Dems again failing to see the forest for the trees. It’s not their language people find objectionable, it’s that they use this language and do fucking nothing to make it seem like they understand why this language has been elevated.
For example, if you ran on a platform of making housing an entitlement, and had a clear vision for reaching that goal, no one would give a shit if you said “houseless person” instead of “homeless person”. Hell, if you got everyone in this country housed I don’t think anyone would be too mad what you called them.
Exactly. They could just say what they mean and if they meant something effectual they could actually do some good for a food insecure person. But of course effectual dem is an oxymoron so on and so forth.
Stakeholders usually refers to the people affected by capitalists, not the capitalists themselves.
Like the people who don’t have water because of a data center or fracking.
It is then used to muddle the water between people employed by a business and people negatively affected.
I think the “stakeholder” thing is about its metaphorical usage: about people not necessarily holding ownership stock in something but people being interested in something.
![Third Way has a new blacklist of words Dems shouldn't use. [More inside]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/8288b289-3052-4a94-b0cf-aaf26d55a32e.png){kind=link}
Dems again failing to see the forest for the trees. It’s not their language people find objectionable, it’s that they use this language and do fucking nothing to make it seem like they understand why this language has been elevated.
For example, if you ran on a platform of making housing an entitlement, and had a clear vision for reaching that goal, no one would give a shit if you said “houseless person” instead of “homeless person”. Hell, if you got everyone in this country housed I don’t think anyone would be too mad what you called them.
Exactly. They could just say what they mean and if they meant something effectual they could actually do some good for a food insecure person. But of course effectual dem is an oxymoron so on and so forth.
The term “stakeholders” upsets their core constituency: vampires
+2
Stakeholders usually refers to the people affected by capitalists, not the capitalists themselves. Like the people who don’t have water because of a data center or fracking. It is then used to muddle the water between people employed by a business and people negatively affected.
I think the “stakeholder” thing is about its metaphorical usage: about people not necessarily holding ownership stock in something but people being interested in something.
"Weaponized incompetence” comes to mind.