Contributor Post Created with Sketch. This Post is… uh, Disqualified.

 

killstabeliminateEvery year about this time folks in both the press and academia like to publish a list of words and phrases they want to see retired in the New Year. It’s usually a meaningless exercise since these sort of things tend to have a natural life cycle of their own anyway.

My parents were firmly of the WWII generation and yet I never heard them refer to anyone as “Gate” or being “a real hepcat.” In my own time I remember when things were “far out” and/or “groovy” and can recall asking the musical question, “Sock it to me?” The language breathes and words and phrases ebb and flow.

That being said, I believe the English language to be a marvelous thing that can convey things with an unbelievable amount of preciseness when used correctly. I get semi-distressed when perfectly good words start to drift. For me, this year’s candidate is “disqualify” and all of its derivatives.

In its new usage “disqualifying” has become the new shorthand for “This person believes in something or did something that I don’t like.” Suddenly we’ve all taken upon ourselves the mantle of being life’s super referee handing out red cards left and right like they were Halloween candy. Everyone has taken time to DQ someone this political season and for a variety of reasons.

And it makes no difference where you stood on the political spectrum or who you were backing and why. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Evan McMullin and yes, even Jill Stein were all “qualified” to be President, in that they all met the specific requirements laid out in the Constitution. Now, if you want to make the case that they are unfit, by all means do so. Besides, unfit saves you a lot of Twitter space.

Speaking of making your case, my choice for phrasing this year is exactly that, “Making the ‘X’ case for…” Our side has been particularly egregious on this one. Everywhere you turn somebody is making a case. “The Conservative Case against Donald Trump.” “The Conservative Case for Donald Trump.” “The Conservative Case against James Mattis.” “The Conservative Case for Hillary Clinton.” It goes on and on and on and on, not like the Energizer Bunny, but like an 18-year old virgin on Viagra. At some point the friction just becomes too much.

Bad ideas, like electing Hillary Clinton, do not become good ideas just because you slap the word “conservative” on it. No, it’s your idea, so own it. Besides, “a case” is also a specific legal term centering on a point of law. Everything else is just an argument.

So there you have it. Two points will be awarded to the first person in the comments who makes the case that I am totally disqualified to write this post in the first place.

There are 95 comments.

  1. Jimmy Carter Member

    Binary

    • #1
    • December 4, 2016, at 9:37 AM PST
    • Like
  2. SkipSul Moderator

    Virtue Signalling – I have come to hate that phrase as a pat dismissal of others’ positions.

    Good / Bad Faith Argument- Especially here. Like with the use of “virtue signaling”, this is thrown out by people when they don’t want to take your argument bait.

    Give these both a rest, especially when you flag.

    • #2
    • December 4, 2016, at 9:54 AM PST
    • Like
  3. Gary McVey Contributor

    Pearl-clutching and fainting couches; they are associated with lame arguments, or people who are lame at making arguments.

    A friend noticed she’d never heard me say something was “cool”. I explained that was because the word was worn out approximately 60 years ago, when I was 4. For some reason it’s become the only frantically acceptable way to praise anything that isn’t “boring” or “a bring down”. It means almost nothing, so it means almost everything. Plus, it’s associated with black people, so it’s just got to be, you know, cool.

    Any liberal who can’t come up with a synonym for “vibrant” has no business describing city life. A berg can have rundown streets, falling down houses, and schools that are no better than warehouses. But the big question is, does it have street musicians? Thai restaurants? Gay waiters? Then it’s vibrant.

    • #3
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:10 AM PST
    • Like
  4. David Wilder Thatcher

    Thinking outside the Box.

    • #4
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:28 AM PST
    • Like
  5. livingtheLoneStarlife Inactive

    You need a Snickers. ;-)

    • #5
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:30 AM PST
    • Like
  6. SkipSul Moderator

    Gary McVey: But the big question is, does it have street musicians? Thai restaurants? Gay waiters?

    What would you call it if it had gay restaurants, thai musicians, and street waiters?

    • #6
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:45 AM PST
    • Like
  7. JustmeinAZ Member

    The mid to late sixties were my high school and college years. The words “far out” and “groovy” never issued from my mouth.

    Having just retired from a large corporation I can also brag that I never once used the term “reach out”.

    Also, cannot stand, when dealing with wait staff, sales people, etc., how everything I say is “perfect”.

    “No worries” bothers me a little.

    • #7
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:46 AM PST
    • Like
  8. Gary McVey Contributor

    skipsul:

    Gary McVey: But the big question is, does it have street musicians? Thai restaurants? Gay waiters?

    What would you call it if it had gay restaurants, thai musicians, and street waiters?

    “Vibrant”.

    • #8
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:53 AM PST
    • Like
  9. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Post author

    How about making the gay, table-waiting Thai musicians case that Donald Trump was disqualified? Supernova vibrant?

    • #9
    • December 4, 2016, at 10:59 AM PST
    • Like
  10. Leigh Member

    “Let me unpack this [paragraph you just read aloud]”

    One mild disagreement on “disqualified.” Beyond the very few requirements for the presidency the Constitution also lists certain behaviors that should lead to impeachment/removal from office. It seems entirely plausible that Clinton’s behavior at State met that threshold and after Comey reopened the investigation there was serious talk about what would happen if she were elected and then charged with a crime.

    When a candidate is known to have acted in ways that would very possibly justify her impeachment and removal from office shortly after her election, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to make a case that she’s disqualified.

    • #10
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:34 AM PST
    • Like
  11. Man With the Axe Member

    I’ll argue that your post is disqualified for use of “own it.” What ever happened to “admit,” “acknowledge,” “accept as valid,” etc.?

    • #11
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:37 AM PST
    • Like
  12. Aaron Miller Member

    EJHill: I believe the English language to be a marvelous thing that can convey things with an unbelievable amount of preciseness when used correctly. I get semi-distressed when perfectly good words start to drift.

    Yes, like when “precision” becomes “preciseness”.

    You are hereby disqualified from this discussion.

    • #12
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:40 AM PST
    • Like
  13. RightAngles Member

    All I ask is that nobody say “baby bump” ever again.

    • #13
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:42 AM PST
    • Like
  14. Judge Mental Member

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qRZvlZZ0DY

    • #14
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:42 AM PST
    • Like
  15. Aaron Miller Member

    Gary McVey: It means almost nothing, so it means almost everything. Plus, it’s associated with black people, so it’s just got to be, you know, cool.

    I can dig it.

    • #15
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:43 AM PST
    • Like
  16. Gary McVey Contributor

    EJHill:How about making the gay, table-waiting Thai musicians case that Donald Trump was disqualified? Supernova vibrant?

    Supernova sounds about right. But they’d be smarter to make the opposite case, as DJT is the most gay-friendly president ever elected. Ironies.

    • #16
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:43 AM PST
    • Like
  17. Locke On Member

    skipsul:

    Gary McVey: But the big question is, does it have street musicians? Thai restaurants? Gay waiters?

    What would you call it if it had gay restaurants, thai musicians, and street waiters?

    Paris?

    • #17
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:44 AM PST
    • Like
  18. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Post author

    Leigh: When a candidate is known to have acted in ways that would very possibly justify her impeachment and removal from office shortly after her election, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to make a case that she’s disqualified.

    No, that means she’s unfit. They are not synonymous.

    If you’re driving in NASCAR and you don’t meet a certain pre-race speed from your car, you don’t qualify. If you show up drunk, you’re unfit.

    • #18
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:49 AM PST
    • Like
  19. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Post author

    Man With the Axe: I’ll argue that your post is disqualified for use of “own it.”

    Motion denied. “Making the Conservative Case for…” is just a weaselly way of trying to broaden your opinion beyond yourself.

    Mr. Miller gets the two points although I reserve the right to blame my imprecision on autocorrect.

    • #19
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:55 AM PST
    • Like
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Awesome!

    • #20
    • December 4, 2016, at 11:59 AM PST
    • Like
  21. Leigh Member

    EJHill:

    Leigh: When a candidate is known to have acted in ways that would very possibly justify her impeachment and removal from office shortly after her election, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to make a case that she’s disqualified.

    No, that means she’s unfit. They are not synonymous.

    If you’re driving in NASCAR and you don’t meet a certain pre-race speed from your car, you don’t qualify. If you show up drunk, you’re unfit.

    Agreed that they’re not synonyms: Vermin Supreme (is he still around?) is almost certainly unfit, but so far as I know he is not disqualified.

    But when the Constitution specifically provides for the removal from office of a president who is guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, the plain intent is that no person guilty of such offenses should hold that office. It is an implied qualification that the president not have committed such acts, and thus the word “disqualified” is an entirely appropriate descriptor for someone who is guilty of such.

    • #21
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:20 PM PST
    • Like
  22. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Post author

    Leigh: It is an implied qualification that the president not have committed such acts, and thus the word “disqualified” is an entirely appropriate descriptor for someone who is guilty of such.

    Except that’s for the House to indict and the Senate to convict. Before that it’s up to the people to decide fitness. Using the term “disqualifying” is akin to calling on the removal of one’s name from the ballot. It really is something different.

    • #22
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:23 PM PST
    • Like
  23. Leigh Member

    I’m making the conservative case for calling Hillary Clinton disqualified because the preciseness of her case fits the preciseness of the language. It’s not that far out.

    • #23
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:25 PM PST
    • Like
  24. PHCheese Member

    “Facts on the ground “

    • #24
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:26 PM PST
    • Like
  25. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Post author

    Leigh: I’m making the conservative case for calling Hillary Clinton disqualified because the preciseness of her case fits the preciseness of the language. It’s not that far out.

    img_0831

    • #25
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:27 PM PST
    • 1 like
  26. Leigh Member

    EJHill:

    Leigh: It is an implied qualification that the president not have committed such acts, and thus the word “disqualified” is an entirely appropriate descriptor for someone who is guilty of such.

    Except that’s for the House to indict and the Senate to convict. Before that it’s up to the people to decide fitness. Using the term “disqualifying” is akin to calling on the removal of one’s name from the ballot. It really is something different.

    Only in that the evaluation of those specific qualifications is left to the political system — to the voters before the election, to Congress afterwards. If Clinton had been elected and then charged with a crime, would Senator Rubio then have been guilty of an offense against the English language in using the word “disqualified” to describe her while calling for her impeachment and removal from office?

    There is a significant difference between Clinton and any other “unfit” candidate. I can think of no better word to adequately convey that distinction than “disqualified.” The Constitution says a president should not be guilty of x, she is guilty of x. She fails the Constitutional qualifications, we should not elect her.

    • #26
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:32 PM PST
    • Like
  27. Arahant Member

    Gary McVey: Supernova sounds about right. But they’d be smarter to make the opposite case, as DJT is the most gay-friendly president ever elected. Ironies.

    Yes, but not the most gay.

    • #27
    • December 4, 2016, at 12:35 PM PST
    • Like
  28. Man With the Axe Member

    Gary McVey:

    Supernova sounds about right. But they’d be smarter to make the opposite case, as DJT is the most gay-friendly president ever elected. Ironies.

    More than Buchanan?

    • #28
    • December 4, 2016, at 1:05 PM PST
    • Like
  29. mezzrow Member

    Aaron Miller:

    Gary McVey: It means almost nothing, so it means almost everything. Plus, it’s associated with black people, so it’s just got to be, you know, cool.

    I can dig it.

    I’m hip.

    • #29
    • December 4, 2016, at 1:26 PM PST
    • Like
  30. Arahant Member

    Man With the Axe:

    Gary McVey:

    Supernova sounds about right. But they’d be smarter to make the opposite case, as DJT is the most gay-friendly president ever elected. Ironies.

    More than Buchanan?

    Buchanan might have been gay, but there was only so much he could do in the society of the day.

    • #30
    • December 4, 2016, at 1:40 PM PST
    • Like