'Neutral' language isn't fit to describe horrific actions

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Jessica Rett / Los Angeles Times

Language is far less neutral than we usually think it is: Questions can be leading and words can be biased, and they are more likely to be biased the more controversial the topic.

In general, attempts to manufacture neutrality in language result in the opposite effect. If something horrific is happening, describing it with euphemisms becomes an endorsement of the horror itself.

In recent months, the second Trump administration has become notorious for sending masked plainclothes agents without warrants to apprehend U.S. residents outside the judicial system, and for sending them overseas and claiming to have no authority to bring them back when ordered by the Supreme Court to do so.

In cases like these, then, what’s a neutral observer to do? How can someone like a journalist or a judge aim to be apolitical rather than partisan when discussing these actions?

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-neutral-language-isnt-fit-to-describe-horrific-actions/

[Tetrachloride]

1. I notice the excerpt doesn't use any F bombs or ketchup.

[tonkatoy8888]

2. To extend this a little

Deport.

When the government removes a US citizen to a country outside of the US they are not being deported. They are being kidnapped, or trafficked, or exiled.

There is no such thing as deporting a US citizen, but yet, I see it in newspapers and online every day and the media, as the article posted says, is only normalizing unlawful behavior.