Overview
A word can deliver a verdict before the facts are examined. A policy called “progressive” arrives with an implied promise of improvement. An opponent labeled “fascist” can be condemned before an argument is heard. Familiar language can make people accept a judgment without seeing the case behind it. **Hijacking Terminology** examines 30 words and concepts whose meanings have changed or whose rhetorical use can conceal actions, confer approval, and discredit opponents. Three constructed comparisons place persuasive language beside explicit descriptions, revealing the costs, restrictions, responsible actors, and unanswered questions beneath the wording. This is also a personal protest. I consider myself a liberal, yet feel increasingly uneasy about platforms presented under that name. I am disgusted by deliberate manipulation that turns disagreement into moral guilt and helps tear apart the trust holding society together. The essay distinguishes ordinary language change from dishonest use and demands evidence for accusations, including its own. It argues that hijacking language can inflict lasting social damage precisely because the public may applaud it. Before accepting the label, we should know what it means, what is being done in its name, and what the evidence supports.