top | item 45893856

(no title)

felixgallo | 3 months ago

nope: https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/17/department-of-wa...

discuss

order

gjsman-1000|3 months ago

Nobody uses statutory titles for anything to be honest; when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare”? When’s the last time you referred to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program instead of “Social Security”? I’ve never heard anyone say Title XIX of the Social Security Act instead of “Medicaid,” or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act instead of “Medicare,” or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act instead of “Welfare.”

Terr_|3 months ago

> when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare”

I refer to it as "the ACA", which is short and avoids an unofficial moniker first introduced as an insult.

It's not just a personal preference, it's civically important: There are still morons out there who have spent the last 15 years simultaneously gushing about how the ACA is awesome while demonizing "Obamacare."

Hizonner|3 months ago

There's a difference between an informal name that catches on organically and isn't politically charged, and an highly visible, ostentatiously political renaming specifically intended to make a point.

soulofmischief|3 months ago

I say ACA, Obamacare is politically charged. And the cases you've mentioned all shorten a long name into a colloquial name. This is not the case for Department of War/Defense.

That said, let's call it what it is... it's a war machine. Just as we should refer to Israeli Occupation Forces and not "Defense" forces, since genocidal occupation is just about the furthest thing from defense.