#548 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday January 4)
Good morning,
I have enjoyed following the “Word of the Year” identified at the end of each year by the various dictionary publishers. Over the past few years, the choice of words has evolved to fit the zeitgeist. We’ve moved beyond words derived from new technologies through words of pandemic and isolation and now seem focused on politics and argument. Here, then, are the Merriam-Webster word of the year and runners-up:
THE WORD OF THE YEAR
Gaslighting is the word of the year.
I think it’s a good one. Too often, the response to a well-placed argument or observation is an effort by the listener to put the speaker on the defensive.
Webster defines gaslighting as “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one’s own advantage.'“ 2022 saw a 1740% increase in lookups for gaslighting.
“Its origins are colorful: the term comes from the title of a 1938 play and the movie based on that play, the plot of which involves a man attempting to make his wife believe that she is going insane. His mysterious activities in the attic cause the house’s gas lights to dim, but he insists to his wife that the lights are not dimming and that she can’t trust her own perceptions.”
Webster defines gaslighting today as the “psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.”
Webster goes on, “But in recent years, we have seen the meaning of gaslighting refer also to something simpler and broader: “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for a personal advantage.” In this use, the word is at home with other terms relating to modern forms of deception and manipulation, such as fake news, deepfake, and artificial intelligence.”
AND THE RUNNERS-UP
Here are the runners-up with some commentary on their usage:
Oligarch. The Russians whose yachts have been seized are just one subset of this group. The real meaning—and concern—is that an oligarchy is the rule by the few elites. Certainly, we are in an era where oligarchs are real, with their danger enhanced by the use of information technology to fashion their autocratic tendencies as populism.
Omicron. The famous virus and the “other Greek vowel” that begins with “o.” But we’re well past omicron and on our way to new strains of COVID…
Codify. This rose due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the rush by federal and state governments to put into their statutes legal provisions governing abortion rights.
LGBTQIA. This just keeps getting longer--must we spit out this array of letters every time we refer to those with different sexual preferences? And do they even belong together? I get the LGBT part. But why add “questioning, intersex, and asexual”? If gender is fluid, then everyone would fall under Q. Plus, I feel this is a mish-mash of gender and sexual preference. And if someone doesn’t have a preference as to sexual partner, isn’t that person simply a male or female with no sexual preference but with no change in gender or sexual characteristics? Are they part of the cis gender (or neither at all)?
Sentient. What no computer or artificial intelligence has yet been able to be—the ability to think and feel. And like computers, many of the people I encounter when driving in Los Angeles lack sentience.
Loamy. A measure of a word’s popularity is how often a word is searched on-line. The reason I like this one is the reason inquiries about it spiked 4.5 million percent! It was solely as the result of being a Wordle answer.
Raid. This word’s look-ups spiked because the Former Guy used it to describe the FBI executing a legally issued search warrant to acquire stolen government documents after a subpoena for same was ignored.
Queen Consort. Well, you know why. Hello Camilla!
Thanks, Allison Gingold, for the suggestion to talk about this!
ABRIDGMENT OF MY RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
The Supreme Court has made it clear that money is political speech. So, the money flowing into political campaigns knows no limit and it has tilted campaign funding to the wealthy, the unions, and super PACs focused on negative campaigning.
Over the years, Andrea and I have chosen to use our charitable dollars for charity and not for political campaigns, believing it a clear choice with disposable income. In the “Trump years,” however, our view evolved. We believed (and still do) that contributing to stop anti-democratic authoritarians and Trump toadies was our patriotic duty.
So, we’ve done our share and contributed to a number of Senate and House candidates. This has resulted in endless texts asking for more. Case in point: I get four texts a day from Raphael Warnock—I’ll be glad when the Georgia runoff is over.
But here’s the rub: As a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA), I participate in raising funds from public pension funds. As a result, Congress and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have determined I cannot contribute (other than a laughably small amount—well below the otherwise legal max of $2,900 per election cycle) to any candidate running for local or State office or who currently hold such office. Of all the improprieties and the “good ol’ boy” nature of the fundraising universe that require greater regulation, the SEC has decided that one’s relatively small contributions should be the focus of its attack on undue influence. As a result of this silly rule, I am denied my right to support a candidate for any such office or contribute to candidates holding local office who are running for federal government. But I can, however, contribute to super PACs, which focus on producing negative propaganda.
I’m pretty sure this is unconstitutional. And I’m pretty sure not a single RIA will take this case to court to protect his or her constitutional right of free speech.
Have a good day,
Glenn
From the archives: