Words Hurt

More specifically, words hurt stupid people, as the Third Way points out in a public memorandum when they write, “For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. The intent of this language is to include, broaden, empathize, accept, and embrace. The effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.” Here is the complete list for your edification:

I will concede upfront that I am of two minds concerning this list and the so-called Democrats’ language. On the one hand, language changes — e.g., the Oxford dictionary just added “tradwife” to the lexicon — and I don’t mind more precise language when describing a thing or concept, which Democrats like to do. Yet, on the other hand, Democrats really need to think about how to talk to stupid people with more clarity, and, to be sure, Americans are more stupid than ever, which is why Democrats are losing ground with a greater portion of the populace; Americans are becoming dumber and they need to be talked down to, but in a less obvious way that won’t offend voters. So, in this way, I don’t mind if Democrats resort to stupid-speak to pacify the benighted sensibilities of would-be voters. Unfortunately, Democrats often overlook the broader, less sophisticated audience, namely the average Joe and Jane. When Americans encounter language they cannot understand, they become offended and angry, as it reminds them of their own feelings of stupidity and inadequacy. Rather than learning something new, Americans become irritated and hurt. I don’t get angry when I hear these terms, nor do I feel alienated. I do cringe at times and roll my eyes, thinking to myself, Why can’t Democrats speak plainly? But I’m not offended.

All that being said, some of the terms in the list are, indeed, rather stupid and rebrand common terminology needlessly, such as “the unhoused” when “homeless” works just fine. “Carceration,” which does not appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, attempts to redefine the existing term “incarceration.” Similarly, “allyship” is not needed when “allies” conveys the exact same thing, or “person who immigrated” — a classic example of a pleonasm — need not replace “immigrant.” Some of these terms simply are what they are. “Privilege” and “patriarchy” are only offensive to those who are privileged heads of their family and community but don’t think they are, i.e., white cis men. Consequently, said fragile white men don’t want to hear such terminology thrown in their snowflake faces. And then there is “LGBTQIA+.” Ugh, really? Can we just stop already, lest we include every letter of the alphabet? I suppose that’s what the “+” sign is for — basically, everyone else. Why not just use “LGBT+”? Do we literally need to spell everything out, so to speak? “Stakeholders” is another example. Anyone who owns stock should not be offended by this term. Or how about “triggering”? This should be a darling term for RepubliKKKlans, MAGA morons, evil evangelicals, and QAnon kooks since they love to trigger Democrats and Liberals at every turn and with every breath. Suddenly, they hate the term when it’s turned around on them.

Let me add two terms not listed that I, myself, cannot stand and cringe when I hear them: “Authentic self” (or “authenticity”) and “meet them where they are.” People (usually, but not always, dumbass Democrats) use the term “authentic” to describe a person’s behavior, generally in the context of contrasting their outward behavior with their (supposed) inner motivations, meaning the person must be acting inauthentically. In short, Democrats will argue that an inauthentic person does or says something, but doesn’t really mean it; thus, diminishing said person’s behavior as not credible or genuine. Hello, f***tards! Every single f***ing act a person engages in is that person being authentic. If you are a duplicitous, medacious person who changes your language, argument, or beliefs depending on who you are speaking to, then that is you being authentic! If you’re a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde at any given moment, then that is you being authentic! If you speak out of both sides of your mouth, then that is you being authentic! If you say one thing and mean or do another, then that is you being authentic! Indeed, there is no way for a person to act that is not authentic. Every act is the authentic you! A person can’t be inauthentic; it is impossible. Authenticity is like your shadow; it’s always with you in a manner of speaking. Why is this so f***ing difficult to understand?

Last, “meet them where they are” just rubs me the wrong way. I get the premise of the terminology, but even for me, it seems too professorial. That’s all I’ve got. Welcome to stupid America.