The word ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is another example of such a word. It was invented in the late 19th century. It distorts one's thinking by removing one's attention from the sinful act of sodomy which must be condemned, and putting it on the sinful human being who must be forgiven; thus, people feel guilty for "hating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs", when there is nothing wrong with hating sodomy.
Any word that is consistently used in a political context or in the media generally should be examined. If it was invented in the past 200 years it is especially suspect, because the last 200 years have been the history of revolutionary pseudo-intellectuals invading the academy and gaining ascendancy in public life.
The word "genocide" was invented in the 1940s in order to make the h0Ɩ0cαųst seem as horrific as possible; yet now people look back on the Old Testament and refer to the multiple examples of "genocide" therein, when genocide is a word that is thousands of years younger than the events of the Old Testament. Most likely in ancient times when one group of people or tribe destroyed another (and it wasn't just the Israelites who did this), what they were thinking was, "our
gods are going to destroy your
gods", and not, "our
genes are going to destroy your
genes". Gods were what were culturally important in ancient times; it's only in recent times with the rise of Nation State, Nationalism and Darwin's gene-centred cosmos that "genes" became ultimate in importance.
One of the best essays of the 20th century is George Orwell's
Politics and the English Language which deals with this corruption in modern language.
Here are a few notable excerpts:
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump.
Source for this essay:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm