{"id":137990448,"date":"2025-05-21T15:40:55","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T20:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jahangiri.us\/2020\/?p=137990448"},"modified":"2025-10-26T12:44:54","modified_gmt":"2025-10-26T17:44:54","slug":"one-is-never-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jahangiri.us\/2020\/one-is-never-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"One is Never Enough"},"content":{"rendered":"

First Things First<\/h2>\n

Words matter. Words have meaning. And although, sure, “language evolves,” that doesn’t mean you get to change the accepted definitions of dictionary words to mean whatever you want them to mean today.\u00a0You don’t get to wake up one morning and decide that “86” means something more and different than “nix” (see “Cockney rhyming slang”) or “remove” (as it is commonly understood in the restaurant biz) or “throw the bum out” (as anyone who’s been 86’d from a bar can tell you – because most of them are alive to tell you this). You can certainly invent new words. You could, over time and bit by bit, change their meaning to be more in line with modern day needs. We still use “carriage” today, even though the original understanding of “carriage” rarely applies. And there’s a reason criminals devise their own terms for things, but most adults don’t adopt those outside of novels and Hollywood thrillers.<\/p>\n

Read Ask George: Where Does the Term “86’d” Come From? | St. Louis Magazine<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But some folks want you to believe that “86” means to “kill” or “assassinate” someone, and that when paired with a number that’s routinely associated with a person, somehow constitutes an incitement to do just that. You could use the words “end,” or “terminate,” or “off,” or “ice” or any of these slang terms<\/a> to mean the same thing – but that doesn’t change their more commonly understood, dictionary defined meanings. At least I hope not – considering corporate America routinely terminates employees it wants to 86 – I mean, get rid of. And when I say, “Turn off that dim bulb,” I mean end the flickering from the almost-burnt-out light bulb. What else could you possibly think I mean? The flickering’s giving me a massive headache, as is this whole debacle.<\/p>\n

In What Does ‘Eighty-Six’ Mean? | Merriam-Webster<\/a>, Merriam-Webster acknowledges that,<\/p>\n

Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of \u201cto kill.\u201d We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.<\/mark><\/p>\n

“I hate to see the guys always getting eighty-sixed,” she said, using military jargon for killed in action. “Not fair.\u201d
\n\u2014 John Kifner,\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>, 3 Feb. 1991<\/p>\n

The most common meaning of\u00a0eighty-six<\/em>\u00a0encountered today is the one that is closer to its service industry roots (\u201cto refuse to serve a customer\u201d). Given how many meanings the term has picked up in less than a century of use, however, it\u2019s anyone\u2019s guess as to what meanings it will pick up in the decades to come.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You don’t get to call it “incitement” to “kill” or “assassinate” someone, just because you need a little more drama and attention in your life. Just because you want to distract people from the fact that you are actively advocating for things that will do them real harm<\/strong>. In 10 years, maybe we’ll use “86” to mean “spurious propaganda meaning whatever the hell the party in power wants it to mean at the moment.” But for now, it should be clear that the most common usage harkens back to its restaurant and bar service days.<\/p>\n

Investigating every instance of what is and ought to be a fairly mild expression of political protest as if it were an act of terrorism is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. But if you insist, then at least investigate every Republican who followed “86” with “46” – or all the times their leaders have called on the people to kill, shoot, or otherwise assassinate those they dislike. See, for example: violent rhetoric | PBS News<\/a>\u00a0Don’t be hypocrites about it.<\/p>\n

This Administration Wants to 86 The Following Words<\/h2>\n

Forget George Carlin’s brilliant monologue on the 7 Dirty Words You Can’t Say on Television<\/a>. There is now a list of three hundred and sixty one words the current administration is trying to expunge from our vocabularies. How dare they, these people who whine about freedom of speech at every turn and imagine themselves victims of “cancel culture”!? You will find the words the feel attacked by, here, and I exhort you to use them liberally (which, in case you didn’t know, means “generously” and “munificently” and “freely”<\/a> no matter what certain political types would have you think). For a surprising and wonderful take on this, read Here are all the words Trump wants banned \u2014 in one article \u2013 Baptist News Global<\/a> – an article from Rodney W. Kennedy, a pastor and writer in New York state, using every one of them. God bless the man.<\/p>\n

I did write a poem a while back, using a much shorter list of words – I think they’ve added about 200 since then! – see Poetry from Banned Words | Holly Jahangiri<\/a>. But one is never enough<\/strong> and now, we have a larger vocabulary to work with, and I encourage you to get creative. Feel free to share your poems or flash fiction here, or send me a link to your longer works (if it’s a spammy link or comment, it will be 86’d so fast it’ll make your head spin, but I promise you’ll live).<\/p>\n

In case you need ideas for where to use these marvelous words, try poetry, short stories, non-fiction articles, blogs, social media posts – anything that will be read, where people will be emboldened and made to understand that words are not scary things. They are the key to communicating – a very human thing. A very First Amendment-protected thing in the United States of America, with precious few exceptions (most largely ignored, these days, as they have to do with safety and truth in advertising, both of which seem to be quite pass\u00e9). Contrary to what many seem to believe, freedom of political speech without fear of reprisal,<\/em>\u00a0not<\/strong> the freedom to cuss out your parents and neighbors, is the primary raison d’\u00eatre for the First Amendment. Now go use it before we lose it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Did you miss any of the earlier posts from this month or last?<\/p>\n