W@nkword Bingo

[BLOODSTAINED_DEVILS]

Synergistic integration within the offering"

We have a winner. /thread.

Furken classic.

[Socks_and_Sandals]

Moving forward - business hugs.

[Westing_Wuckman]

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-■■■■■-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

Somewhat off topic as language from academia, not business.But funny as all hell.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the ■■■■■, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Consider some examples. Here’s a paragraph from the conclusion, which was held in high regard by both reviewers:

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual ■■■■■ presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises.

…

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual ■■■■■. The ■■■■■, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993).

[simmo41]

I have been at a conference the past 2 days and I would like to nominate a clubhouse leader.
One of the presenters used the term “fastidious prognostication”.
I can’t even begin to understand how someone would think that is ok.

I speak fluent middle-management, but I had to google that one. Wowee.

[Heffsgirl]

I had back to back to back to back meetings from 10-5 today.

My highlight: “Synergistic integration within the offering”

Die.

What’s the English translation?

[dingus]

Do stuff with other workers that makes what we sell better.

[Shelton10]

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-■■■■■-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

Somewhat off topic as language from academia, not business.But funny as all hell.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the ■■■■■, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

Consider some examples. Here’s a paragraph from the conclusion, which was held in high regard by both reviewers:

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual ■■■■■ presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises.

…

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual ■■■■■. The ■■■■■, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993).

That one gets a round of applause. Top effort.

[bugman5]

Couple things I just dug out of a PowerPoint

Turning customers into advocates.
Controlling the inner loop
Showing leadership on the outer loop
Dashboard
Operating rhythm
Visual management board
Fist to five feedback

[frankston_bomber2005]

Fark I hate when people say “just FLICK me an email”

[Warpy_Torpy]

Made my day.

[Heffsgirl]

Couple things I just dug out of a PowerPoint

Turning customers into advocates.
Controlling the inner loop
Showing leadership on the outer loop
Dashboard
Operating rhythm
Visual management board
Fist to five feedback

That is vomit inducing.

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

Fist to five feedback

That sounds like they’re asking to be punched and I think it’s only right to help them out.

[JobeWanKenobi]

Who has capacity?

[dingus]

Who has capacity?

This.

■■■■ off.

[dingus]

This from my company’s latest response to a horrendous employee engagement survey run last year:

“We have now completed a comprehensive review and analysis of our current reward and recognition offerings. This has been based on a review of multiple drivers of employee performance and engagement, including both monetary and non-monetary methods of rewarding, recognising and incentivising our employees’ contributions, performance and behaviours that constitute ‘Being XXXXXXX’. To ensure consistency, fairness and an organisational commitment to leading the implementation of best practice principles, we have adopted a holistic whole of business approach to both reviewing current reward and recognition offerings and the recommendation of future initiatives. A revised Reward and Recognition Framework, to be applied consistently wherever possible across XXXXXXX Australasia, has now been formulated and recommended for consideration by the Executive Committee. Following approval, further communications will be forthcoming as we implement both revised and new initiatives in an area that we consider critical to nurturing an engaged and effective workforce”.

I wish them ill.

[BLOODSTAINED_DEVILS]

How to use 400 words when 100 would do, to make you seem smarter 101.

[dingus]

How to use 400 words when 100 would do, to make you seem smarter 101.

yep.

And take 8 months to do it. It’s up on posters and everything.

[Riolio]

That can’t be real. Looks like buzzword lorem ipsum.

[dingus]

That can’t be real. Looks like buzzword lorem ipsum.

I’m obviously hesitant to name my employer, but let’s say this: We’re a defence / engineering/ asset management company. We have 7 blue collars in our workshop who handle equipment with one-off prices of up to about $3 million.

We have 4 people in marketing and 6 in HR.

[Riolio]

Amazing.

So happy to be self employed at times.