The purpose of this article is to arm you with the tools to recognize manipulative language. Usually, language is used to communicate ideas, however some misuse it to confuse and misinform the reader into accepting their viewpoint. This is common when the writer is trying to evade the truth or when they are forced to write disingenuously; usually to toe the “party line”. There are patterns in this type of writing: euphemisms, blown-up flowery language and meaningless words. We will discuss how to recognize and deconstruct them, defanging their manipulative writing.

Any genuine writer would want as many people as possible to understand their writing, and would, therefore, write in the simplest terms possible. However, when their positions are so absurd that sensible arguments cannot be found, these writers try to convince with pretentious diction and buzzwords, e.g. utilize, ascertain, synergy etc. For example, A Spork (spoon-fork) supporter may say “It is foreseeable that the Spork will emerge as a disruptive hybrid solution, streamlining utensil utility by consolidating spoon and fork functionalities into a single, value-driven implement.” When all they really mean is “Sporks will replace spoons and forks as they are cheaper and more convenient.” They hope their vocabulary will fool the reader into accepting their conclusions, not logically, but on the basis of the writer’s sham intellect. Real intellect lies in explaining complex ideas simply, not simple ideas complexly.

The most devious tool in their arsenal is euphemism. It not only allows them to fool us, but eventually for us to fool ourselves. They are used to justify horrendous actions, which cannot be defended when plainly written. My favourite dictator did not murder protesting civilians, he simply “Took decisive measures to restore order in response to civil unrest.” An ardent supporter of the Iranian government, instead of saying, “Governments can ignore human and women’s rights if it is religiously or culturally accepted.”, may say “The Iranian government’s curtailment of freedoms is merely an alignment with the de facto religio-cultural state of the country.” When we see such language, we must deconstruct it into simple, concrete words.

Here’s a demonstration from the paper. A politician speaking about Sanjay Gandhi said, “People thought his family planning scheme was heavy-handed. But it was necessary for the country because of the bursting population.”, Translated: “Forced sterilization is a legitimate means of population control.”

Such people use words like fascism, democracy or terrorist as objective sounding synonyms for “good” or “bad”. In 1986, Margaret Thatcher called Nelson Mandela a terrorist, even Bhagat Singh was convicted as a terrorist by the British. This is not to say that such words should be expelled from the dictionary, that would prevent real attempts to avoid fascism, condemn terrorists etc. Rather we should understand the meaning of the word and see if the usage is appropriate. If someone says “The Modi government has fascistic tendencies.”, question whether fascism (centralized power and dictatorship) is genuinely applicable in that case.

While protections and countermeasures were described, they will be soon forgotten unless practiced. Try finding some bad-faith argumentation and applying them. Eventually, you will see manipulation everywhere: presentations, speeches, blogs, and maybe some of my articles too!

A note: This essay is heavily inspired by the book Doublespeak by W.D. Lutz. and George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language.

A more personal note: While writing this essay, I had difficulty coming up with the conclusion. I tried to use AI for it, ironically the conclusion it generated violated the principles in the essay itself.