Buzz
Language can be perplexing. Take Alanis Morissette, for instance, or the billions who incorrectly use 'literally' daily. It's probable that everyone has, at some point, misapplied everyday terms.
However, some words are so ambiguous that it's impossible to determine if they're being used correctly. We often employ these terms without fully understanding their meanings—or whether they even have a universally agreed-upon definition.
10. Orwellian
Right now, somewhere, a journalist is crafting a political piece that includes the term 'Orwellian.' In a single day, you might encounter it describing vehicles that deactivate when payments are missed, Obama’s stance on net neutrality, or even U2’s newest release. The New York Times notes that this term is used more frequently than almost any other adjective derived from an author’s name combined. While many believe they understand its meaning, most are mistaken.
In its broadest sense, 'Orwellian' signifies 'authoritarian,' but pinning down a precise definition is challenging. It’s employed to critique big government, corporate power, conservative policies, or even mundane office environments. The term is used to both criticize and commend thinkers across the political spectrum, applying to ideas from all sides and describing political climates in vastly different nations. Adding to the confusion, it’s used as both a critique (comparing actions to those Orwell condemned) and a compliment (comparing individuals to Orwell personally).
A Guardian blog post highlighted that 'Orwellian' lacks consistency because everyone believes they have a claim to Orwell. Left-leaning individuals cite his opposition to private property to validate their usage. Right-leaning supporters emphasize his well-known skepticism of Communism. Essentially, 'Orwellian' means whatever the user intends, a linguistic twist that echoes the themes of Orwell’s own writings.
9. Nauseous
If you ask most people to use 'nauseous' in a sentence, you’ll likely hear something like: 'This word list is making me nauseous.' Almost everyone uses it interchangeably with 'sickened,' but technically, that’s incorrect.
The term 'nauseous' actually means 'capable of causing nausea in others.' While an article might be nauseous, it’s making you nauseated. Grammar enthusiasts love to highlight this distinction. It’s a word so frequently misused that 90 percent of people are likely using it incorrectly.
However, it’s not as straightforward as it seems. When 'nauseated' first appeared in the English dictionary in the 17th century, it meant what we now associate with 'nauseous.' Over time, the meaning of 'nauseous' itself shifted, evolving from 'inclined to sickness' in 1613 to 'disgusted or filled with loathing' by 1885.
This evolution highlights how language adapts to usage. Today, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines 'nauseous' in two ways: causing nausea or experiencing nausea. The American Heritage Dictionary notes that it’s gradually replacing 'nauseated.' Essentially, it’s a word in transition, with its meaning varying depending on the speaker (and their level of grammatical precision).
8. Genocide
Originally a legal and academic term, 'genocide' has entered everyday language, but its meaning varies widely. It can refer to anything from small-scale killings to national immigration policies. This isn’t just about public misuse; even experts and legal professionals struggle to agree on a precise definition.
The UN’s 1948 resolution defined genocide as 'the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.' This narrow definition limits recognized genocides to a few specific events, which conflicts with legal realities. For instance, in 2007, the ICTY classified the Srebrenica massacre (where 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed) as genocide. Yet, in 1998, a Rwandan mayor was convicted of genocide despite not directly killing anyone; his crime was ordering mass rapes, an act not explicitly covered by the UN’s definition.
This evolving interpretation creates legal challenges. For example, Bolivia is currently seeking to extradite its former president from the US on genocide charges. However, the White House rejects Bolivia’s definition, refusing to comply. In academic circles, debates over the term often escalate into accusations of genocide denial.
In an interview with the BBC, Michael Ignatieff, who heads the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, argued that the term 'genocide' has been so overused that it should be retired from common usage. He stated, 'Those who truly understand the gravity of genocide rarely utter the word, while those who misuse it dilute its significance, turning it into a blanket term for any form of suffering.'
7. Low-Fat Options
Step into any local convenience store, and you’ll be greeted by shelves packed with products labeled as light or low-fat. Consumers often gravitate toward these items, believing that 'low-fat' is as straightforward as it appears.
Many people equate 'low-fat' with 'healthy,' but this isn’t always the case. According to UK government standards, 'low-fat' foods must contain 30 percent less fat than their regular counterparts. However, if the original product is extremely high in fat, even the reduced version can still be far from heart-healthy.
The term 'light' (or 'lite') is even more misleading. While it legally signifies the same as 'low-fat,' many consumers mistakenly believe it also implies lower sugar and calorie content. A 2012 study by a UK consumer group revealed that 'lite' products frequently contain higher sugar levels than their regular versions.
Adding to the confusion, the meanings of these terms vary significantly across countries. In the US, 'light' is defined under much stricter guidelines compared to the UK, whereas Australia adopts a more lenient approach. Without a universal standard, these terms become practically meaningless.
6. Hipster
This is arguably the most despised term in the English language. It carries more conflicting definitions than all the other words on this list combined.
The term 'hipster' is so divisive that its meaning shifts even among those typically labeled as hipsters. As highlighted by the New York Times, art school dropouts use it to describe trust fund kids, who in turn use it for lower middle-class couch surfers, who then apply it back to art school dropouts—all within a tiny two-block area.
Merriam-Webster simply defines it as a 'person who follows the latest trends,' which hardly reflects its popular usage. Not long ago, Vice Magazine compiled a list of everyone the term targets, ranging from vegans and coffee-loving young liberals to flannel-wearing bearded men, vinyl enthusiasts, Instagrammers, white hip-hop fans, and aspiring screenwriters. With its meaning now so ambiguous, the New York Times has prohibited its writers from using the word.
The only consensus on 'hipster' is that it carries a decidedly negative connotation and is primarily used for individuals under 35. Beyond that, it means whatever the speaker intends it to mean.
5. Common Sense
When debating politics, economics, or religion, you’re bound to encounter the phrase 'it’s just common sense!' This implies the idea is so obvious that only a fool wouldn’t understand it. However, most ideas labeled as 'common sense' fail to meet this simplistic criterion.
As highlighted by Psychology Today, so-called 'common sense' judgments often lead to the worst possible outcomes. For instance, after the 9/11 attacks, it seemed like common sense to avoid flying and opt for road travel instead. This collective decision tragically resulted in an extra 1,000 American deaths from traffic accidents that winter.
Rooted in instinct, common sense is constrained by personal experience. This explains why two people on opposite sides of the immigration debate can use the term to justify entirely opposing views. Similarly, Obama might label his policies as common sense, while Fox News uses the same term to criticize them.
Fundamentally, most of us use 'common sense' to mean 'something I believe is undeniably true based on my experience,' assuming everyone else agrees. Since they don’t, the term becomes so ambiguous that it loses all meaning.
4. Kafkaesque
Derived from the works of Czech writer Franz Kafka, this term is often used to depict anything from frustrating customer service and convoluted immigration policies to unpleasant hotel stays. While most people associate it with bureaucracy, its precise meaning remains elusive.
Dictionaries offer varying definitions, ranging from 'marked by a senseless, disorienting, and often threatening complexity' to 'evoking the oppressive or nightmarish atmosphere of Kafka’s fictional universe.' As the Guardian points out in a blog, these definitions, while related, are significantly distinct.
In a New York Times interview, Kafka biographer Frederick Karl described 'Kafkaesque' as entering a surreal reality where your usual control mechanisms, plans, and behavioral frameworks collapse in the face of an incomprehensible force. Meanwhile, The Atlantic characterized it as 'a striking use of language, a setting blending fantasy and reality, and a sense of striving amid despair—hopeless yet hopeful.'
While these definitions share a common thread of nightmarish bureaucracy, they diverge too much to be interchangeable. Moreover, they rarely align with how most people use the term. In essence, 'Kafkaesque' remains as enigmatic as the worlds Kafka created in his novels.
3. Natural
The term 'natural' refers to something existing in or derived from nature, free from human intervention. However, upon closer examination, the concept is riddled with contradictions.
As synthetic biologist Terry Johnson explains, the primary challenge lies in distinguishing human-made objects from natural ones. If we acknowledge that humans are products of evolution and natural selection, there’s no real distinction between our constructions and those made by bees, termites, or beavers. Just as a beehive isn’t considered 'unnatural,' neither should a log cabin be.
The term becomes even more problematic when applied to food. Due to lenient labeling regulations, 'natural' on packaging signifies absolutely nothing. FDA guidelines allow apples grown indoors, treated with lab-made hormones, to be marketed as '100-percent natural.' Additionally, the definition varies wildly between countries, meaning 'natural' food in Canada differs from that in Australia, the UK, or South Africa.
Almost every consumer has a unique set of traits they link to the word 'natural,' yet none of these have ever been officially used to define it. So, the next time you enjoy a 'natural' yogurt, remember that 'natural' might simply mean 'made with additional additives.'
2. Socialism
Much like 'fascism,' the term 'socialism' has been twisted to the point of losing all meaning. As highlighted by the Oxford Words blog, it’s often used as a derogatory label. However, the ideas or individuals it targets are frequently so divergent that they’re entirely incompatible.
Many describe Obamacare, with its compulsory insurance payments, as socialism. Yet, the same term is applied to open border immigration policies. Open borders are advocated by the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that strongly opposes government-controlled economies.
The term 'socialist' carries a complex history, having been adopted by a myriad of political entities and ideologies, from Hitler's authoritarian regime to Trotsky's ideal of a stateless society. Its meaning shifts dramatically depending on the historical context and movement in question, sometimes aligning more closely with groups like the Tea Party than with contemporary governance. This ambiguity renders 'socialism' a vague and largely ineffective term in discussions of today's political landscape.
1. The Concept of Fascism
George Orwell observed in 1946 that 'Fascism' had become a term devoid of specific meaning, often used merely to denote 'something undesirable.' Decades later, its definition remains just as murky.
Originally tied to a distinct governmental framework, 'fascism' has been distorted in everyday language to the point where it can be applied to virtually anything. Scholars and commentators from across the political spectrum have authored works labeling their adversaries' economic systems as fundamentally fascist. A quick online search reveals its application to a wide array of subjects, from healthcare professionals to media outlets, and even to the opposing sides of international disputes.
A former leader of Doctors Without Borders has pointed out that fascism suffers from 'verbal inflation.' Its association with figures like Hitler and Mussolini led to its widespread misuse as a derogatory label for any disliked individual or ideology. In modern times, it is loosely equated with 'authoritarian' but is often reduced to a hyperbolic insult directed at the current president. Beyond this, the term lacks clarity, with even lifelong scholars unable to establish a definitive meaning.
