Has anybody but me noticed a change in the common use of the word "attack"?  Since 9/11, the slightest public disagreement or criticism is an "attack."  The propaganda state wants us continually aware of "attacks" of all kinds from all directions.

We are living in the world George Orwell warned us about.  The language we might use to understand and discuss the regime that oppresses us is being taken away, one term at a time, by misuse in propaganda.  Consider the valuable words whose once fairly specific meanings have been practically destroyed.  Recycle.  Feminist.  Fascist.  Liberal.  Geek.  Marketing.  Censorship.  Organic.  You can think of a dozen more.

It's not the normal evolution of language.  In that evolution, words get more versatile, more useful, more natural.  Hopefully, a new part of speech ("sentence modifier") appeared in American English in the last century.  Thinkfully, you can spot it at the beginning of this sentence.  Dictionaries haven't caught up: they're still trying to bend "adverb" to fit.  The convolutions we used in elementary school to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition are a thing up with which we need no longer put.  You can even say "very unique" without showing yourself an ignoramus.  (Don't do it in a business letter or a resume, though.)  All of those changes represent constructive evolution.  Taking meaning away is destructive.

This is double plus ungood, folks.  We should resist.  A critique is not an "attack."  Disagreement is not an "attack."

Technorati Tags: