exist. “Trans women are women” is acceptable but the word “woman” may not be said of women in a non-mimic context. The malignancy is acute since messages about “people with a cervix” tends to not be pricked up by women, unaccustomed to be reduced to body parts.
Having grown up in the Deep South, I’ve heard for decades from older and younger get white people, when I ask that the N-word not be used, that black people are OK with it and like it.
I was strongly disabused of the idea by my parents as a child, and it’s obvious the same intent is at play now decades in passing for these games.
You have correctly described how words intended to be fair or respectful can often be alienating. The resentful reaction to woke and DEI expected language undoes those efforts.
I get irked by those who expect me to declare my pronouns. Why should I play their game? If I, as a man, want to be called "she," it would be up to me to declare my unusual choice.
A female friend asks to be referred to as "they." So, for her (they), I comply with her (their) request. But I don't assume or expect lots of men or women want to be called they.
I also question the fairness of the presumptive term "gender-affirming care." Such operations could also be called "gender-denying mutilation." Presumptive words and trends greet young persons typically uneasy with their bodies. Social fads influence temporary states of mind. Praise and protection for those crossing over into what never fully works isn't balanced by praise and affirmation of those who don't. I don't deny people the right to change their body, but I don't presuppose it is the right thing to do or promote.
"Gender-affirming care" is a grotesque Orwellianism. There's no "care" involved; "gender" is an ideological construct, not biological reality; and we shouldn't be "affirming" psychological distress. It is, in fact, mutilation.
Some of us have been ringing alarm bells about this insanity for years. But the wokerati want none of it.
I'm with you on the unease of trying to discuss such issues. I'm liberal too, and I resent how "the left" has been consigned to touchy, upsetting issues while the environment and economy go unaddressed. Liberal means open-minded, generous, etc., yet, in another Orwellianism, it got sucked into "neoliberal," meaning selfish, heartless corporate manipulations.
lol straight men are getting hair transplants and taking medicine to stop balding as a form of “gender affirming” care and also pumping protein and what not.
I know I violated so many speech codes and wrongful use of language when these rules started to be enforced in my backwater city’s most progressive establishment.
You would think that someone obviously trying to just communicate and learn to speak more fluently would be immune to punishments. Instead, it just became an excuse to shame me for an actual disability by calling me names based on the vocabulary I used instead of recognizing the ignorance in my word choice or struggle to say the right vocabulary or grammar.
I think that sometimes jargon is used to hide the meaning. This is especially true when common words are "repurposed" and redefined. For example, "equity" means something different to a left-wing activist than it does to the proverbial man on the street.
An individual who is currently experiencing houselessness decided to cause a trash storage container to burn. To address this conflict while allowing this individual who menstruates to maintain she/her/their dignity and to avoid conflict, the LAPD suggested removing trash contains from public places.
Wrong. I like the article but until you correct this fundamental misunderstanding you won't really get why we hate progressives. They knew precisely what they were doing when they made or tried to make these changes and it was to get power for themselves.
I suspect that, rather than the Dems trying to figure out how to speak to young men, they need to shout at the young ladies, especially the ones who have attended college, who just blabber nonsense and that young guys feel are "full of Crap."
Fascinating take. What specifically should we be shouting at college educated women about due to young men finding the blabbered nonsense to be full of crap? And secondly, are the college educated men also blabbering the nonsense or is it JUST the ladies? Finally, I’m curious why the women should give a fuck about what the young men think about their educated nonsense?
I don’t believe this was ‘well intentioned’. I believe it was conscious weaponization of language used to drive wedges between those of us who want steady growth and progress in understanding and those who wanted a topic for an academic thesis for ego, notoriety and personal gain at any cost.
Progressive. What a terrible term. Dripping in condescending tones. Riven with innate superiority and pimpousity. Why not just say, I'm better than you. Because that's what they think.
Edwin Newman termed this phenomenon “language pollution” in the 1970s. The leftists of that day were just as caught up in this foolishness as the current crop. The best concealment for fundamentally stupid, destructive ideas is a dog’s breakfast of polysyllabic, pseudoscientific, made-up jargon. Trustworthy operators who want to convince the public accept the fact that their ideas will be compared to competing claims. Conveying their ideas clearly through words actually found in the dictionary shows respect, honesty, and honorable intentions to the public. So-called “activist language” shows the opposite and earns suspicion from normal people. It registers as cheap manipulation.
And Monty Python did a great bit on it almost 50 years ago in "Life of Brian".
This has become the Democrats "brand", and people won't listen to your ideas if you've turned them off and driven them away with your brand.
My wife's family would seriously reconsider her choice if I ever used Latinex with them.
Voters do reject the underlying ideas of "birthing person" and "defund the police." If you don't believe me, get team D to make they/them and "defund the police" the centerpiece of the next election.
You are correct. I rewrote that part.
I am a Democrat and I hate and reject all these ridiculous terms and refuse to use them.
The other thing Democrats have done is remove humor from life. Jokes have always been funny BECAUSE they aren’t politically correct. And the scold wing of the party (the same wing that comes up with ridiculous terms like cis gender and sex assigned at birth) won’t let the rest of us laugh at ourselves anymore. I really think this is a big draw of Trump ( much as I despise the man)- he isn’t politically correct and he makes his followers laugh. Is the humor cruel or incomprehensible to those on the left? Yes (although I confess to an outright appalled chuckle or two),but people were allowed to laugh at things that weren’t politically correct. We have made everything politically incorrect/forbidden on the left with nothing allowed to be funny, and just turned into superior awkward-fancy phrases-that everyone is required to use or they are racist/sexist/transphobic-wielding SCOLDS!!!
Despite the so-called joy”campaign of Harris/Walz- that aspect lasted a hot minute before it was back to scolding as a campaign strategy.
I've said before that jokes (at least funny ones) are almost necessarily provocative.
By the way, I'm known for my provocative sense of humor in person :)
We'd get along great!
Excellent point! Terms like cisgender and “sex assigned at birth” are inherently risible, so humor is on their chopping block.
Hahaha!
Jargon is a tool for people to display the coolness/smarts/virtue and their status within the “in” group this separating themselves from the uncool/dimb/evil people. It is required to constantly change and be updated to preserve that separation
I would challenge the idea that these phrases are meant with good intentions.
There are many possible malevolent intentions which make more sense.
A simple one is to minimize actual problems, like “unhoused” versus drugged-addled vagrant. Lowered mortgage rates are a poor treatment for heroin addiction. Not wanting these people to get treatment seems to be the intention, since both malign or good “intentions” have the same functional result.
Another one is to insult minorities by ignoring the language they use to describe themselves. Calling black people the N-word is precisely the same level of insult which gay and lesbians are to endure being called “queer”, and if they protest they are the problem. It comes down to self-centered malign intent.
Active condescension is what happens when Black disappears into BIPOC as gay disappears in LGBTQ+.
It’s neither good nor benign intention to condescendingly ignore an audience claimed to be spoken about. Condescension is not well-meaning.
Sex language corruption is even more malign. “Uterus bearing person” is intended to maintain the fiction of compulsive sex mimics as women, by implying that actual women don’t quite exist. “Trans women are women” is acceptable but the word “woman” may not be said of women in a non-mimic context. The malignancy is acute since messages about “people with a cervix” tends to not be pricked up by women, unaccustomed to be reduced to body parts.
Having grown up in the Deep South, I’ve heard for decades from older and younger get white people, when I ask that the N-word not be used, that black people are OK with it and like it.
I was strongly disabused of the idea by my parents as a child, and it’s obvious the same intent is at play now decades in passing for these games.
It’s not a good intention.
You have correctly described how words intended to be fair or respectful can often be alienating. The resentful reaction to woke and DEI expected language undoes those efforts.
I get irked by those who expect me to declare my pronouns. Why should I play their game? If I, as a man, want to be called "she," it would be up to me to declare my unusual choice.
A female friend asks to be referred to as "they." So, for her (they), I comply with her (their) request. But I don't assume or expect lots of men or women want to be called they.
I also question the fairness of the presumptive term "gender-affirming care." Such operations could also be called "gender-denying mutilation." Presumptive words and trends greet young persons typically uneasy with their bodies. Social fads influence temporary states of mind. Praise and protection for those crossing over into what never fully works isn't balanced by praise and affirmation of those who don't. I don't deny people the right to change their body, but I don't presuppose it is the right thing to do or promote.
"Gender-affirming care" is a grotesque Orwellianism. There's no "care" involved; "gender" is an ideological construct, not biological reality; and we shouldn't be "affirming" psychological distress. It is, in fact, mutilation.
Some of us have been ringing alarm bells about this insanity for years. But the wokerati want none of it.
(And I say this as a lifelong liberal.)
I'm with you on the unease of trying to discuss such issues. I'm liberal too, and I resent how "the left" has been consigned to touchy, upsetting issues while the environment and economy go unaddressed. Liberal means open-minded, generous, etc., yet, in another Orwellianism, it got sucked into "neoliberal," meaning selfish, heartless corporate manipulations.
lol straight men are getting hair transplants and taking medicine to stop balding as a form of “gender affirming” care and also pumping protein and what not.
Really. Can you imagine the hordes of us ageing women demanding facelifts on the taxpayer's dime??
Same thing.
We are so far through the looking glass.
Oh yes women and their boob jobs are disgusting
I know I violated so many speech codes and wrongful use of language when these rules started to be enforced in my backwater city’s most progressive establishment.
You would think that someone obviously trying to just communicate and learn to speak more fluently would be immune to punishments. Instead, it just became an excuse to shame me for an actual disability by calling me names based on the vocabulary I used instead of recognizing the ignorance in my word choice or struggle to say the right vocabulary or grammar.
I think that sometimes jargon is used to hide the meaning. This is especially true when common words are "repurposed" and redefined. For example, "equity" means something different to a left-wing activist than it does to the proverbial man on the street.
An individual who is currently experiencing houselessness decided to cause a trash storage container to burn. To address this conflict while allowing this individual who menstruates to maintain she/her/their dignity and to avoid conflict, the LAPD suggested removing trash contains from public places.
As Bill Maher said “it’s not that your messaging is off, it’s that your ideas are stupid.“
"These changes are made with good intentions."
Wrong. I like the article but until you correct this fundamental misunderstanding you won't really get why we hate progressives. They knew precisely what they were doing when they made or tried to make these changes and it was to get power for themselves.
I suspect that, rather than the Dems trying to figure out how to speak to young men, they need to shout at the young ladies, especially the ones who have attended college, who just blabber nonsense and that young guys feel are "full of Crap."
Fascinating take. What specifically should we be shouting at college educated women about due to young men finding the blabbered nonsense to be full of crap? And secondly, are the college educated men also blabbering the nonsense or is it JUST the ladies? Finally, I’m curious why the women should give a fuck about what the young men think about their educated nonsense?
I suggest we start with “grow up, plant your feet firmly on solid ground and open your eyes wide and embeace reality.”
I would say the same thing to the young men we have foolishly allowed, for way to long, to behave and act like irresponsible little boys.
I don’t believe this was ‘well intentioned’. I believe it was conscious weaponization of language used to drive wedges between those of us who want steady growth and progress in understanding and those who wanted a topic for an academic thesis for ego, notoriety and personal gain at any cost.
Progressive. What a terrible term. Dripping in condescending tones. Riven with innate superiority and pimpousity. Why not just say, I'm better than you. Because that's what they think.
Back when I called myself progressive, it was about healthcare, jobs, material goods, fairness, etc.
Global Majority another one. Meaning anyone who isn’t white. Of course another simpler term for the true global majority: women.