Which word annoys you the most in political discourse?

Which word annoys you the most in political discourse?

For me it is the word arbitrary, subject being a close second.


Are you mad that your ideas are arbitrary and you get called out?

No, I'm annoyed by it for the same reason I'm annoyed when someone says there's no scientific study to back that up when I state that getting a swastika tattoo on your forehead isn't a very good idea.

Every time liberals use the term "bodies" instead of "people" my head fucking explodes.



It means nothing.

spook is a spook????????????


I've thought about it since you made the thread, and they may not quite pass, but here are the worst offenders in Britain:
Soul searching
Mistakes were made
Lessons must be learned

The most annoying globally has to be "Thoughts and prayers", especially from the vulture types.

I guess if I could pick a single word it would be "introspection". I don't have any example or memory of it directly annoying me but I can't imagine any situation a politician or journalist is going to use it and not be engaged in extreme faggotry at some point very close to it being uttered.

Whenever I hear "Both sides of the aisle"

Fuck you I'm a socialist.

The word 'populace'.

"Objectively". 99% of the time it is immediately followed up by something not objective.

I find it strangely sexual.

"virtue signaling"

with the creation and spreading of this term right-wing pseudo-scientists and right-wing propagandists have reached a new level of retardness imo.

i'm glad i'm german and it didn't made it's way into the discourse here so far, because the translation alone sounds so immensly stupid that even right-wingers haven't dared to throw it around yet. it's mostly likely getting introduced by astro-turfers in non-translated form though.

It's funny because even using the term is basically saying "Look how good I am, I don't need to show everyone how good I am."

What's retarded about it? Do you think such a thing never happens?

I think being annoyed that the word arbitrary and subject makes you subjectively arbitrary.

Anyone who uses that term unironically is also virtue signalling. Like this guy pointed out:

"This guy is virtue signalling, not like me though, I'm totally the honest one pointing it out".

It's a dumb and necessary term and only ever asserts other people's intentions.

*dumb and unnecessary

The (free) market of __

"leftist" or "the left" since here in America these terms are mostly used to refers to liberals and I get mad and offended.


I don't know if this meme exists in other countries, but in France, I hate it when any economic "expert" or politician says we need more "competitiveness" (compétitivité), that our economy is not competitive enough, and that we need less regulations, and so on.
Usually, it is used to justify the dismantlement of workers rights that will help big corporations who pay their taxes in Luxembourg, and no one else, not even small business owners.

space or spaces


It annoys me when people unironically use the word dialectics.

I don't really know what they take it to mean. Is it just like nuance, or the ability to synthesize two disparate worldviews? I have a lot of philosophy reading to do

Guys don't use that word. It's an open invitation for A.W. to shit up a thread.

Most of the time it just means "look I'm a big theory guy pay me attention."

Bodies is definitely the worst. I've never seen its history laid out, but it seems like some weird attempt to make things like discussions about violence more impactful. Instead I'm just left reflexively guessing at somebody's ideological affiliation, educational background and socio-economic status, since only a particular kind of person seems to use "bodies" in place of "people".

Stop arguing with autistic people.

Hilariously it's often the type to misidentify objectification as well.

Usually it's used by people simply to signal what a big theory-dick they have to swing around and it's got no real meaning in terms of abstract content, just in the behavior it's intended to trigger (submission to the bigger dick).

It's bad in America too, every argument for something like the 40 hour workweek and lunch breaks has to be followed with "It'll make us more competitive in the global economy." Every policy discussion has to be justified in this way and it's inhuman and cruel and undermines any notion that we can and should make things better for people because we have the resources to do so. I hope this makes sense I'm mad just thinking about it.

Yeah that makes sense, but it's funny how it is used in an inverse way in this case.
The closest thing I've seen to that was one economist defending our 35 hour workweek by saying that we have the best productivity per hour in the world because of it (that said, every government from Sarkozy to Macron have done anything they can to weaken that relative weekly limit without having to face massive strikes).
But, yes, it is crazy how these chimeras of "competitiveness" and "productivity" are always used to justify economic policies, as if we are two steps away from massive shortages of everything and workers inevitably have to sacrificed on the altar of neoliberalism, while supermarkets throw away half of their food and there are more vacant apartments than homeless people at the same time as these "experts" vomit their propaganda.
I don't understand how people can listen to these lackeys and think "yes, if only this abstract economic indicator would increase by two points, every structural problems we have right now would be solved ; that's it, I'm going to vote for François Fillon".

"going forward"

A bizarre, meaningless alien phrase that no one uses in real conversation and is only parroted because everyone else parrots it.

Economists, especially American ones I think are Calvinists with suits. Their reaction to seeing systemic violence is to look at the victims and say either "Nothing could've been done for you" or even worse "You probably deserve this in some way." And like you said, they believe the ills of society are medicated by GDP, but not in the way an anti-venom cures a snakebite, a better metaphor would be back pain are societal problems and Oxycontin is high GDP. You can't fix the fundamental problems but you can make them less painful. These people's morals and imaginations have been poisoned.

It's more like high GDP is a smiling mask you put on the back pain sufferer's face so from the outside they look alright.

The smiling mask metaphor isn't quite vicious enough, putting a smiling mask on your patient isn't nearly as destructive as putting them on Oxy.

Oxy will actually reduce the pain though. Pointing at the GDP does literally nothing for people who are suffering.

imagine my shock

what's wrong with subject?

this is actually cancer

"You know?"

I stilly don't understand what Subject and Object mean in theory. I guess it's some Hegel thing?

"Yeah, but now your just arguing semantics."

"Bullshit" - I have used both of my arguments already
"In practice" - Where communism does not work, completely independent of theory
"Terrorist" - What you are, what America isn't Not a smashie btw
"Nutter" - Used to describe some of the less shit politicians
"Drug addict" - Synonym for homeless person
"Hard worker" - Synonym for the bourgeoisie

I've never heard this one, could you give an example?

Maybe you should stop arguing semantics then.

We, the populace of Europe, have a lot of history, but also – and dialectically entangled with that – a lot of historical baggage. History is a map of contrasts, mistakes were made and lessons must be learned. It may sound hard to believe, but I used to be socialist, then I grew up and realized the French don't even have a word for compétitivité. A lot of soul searching went into this essay, so believe me when I honestly tell you that both sides of the aisle of politics, or perhaps I should say horseshoe, are objectively wrong. Don't get me wrong, they both have their positive parts, however as a centrist let me tell you again and again how bad socialism is and that, speaking as a realist, it is time for me and for both of us to realize that the days of simple solutions are over (if indeed those days ever existed (really makes you think, that statement, doesn't it, yes it really does)); we have to self-actualize ourselves as bodies in intersecting spaces, a multiplicity of horizontal vectors (a deep reading of quantum mechanics would be helpful to get the true depth of what I mean here), a plurality of strong and independent wills in the free market of ideas (except the idea of socialism which I argue has to be outlawed), responsible subjects going forward in a new complex chapter of history – the history of our own making!

GDP and Strong Economy™ are basically codewords for "the rich getting richer".

this is usually true, but so is anybody who publicly makes this kind of critique of it at this point tbh, since we all know that nobody would be batting an eye at it the way people do lately if it wasn't a term recently popularised by right wingers. as such, the term exists purely to demonstrate itself, as people who use it are signaling they are a certain kind of rightist and people who criticise it are inevitably signalling that they're some kind of left-leaner

it sucks actually, because it so concisely described all the problems I had with middle-class """progressives""" that caused my apolitical phase in my 20s, but since it's irrevocably associated with internet righties and """classical liberals""" it's pretty much trash now, the same way "p.roblematic" etc are.

Dialectic is, in general, attempting to comprehend a concept by use of logical arguments to come to some kind of philosophical truth.
Most people don't come anywhere near doing dialectic and instead just post about it because they have some vague argument.

Red tape
Business solutions