Overacronymization

countenance

March 30

Wittenberg

I'll develop this later, and probably here in the comment thread of this post.

But I see a couple of problems on the horizon.

(1) Certain people are starting overuse the term and acronym "DEI" in a critical and oppositional sense, in ways it shouldn't be used, to the point where it's going to cheapen the meaning of the acronym and also the credibility of the anti-DEI cause. It's starting to become a rhetorical fad on the right, rather than serious discussion. Just as I noticed about two years ago that "grooming" was being overused and libelously so.

(2) Then there's the matter of the very acronym DEI, and acronyms in general, pointing to the overacronymization of rhetoric. I wonder how many people that would ordinarily oppose DEI aren't doing so because they don't even know what DEI is, even when they hear it? It's a bad habit a lot of people (me included) have, talking over peoples' heads with obscure in-group and in-sector rhetoric and acronyms, almost as if we have this need to cult-like in-signal our own language and create our own "smart" crowd or "in" crowd. In contrast, George Wallace once said that you have to put the crumbs down to where the ducks can get to them.

Likewise, how many Americans would be mad that AFFH is fucking up their neighborhoods but don't even know what AFFH is?

I now tend to think that the main problem normies have with our sector isn't the disagreeability with our sociopolitics, but the indecipherability and incomprehensibility of our rhetoric.

And it's a matter of not only like I wrote above, the in-signaling problem, but also to speak more cynically, the American and Western ruling class(es) know(s) they can pull one over on people if they hide their plans behind a labyrinth of confusing acronyms and carefully avoid putting the crumbs down to beak level.