Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This Post is… uh, Disqualified.
Every 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.
Published in General
BinaryVirtue 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.
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.
Thinking outside the Box.
You need a Snickers. ;-)
What would you call it if it had gay restaurants, thai musicians, and street waiters?
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.
“Vibrant”.
How about making the gay, table-waiting Thai musicians case that Donald Trump was disqualified? Supernova vibrant?
“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.
I’ll argue that your post is disqualified for use of “own it.” What ever happened to “admit,” “acknowledge,” “accept as valid,” etc.?
Yes, like when “precision” becomes “preciseness”.
You are hereby disqualified from this discussion.
All I ask is that nobody say “baby bump” ever again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qRZvlZZ0DY
I can dig it.
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.
Paris?
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.
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.
Awesome!
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.
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.
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.
“Facts on the ground “
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.
Yes, but not the most gay.
More than Buchanan?
I’m hip.
Buchanan might have been gay, but there was only so much he could do in the society of the day.