Doubled Down and Out
If there is a phrase that has been over-used during the last year, it is "double down." Throughout much of the election cycle the phrase was used to mean one of two things: (1) to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking or (2) to engage in risky behavior, especially when one is already in a dangerous situation. Usually these definitions were used in the reverse order - someone makes a claim that is patently false and puts themselves in a dangerous situation politically, then becomes more tenacious in defending the initial position, no matter what the actual facts might be. The term works, but it worked too well and too often and it has lost its power.
The term itself comes from blackjack, and was used when a player would double the original bid against the house in exchange for only one more card. A risky move. The fact that a gambling term has come to be the common phrase utilized to describe the political behavior of our president elect should be telling. The fact that it has three usages, the gambling reference, the zealous reference, and the risky behavior reference are also telling. The fact that two of them keep working for commentators is also telling and annoying.
Because once a phrase like that catches on on one station, you can bet (no pun intended, I don't think) that within a news cycle, other stations are going to pick it up. And then it spreads like a virus. All over the place, people are talking about how this person or that person "doubled down" on their statement, their policy, or whatever else. It used to be a term that, when sparingly used, pointed to a move of dangerous overconfidence. Now, while still meaning that, it has become so over used that it doesn't mean what it did. Like the word awesome, which used to be reserved for some great event or even to describe God, it now only means surprisingly good - like an awesome hot dog. Awesome used to mean something that filled one with awe (which was to overwhelm and take one's breath away), it just doesn't have the punch it used to.
There are still some words and phrases out there that might be good, yet I know why we can't use them. To say double down should imply a subjective attitude about the actions of another, but it doesn't. Instead, it is a description of their actions. No harm there. So saying that the president-elect "doubled down" on his claims of this or that is no big deal. But to say that the president-elect foolishly or without regard maintained his claims, then the person saying it can be accused of saying subjective statements. So since double-down works, they use it. And they have worn me out with it.
The term itself comes from blackjack, and was used when a player would double the original bid against the house in exchange for only one more card. A risky move. The fact that a gambling term has come to be the common phrase utilized to describe the political behavior of our president elect should be telling. The fact that it has three usages, the gambling reference, the zealous reference, and the risky behavior reference are also telling. The fact that two of them keep working for commentators is also telling and annoying.
Because once a phrase like that catches on on one station, you can bet (no pun intended, I don't think) that within a news cycle, other stations are going to pick it up. And then it spreads like a virus. All over the place, people are talking about how this person or that person "doubled down" on their statement, their policy, or whatever else. It used to be a term that, when sparingly used, pointed to a move of dangerous overconfidence. Now, while still meaning that, it has become so over used that it doesn't mean what it did. Like the word awesome, which used to be reserved for some great event or even to describe God, it now only means surprisingly good - like an awesome hot dog. Awesome used to mean something that filled one with awe (which was to overwhelm and take one's breath away), it just doesn't have the punch it used to.
There are still some words and phrases out there that might be good, yet I know why we can't use them. To say double down should imply a subjective attitude about the actions of another, but it doesn't. Instead, it is a description of their actions. No harm there. So saying that the president-elect "doubled down" on his claims of this or that is no big deal. But to say that the president-elect foolishly or without regard maintained his claims, then the person saying it can be accused of saying subjective statements. So since double-down works, they use it. And they have worn me out with it.
Comments
Post a Comment