Co-Founder of Kunik. Our business is your people. Kunik elevates employee experience and drives retention & performance.
We can all agree the language & words we use matters And I’d be willing to bet that the following words are being used more now on this platform & others Racist Trauma Genocide PTSD Nazi White Supremacist Violence Insurrection Fascist But my question is, are we expanding our understanding of these words or diluting their impact? Tim Urban highlights this critical phenomenon: concept creep. Words that once signified the most heinous actions are now stretched to cover a spectrum of behaviors, blurring lines and potentially diluting their impact. (His illustration attached highlights his thinking) Racism, fascism, trauma—these terms once reserved for the worst among us are now extended to lesser offenses and broader contexts. But here's the twist: while this expansion might draw attention to subtler nuances, it also risks diluting the historical weight of these terms. Racism no longer solely signifies personal prejudice but encompasses systemic structures (which is a totally fair concept). Fascism now extends beyond extreme ideologies to include a wider range of beliefs. Of course we want people to take these things seriously. But the result is tension - some of the most powerful words in the American English language are being extended and their taboo applied. And basically, people are saying “if you don't fix this system, or, if you're upholding the system or participating in it, you are racist or fascist”. I think the result is a cheapening of words. Tim Urban eloquently says “What it does is it cheapens the word. It takes that power, that gravity, and it, for a while, that gravity's still there, but it's being applied to lesser and lesser things, so throwing like a heavy ball, and it's knocking people over, and it's working, and it's really, you can use it as a weapon.” The danger lies in losing sight of the historical gravity these words once held. By broadening their definitions, are we overlooking the core atrocities they once represented? I think reflection is in order—are we improving our understanding or risking desensitization? I may be overly hopeful that we can engage in a dialogue that acknowledges the complexity of these shifts. How do we balance a more inclusive understanding without diminishing the historical weight these terms carry? It's time to delve deeper into concept creep's dimensions thoughtfully
Josh Horowitz - Great and timely Post! The #1 problem with use of terms today is that there are two fundamentally opposed understandings of life operating in our society right now. Words can mean opposite things, depending on which paradigm you choose. The first is a traditional/Wisdom paradigm which says there are facts, like objective Truth, Morality, and Justice. Human relationships are fundamentally grounded in love--whether it be philia, storge, or (the deepest) agape love. We seek Truth through logic and practices like freedom speech. "Racism" in this paradigm is understood to be MLK's approach--treating people unjustly based on their skin color/ethnicity. Postmodern thinking is the opposite: "There are no facts, just perspectives and Power." This has increasingly dominated academia since the early 1900's. It rejects objective Truth, Morality, and Justice. Without Truth, the only thing that matters is Power--so all relationships are power-relationships. It rejects logic (for narrative). "Racism" in this approach is the opposite. Racism is primarily based on whether you have power or not. If you are a member of a race/ethnicity with power, then you are racist because of your color/ethnicity, not by how you treat people.
THIS is a conversation we need to be having and I'm not seeing anywhere else. Agree with the above, and also think we risk really isolating people. How many are reading a post and thinking 'wait what?!' And then instead of engaging and talking - so we can learn from each other - we're creating barriers, bubbles and extremes. We need to be really careful with the language we use, but we also need to be really intentional about asking + opening our minds to what others are saying and why. Posting online can seem easy and almost disposable - post now, gets inundated and buried in 5 minutes. But the fleeting nature of fast scrolling newsfeeds doesn't dampen the impact of the words you're putting out there
Josh Horowitz can you post the link to Tim's original post? thanks
Founder, Speaker, Author of Fail to Learn
12 个月Great post, Josh. I can also see this relating to the polarizing effects of social media (and society in general), as we assume any descriptors we use will be most effective when slid to the farthest end of the scale. Alyssa Rosenberg had a great piece in WaPo called "The tyranny of 'awesome'" where she points out that "both enthusiasm and outrage are presently overused as modes of discourse. When we spend all of our time in these two states of reaction, the world gets kind of flattened out." Seems like her "flattening" is another way of exploring the expansion/dilution shown here.