logo
The old slang term '86' probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it's in the news

The old slang term '86' probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it's in the news

NEW YORK (AP) — The slang term at the center of a political brouhaha swirling around former FBI Director James Comey is an old one, likely originating as food-service-industry jargon before extending to other contexts. Some of that spread has given rise to accusations from Republicans that it was meant as a threat to President Donald Trump.
In a since-deleted Instagram post, Comey wrote 'cool shell formation on my beach walk' to accompany a photo of shells displayed in the shapes of '86 47.'
He said in a follow-up post that he took it only as a political message since Trump is the 47th president, and to '86' something can be to get rid of it, like a rowdy patron at a bar or something that is no longer wanted.
But Trump and other Republicans took it more ominously. They say Comey, with whom Trump has had a contentious relationship, was advocating violence against the Republican president, given that the slang term has at times been used as a way to mean someone's killing.
It probably started in restaurants nearly a century ago
The slang origins of '86' go back to codes used in diners and restaurants as staff shorthand in the 1930s or so, said Jesse Sheidlower, adjunct assistant professor in Columbia University's writing program and formerly editor-at-large for the Oxford English Dictionary.
It meant that something on the menu was no longer available. Over time, he said, related uses developed.
'The original sense is, we are out of an item. But there are a bunch of obvious metaphorical extensions for this,' he said. '86 is something that's not there, something that shouldn't be there like an undesirable customer. Then it's a verb, meaning to throw someone out. These are fairly obvious and clear semantic development from the idea of being out of something.'
He said there have been uses of it as a euphemism for killing someone, as in certain fiction stories, but that usage is not nearly as widespread. More likely it means to jettison something that is no longer useful — a definition parodied in the popular 1960s TV show 'Get Smart,' whose lead character was known — wink, nudge — as Agent 86.
That type of meaning is reflected in the entry for '86' from Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by The Associated Press. That definition says the meaning is 'to throw out,' 'to get rid of' or 'to refuse service to.' While referencing that there have been uses of it to mean killing, the dictionary said, "We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.'
But Trump and his administration insist that was the intent of the usage in Comey's initial post Thursday.
'He knew exactly what that meant,' Trump said during a Fox News interview Friday. 'A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear.'
The usage has prompted a federal investigation
Comey said on social media: 'I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence."
The relationship between the president and Comey has been strained for years. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017, early in Trump's first term. In 2018, in a book, Comey said Trump was unethical and 'untethered to truth."
That a slang reference can cause this kind of agita is not surprising, especially not at a time like the one we are living in, said Nicole Holliday, acting associate professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
'I think that because we are in a hyperpartisan, polarized culture, everything is a Rorschach test,' she said. 'We're very sensitive about any indication that people are part of our in group or part of the out group.'
Language can be a fraught subject because language and the meaning of words can be fluid based on context or culture or other factors. 'We're always kind of navigating this issue of, 'Well, I said this word and it meant X. But you heard this word and you thought it meant Y,'' she said.
That navigation can be hard enough when it's person-to-person direct conversation. Taking it online the way much of our modern discourse is makes it even more so, she said.
'In real life, when you have a conversation with a human being, you are negotiating meaning. (But) when somebody posts ... There's no space. This is why people are always arguing themselves to death in the comments,' Holliday said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws
CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws

Politico

time31 minutes ago

  • Politico

CIA review of 2016 Russia election probe finds no major flaws

'The issues that are highlighted in this report are also extremely normal,' said Harding, now director of the Intelligence, National Security and Technology program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'It's a luxury when an analyst does not have a compressed time frame.' While such reviews are not uncommon, it is rare for them to be released to the public. 'The only reason why you would be putting this out into the public domain is for political reasons,' said a former CIA analyst who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the intelligence process. A review of the 2017 assessment was not conducted until today because 'it was too politically sensitive,' the CIA review read. After the review was released, Ratcliffe posted on X a characterization of the report that appeared to deviate from its findings. 'All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump,' he wrote in one post. In a second, he said that the 2016 assessment was produced in a process that was 'atypical & corrupt.' Investigations into the Kremlin's efforts to sway the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian officials dominated much of the president's first term in office. A special counsel's investigation led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign sought to collude with that effort. Trump and his allies have long raged against the investigations, dismissing them as politically motivated witch hunts. The president has regularly lashed out at the outspoken former CIA Director John Brennan, who led the agency as it probed Moscow's interference efforts, revoking his security clearance in 2018 in an apparent act of revenge. Brennan did not respond to a request for comment for this story. A major flashpoint for Trump and other critics of the report was the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the annex of the 2016 intelligence community assessment — an unsubstantiated and now largely debunked report that suggested Trump had extensive entanglements with the Russians. In an extensive review of the 2016 assessment, conducted as part of its wide-ranging Russia investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 found no 'significant analytic tradecraft issues' with U.S. spy agencies' work. The oversight panel, which was headed at the time by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC.), also dedicated 'additional attention' to the assessment that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump. The CIA and FBI had 'high confidence' Putin aspired to help Trump, while the NSA only had 'moderate' confidence in that conclusion. The public version of the assessment released in 2017 referenced all of those judgements. The Senate panel, for its part, concluded the agencies' disagreement was 'reasonable, transparent, and openly debated.' The fourth volume of their review, which spanned more than 150 pages alone, further stated that all witnesses interviewed by the committee saw 'no attempts or pressure to politicize the findings.'

Critics Snap At White House's Latest Wild Image Of Donald Trump
Critics Snap At White House's Latest Wild Image Of Donald Trump

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Critics Snap At White House's Latest Wild Image Of Donald Trump

The White House on Tuesday marked Donald Trump's visit to his administration's controversial new migrant detention center in Florida's Everglades — which has been dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' — with an at least partially AI-generated social media post that was swiftly condemned as 'shameful' by critics, but predictably cheered by the president's MAGA base. The picture (see it here) showed Trump standing alongside three alligators wearing caps labeled 'ICE,' referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that Trump has instructed to carry out the largest mass deportation program in history. 'Alligator Alcatraz: Make America Safe Again,' the image and post were captioned. It echoed an image shared by the Kristi Noem-run Department of Homeland Security this weekend, which showed four alligators with 'ICE' caps in front of a prison-esque fence. Trump and his allies have gone to great lengths to hype the new facility, which is surrounded by wetlands inhabited by pythons and alligators, and the potentially grisly consequences that may face migrants who try to flee. 'There is only one road leading in, and the only way out is a one-way flight. It is isolated and surrounded by dangerous wildlife and unforgiving terrain. The facility will have up to 5,000 beds to house, process and deport criminal illegal aliens,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt giddily said of the center. Trump himself, meanwhile, has said: 'Snakes are fast but alligators — we're going to teach them how to run away from an alligator. ... Don't run in a straight line, run like this,' he said while making a zigzag motion with his hands. 'You know what, your chances go up about 1%.' Trump Asks DeSantis The Weirdest Question About Marjorie Taylor Greene, In Front Of Her BF Wall Street Journal Warns Trump May Have Just Sabotaged His Own Presidency Conservative Pundit Spells Out Exactly Why Republicans Are 'So Glum' About Trump's Bill

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Draws On Bartending Experience To Slam Trump's Bill
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Draws On Bartending Experience To Slam Trump's Bill

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Draws On Bartending Experience To Slam Trump's Bill

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) delivered on Wednesday a fiery breakdown of how she believes President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill would actually hurt service workers, drawing on her past experience as a bartender and server. She argued that the way a popular campaign proposal, 'no tax on tips,' was written in the bill meant it would have a small impact for most tipped service industry workers — and potentially come at the expense of food assistance, health care and other essential government benefits. The congresswoman spoke for around two minutes on the House floor during a period of debate on the legislation. She began by responding to an insult from Trump. 'He says he doesn't think I'm too much of a smart person,' she said. 'It doesn't take a smart person to know if you're being lied to. President Trump, you're either being lied to, or you're lying to the American people because this bill represents — in the text of this bill — the largest and greatest loss of health care in American history.' Then she pivoted: 'On this point, on tax on tips, as one of the only people in this body who has lived off of tips, I want to tell you a little bit about the scam of that text, a little bit of the fine print there,' she said. Ocasio-Cortez worked at a Manhattan restaurant to help her family make ends meet before winning her seat in 2018. She continued: 'The cap on that is $25,000 while you're jacking up taxes on people who make less than $50,000 across the United States, while taking away their SNAP, while taking away their Medicaid, while kicking them off of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and their health care extensions. So if you're at home, and you're living off tips, you do the math. Is that worth it to you? Losing all your health care, not being able to feed your babies, not being able to put a diaper on their bottom, in exchange for what?' An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that the bill would likely leave some 16 million Americans uninsured. 'This bill is a deal with the devil,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 'It explodes our national debt. It militarizes our entire economy. And it strips away health care and the basic dignity of the American people for what? To give Elon Musk a tax break?' 'You should be ashamed,' Ocasio-Cortez told her Republican colleagues before walking away from the podium, inspiring a rebuke from House Speaker Pro Tempore Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) about avoiding personal attacks. An analysis by The New York Times based on an earlier version of the bill — which did not set a cap — found that the Republicans' 'no tax on tips' plan would benefit a narrower category of workers than the slogan implies. The $25,000 limit on the amount of tips that workers can claim in their deductions would shrink the benefits of the policy further. The broad idea remains popular though, both with elected officials and voters. With the Senate having very narrowly passed a different version of the 'big, beautiful bill' on Tuesday, the legislation is now back in the House for possible revisions and approval. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Draw Massive Crowd In Red State 'Disrespectful Men': AOC Goads Republicans During Heated Medicaid Exchange AOC Says She Won't Seek Top Spot On Oversight Committee

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store