Let the "x" word sweepstakes begin

Apparently reducing adults to the level of having to say "the n-word" when referring to any discussion about "nigger" isn't quite enough. Looks like now the new way to have proper recognition as an oppressed minority is to have your own word that's so bad you can't say it. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is calling for everyone to stop saying "wetback" (which, honestly I didn't think people really said that much) and replace it with "the w-word." Seems "wetback" is disrespectful (well...duh) but the much more juvenile "the w-word" is somehow more respectful. One, making adults say "w-word" is really just disrespectful to adults. Two, I don't want to burst Mr Navarrette's bubble, but "w-word" is just code for "wetback." Nothings really changed. It's like when people think saying "jeeze" when angry is OK, but "Jesus" isn't. It's all code for the same meaning, and bad is bad. Changing the code doesn't change the meanings.

But it looks like the trend will be for minorities to have their own "banned" words. The Irish can have the "d word," Native Americans the "r word" and the Chinese the "y word." But what happens when words start to overlap? I'm sure the Italians don't like "wop," but it looks like the Hispanics have dibbed the "w word." The Italians can't go with the "wo word" because it looks like they're stuttering, which is surely the "s word" for stutterers. Maybe they go with the "Italian w word" but that feels cumbersome. I guess we need to hold some sort of summit to work all this out, but if you work in an office you know that meetings surely rate the "m word." Maybe that's the fix. Everything we find offensive we just abbreviate it down to the "x word." Everyone can feel important and everyone else can feel stupid (s word?).

Look, I get that Mr Navarrette probably knows that his idea is s word, but that putting it out there gets people talking about him, and in the age of Reality TV, any talk is good talk (better to be known as a moron than not be known at all). However the problem is that some "i word" will not get this and take him seriously. Then a bad idea takes root, and it becomes all of our problem.

The GOP's big Slur

Been reading of late about W's big "slur" against the Democratic members of congress in his State of the Union Address.

During his speech, Bush congratulated what he called the "Democrat majority" while welcoming the "new," "changed" Congress, even though the prepared text of the speech reportedly called for Bush to recognize the "Democratic majority."

Apparently referring to members of the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party is some kind of big insult.

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Furthermore, while the word dates back to at least the Hading Administration, use today is all the fault of Newt Gingrich and pollster Frank Luntz

In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

But here's the thing, both my parents (Hi Ma, Hi Pop) are members of the Democratic Party and I grew up a Democrat...(ic?) (before making the big switch to Libertarian), and I just don't see the insult. Sorry. I dunno, maybe I'm tougher than I thought, or, more likely, I've been called much worse. When I try to place, "Called Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party" on the big list of slurs, well, it doesn't even make the list of things to be listed. Seriously, it just feels silly. But after reading the first article, I did a search and this really bugs people. Well at least some people. From The Huffington Post,

"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

What Michelle Pilecki leaves out is just who the those two letters actually matter to. Preceding that paragraph was another in the original.

Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

And now you get it. No one really cares, except those are so wrapped up in party politics, on both sides, that they share little with the rest of America. I never knew it was a slur and I'm not new at this game. So when members of the Republic Party (hah-suck on that Gingrich, how's it feel now?) say "Democrat Party," I never knew they were trying to hurt my feelings. Not really the best insult when the insultee doesn't know they've been insulted. Ironically, since the Dems have brought so much attention to it, now I know, and honestly, I think the Dems are the ones looking silly.

Finally, from what I've been able to ascertain, "Democrat" is OK when referring to one member of the Democratic Party. "Democrats" is OK when referring to several members of the Democratic Party (or at least I assume so, the Democratic Party web site is www.democrats.org), Dems are OK as short-hand (Whew, I use that a lot). In fact, the only time this slur is a slur is when referring to the whole of the Democratic Party.

Not to be nitpicky, but this is another example of how the Dems don't get it. Rather than just mocking this as the all-time worst insult, they actually get all hot and bothered by it. Just completely the wrong way to handle it.