The 39 Worst Words, Phrases, and Parts of Speech of 2013

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-160496180/stock-photo-beautiful-sad-little-girl-crying-on-summer-background.html?src=Wu8CH5L0rScq3taznpmnrw-1-43">BestPhotoStudio</a>/Shutterstock

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Many words were spoken in 2013. Not all of them were created equal. Here is a brief, but by no means complete, guide to the words and phrases (and symbols, and parts of speech) we’d like to retire in 2014.

Please print this out and post it to your refrigerator or cubicle wall for convenient access.

  • “#.” R.I.P., early Twitter feature. We’ll bury you next to your friend, the FourSquare check-in.
  • adverbs. Ban all adverbs. They’re mostly just gulp words, really.
  • “all the things.”
  • “because [noun]”: (e.g. “because science.”)
  • brogurt.” No.
  • classy.
  • “controversial tweet.” There’s just no way to make this sound dignified, and besides, it leads to think pieces.
  • “cronut.”
  • “crowdsourced.”
  • “derp.” It’s been an emotional ride, but it’s time to send this one off on the ice floe.
  • “disrupt.” Luxury car apps aren’t disruptive.
  • “Donald Trump is considering a run for…” No, he’s not. He just isn’t. And if you’d like to get him unearned publicity, you should at least get some stock options out of it.
  • “doubled down.” Unless the candidate did it while biting into a delicious sandwich, let’s just say the candidate “reaffirmed his/her position” on transportation funding or burrito drones or whatever we’ll be discussing in 2014.
  • “…favorited a tweet you were mentioned in.” No one has ever wanted to know this.
  • “gaffe.” It’s going to be a long-enough election year as it is.
  • “game-changer.” What you’re describing probably won’t change the game. But if it does, would you want to spoil the moment with a cliche?
  • “Guy Fieri.” What if we all decided to just never mention him again? Would he disappear?
  • “hashtag.” This refers to the spoken utterance of the word “hashtag,” often accompanied by air-quotes. People can see you doing this.
  • “hipster. Wearing glasses is not something people do because they’re hipsters; it’s something people do because they’re nearsighted. People don’t drink hot chocolate because it’s a hipster thing to do; they drink hot chocolate because it’s literally liquid chocolate. Yes, I wrote “literally.” That’s what happens when you use a word so casually and carelessly in think pieces as to render it meaningless.
  • “I can’t even.” You can. Dig deep. Find your Kentucky.
  • “impact.” (When used as a verb.)
  • “…in .gifs.”
  • “…in one chart.” We’re aiming high in 2014. Two chart minimum!
  • “listicle.” This is the last one.
  • “literally the worst.” Actually, while we’re at it, let’s ban “literally.” Literally is the “not the Onion” of fake things.
  • “millennial.” Young people are living with their parents because their parents’ generation destroyed the global economy. Next.
  • “nondescript office park.” As opposed to the Frank Gehry ones.
  • “not the Onion.
  • “Rethuglicans, Repugs,” “Republikkkans,” “Demoncrats,” “Dumbocrats,” and every other variation thereof. Please just use the normal proper nouns; you can add whatever modifier you like before or after.
  • “selfie.” But what do they tell us about our society, in the digital now? Let’s ask James Franco.
  • “Snowfall.” (In the future, a high-cost digital production that doesn’t live up to the hype shall be known as a “Skyfall.”)
  • “the Internets.” This was a George W. Bush joke or something, right? You can still use the Internet—just drop the “s.”
  • “This Town.”
  • “thought leader.” Mostly beaten out of existence, but don’t think we didn’t notice that Paul Allen interview, Wired. You’re on notice.
  • #YOLO. Seriously.

I am guilty of most of these sins. Let us never speak of this again.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest