In a stunning display of intellectual prowess, Ivy League presidents Liz Magill, Sally Kornbluth, and Claudine Gay have come forward to enlighten lawmakers on a pressing matter: the nuanced distinction between regular genocide and the far more sophisticated concept of *democratic genocide.

The academic trio, representing the University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Harvard, respectively, held a joint press conference to clarify what they believe to be a common misunderstanding among the plebeians in the political arena.

Magill, with an air of academic superiority, declared, “It has come to our attention that some individuals are throwing around the term ‘genocide’ without truly grasping its intellectual depth. Allow us, the educated elite, to introduce you to the concept of *democratic genocide – a refined, Ivy League-approved version.”

Kornbluth, nodding sagely, chimed in, “Regular genocide is so last century. *Democratic genocide is the cutting-edge term for the discerning intellectual. It involves the delicate art of dismantling inconvenient demographics through democratic means. It’s like genocide, but with a voting booth twist!”

Harvard’s Claudine Gay, raising an eyebrow as if explaining rocket science to toddlers, elucidated, “We’re talking about a sophisticated process where the victims themselves unknowingly contribute to their own demise. It’s the epitome of democratic elegance, truly.”

The presidents went on to provide an exhaustive PowerPoint presentation, complete with intricate graphs and pie charts, to illustrate the subtleties of *democratic genocide. They argued that this refined form of mass elimination is not only socially acceptable but also quite fashionable among the intellectual elite.

Lawmakers, caught off guard by the unexpected lesson in lexical sophistication, were left to ponder the implications of *democratic genocide on their next political maneuverings.

Critics, however, were quick to point out that this academic maneuver might be a thinly veiled attempt to mask serious issues with highfalutin language. One commentator noted, “It’s like putting a bow tie on a wrecking ball and calling it art. But hey, who are we to question the linguistic acrobatics of the Ivy League?”

As the press conference concluded, the Ivy League presidents left the room, heads held high, leaving behind a bewildered audience grappling with the weighty responsibility of adopting *democratic genocide into their everyday political vocabulary. After all, nothing says enlightenment quite like an Ivy League-approved terminology update.

About Author