Semantic drift
There’s an interesting phenomenon emerging in today’s fast-paced and buzzword-saturated political discourse. In short:
- A word comes into use, describing a phenomenon.
- The word gets weaponized to demonize a political or social stance.
- Semantic drift leads to subsequent generations holding a different understanding of the word.
Eventually, the label becomes the starting point, or identity, and definitions are backfilled with beliefs to match the label. In marketing, this is called “cognitive branding”.
Socialism and fascism
Two examples come to mind, each heavily employed by the two dominant US political parties:
Socialism:
- Started out as an idea encompassing public ownership of the means of production
- Utilized throughout the Cold War by the right to associate any form of government assistance with godlessness, bread lines, and gulags
- Favored by newer generations as a term encompassing any government-funded social program
Fascism:
- Originated in 1920s-1940s Italy and Germany to describe ultra-nationalist, authoritarian, and anti-modernist, with a coherent (if horrifying) ideological framework
- Used throughout the 20th century as a synonym for “excessive force”, “censorship”, or “corporatization”
- Used by newer generations as a catch-all for government overreach and corporate influence
Breaking from the trap
Just as these cognitive shortcuts can be used to quickly stifle your ideas, they can undercut your own when you use them.
When someone you are arguing with uses a buzzword, pause. Don’t defend the label; reframe the logic. When you defend the label, you are implicitly defending the negative associations they’ve been conditioned to abhor. Find the words you’re really looking for:
“Wait, this isn’t socialism; public investment to ensure people meet their basic needs has its place in capitalism too. What’s your stance on that?”
When you catch yourself using a buzzword, pause. Something isn’t just bad because it’s “fascist” and “fascism is bad”. What makes it bad? Explain that instead:
“Wait, I called that fascism; the way it’s like fascism is it gives the government too much power. How can I explain the pitfalls of ceding our rights like that?”
Examples
Here are some common examples to weigh carefully in conversation:
- Woke
- Neoliberal
- Populist
- Anarchist
- Dog-whistle
- Racist
- Dictator
- Globalist
It’s not that these words are inherently invalid, it’s that they’re steeped in cognitive shortcuts meant to avoid discussion. They don’t register the same way in everyone’s minds by design.
Cutting through the noise
Most everyday folks tend to hold mild political opinions wrapped in extreme, divisive team-sport rhetoric. When you recognize and sidestep the trap, you can avoid canned responses, lead the other person to critically examine their own reasoning, and have a better opportunity to advocate your position on its merits, not its associations.
Leave a comment
[Guest] adam on August 12, 2025
You make some really good points about how words change over time and get weaponized, but you’re missing a big one: “racist.” It’s not just a buzzword; it’s a serious accusation that has a real impact on people’s lives. You can’t just throw it in with “neoliberal” or “populist.” Words matter, and when a word describes a systemic problem that affects people’s lives, it’s not a “trap” to be avoided, it’s a reality that needs to be addressed.
📝 massandra (author) on August 12, 2025
It’s true, but, I’m not saying that all these words have no true definition, or even that they aren’t accurate sometimes. However, many of the folks you’re disagreeing with have been programmed to think “racist” means “bad for being white”. If you want to get through to them, you have to appeal to something else. You’ll have more success breaking away from charged words—even if appropriate—and arguing “why”, not “what”. People on the right appreciate an argument that touches upon individualism and which focuses on opportunity rather than outcomes; lean on those to say something they won’t immediately dismiss.