Jen, you've done it again! A new weekly focus on the regime's misuse of words is just what the public needs. Those who jumped to subscribe already know this, but the frank, simple, non-polemical translation of buzz words can help the undecided - if any are left! - to understand just how deep this nonsense goes. Brava!
I'm not willing to let the fascist regime co-opt the word meritocracy with their propagandist misuse. Other readers offered the accurate word for the regime: kakistocracy. Trump's sycophants started the whole thing in 2016 with "alternative facts." The Harris campaign did a great job of reclaiming the far right's banner words of freedom and rights. Let's not give away our words in advance.
Absolutely. But "kakistocracy" isn't an easy word for most people to know or understand; as prescient as the Greeks may have been, and however accurate the word, I don't think it can do the job. Instead, "regime" works just fine, with or without the "fascist" part, instead of using "administration" as if this madness were all normal, part of a long line of mostly respectful leaders and their helpers. Regime implies authoritarianism.
Now? Sycophants, as you write. Or enablers. Lackeys. Ring and/or butt kissers. Since "alternative facts" are simply lies, say so! Regularly! lol
Administration suggests that they plan to administer something like the government, Justice, etc. Regime is most accurate. Junta, Cabal, Cluster^&%$ all fit as well.
Yes, regime. It has both a formal ring and lots of awful, well-known and recent precedents. I think junta and cabal might not have the broadest recognition and don't communicate the strength and breadth of the current regime's support. And while I love cluster%^%$, things are much, much worse than that; there isn't an ounce of funny in this regime. Sigh.
And what simple phrases do we have for our view of things? DEI carries no emotional weight in itself as a word whereas meritocracy sounds like a good thing. We need to come up with our own labels that carry with them a positive. And a simple negative for whatever they claim they are doing.
DEI is awful, easily filed under all the other threatening acronyms of this regime. How about breaking the initials down into equality, or inclusion, or reframing it altogether as just plain fairness? Or some version of freedom?
In response to the current administration another phrase that needs to go is DEI. Much more effective is to discuss Civil Rights. People hate DEI -- easy to hate if you ever had to go to useless corporate DEI training which almost universally could not have been worse. But everyone thinks they themselves support Civil Rights - they think of the Civil Rights movement as positive. In response to DEI elimination say fine -- but need to protect Civil Rights.
A teacher I know told me a few years ago that "cultural competency" was replacing DEI. It never seemed to happen. "Cultural competency" is when a person and organization has the ability to function competently in our multicultural, multi-ethnic global and national environment. National and global companies looking to succeed need to foster cultural competency! A person can become culturally competent only if during their academic and business education they have interacted closely with people of different cultural backgrounds. An organization can be culturally competent only if allows itself to become a mixing bowl of different cultural perspectives. White people don't know what they don't know if all they do is hang with other white people, and especially if only of their same socio-economic class.
Whenever it happened, it didn't happen overnight. Some trends are more gradual, for better or worse, and this was not one of the better ones. Human nature, I guess.
I'm not ready to ditch DEI usage just yet, although I would agree with emphasizing Civil Rights a whole lot more. My workplace has an entire DEI department, and I'm waiting and seeing that management has the courage to stand firm. I believe that they will not "obey in advance" in the (I think) unlikely event that the president* or his administration* actually tries to interfere. But in case I'm wrong, I've got an idea or two in mind for that contingency.
Don't misunderstand: I am not a huge fan of DEI myself, especially its contribution to today's alphabet soup of programs and official departments. I don't even agree with all of it. But if it comes to a showdown and our leadership tells them, either explicitly or implicitly, to back off, I will support that leadership 100%.
I'm only talking about messaging and Civil Rights is much more difficult for the other side to attack than DEI. Keep the program call it something else. The medium is the message and in this case the phrase is viewed too negatively. Use what works. Turn on a dime if necessary.
No way I'll eliminate DEI! My "corporate" experience of it probably doesn't count, since it was a community clinic treating homeless and low-income patients, so of course they were diverse and of course we treated them with equity and inclusion. In fact, my husband and I knew several well enough that we shared our home with them.
My other consideration is my DEI family. My family of birth, on both sides, had been in the USA for over a century or since the Revolution. White, educated, New England conservatism. My spouse's family had been here as long on one side, "only" three or four generations on the other, but still white, conservative, valuing education. Now that we have great-grandchildren and my brother has grandchildren, we include immigrants from three continents, speakers of half a dozen languages, occupations from janitorial to technical/mechanical, and Ph.D., religions from Russian Orthodox to Unitarian to none, politics across the spectrum, loved ones from Canada to Texas and Washington State to Washington D.C. plus a few foreign countries. Family gatherings in California include the full range from Nordic blonde to coal black--but to be honest I'm not sure how many are actual relatives because in that group anyone who walks in is family. There is also sexual orientation diversity.
Of course I value diversity, expect everyone to be treated fairly (e.g., with equity), and love including them all in my family and my community. Isn't that what DEI is about?
Jen, Do any of the Senators in the confirmation hearings ask the candidates the following : “You (candidate) are applying for this job so I would like you to tell me about your qualifications to fulfill this position”? It sure sounds like most would be hard pressed to provide a coherent answer.
Your chosen word "toady" is a perfect description of these people. A bunch of weird toadies is what they are. Unfortunately, it does not make them any less dangerous or destructive.
In the context of systemic racism (a topic away from which our present federal government and much of our society is furiously backpedaling), "meritocracy" meant "a system that promoted white men of sometimes questionable qualifications but riding an enormous wave of white privilege ahead of all other candidates." It was the fancy word people used when they couldn't say things like "The old boy network" and "What club was he in at <Harvard/Princeton/Yale>?" and "Oh, he's the son of <oligarch's/aristocrat's/prominent politician's name here>?"
Beyond even that distortion, at the hands of the maga/racist/extremist/christo-fascists we now have the complete perversion of the definition to something like, "Good soldiers who will unquestioningly parrot our ideology and pursue our goals of permanent racial, social, and economic dominance."
I am very concerned about how the felonious corpuscle is destroying our government and its norms. It really opened my eyes to how honorable the majority of the politicians were before tRump.
Yes. The quiet competence & experience is a real thing: perhaps more press focus on the actual backgrounds & experience of the public servants being replaced by trump toads would help to educate the cultists?
government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state:
"the danger is that this will reduce us to kakistocracy"
a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens:
"the modern regime is at once a plutocracy and a kakistocracy" · "the man on the street must share part of the blame for allowing such a kakistocracy to entrench itself"
I first heard the term "abject cronyism" from my husband when he used it to describe a situation at his workplace. I believe that it would be more fitting than "meritocracy" for what's going on right now in the Chump administration. Although I guess cronyism implies a certain equality amongst the participants, and Chump only wants boot lickers and ass kissers, so maybe not. But abject, certainly.
There are a lot of concepts in consumer protection law which I believe should be applied to Trump and his ways. In the interest of clear thinking, we should employ some very specific terms that illuminate the problem rather than just attacking Trump personally (although that is good).
Illusory - the purported benefits of Trump's meritocracy are illusory. It violates consumer protection laws to take someone's money and in exchange give them an illusory benefit. This is usually applied to insurance products. The policy purports to cover X, but they never actually pay when X occurs. Trump promises a meritocracy but he provides the opposite.
the skin color of kennedy is shocking..First off his hands match his face..meaning this person who supposedly will be making America's health care choices regularly takes in cancer causing sun lamp rays? But, why worry! He won't last long having a better tan than fearless leader
Jen, you've done it again! A new weekly focus on the regime's misuse of words is just what the public needs. Those who jumped to subscribe already know this, but the frank, simple, non-polemical translation of buzz words can help the undecided - if any are left! - to understand just how deep this nonsense goes. Brava!
I'm not willing to let the fascist regime co-opt the word meritocracy with their propagandist misuse. Other readers offered the accurate word for the regime: kakistocracy. Trump's sycophants started the whole thing in 2016 with "alternative facts." The Harris campaign did a great job of reclaiming the far right's banner words of freedom and rights. Let's not give away our words in advance.
Absolutely. But "kakistocracy" isn't an easy word for most people to know or understand; as prescient as the Greeks may have been, and however accurate the word, I don't think it can do the job. Instead, "regime" works just fine, with or without the "fascist" part, instead of using "administration" as if this madness were all normal, part of a long line of mostly respectful leaders and their helpers. Regime implies authoritarianism.
Now? Sycophants, as you write. Or enablers. Lackeys. Ring and/or butt kissers. Since "alternative facts" are simply lies, say so! Regularly! lol
Administration suggests that they plan to administer something like the government, Justice, etc. Regime is most accurate. Junta, Cabal, Cluster^&%$ all fit as well.
Yes, regime. It has both a formal ring and lots of awful, well-known and recent precedents. I think junta and cabal might not have the broadest recognition and don't communicate the strength and breadth of the current regime's support. And while I love cluster%^%$, things are much, much worse than that; there isn't an ounce of funny in this regime. Sigh.
And what simple phrases do we have for our view of things? DEI carries no emotional weight in itself as a word whereas meritocracy sounds like a good thing. We need to come up with our own labels that carry with them a positive. And a simple negative for whatever they claim they are doing.
Toadies vs. experienced professionals?
DEI is awful, easily filed under all the other threatening acronyms of this regime. How about breaking the initials down into equality, or inclusion, or reframing it altogether as just plain fairness? Or some version of freedom?
In response to the current administration another phrase that needs to go is DEI. Much more effective is to discuss Civil Rights. People hate DEI -- easy to hate if you ever had to go to useless corporate DEI training which almost universally could not have been worse. But everyone thinks they themselves support Civil Rights - they think of the Civil Rights movement as positive. In response to DEI elimination say fine -- but need to protect Civil Rights.
A teacher I know told me a few years ago that "cultural competency" was replacing DEI. It never seemed to happen. "Cultural competency" is when a person and organization has the ability to function competently in our multicultural, multi-ethnic global and national environment. National and global companies looking to succeed need to foster cultural competency! A person can become culturally competent only if during their academic and business education they have interacted closely with people of different cultural backgrounds. An organization can be culturally competent only if allows itself to become a mixing bowl of different cultural perspectives. White people don't know what they don't know if all they do is hang with other white people, and especially if only of their same socio-economic class.
DEI is a mysterious unknown evil. Diversity-Equity-Inclusion are accepted as normal social behavior.
I wholeheartedly agree. "DEI" was a bad name from the very beginning. Civil rights is the reason DEI was developed. When did we abandon that idea?
Whenever it happened, it didn't happen overnight. Some trends are more gradual, for better or worse, and this was not one of the better ones. Human nature, I guess.
I'm not ready to ditch DEI usage just yet, although I would agree with emphasizing Civil Rights a whole lot more. My workplace has an entire DEI department, and I'm waiting and seeing that management has the courage to stand firm. I believe that they will not "obey in advance" in the (I think) unlikely event that the president* or his administration* actually tries to interfere. But in case I'm wrong, I've got an idea or two in mind for that contingency.
Don't misunderstand: I am not a huge fan of DEI myself, especially its contribution to today's alphabet soup of programs and official departments. I don't even agree with all of it. But if it comes to a showdown and our leadership tells them, either explicitly or implicitly, to back off, I will support that leadership 100%.
I'm only talking about messaging and Civil Rights is much more difficult for the other side to attack than DEI. Keep the program call it something else. The medium is the message and in this case the phrase is viewed too negatively. Use what works. Turn on a dime if necessary.
Understood, and tactic approved, Danielle.
No way I'll eliminate DEI! My "corporate" experience of it probably doesn't count, since it was a community clinic treating homeless and low-income patients, so of course they were diverse and of course we treated them with equity and inclusion. In fact, my husband and I knew several well enough that we shared our home with them.
My other consideration is my DEI family. My family of birth, on both sides, had been in the USA for over a century or since the Revolution. White, educated, New England conservatism. My spouse's family had been here as long on one side, "only" three or four generations on the other, but still white, conservative, valuing education. Now that we have great-grandchildren and my brother has grandchildren, we include immigrants from three continents, speakers of half a dozen languages, occupations from janitorial to technical/mechanical, and Ph.D., religions from Russian Orthodox to Unitarian to none, politics across the spectrum, loved ones from Canada to Texas and Washington State to Washington D.C. plus a few foreign countries. Family gatherings in California include the full range from Nordic blonde to coal black--but to be honest I'm not sure how many are actual relatives because in that group anyone who walks in is family. There is also sexual orientation diversity.
Of course I value diversity, expect everyone to be treated fairly (e.g., with equity), and love including them all in my family and my community. Isn't that what DEI is about?
Glad to see someone else who thinks like me.
KAKISTOCRACY: Government by the worst or least capable people.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kakistocracy
Jen, Do any of the Senators in the confirmation hearings ask the candidates the following : “You (candidate) are applying for this job so I would like you to tell me about your qualifications to fulfill this position”? It sure sounds like most would be hard pressed to provide a coherent answer.
Right on
Your chosen word "toady" is a perfect description of these people. A bunch of weird toadies is what they are. Unfortunately, it does not make them any less dangerous or destructive.
They are evil, true, but the word "toady" conjures up a fat frog, and tends to deflate their pretensions. It's a good one to spread.
Thank you for this! Today's reading is what I was expecting when I signed up for a subscription. Keep it up.
“Meritocracy “ is Orwellian doublespeak.
In the context of systemic racism (a topic away from which our present federal government and much of our society is furiously backpedaling), "meritocracy" meant "a system that promoted white men of sometimes questionable qualifications but riding an enormous wave of white privilege ahead of all other candidates." It was the fancy word people used when they couldn't say things like "The old boy network" and "What club was he in at <Harvard/Princeton/Yale>?" and "Oh, he's the son of <oligarch's/aristocrat's/prominent politician's name here>?"
Beyond even that distortion, at the hands of the maga/racist/extremist/christo-fascists we now have the complete perversion of the definition to something like, "Good soldiers who will unquestioningly parrot our ideology and pursue our goals of permanent racial, social, and economic dominance."
I am very concerned about how the felonious corpuscle is destroying our government and its norms. It really opened my eyes to how honorable the majority of the politicians were before tRump.
Yes. The quiet competence & experience is a real thing: perhaps more press focus on the actual backgrounds & experience of the public servants being replaced by trump toads would help to educate the cultists?
Linguist George Lakoff was warning us about the perversion of language for authoritarian purposes much more than a decade ago.
“kakistocracy (noun) · kakistocracies (plural noun)
government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state:
"the danger is that this will reduce us to kakistocracy"
a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens:
"the modern regime is at once a plutocracy and a kakistocracy" · "the man on the street must share part of the blame for allowing such a kakistocracy to entrench itself"
Would you add LETHALITY to your list? Our new Secretary of Defense seems to be in love with this word -- which I find horrifying!
"Toady' is good; I prefer "lickspittle".
There are a lot of terms in this administration I do not like. Trump leads the list.
I first heard the term "abject cronyism" from my husband when he used it to describe a situation at his workplace. I believe that it would be more fitting than "meritocracy" for what's going on right now in the Chump administration. Although I guess cronyism implies a certain equality amongst the participants, and Chump only wants boot lickers and ass kissers, so maybe not. But abject, certainly.
There are a lot of concepts in consumer protection law which I believe should be applied to Trump and his ways. In the interest of clear thinking, we should employ some very specific terms that illuminate the problem rather than just attacking Trump personally (although that is good).
Illusory - the purported benefits of Trump's meritocracy are illusory. It violates consumer protection laws to take someone's money and in exchange give them an illusory benefit. This is usually applied to insurance products. The policy purports to cover X, but they never actually pay when X occurs. Trump promises a meritocracy but he provides the opposite.
the skin color of kennedy is shocking..First off his hands match his face..meaning this person who supposedly will be making America's health care choices regularly takes in cancer causing sun lamp rays? But, why worry! He won't last long having a better tan than fearless leader
I thought jaundice.