“Third Way is circulating a memo,” Politico’s Adam Wren posted on X, “… featuring a new black list of words Dems shouldn’t use.”
So what’s new? We’ve dealt with years of woke policing of language. It got so ridiculous that for my sketch comedy series, “Comedy Is Murder,” my co-conspirators at Free the People and I imagined what George Carlin would have to say about the state of language and communication today.
Will they get back any of that checked privilege — with interest? Or will the Democrats still ask for them to check it — but, like, find a different way to phrase it?
Remember back in 1972, Carlin only had “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” But 50 years later, the list had metastasized to “7,000 Words You Can Never Say on Television … or Anywhere.” (Actually, “metastasized” is on the no-no list — since it’s clearly size-ist.)
But as it turns out, the self-described center-left think tank’s advice to blacklist some 45 words and phrases isn’t your typical virtue-signaling censorship move. It’s actually a call for Democrats to defund the speech police and talk like normal people.
That’s right: Democrats are attempting to normalize normal.
Nothing to see here
The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell is a fan of going this direction. Along with a screenshot of some of the blacklisted terms, she posted the following on X:
Don’t say “birthing person.”Don’t say “incarcerated person.”Don’t say “the unhoused.”Don’t say “chest feeding.”Don’t say “centering.Don’t say “Latinx.”When voters hear this, they think Democrats are out of touch crazy people. Just talk normal. Be normal.
I understand what’s going on here: The goal is to connect with voters and win elections. And I’m not one to take advice from when it comes to elections. The only election I ever won was back in high school, when I became student body president. (Looking back on my tenure, I’m surprised I wasn’t impeached or overthrown in a coup d’état.)
But I believe it’s important to use language that represents your actual beliefs. If you sincerely believe in “birthing persons” and “chest feeders,” then you owe it to voters and yourself — or yourselx — to use that language. You can “talk normal” all you want, but it doesn’t mean you actually “believe normal.”
Crazy talk
Good on Longwell and others for bringing back the use of “crazy” without apology. But the fact is that you can sound normal and still be an out-of-touch crazy person. Which, I guess, can be a winning strategy for the Democrats.
As Third Way puts it:
We are not out to police language, ban phrases, or create our own form of censorship. Truth be told, we have published papers that have used some of these words as well. But when policymakers are public-facing, the language we use must invite, not repel; start a conversation, not end it; provide clarity, not confusion.
One might call this “lying.” So in order to win, Democrats must lie — which is going to make for some awkward conversations.
According to the Playbook Podcast, “Third Way argues that to ‘please the few, we have alienated the many — especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty, and arrogant.’”
Chuck your privilege
Just think of all the college graduates who took out student loans they have no hope of ever repaying just to learn to speak this AWFL (affluent white female liberal) language.
You want Democrats to stop using the word “privilege” and the term “systems of oppression” — but what about all the woke white allies who have spent the last decade checking their privilege because of their place at the top of these systems of oppression?
Will they get back any of that checked privilege — with interest? Or will the Democrats still ask for them to check it — but, like, find a different way to phrase it? In lieu of words, perhaps an aggressive eyeroll. Or pull a Prince circa 1993 and go with an unpronounceable symbol. Since they’re blacklisting the term “cultural appropriation” now, I’m guessing that’s kosher.
Third Way wants Democrats to stop using the word “microaggression,” but what else would you call the act of asking someone, “Where are you from?”
No more “body-shaming”? Ozempic will make that easier.
But how about “Latinx?” Just because you stop using “Latinx,” it doesn’t mean you stop believing the Latinx are out there. (Even though you are more likely to encounter a chupacabra than a Latinx.)
I’d be happy if Democrats ditched words like “cisgender,” “deadnaming,” “heteronormative,” and “patriarchy” if they no longer believed in the queer philosophical foundations on which these terms were built. (Since “Bonus Hole” didn’t make the black list, I assume it’s still good to use.)
‘White’ out
If Democrats are taking requests, I’d like to see them do away with “racism” — as defined by “prejudice plus power.” I’d also like to see “whiteness” gone — not in a “white genocide” manner. But in that “let’s stop blaming everything that happens in the universe on whiteness” kind of way. Unlike gravity, whiteness is not one of the fundamental forces of nature — even though woke pols treat it so.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell wrote:
Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
If Orwell were trying to appeal to voters, he would be advised to blacklist a number of those words he used above. Honesty could cost him the election, but it’s that kind of allyship I can get behind — even though allyship is a word Third Way recommends you leave behind.
The post Democrats: If you mean ‘birthing person,’ just say ‘birthing person’ appeared first on TheBlaze.
