Lexicon for the New Millennium

Lexicon for the new millennium

“Bless his heart”

This may mean anything from condolences because “he” just whacked his thumb with a hammer, to simply being a bit dim, to (more frequently) being far from the accepted norm in either behavior, intelligence or both. Examples as above range from “Bless his heart, I’ll bet that hurt.” to “Bless her heart, she does her best,” to “Bless his heart, he can’t help it, he’s a pedophile.”

“Fake News”

This has several distinct meanings and applications. The entire spectrum has been exacerbated in the modern and amplified by instantaneous mass communication and the opportunity for anyone, no matter how loony, to put their opinion “out there” (like I’m doing!)

The first category applies to stories which are invented by an individual for personal gain or advancement, such as P.T. Barnum’s “160-year-old” Joice Heth, billed as George Washington’s nursemaid. Barnum gained, no one was hurt.

Later we had the example of the rogue reporter inventing stories for career gain:  Janet Cooke won the Pulitzer Prize for her Washington Post profile of an 8-year-old heroin addict, “Jimmy’s World.” Jimmy turned out not to exist. Cooke eventually admitted making up the story.  

Today we have the real McCoy. Stories fabricated, not for personal gain, but to disrupt the flow of real information. An example would be the claims by the Current administration of “massive” voter fraud, when in fact no such thing exists.

Finally, anything printed negatively about the Trump regime will be regarded by those who worship at the throne of the Donald as “Fake News.” As an example, even though Trumpists will reject it, is the claim by Trump himself, typical of the Trump spin, which revolves around Paul Krugman, a NYT op-ed columnist who writes on economics. Shortly after the election, Krugman, in an opinion column wrote that he thought the Trump election would be seriously damage the economy. This was not reported as a fact, but as a prediction, not on the “News” page, but in the editorial section. Was Krugman incorrect in his prediction? Probably, although unfolding tariff issues may yet prove him right. Is an opinion a lie? Of course not, unless you’re Donald Trump.

“Superlative excess”

We’re all guilty of this, and it has been exacerbated by social media, ad men, and recently, the White House.  Examples culled from the thousands of internet comment pieces churned out every week include: “Are millennials the worst generation ever?” “Is this the best vacuum cleaner ever?” “Isn’t (insert person, place or thing) awesome, brilliant, amazing, etc.?”

 A spinoff of the superlative shows up in the popup ads which offer to share the “crazy, weird, bizarre, hidden” trick, gimmick, hack, fact or strategy “they” don’t want you to know about (warts, car insurance, constipation, erections, whatever).   

Wait staff are among the most egregious offenders here, as well. I can’t remember when, exactly, the enthusiastic approbation of the server became a mandatory validation of my food selection.   You could perhaps order a shit sandwich on rye and the response would be “Great choice, I’ll get that order right in.”

 Of course, since I’m writing this, and I get to decide what to write, the worst very visible example of such gratuitous hyperbole is the President, whose 5^th grade vocabulary is peppered with “great”, “wonderful,” “terrific”, and the like. Nothing is ever merely “good,” or “fortunate.” No appointment is merely “outstanding.” Flawed CoVid19 tests are "perfect," extortionate telephone calls are also "perfect." and the current pandemic is the fault of the WHO. Everything is “fantastic,” or “amazing,” and every man or woman he appoints to a government position, even if just two shades above mediocre (a high bar considering some), is “tremendous.” Trump never met a superlative he didn’t like, himself as the ultimate superlative most of all. What is also apparent is the total lack of substantive meaning in such statements. Examples include: “He’s a great guy,” “We’re winning (whatever)” and the list is endless. At the ends of the litany are the blatant overuses of “worst” and “greatest”

Politically Correct

“Politically correct” used to be a valid descriptor for a relatively narrow band of behaviors and terms. Examples which come to mind (and there are relatively few) are “unsighted” in lieu of “blind” and “hearing impaired” vice “deaf.”  Interestingly enough, in my experience, persons so challenged generally do use “blind” and “deaf”, and self-refer as such, the “nicer” terms apparently having been invented by those not so affected. Another example is “handi-capable.” 

Additionally,  Native Americans usually refer to themselves as “Indians”, in fact AIM is the American Indian Movement. I prefer the Canadian term “First Nations,” which, unlike “Indian” which actually refers to population group 12,000 miles away, is temporally and geographically accurate. Too bad we screwed them all.

However, these issues are relatively minor in scope, as the term doesn’t automatically imply legitimization of discrimination. There are, unfortunately far too many who hide (usually unsuccessfully) their bigotry and bias under the guise of  rejecting more polite discourse as  “politically correct.”  Those who publicly lament the fact that other people of good will are offended if they say “Fag,” “Bitch,” “Nigger,” “Spic,” and lamentably the list goes on) as merely “political correctness”, are really covering their mental illness (yeah, that’s how I classify it) with convenient jargon.

Similarly, issues such as workplace sexual discrimination, and/or harassment, unequal pay, etc., while paid lip service in some circumstances and even in mission statements, are blown off by others as political correctness. Few have ever been hurt by a mission statement, but many have been hurt by those dismissive of them as political correctness.

In summary, political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. If one is aware that certain terms or behaviors are hurtful, but chooses those terms or actions anyway, then the question becomes “Why?” The only possible conclusion is that, “Knowing these things are hurtful, I choose to do them anyway because I can. I’ll blow off any resistance as ‘political correctness.’”  There is no answer to that question which doesn’t reflect badly on the ethical/moral/social bankruptcy of the individual in question.