It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is an observation I've been making and a bit of a rant.
Words change meaning over time, they don't have a fixed definition, and that is fine and good with me. Definitions of words often have a certain moral weight behind them, pedophile, murder, generosity. When we think of words like these they have an emotional force behind them.
What I've been noticing though is that often people use words with slightly different meanings as if they have the same moral weight. I expect if I went back and looked this wouldn't be a new phenomena and occurs all across the political spectrum. A word that I've noticed fall into this category is violence. Violence has implied intention in it's definition. I've noticed violence used as synonymous with harm lately, today I heard someone refer to the harm caused by Flint, Michigan's lead in the water supply as a kind of violence.
Words change meaning, what bothers me about the way this word, and I'm sure others, are being used is that the meaning has subtly shifted to take intention out of them while simultaneously being wielded as if they held the same moral weight.
As a Buddhist, I've come to believe that intention is of primary importance in determining the morality of a thought or action. But in this word, as well as in other places, the import of intention in actions seems to be disappearing.
I don't think its just an issue because of misapplied morality, but it also weakens the impact of the words themselves. If speech is now violence, then it becomes justified to use actual violence against someone who's words hurt you since punching someone and verbal abuse are equivalent.