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.

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] semioticbreakdown@hexbear.net 23 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

classic they're clearly incapable of doing so at this point. Also telling that stakeholders is a word they suggest not using. Don't wanna scare off porky!

[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 44 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The term “stakeholders” upsets their core constituency: vampires

[–] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 18 points 3 weeks ago

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 15 points 3 weeks ago

ortega-clap

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 3 weeks ago

"Weaponized incompetence” comes to mind.