Exactly when did we begin mixing up being afraid of something with simply disliking it? The suffix “-phobic” initially meant “afraid of,” as in “claustrophobic” — being afraid of confined spaces.

But, if I don’t like brussel sprouts, am I “sproutaphobic”? I’m not afraid of brussel sprouts, I just don’t like them.

Now, I do agree that I am “shroomaphobic” — I both don’t like and am afraid of mushrooms; possibly because I try to stay away from eating anything that’s even vaguely related to something that can kill me. In this regard, I’m also “sushiphobic” — for the same reason.

Some things just make sense to be afraid of, for example:xena2

 original image thanks to https://maymonde.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/xena.jpg

Although it may seem petty, I see this modification of the language to be another example of social pressure being applied in a disingenuous way: We’re not allowed anymore to just dislike something; if that’s what we think, it’s just because we’re afraid of it — And most people don’t want to be seen as afraid of something.

If I dislike Little Debbie cakes, does this make me someone who isn’t willing to open myself up to the “Little Debbie experience”? Or does it mean I have a discriminating palate?

Oh, no! I used the word discriminating in an positive manner — I’m inherently a bad person now. It seems that everyone is allowed to re-define words at will except me.

For example, I recently described to someone where I used to live as one of the “estuaries off of [a major road]”.  This is a perfectly good, descriptive, use of the word; this is what an estuary looks like:


Source: http://s3.thingpic.com/images/Ny/c6NSmijUEmH5X86wsGeDEqji.jpeg

But someone has to assume a tone like William F. Buckly, Jr. and “explain” to me that, actually, an estuary is “a partially enclosed coastal body of brackish water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it, and with a free connection to the open sea” and I don’t live anywhere near an ocean.

So why can’t I re-use this perfectly descriptive term, while others can redefine terms at will? One of the worst cases is the misuse of begs the question — how a bunch of under-educated self-declared pundits get to redefine a logical fallacy into something with a totally different meaning is beyond me. It begs the question: “Why are these people so ignorant?”

And when did “eventually” become “at the end of the day”? It doesn’t even save you any syllables. If you like to get drunk early on Sunday mornings, watch Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, Face the Nation, etc. and take a shot every time someone says “at the end of the day.” It’s the only way to really enjoy those shows anyway.


At the end of the day, we must monetize our assets…”