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
That’s swell.
Safe Space – Gad but I have come to hate this one, especially here.
They have a medication to reduce that.
I would be happy if all elected officials would drop “Trust me” for the start of any sentence.
Good for you. It took me a while to realize people weren’t being facetious when they said it.
Don’t worry. I’m just taking a break and plan to resume my usage of “establishment” soon.
I would like to put the phrase “putting x to rest is long overdue” to rest. It’s long overdue.
Tight post, man.
Seeing Cliff Robertson as the shadowy semi-villain of “Brainstorm” ruined these AT&T ads for me. I keep expecting Cliff to promise “Long distance service that will Knock. Your. Socks. Off.”
How about calling people by their last title in perpetuity? Hillary will always be Secretary Clinton. Eric Holder gets to be called Attorney General Holder from now on. Susan Rice will be called Ambassador Rice until she dies.
In a recent piece stating his concerns about the SecDef job going to Mattis, John Yoo said that if confirmed, Mattis should never be referred to as “General.”
Good luck with that.
Actually, out of uniform and in a suit and tie, I believe most of will reflexively address him as “Mr. Secretary.” Generals will probably address him as “Jim” in more informal settings. Marines will still need the discipline not to call him “Your Holiness,” “Lord Chaos,” or “St. Mattis of Quantico.”
I watched Uncommon Knowledge with Mattis, and he wouldn’t let Peter call him “General”. I applaud him for that.
Hear! Hear!
It’s become virtual titles of nobility.
Hillary should be called “Mrs. Clinton” (not “Ms.”, just out of spite). George W. Bush should be “Mr. Bush”.
They’re no better people than my father with his 7th grade education, and most of them are a long shot worse than he was. “Mr. Mott” was good enough for him, and he usually insisted on just his first name, anyway.
If I ever encountered John Kerry, for example, I think I might choke if I tried to call him “Secretary Kerry.” But I bet he’d be mighty put out to be called “Mr. Kerry”.
Hey, Swift Boat, come over here! I’ve got something for you!
“The Right Side of History” is Obama’s favorite phrase. I just want to scream when I hear it. Also, “The notion that .. “, I’m sick of his notions.
When they are so fully invested in that language the thing to do is adopt it and use it against them. Don’t say you are doing it. Just do it. It gets them confused, which is good for starters.
Hey, Obama, the notion that you’re on the wrong side of history, clinging to socialism and your American cigarettes makes me happy.
Like that?
I suppose it’s a start. But a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and you’re wasting an opportunity to play with leftwing minds.
I may have an advantage in that I did time as a liberal and got familiar with how their minds work. Sometimes I’m almost embarrassed by the fun I have when I use their language against them and they are slow to catch on.
On the other hand, I don’t listen to Obama and have never heard him use these phrases. I’m more tuned in to his conspiracy theories, I guess. But you’ve got to use their words like a stiletto rather than a broad axe, with no rhetorical body motions to signal what you’re doing.
An excellent example is the recent article about Visigoths by @Mark. Better than I could have done.
http://ricochet.com/394125/smearing-the-visigoths
Preciseness? Did you mean precission? I looked it up and both seem to be acceptable, though I think precission would have been more elegant, at least to my ear. LOL, other than that I enjoyed the read.
Aaron Miller already slapped my hand on that one. And whoever read and promoted it suffers from the same malady as me.
Lack of precision in editing?
Did he? I didn’t read all the comments, but I was surprised to find you were not grammatically wrong.
You are now one of my honorary children. They are constantly surprised that their old man is correct about most things.
Professionally, everything I’ve ever written has been for broadcast. If you read aloud everything I write it makes perfect sense. And when you get to the ellipsis… that means pause for the video edit.
I caught that too but I think, in the context of the article, is more fitting. Almost a parody of “precision”, perhaps a low-brow view of a high-brow attitude, like you-all for everyone or pie-hole for mouth.
You need remedial Southern. It’s “y’all.”
Haha! My mother-in-law used to do that. She’d say “I was literally beside myself.”
Add “Vichycon” and “Quislingcon” for obvious reasons.