Make English Great Again (MEGA)
English has become the mother tongue for buzzwords and clichés. We need a reset. Flushing these weasel words and phrases from the lexicon would be a good start.
Preface: Linguists estimate that it takes about 1,000 years for a language to change enough that people at the beginning and end of a millennium would never understand each other. This holds with English—if you went back to the year 1024 AD and walked around London town, you wouldn't understand what anyone was saying because they'd be speaking Old English, a very old version of German (Anglo-Saxon).
This process happens slowly enough that we don't see it happening in any one lifetime. But if you look closely, you see it. Think how confused a person from 1990 would be if you asked them to help you find that meme … or recommend a crypto podcast … or ask what everyone is posting on Instagram.
Words and phrases have changed at warp speed. Part of the shift has been accelerated by global connectivity and the Internet. But there are other dark forces at work, where foundational language has been hollowed out and flattened into buzzwords, code speak and hyperbole.
It has contributed to the “dumbing down” of America.
The beauty of English has been hijacked in recent years. I blame a cabal of scoundrels, scofflaws, ne’er-do-wells, gypsies, tramps and thieves.
First came the invasion of political correctness in the 90s, where traditional language yielded to euphemisms and deflection. Common terms were de-gendered and codified for polite society (i.e. fireman to firefighter). It was all eyewash — “collateral damage” became a substitute for dead civilians — but relatively harmless.
But something weirder has happened in the 21st century.
Driven by whatever you call it — cultural tectonics, maybe — we have been captured by sloganeering and “junk food” lexicon. Today, the language is tailored to our hyperkinetic limbic systems. What better way to appease shortened attention spans than by appealing to moral panic rather than logic and reason … “Existential threat” … “In these unprecedented times…” … “Save democracy!”
I’m done with it. Done with the melodrama. Done with histrionics. Done with being treated like the lowest common denominator.
I’m hoping to package these word turds, ship them to CERN, Switzerland, load them into opposite ends of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), fire them at each other at light speed and blow them all to smithereens.
I believe we can go forward with what we can be, unburdened by what has been.
“Existential Threat”
Existentialism is an ethical theory (i.e. catch-all phrase) that philosophy isn’t just a series of contemplative thoughts about nature, reality and existence, but must be fully integrated into everyday life. It came into recent use in post-modern (post-WWII) literature. Think French writers Jean Paul-Sartre and Albert Camus.
Recently, however, the root word “existential” has been commandeered by politicians and journalists and attached at the hip to extinction-level threats, real or imagined. As such, “Existential threat” has become the decade's most irritating cliché.
I read this phrase five times every morning while perusing news briefs. It is repeated on network news and podcasts — so often that it has become axiomatic, spoken unblinkingly, with the presumption that it is the truth beyond question.
Sure, global thermonuclear war is an existential threat. Has been for 80 years now. So are coronal mass ejections (CMEs), geomagnetic reversal of the poles, Armageddon-scale asteroids (unless Bruce Willis is available, which I understand he’s not) and supervolcanos.
Well, this stoic Boomer refuses to panic.
Besides, there are other things to worry about. Wrecking the English language is an existential threat … along with circus clowns, mint-flavored floss, Fruit Loops, Crocs, pop-up ads, one-ply toilet paper, “Real Housewives” and Brussels Sprouts.
When the Big Apple drops in Times Square this December, I hope it squashes the life out of “existential threats.”
“Save Democracy!”
This one brings involuntary bile to my throat.
Every day mouth-breathing politicians and news anchors spew this hysterical prattle. The irony is thick: those who cry “save democracy” are the most likely to sanction or excuse un-democratic acts.
The irony is thick: those who cry “save democracy” are the most likely to sanction or excuse un-democratic acts.
George Washington saved democracy by being the first world leader in history to voluntarily leave office. Lincoln saved democracy through conciliation in ending the Civil War. The Allies in World War II saved democracy on the beaches of Normandy.
Tell you what. I say there’s only one person who can save our democracy …
Hack
The etymology of “hack” traces to a verb meaning “to chop” something, as with a blade.
Since then, “hack” has taken on several colloquial derivations. It can be used as a noun in identifying a professionally incompetent person (“That guy is a hack!”) … as a verb for an unlawful act of breaking into a computer system (“He hacked the Pentagon”) … or as a synonym for a shortcut (“Here’s a list of life hacks.”)
I suppose I can live with this one. After all, 95 percent of all media personalities are hacks.
“(Blank) adjacent”
The word “adjacent” has recently packed its suitcase and taken the short trip from the literal to the figurative.
It used to mean “next to,” as in buildings, or pizza slices. In this new grammatical usage, “(blank) adjacent” is a postpositive adjective — that simply means that it comes after the noun it modifies.
These days, it is more likely to signify a conceptual association or label in which the speaker accuses someone of supporting or being an ally of a group or subculture without being a part of it. Fill in the blank … “Hate adjacent” … “Zionist-adjacent” … “Homophobe-adjacent.”
Earlier this year, after his pending deal with Elon Musk for an exclusive broadcast on X went awry, CNN-exile Don Lemon accused the rocket man of being “racist-adjacent.” Never mind that Lemon is a smarmy, unctuous, wholly dishonest con man who for years pretended to be a journalist.
“(Blank)-adjacent” is just another example of linguistic fuckery that has infested our language.
I hope people who use this phrase become nuke-adjacent.
“Slays/Kills/Destroys”
A common clickbait tagline used on YouTube posts when one debater strongly counters a statement by another debater and humiliates them before millions of fawning viewers.
I suppose it is the digital version of Yellow Journalism, the practice of the late 19th century when sensational headlines dominated the Hearst-Pulitzer newspaper rivalry.
It was bad then, and it is bad today.
“We need to have conversations …”
This throw-away phrase is often deployed when broaching a topic that everybody is already discussing.
Usually, the offender is a vacuous, blank-eyed interviewer who ends a discussion because their head is empty and has nothing else to say.
“In these unprecedented times …”
This foreboding phrase has become an anthem of the 2020s. It has worn thin with overuse in advertisements, news stories and political speeches.
Mostly everything driving the news cycle today has already occurred in some form in the past. That would suggest precedent, no?
Here’s what should happen in any written piece or discussion leading with this toothless utterance:
“In these unprecedented times …”(edit)
"Tell me you (insert thing) without telling me you (insert thing)."
This backhanded remark is common to social media, especially in the form of memes. In literary terms, it is called an “antithesis.”
For example:
Somehow, the trolls who throw out such snarkiness think they’re being artful and clever. It might have been … the first time. After the 50th try, most people, including myself, find it annoying.
Tell me you’re going to self-euthanize without telling me …
Experts/Pundits (i.e. “Talking heads”)
You might already know this, but whenever a news host brings on a panel of “experts, analysts or strategists” (i.e. talking heads), those people always represent special interests, meaning themselves or a profit-making venture.
If CNN or Fox News brings on an “Intelligence analyst,” for example, know that that guy is either an ex-CIA spook or is currently employed by a security “consulting” firm. In other words, he’s a rental spy, one step above a Mall Cop.
“Think Tank” gargoyles are everywhere. Military “experts” almost certainly are retired generals or special ops studs now working for the Rand Corporation, Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon1 and being paid handsomely by the Pentagon.
Take everything they say with a grain of sodium and a large scoop of skepticism.
Parting Words
To the people who breathlessly drop existential threats into a discussion, are busy saving democracy, or who try to tell me without telling me … I invite you to the late great George Carlin’s master class in comedy …
What words or phrases would you like to see go the way of the do-do?
###
Jim Geschke was inducted into the Marquis Who’s Who Registry in 2021.
The top three military defense contractors in the U.S.
Great piece. I’m in, MEGA all the way.
Personally, what I detest the most, alongside the trend of smarmy euphemism, is what I call ‘word vomit’. 🤮 Writers like Steinbeck didn’t have it. With just a few perfectly chosen simple words, he could captivate and transport you wherever he wanted. Nowadays, it seems most young writers believe themselves obligated to be social justice warriors, and they just spew-fourth complex wordy jargonistic narratives that they have been brainwashed with, and not thought through themselves… rant over.
I’m 99.9% with you, Jim, the only thing I question in your piece is lumping gypsies and tramps in with scoundrels and ne’er-do-wells. What’s wrong with gypsies and tramps? I’ve met some incredible street-folk and some equally incredible gypsies.
Every possible derivation of "moving forward" and "going forward," saying you want something "end of day Tuesday" (isn't it simply end of Tuesday), "unpacking" anything that isn't luggage and a whole host of other hateful corporate jargon and buzzwords that, as George Carlin so keenly obscured, obscure the true meaning of what you say.