The Problem of Language: De-Weaponizing Words

If we are to create a history independent of ethics, we must also create a Language Independent of Politics.

The Trap of “Common Parlance”

Words are not neutral containers of meaning; they are weapons. We cannot simply use “common parlance” because common language carries the bias of the dominant culture.

Case Study: “Terrorism” In the current geopolitical climate, the word “terrorism” is heavily loaded. It is often racially coded to refer specifically to non-white, and particularly Arab, populations.

When a state drops a bomb on a civilian marketplace, it is often called a “strategic strike” or “collateral damage.”
When a non-state actor detonates a bomb in a marketplace, it is called “terrorism.”

The action (violence against civilians) is identical. The word changes based on who holds the power.

Legitimizing Words

In this website, we must be ruthlessly precise about why we legitimize certain words. We cannot use a word like “terrorism” without first rigorously defining it in a way that applies equally to all actors, regardless of their race, religion, or flag.

The Need for a “Strict Lexicon”

We propose a Strict Lexicon for this wiki.

Operational Definitions: We must define words by their physical mechanics, not their moral intent.
- Instead of “Terrorism” (which implies a judgment of legitimacy), we might look for terms like “Asymmetric Violence Against Civilians.”
Universal Application: If a definition applies to a rebel group, it must also apply to a superpower. If it does not, the word is discarded as a tool of propaganda.

We will not shy away from describing violence, but we will refuse to use the vocabulary of the propagandist.