The deliberate use of misleading terminology [duplicate]





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}








19


















This question already has an answer here:




  • What is the word for “something that is true, but misleading”?

    2 answers




Is there a word or phrase which describes "choice of misleading words", or the negation: "choice of non-misleading words"? The nearest phrases I can think of are linguistic deception, or controlled language, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four.



For example, Richard Stallman actively opposes such misuse of language:




I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages).




Another example is "credit" in banking, which just makes "debt" sound like a good thing.



EDIT: The term may either refer to an individual's malicious use of misleading terminology, or to widely-accepted use of misleading terminology. The answers reflect this, but my question does not.










share|improve this question


















marked as duplicate by jimm101, Jason Bassford, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth single-word-requests
Users with the  single-word-requests badge can single-handedly close single-word-requests questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 30 at 13:47


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.




















  • See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:43











  • The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

    – Edwin Ashworth
    May 30 at 13:49






  • 1





    People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

    – Acccumulation
    Jun 6 at 14:39


















19


















This question already has an answer here:




  • What is the word for “something that is true, but misleading”?

    2 answers




Is there a word or phrase which describes "choice of misleading words", or the negation: "choice of non-misleading words"? The nearest phrases I can think of are linguistic deception, or controlled language, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four.



For example, Richard Stallman actively opposes such misuse of language:




I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages).




Another example is "credit" in banking, which just makes "debt" sound like a good thing.



EDIT: The term may either refer to an individual's malicious use of misleading terminology, or to widely-accepted use of misleading terminology. The answers reflect this, but my question does not.










share|improve this question


















marked as duplicate by jimm101, Jason Bassford, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth single-word-requests
Users with the  single-word-requests badge can single-handedly close single-word-requests questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 30 at 13:47


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.




















  • See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:43











  • The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

    – Edwin Ashworth
    May 30 at 13:49






  • 1





    People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

    – Acccumulation
    Jun 6 at 14:39














19












19








19


3







This question already has an answer here:




  • What is the word for “something that is true, but misleading”?

    2 answers




Is there a word or phrase which describes "choice of misleading words", or the negation: "choice of non-misleading words"? The nearest phrases I can think of are linguistic deception, or controlled language, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four.



For example, Richard Stallman actively opposes such misuse of language:




I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages).




Another example is "credit" in banking, which just makes "debt" sound like a good thing.



EDIT: The term may either refer to an individual's malicious use of misleading terminology, or to widely-accepted use of misleading terminology. The answers reflect this, but my question does not.










share|improve this question

















This question already has an answer here:




  • What is the word for “something that is true, but misleading”?

    2 answers




Is there a word or phrase which describes "choice of misleading words", or the negation: "choice of non-misleading words"? The nearest phrases I can think of are linguistic deception, or controlled language, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four.



For example, Richard Stallman actively opposes such misuse of language:




I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them creators, they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them content) in order to gain income (the term compensation falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages).




Another example is "credit" in banking, which just makes "debt" sound like a good thing.



EDIT: The term may either refer to an individual's malicious use of misleading terminology, or to widely-accepted use of misleading terminology. The answers reflect this, but my question does not.





This question already has an answer here:




  • What is the word for “something that is true, but misleading”?

    2 answers








single-word-requests phrases idioms terminology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question








edited Jul 24 at 11:39









Turkeyphant

3821 silver badge6 bronze badges




3821 silver badge6 bronze badges










asked May 28 at 10:32









MrMartinMrMartin

981 silver badge7 bronze badges




981 silver badge7 bronze badges





marked as duplicate by jimm101, Jason Bassford, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth single-word-requests
Users with the  single-word-requests badge can single-handedly close single-word-requests questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 30 at 13:47


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











marked as duplicate by jimm101, Jason Bassford, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth single-word-requests
Users with the  single-word-requests badge can single-handedly close single-word-requests questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 30 at 13:47


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by jimm101, Jason Bassford, JJJ, Edwin Ashworth single-word-requests
Users with the  single-word-requests badge can single-handedly close single-word-requests questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
May 30 at 13:47


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.















  • See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:43











  • The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

    – Edwin Ashworth
    May 30 at 13:49






  • 1





    People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

    – Acccumulation
    Jun 6 at 14:39



















  • See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:43











  • The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

    – Edwin Ashworth
    May 30 at 13:49






  • 1





    People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

    – Acccumulation
    Jun 6 at 14:39

















See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

– Mitch
May 28 at 13:43





See also all the references here on 'obscurantism'

– Mitch
May 28 at 13:43













The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

– Edwin Ashworth
May 30 at 13:49





The duplicate is not well titled, but OP there states "... this is not meant to be about politics but strictly language usage".

– Edwin Ashworth
May 30 at 13:49




1




1





People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

– Acccumulation
Jun 6 at 14:39





People not agreeing with you about what words to use is not "dishonesty".

– Acccumulation
Jun 6 at 14:39










10 Answers
10






active

oldest

votes


















33


















George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.






share|improve this answer





























  • Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

    – MrMartin
    May 28 at 13:35






  • 1





    @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:47






  • 4





    As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

    – Drew
    May 28 at 20:32






  • 2





    First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

    – Drew
    May 29 at 1:18






  • 1





    Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

    – JimmyJames
    May 29 at 19:38



















29


















How about:




obfuscate

VERB [WITH OBJECT]

1 Make obscure, unclear, or
unintelligible.



‘the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate
their etymological origins’



1.1 Bewilder (someone) ‘the new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them’




https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obfuscate



"The use of obfuscating language hid their true meaning"




obfuscation

NOUN

mass noun

1 The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.



‘when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation’

count noun ‘ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations’







share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

    – Greenonline
    May 30 at 4:16





















19


















When a writer or speaker prevaricates, he chooses misleading words.



Part of the M-W usage notes:




Prevaricate and its synonyms "lie" and "equivocate" all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. "Lie" is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. "Prevaricate" is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of "lie," usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. "Equivocate" is similar to "prevaricate," but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.







share|improve this answer



























  • That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

    – MrMartin
    May 28 at 12:28






  • 1





    @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

    – Mitch
    May 28 at 13:44






  • 1





    Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

    – CCTO
    May 29 at 19:15



















16


















Another choice might be weasel words



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20word



: a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position






share|improve this answer
























  • 2





    Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

    – Lordology
    May 28 at 19:40













  • A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

    – Criggie
    May 29 at 0:19



















6


















This is an interesting example, because Stallman is talking tendentious nonsense. There are many cases in this world where language is misused with intent to deceive, but none of the examples he gives are anything of the kind.



In modern North American English, when we call a creative person a "creator", we all agree that we mean they create something, usually intangible, usually for pay: They draw pictures, or write poems, or computer programs, or songs, or some such. There is no implication at all that the person is a god, or god-like, in any way. Literally nobody on this planet actually believes that, nobody in this discussion, nobody anywhere -- with the possible exception of Richard Stallman, who's a professional controversialist. It's quite possible that he believed it while he was saying it. I suppose it's even possible that he believes it still. But Richard Stallman doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language for the rest of us.



Likewise, in Cambridge, MA where Stallman has lived for decades, if you say "compensation" in any context remotely job-related and nobody had mentioned a lawsuit, people assume you're talking about how much they get paid (source: Eleven years living in Cambridge and Somerville and working at software startups around town and on Route 128. Also, a dictionary).



More importantly: If these terms were somehow inaccurate, exactly who would be misleading who, and in what way? Where is the "deception" here? If somebody refers to my salary as "compensation", are they trying to deceive me into believing I've been damaged or injured in some way by showing up at the office (or the asteroid mine)? Does that even begin to make sense? It's quite accurate to say that work costs me time I could be devoting to something else, but there's no suggestion that my employer has done me any wrong. It's absolutely normal for a word to have two different meanings in two different contexts. "Drive" means one thing when I'm talking to the IT guy about my new laptop, another thing on my guitar pedalboard, and a third when we're getting in the car to go camping. No native speaker of English, including Richard Stallman, finds this at all confusing. Last night a singer said to me, "The bridge is the hook, let's repeat it before the last verse". Nobody thought she was trying to trick me into becoming a pirate and driving to work the wrong way (look, I just maliciously tricked you into thinking that my car is a signal-processing device).



If somebody refers to me as a "creator" of code, or of songs, are they really trying to trick me into thinking I have divine powers? Is that even imaginable?



No. People just like the sound of these words, the same way many younger suburban northeastern American white people seem to like to say "y'all" and "on the regular".



I haven't heard code described as "content", ever (unless in the sense of a MIME content type), but there are a lot of things I haven't heard, so I'll let that one pass.



As somebody said in comments, this is just "Stallman being Stallman". He's a well-known controversialist and gadfly in the field of computer programming. He wears funny colorful clothing and says colorful things to get attention. Exhibit A above. The disingenuous literal-mindedness game he's playing is common to computer programmers and baby-boomer political hippies; he's both.



His net contribution to the field has been massively positive in my view, and his self-promotion has been part of that. You don't have to like the guy to appreciate the immense value of what he's done. But that's another subject.



The only thing interesting here is the irony: Stallman and the folks waving the 1984 flag are deliberately misrepresenting the meanings of these words.






share|improve this answer




































    5


















    There's always that gem from Churchill;



    "terminological inexactitude."



    This is often used to say someone is lying, but also means exactly what it says; being inexact in one's terminology, or using misleading words, or words intended to mislead.






    share|improve this answer


































      2


















      I'm a fan of bamboozle:




      to conceal one's true motives from, especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end







      share|improve this answer


































        2


















        Why not euphemism?




        From Greek euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one.”







        share|improve this answer


































          1


















          In addition to George Orwell, I would like to mention political consultant Frank Luntz. During the last two decades he has become the poster boy for the strategy of methodically crafting vocabularies to frame the political discourse to the benefit of your side. Here are some examples of political neologisms attributed to him:





          • Death tax (instead of estate tax)


          • Climate change (instead of global warming)


          • Government takeover (of healthcare)


          • Energy exploration (instead of oil drilling)


          I have seen terms such as luntzism, luntzian or luntzspeak used to refer to this type of neologisms, but I don't think any of them have caught on. These words would probably only be understandable by people who are familiar with Luntz.



          I think Richard Stallman's objections to the words he mentions in parenthesis is not that he thinks people will misunderstand what they refer to, but that they will induce a certain way of thinking about the things they refer to, much like Luntz's phrases are designed to do.



          George Orwell first wrote about something similar in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language:




          In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
          the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
          India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom
          bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which
          are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with
          the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has
          to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
          vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
          inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle
          machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
          called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
          and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
          this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
          People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of
          the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is
          called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed
          if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
          them.




          By his own account, Frank Luntz was heavily influenced by reading Politics and The English Language, but probably not in the way Orwell had intended.






          share|improve this answer


































            0


















            I'm not sure if you're looking for a verb meaning "to use misleading words" or if you're looking for a noun referring to the misleading words themselves or the act of using misleading words.



            Either way, consider an adjective: Disingenuous




            disingenuous (adj). Lacking in candor. Also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING.




            (From Merriam-Webster online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)



            While I'm not finding this (explicitly) in any dictionary definitions, I'm also used to "disingenuous" carrying a connotation of being manipulative or sneaky.






            share|improve this answer




































              10 Answers
              10






              active

              oldest

              votes








              10 Answers
              10






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              33


















              George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.






              share|improve this answer





























              • Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 13:35






              • 1





                @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:47






              • 4





                As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

                – Drew
                May 28 at 20:32






              • 2





                First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

                – Drew
                May 29 at 1:18






              • 1





                Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

                – JimmyJames
                May 29 at 19:38
















              33


















              George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.






              share|improve this answer





























              • Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 13:35






              • 1





                @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:47






              • 4





                As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

                – Drew
                May 28 at 20:32






              • 2





                First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

                – Drew
                May 29 at 1:18






              • 1





                Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

                – JimmyJames
                May 29 at 19:38














              33














              33










              33









              George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.






              share|improve this answer
















              George Orwell, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, used the terms doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) and Newspeak (a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought). These two have been combined to form the term doublespeak (frequently incorrectly attributed to Orwell's 1984) meaning "language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." More information and references at Wikipedia. The OP mentioned Nineteen Eighty-Four but not doublespeak.







              share|improve this answer















              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jul 24 at 11:13









              Turkeyphant

              3821 silver badge6 bronze badges




              3821 silver badge6 bronze badges










              answered May 28 at 13:29









              GEdgarGEdgar

              15.2k2 gold badges24 silver badges48 bronze badges




              15.2k2 gold badges24 silver badges48 bronze badges
















              • Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 13:35






              • 1





                @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:47






              • 4





                As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

                – Drew
                May 28 at 20:32






              • 2





                First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

                – Drew
                May 29 at 1:18






              • 1





                Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

                – JimmyJames
                May 29 at 19:38



















              • Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 13:35






              • 1





                @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:47






              • 4





                As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

                – Drew
                May 28 at 20:32






              • 2





                First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

                – Drew
                May 29 at 1:18






              • 1





                Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

                – JimmyJames
                May 29 at 19:38

















              Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

              – MrMartin
              May 28 at 13:35





              Exactly! I didn't realize the term had entered common use.

              – MrMartin
              May 28 at 13:35




              1




              1





              @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

              – Mitch
              May 28 at 13:47





              @MrMartin Yes, it has been common (or common enough) since the 80's](books.google.com/ngrams/…) (though I thought it was more common in the 60's than the graph shows (1984 was published in 1948).

              – Mitch
              May 28 at 13:47




              4




              4





              As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

              – Drew
              May 28 at 20:32





              As the Wikipedia article points out, "doublespeak" is not in "1984". The term used there is "newspeak".

              – Drew
              May 28 at 20:32




              2




              2





              First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

              – Drew
              May 29 at 1:18





              First known use of "doublespeak" after publication of "1984" is not the same thing as "1984" itself having the first use of "doublespeak".

              – Drew
              May 29 at 1:18




              1




              1





              Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

              – JimmyJames
              May 29 at 19:38





              Using doublespeak is double plus ungood.

              – JimmyJames
              May 29 at 19:38













              29


















              How about:




              obfuscate

              VERB [WITH OBJECT]

              1 Make obscure, unclear, or
              unintelligible.



              ‘the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate
              their etymological origins’



              1.1 Bewilder (someone) ‘the new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them’




              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obfuscate



              "The use of obfuscating language hid their true meaning"




              obfuscation

              NOUN

              mass noun

              1 The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.



              ‘when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation’

              count noun ‘ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations’







              share|improve this answer
























              • 1





                +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

                – Greenonline
                May 30 at 4:16


















              29


















              How about:




              obfuscate

              VERB [WITH OBJECT]

              1 Make obscure, unclear, or
              unintelligible.



              ‘the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate
              their etymological origins’



              1.1 Bewilder (someone) ‘the new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them’




              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obfuscate



              "The use of obfuscating language hid their true meaning"




              obfuscation

              NOUN

              mass noun

              1 The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.



              ‘when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation’

              count noun ‘ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations’







              share|improve this answer
























              • 1





                +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

                – Greenonline
                May 30 at 4:16
















              29














              29










              29









              How about:




              obfuscate

              VERB [WITH OBJECT]

              1 Make obscure, unclear, or
              unintelligible.



              ‘the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate
              their etymological origins’



              1.1 Bewilder (someone) ‘the new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them’




              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obfuscate



              "The use of obfuscating language hid their true meaning"




              obfuscation

              NOUN

              mass noun

              1 The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.



              ‘when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation’

              count noun ‘ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations’







              share|improve this answer
















              How about:




              obfuscate

              VERB [WITH OBJECT]

              1 Make obscure, unclear, or
              unintelligible.



              ‘the spelling changes will deform some familiar words and obfuscate
              their etymological origins’



              1.1 Bewilder (someone) ‘the new rule is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them’




              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obfuscate



              "The use of obfuscating language hid their true meaning"




              obfuscation

              NOUN

              mass noun

              1 The action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.



              ‘when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation’

              count noun ‘ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations’








              share|improve this answer















              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited May 30 at 8:40

























              answered May 28 at 13:08









              WendyGWendyG

              2,0665 silver badges16 bronze badges




              2,0665 silver badges16 bronze badges











              • 1





                +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

                – Greenonline
                May 30 at 4:16
















              • 1





                +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

                – Greenonline
                May 30 at 4:16










              1




              1





              +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

              – Greenonline
              May 30 at 4:16







              +1 but obfuscation is probably the noun that would fit the OP's question.

              – Greenonline
              May 30 at 4:16













              19


















              When a writer or speaker prevaricates, he chooses misleading words.



              Part of the M-W usage notes:




              Prevaricate and its synonyms "lie" and "equivocate" all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. "Lie" is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. "Prevaricate" is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of "lie," usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. "Equivocate" is similar to "prevaricate," but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.







              share|improve this answer



























              • That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 12:28






              • 1





                @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:44






              • 1





                Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

                – CCTO
                May 29 at 19:15
















              19


















              When a writer or speaker prevaricates, he chooses misleading words.



              Part of the M-W usage notes:




              Prevaricate and its synonyms "lie" and "equivocate" all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. "Lie" is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. "Prevaricate" is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of "lie," usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. "Equivocate" is similar to "prevaricate," but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.







              share|improve this answer



























              • That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 12:28






              • 1





                @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:44






              • 1





                Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

                – CCTO
                May 29 at 19:15














              19














              19










              19









              When a writer or speaker prevaricates, he chooses misleading words.



              Part of the M-W usage notes:




              Prevaricate and its synonyms "lie" and "equivocate" all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. "Lie" is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. "Prevaricate" is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of "lie," usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. "Equivocate" is similar to "prevaricate," but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.







              share|improve this answer














              When a writer or speaker prevaricates, he chooses misleading words.



              Part of the M-W usage notes:




              Prevaricate and its synonyms "lie" and "equivocate" all refer to playing fast and loose with the truth. "Lie" is the bluntest of the three. When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying he or she was intentionally dishonest, no bones about it. "Prevaricate" is less accusatory and softens the bluntness of "lie," usually implying that someone is evading the truth rather than purposely making false statements. "Equivocate" is similar to "prevaricate," but it generally implies that someone is deliberately using words that have more than one meaning as a way to conceal the truth.








              share|improve this answer













              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered May 28 at 10:58









              rajah9rajah9

              11.2k2 gold badges23 silver badges47 bronze badges




              11.2k2 gold badges23 silver badges47 bronze badges
















              • That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 12:28






              • 1





                @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:44






              • 1





                Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

                – CCTO
                May 29 at 19:15



















              • That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

                – MrMartin
                May 28 at 12:28






              • 1





                @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

                – Mitch
                May 28 at 13:44






              • 1





                Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

                – CCTO
                May 29 at 19:15

















              That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

              – MrMartin
              May 28 at 12:28





              That's very close to the desired meaning, although prevaricating seems to be more about speaking evasively to escape accusation, rather than in the sense of misleading to manipulate. This is not clear from my question, but it is the meaning of the quote.

              – MrMartin
              May 28 at 12:28




              1




              1





              @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

              – Mitch
              May 28 at 13:44





              @MrMartin But that's what misleading is.

              – Mitch
              May 28 at 13:44




              1




              1





              Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

              – CCTO
              May 29 at 19:15





              Prevaricate is exactly the word that matches the OP's leading definition, with its focus on misleading. But the examples are of weasel-words and euphemisms.

              – CCTO
              May 29 at 19:15











              16


















              Another choice might be weasel words



              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20word



              : a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position






              share|improve this answer
























              • 2





                Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

                – Lordology
                May 28 at 19:40













              • A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

                – Criggie
                May 29 at 0:19
















              16


















              Another choice might be weasel words



              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20word



              : a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position






              share|improve this answer
























              • 2





                Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

                – Lordology
                May 28 at 19:40













              • A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

                – Criggie
                May 29 at 0:19














              16














              16










              16









              Another choice might be weasel words



              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20word



              : a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position






              share|improve this answer
















              Another choice might be weasel words



              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20word



              : a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position







              share|improve this answer















              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited May 29 at 11:37

























              answered May 28 at 19:11









              Lord PeterLord Peter

              1,1681 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges




              1,1681 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges











              • 2





                Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

                – Lordology
                May 28 at 19:40













              • A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

                – Criggie
                May 29 at 0:19














              • 2





                Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

                – Lordology
                May 28 at 19:40













              • A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

                – Criggie
                May 29 at 0:19








              2




              2





              Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

              – Lordology
              May 28 at 19:40







              Helpful reminder: code-blocks here are exclusively for quoting code; please use *italics*, **bold** or >quotes.

              – Lordology
              May 28 at 19:40















              A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

              – Criggie
              May 29 at 0:19





              A good single-word synonom for this would be "legalese" or "legaleese" both rhyming with "sleeze"

              – Criggie
              May 29 at 0:19











              6


















              This is an interesting example, because Stallman is talking tendentious nonsense. There are many cases in this world where language is misused with intent to deceive, but none of the examples he gives are anything of the kind.



              In modern North American English, when we call a creative person a "creator", we all agree that we mean they create something, usually intangible, usually for pay: They draw pictures, or write poems, or computer programs, or songs, or some such. There is no implication at all that the person is a god, or god-like, in any way. Literally nobody on this planet actually believes that, nobody in this discussion, nobody anywhere -- with the possible exception of Richard Stallman, who's a professional controversialist. It's quite possible that he believed it while he was saying it. I suppose it's even possible that he believes it still. But Richard Stallman doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language for the rest of us.



              Likewise, in Cambridge, MA where Stallman has lived for decades, if you say "compensation" in any context remotely job-related and nobody had mentioned a lawsuit, people assume you're talking about how much they get paid (source: Eleven years living in Cambridge and Somerville and working at software startups around town and on Route 128. Also, a dictionary).



              More importantly: If these terms were somehow inaccurate, exactly who would be misleading who, and in what way? Where is the "deception" here? If somebody refers to my salary as "compensation", are they trying to deceive me into believing I've been damaged or injured in some way by showing up at the office (or the asteroid mine)? Does that even begin to make sense? It's quite accurate to say that work costs me time I could be devoting to something else, but there's no suggestion that my employer has done me any wrong. It's absolutely normal for a word to have two different meanings in two different contexts. "Drive" means one thing when I'm talking to the IT guy about my new laptop, another thing on my guitar pedalboard, and a third when we're getting in the car to go camping. No native speaker of English, including Richard Stallman, finds this at all confusing. Last night a singer said to me, "The bridge is the hook, let's repeat it before the last verse". Nobody thought she was trying to trick me into becoming a pirate and driving to work the wrong way (look, I just maliciously tricked you into thinking that my car is a signal-processing device).



              If somebody refers to me as a "creator" of code, or of songs, are they really trying to trick me into thinking I have divine powers? Is that even imaginable?



              No. People just like the sound of these words, the same way many younger suburban northeastern American white people seem to like to say "y'all" and "on the regular".



              I haven't heard code described as "content", ever (unless in the sense of a MIME content type), but there are a lot of things I haven't heard, so I'll let that one pass.



              As somebody said in comments, this is just "Stallman being Stallman". He's a well-known controversialist and gadfly in the field of computer programming. He wears funny colorful clothing and says colorful things to get attention. Exhibit A above. The disingenuous literal-mindedness game he's playing is common to computer programmers and baby-boomer political hippies; he's both.



              His net contribution to the field has been massively positive in my view, and his self-promotion has been part of that. You don't have to like the guy to appreciate the immense value of what he's done. But that's another subject.



              The only thing interesting here is the irony: Stallman and the folks waving the 1984 flag are deliberately misrepresenting the meanings of these words.






              share|improve this answer

































                6


















                This is an interesting example, because Stallman is talking tendentious nonsense. There are many cases in this world where language is misused with intent to deceive, but none of the examples he gives are anything of the kind.



                In modern North American English, when we call a creative person a "creator", we all agree that we mean they create something, usually intangible, usually for pay: They draw pictures, or write poems, or computer programs, or songs, or some such. There is no implication at all that the person is a god, or god-like, in any way. Literally nobody on this planet actually believes that, nobody in this discussion, nobody anywhere -- with the possible exception of Richard Stallman, who's a professional controversialist. It's quite possible that he believed it while he was saying it. I suppose it's even possible that he believes it still. But Richard Stallman doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language for the rest of us.



                Likewise, in Cambridge, MA where Stallman has lived for decades, if you say "compensation" in any context remotely job-related and nobody had mentioned a lawsuit, people assume you're talking about how much they get paid (source: Eleven years living in Cambridge and Somerville and working at software startups around town and on Route 128. Also, a dictionary).



                More importantly: If these terms were somehow inaccurate, exactly who would be misleading who, and in what way? Where is the "deception" here? If somebody refers to my salary as "compensation", are they trying to deceive me into believing I've been damaged or injured in some way by showing up at the office (or the asteroid mine)? Does that even begin to make sense? It's quite accurate to say that work costs me time I could be devoting to something else, but there's no suggestion that my employer has done me any wrong. It's absolutely normal for a word to have two different meanings in two different contexts. "Drive" means one thing when I'm talking to the IT guy about my new laptop, another thing on my guitar pedalboard, and a third when we're getting in the car to go camping. No native speaker of English, including Richard Stallman, finds this at all confusing. Last night a singer said to me, "The bridge is the hook, let's repeat it before the last verse". Nobody thought she was trying to trick me into becoming a pirate and driving to work the wrong way (look, I just maliciously tricked you into thinking that my car is a signal-processing device).



                If somebody refers to me as a "creator" of code, or of songs, are they really trying to trick me into thinking I have divine powers? Is that even imaginable?



                No. People just like the sound of these words, the same way many younger suburban northeastern American white people seem to like to say "y'all" and "on the regular".



                I haven't heard code described as "content", ever (unless in the sense of a MIME content type), but there are a lot of things I haven't heard, so I'll let that one pass.



                As somebody said in comments, this is just "Stallman being Stallman". He's a well-known controversialist and gadfly in the field of computer programming. He wears funny colorful clothing and says colorful things to get attention. Exhibit A above. The disingenuous literal-mindedness game he's playing is common to computer programmers and baby-boomer political hippies; he's both.



                His net contribution to the field has been massively positive in my view, and his self-promotion has been part of that. You don't have to like the guy to appreciate the immense value of what he's done. But that's another subject.



                The only thing interesting here is the irony: Stallman and the folks waving the 1984 flag are deliberately misrepresenting the meanings of these words.






                share|improve this answer































                  6














                  6










                  6









                  This is an interesting example, because Stallman is talking tendentious nonsense. There are many cases in this world where language is misused with intent to deceive, but none of the examples he gives are anything of the kind.



                  In modern North American English, when we call a creative person a "creator", we all agree that we mean they create something, usually intangible, usually for pay: They draw pictures, or write poems, or computer programs, or songs, or some such. There is no implication at all that the person is a god, or god-like, in any way. Literally nobody on this planet actually believes that, nobody in this discussion, nobody anywhere -- with the possible exception of Richard Stallman, who's a professional controversialist. It's quite possible that he believed it while he was saying it. I suppose it's even possible that he believes it still. But Richard Stallman doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language for the rest of us.



                  Likewise, in Cambridge, MA where Stallman has lived for decades, if you say "compensation" in any context remotely job-related and nobody had mentioned a lawsuit, people assume you're talking about how much they get paid (source: Eleven years living in Cambridge and Somerville and working at software startups around town and on Route 128. Also, a dictionary).



                  More importantly: If these terms were somehow inaccurate, exactly who would be misleading who, and in what way? Where is the "deception" here? If somebody refers to my salary as "compensation", are they trying to deceive me into believing I've been damaged or injured in some way by showing up at the office (or the asteroid mine)? Does that even begin to make sense? It's quite accurate to say that work costs me time I could be devoting to something else, but there's no suggestion that my employer has done me any wrong. It's absolutely normal for a word to have two different meanings in two different contexts. "Drive" means one thing when I'm talking to the IT guy about my new laptop, another thing on my guitar pedalboard, and a third when we're getting in the car to go camping. No native speaker of English, including Richard Stallman, finds this at all confusing. Last night a singer said to me, "The bridge is the hook, let's repeat it before the last verse". Nobody thought she was trying to trick me into becoming a pirate and driving to work the wrong way (look, I just maliciously tricked you into thinking that my car is a signal-processing device).



                  If somebody refers to me as a "creator" of code, or of songs, are they really trying to trick me into thinking I have divine powers? Is that even imaginable?



                  No. People just like the sound of these words, the same way many younger suburban northeastern American white people seem to like to say "y'all" and "on the regular".



                  I haven't heard code described as "content", ever (unless in the sense of a MIME content type), but there are a lot of things I haven't heard, so I'll let that one pass.



                  As somebody said in comments, this is just "Stallman being Stallman". He's a well-known controversialist and gadfly in the field of computer programming. He wears funny colorful clothing and says colorful things to get attention. Exhibit A above. The disingenuous literal-mindedness game he's playing is common to computer programmers and baby-boomer political hippies; he's both.



                  His net contribution to the field has been massively positive in my view, and his self-promotion has been part of that. You don't have to like the guy to appreciate the immense value of what he's done. But that's another subject.



                  The only thing interesting here is the irony: Stallman and the folks waving the 1984 flag are deliberately misrepresenting the meanings of these words.






                  share|improve this answer
















                  This is an interesting example, because Stallman is talking tendentious nonsense. There are many cases in this world where language is misused with intent to deceive, but none of the examples he gives are anything of the kind.



                  In modern North American English, when we call a creative person a "creator", we all agree that we mean they create something, usually intangible, usually for pay: They draw pictures, or write poems, or computer programs, or songs, or some such. There is no implication at all that the person is a god, or god-like, in any way. Literally nobody on this planet actually believes that, nobody in this discussion, nobody anywhere -- with the possible exception of Richard Stallman, who's a professional controversialist. It's quite possible that he believed it while he was saying it. I suppose it's even possible that he believes it still. But Richard Stallman doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language for the rest of us.



                  Likewise, in Cambridge, MA where Stallman has lived for decades, if you say "compensation" in any context remotely job-related and nobody had mentioned a lawsuit, people assume you're talking about how much they get paid (source: Eleven years living in Cambridge and Somerville and working at software startups around town and on Route 128. Also, a dictionary).



                  More importantly: If these terms were somehow inaccurate, exactly who would be misleading who, and in what way? Where is the "deception" here? If somebody refers to my salary as "compensation", are they trying to deceive me into believing I've been damaged or injured in some way by showing up at the office (or the asteroid mine)? Does that even begin to make sense? It's quite accurate to say that work costs me time I could be devoting to something else, but there's no suggestion that my employer has done me any wrong. It's absolutely normal for a word to have two different meanings in two different contexts. "Drive" means one thing when I'm talking to the IT guy about my new laptop, another thing on my guitar pedalboard, and a third when we're getting in the car to go camping. No native speaker of English, including Richard Stallman, finds this at all confusing. Last night a singer said to me, "The bridge is the hook, let's repeat it before the last verse". Nobody thought she was trying to trick me into becoming a pirate and driving to work the wrong way (look, I just maliciously tricked you into thinking that my car is a signal-processing device).



                  If somebody refers to me as a "creator" of code, or of songs, are they really trying to trick me into thinking I have divine powers? Is that even imaginable?



                  No. People just like the sound of these words, the same way many younger suburban northeastern American white people seem to like to say "y'all" and "on the regular".



                  I haven't heard code described as "content", ever (unless in the sense of a MIME content type), but there are a lot of things I haven't heard, so I'll let that one pass.



                  As somebody said in comments, this is just "Stallman being Stallman". He's a well-known controversialist and gadfly in the field of computer programming. He wears funny colorful clothing and says colorful things to get attention. Exhibit A above. The disingenuous literal-mindedness game he's playing is common to computer programmers and baby-boomer political hippies; he's both.



                  His net contribution to the field has been massively positive in my view, and his self-promotion has been part of that. You don't have to like the guy to appreciate the immense value of what he's done. But that's another subject.



                  The only thing interesting here is the irony: Stallman and the folks waving the 1984 flag are deliberately misrepresenting the meanings of these words.







                  share|improve this answer















                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited May 30 at 13:24

























                  answered May 29 at 16:19









                  Ed PlunkettEd Plunkett

                  1766 bronze badges




                  1766 bronze badges


























                      5


















                      There's always that gem from Churchill;



                      "terminological inexactitude."



                      This is often used to say someone is lying, but also means exactly what it says; being inexact in one's terminology, or using misleading words, or words intended to mislead.






                      share|improve this answer































                        5


















                        There's always that gem from Churchill;



                        "terminological inexactitude."



                        This is often used to say someone is lying, but also means exactly what it says; being inexact in one's terminology, or using misleading words, or words intended to mislead.






                        share|improve this answer





























                          5














                          5










                          5









                          There's always that gem from Churchill;



                          "terminological inexactitude."



                          This is often used to say someone is lying, but also means exactly what it says; being inexact in one's terminology, or using misleading words, or words intended to mislead.






                          share|improve this answer














                          There's always that gem from Churchill;



                          "terminological inexactitude."



                          This is often used to say someone is lying, but also means exactly what it says; being inexact in one's terminology, or using misleading words, or words intended to mislead.







                          share|improve this answer













                          share|improve this answer




                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered May 29 at 6:58









                          RedSonjaRedSonja

                          7875 silver badges13 bronze badges




                          7875 silver badges13 bronze badges


























                              2


















                              I'm a fan of bamboozle:




                              to conceal one's true motives from, especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end







                              share|improve this answer































                                2


















                                I'm a fan of bamboozle:




                                to conceal one's true motives from, especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end







                                share|improve this answer





























                                  2














                                  2










                                  2









                                  I'm a fan of bamboozle:




                                  to conceal one's true motives from, especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end







                                  share|improve this answer














                                  I'm a fan of bamboozle:




                                  to conceal one's true motives from, especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end








                                  share|improve this answer













                                  share|improve this answer




                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered May 28 at 19:08









                                  Joshua KadenJoshua Kaden

                                  3321 silver badge7 bronze badges




                                  3321 silver badge7 bronze badges


























                                      2


















                                      Why not euphemism?




                                      From Greek euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one.”







                                      share|improve this answer































                                        2


















                                        Why not euphemism?




                                        From Greek euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one.”







                                        share|improve this answer





























                                          2














                                          2










                                          2









                                          Why not euphemism?




                                          From Greek euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one.”







                                          share|improve this answer














                                          Why not euphemism?




                                          From Greek euphemismos "use of a favorable word in place of an inauspicious one.”








                                          share|improve this answer













                                          share|improve this answer




                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer










                                          answered May 29 at 10:54









                                          yrodroyrodro

                                          1622 silver badges9 bronze badges




                                          1622 silver badges9 bronze badges


























                                              1


















                                              In addition to George Orwell, I would like to mention political consultant Frank Luntz. During the last two decades he has become the poster boy for the strategy of methodically crafting vocabularies to frame the political discourse to the benefit of your side. Here are some examples of political neologisms attributed to him:





                                              • Death tax (instead of estate tax)


                                              • Climate change (instead of global warming)


                                              • Government takeover (of healthcare)


                                              • Energy exploration (instead of oil drilling)


                                              I have seen terms such as luntzism, luntzian or luntzspeak used to refer to this type of neologisms, but I don't think any of them have caught on. These words would probably only be understandable by people who are familiar with Luntz.



                                              I think Richard Stallman's objections to the words he mentions in parenthesis is not that he thinks people will misunderstand what they refer to, but that they will induce a certain way of thinking about the things they refer to, much like Luntz's phrases are designed to do.



                                              George Orwell first wrote about something similar in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language:




                                              In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
                                              the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
                                              India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom
                                              bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which
                                              are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with
                                              the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has
                                              to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
                                              vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
                                              inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle
                                              machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
                                              called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
                                              and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
                                              this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
                                              People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of
                                              the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is
                                              called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed
                                              if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
                                              them.




                                              By his own account, Frank Luntz was heavily influenced by reading Politics and The English Language, but probably not in the way Orwell had intended.






                                              share|improve this answer































                                                1


















                                                In addition to George Orwell, I would like to mention political consultant Frank Luntz. During the last two decades he has become the poster boy for the strategy of methodically crafting vocabularies to frame the political discourse to the benefit of your side. Here are some examples of political neologisms attributed to him:





                                                • Death tax (instead of estate tax)


                                                • Climate change (instead of global warming)


                                                • Government takeover (of healthcare)


                                                • Energy exploration (instead of oil drilling)


                                                I have seen terms such as luntzism, luntzian or luntzspeak used to refer to this type of neologisms, but I don't think any of them have caught on. These words would probably only be understandable by people who are familiar with Luntz.



                                                I think Richard Stallman's objections to the words he mentions in parenthesis is not that he thinks people will misunderstand what they refer to, but that they will induce a certain way of thinking about the things they refer to, much like Luntz's phrases are designed to do.



                                                George Orwell first wrote about something similar in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language:




                                                In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
                                                the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
                                                India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom
                                                bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which
                                                are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with
                                                the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has
                                                to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
                                                vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
                                                inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle
                                                machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
                                                called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
                                                and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
                                                this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
                                                People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of
                                                the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is
                                                called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed
                                                if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
                                                them.




                                                By his own account, Frank Luntz was heavily influenced by reading Politics and The English Language, but probably not in the way Orwell had intended.






                                                share|improve this answer





























                                                  1














                                                  1










                                                  1









                                                  In addition to George Orwell, I would like to mention political consultant Frank Luntz. During the last two decades he has become the poster boy for the strategy of methodically crafting vocabularies to frame the political discourse to the benefit of your side. Here are some examples of political neologisms attributed to him:





                                                  • Death tax (instead of estate tax)


                                                  • Climate change (instead of global warming)


                                                  • Government takeover (of healthcare)


                                                  • Energy exploration (instead of oil drilling)


                                                  I have seen terms such as luntzism, luntzian or luntzspeak used to refer to this type of neologisms, but I don't think any of them have caught on. These words would probably only be understandable by people who are familiar with Luntz.



                                                  I think Richard Stallman's objections to the words he mentions in parenthesis is not that he thinks people will misunderstand what they refer to, but that they will induce a certain way of thinking about the things they refer to, much like Luntz's phrases are designed to do.



                                                  George Orwell first wrote about something similar in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language:




                                                  In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
                                                  the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
                                                  India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom
                                                  bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which
                                                  are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with
                                                  the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has
                                                  to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
                                                  vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
                                                  inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle
                                                  machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
                                                  called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
                                                  and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
                                                  this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
                                                  People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of
                                                  the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is
                                                  called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed
                                                  if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
                                                  them.




                                                  By his own account, Frank Luntz was heavily influenced by reading Politics and The English Language, but probably not in the way Orwell had intended.






                                                  share|improve this answer














                                                  In addition to George Orwell, I would like to mention political consultant Frank Luntz. During the last two decades he has become the poster boy for the strategy of methodically crafting vocabularies to frame the political discourse to the benefit of your side. Here are some examples of political neologisms attributed to him:





                                                  • Death tax (instead of estate tax)


                                                  • Climate change (instead of global warming)


                                                  • Government takeover (of healthcare)


                                                  • Energy exploration (instead of oil drilling)


                                                  I have seen terms such as luntzism, luntzian or luntzspeak used to refer to this type of neologisms, but I don't think any of them have caught on. These words would probably only be understandable by people who are familiar with Luntz.



                                                  I think Richard Stallman's objections to the words he mentions in parenthesis is not that he thinks people will misunderstand what they refer to, but that they will induce a certain way of thinking about the things they refer to, much like Luntz's phrases are designed to do.



                                                  George Orwell first wrote about something similar in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language:




                                                  In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of
                                                  the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
                                                  India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom
                                                  bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which
                                                  are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with
                                                  the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has
                                                  to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy
                                                  vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the
                                                  inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle
                                                  machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is
                                                  called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms
                                                  and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
                                                  this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.
                                                  People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of
                                                  the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is
                                                  called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed
                                                  if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
                                                  them.




                                                  By his own account, Frank Luntz was heavily influenced by reading Politics and The English Language, but probably not in the way Orwell had intended.







                                                  share|improve this answer













                                                  share|improve this answer




                                                  share|improve this answer



                                                  share|improve this answer










                                                  answered May 29 at 19:13









                                                  jkejjkej

                                                  4791 gold badge3 silver badges9 bronze badges




                                                  4791 gold badge3 silver badges9 bronze badges


























                                                      0


















                                                      I'm not sure if you're looking for a verb meaning "to use misleading words" or if you're looking for a noun referring to the misleading words themselves or the act of using misleading words.



                                                      Either way, consider an adjective: Disingenuous




                                                      disingenuous (adj). Lacking in candor. Also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING.




                                                      (From Merriam-Webster online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)



                                                      While I'm not finding this (explicitly) in any dictionary definitions, I'm also used to "disingenuous" carrying a connotation of being manipulative or sneaky.






                                                      share|improve this answer

































                                                        0


















                                                        I'm not sure if you're looking for a verb meaning "to use misleading words" or if you're looking for a noun referring to the misleading words themselves or the act of using misleading words.



                                                        Either way, consider an adjective: Disingenuous




                                                        disingenuous (adj). Lacking in candor. Also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING.




                                                        (From Merriam-Webster online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)



                                                        While I'm not finding this (explicitly) in any dictionary definitions, I'm also used to "disingenuous" carrying a connotation of being manipulative or sneaky.






                                                        share|improve this answer































                                                          0














                                                          0










                                                          0









                                                          I'm not sure if you're looking for a verb meaning "to use misleading words" or if you're looking for a noun referring to the misleading words themselves or the act of using misleading words.



                                                          Either way, consider an adjective: Disingenuous




                                                          disingenuous (adj). Lacking in candor. Also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING.




                                                          (From Merriam-Webster online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)



                                                          While I'm not finding this (explicitly) in any dictionary definitions, I'm also used to "disingenuous" carrying a connotation of being manipulative or sneaky.






                                                          share|improve this answer
















                                                          I'm not sure if you're looking for a verb meaning "to use misleading words" or if you're looking for a noun referring to the misleading words themselves or the act of using misleading words.



                                                          Either way, consider an adjective: Disingenuous




                                                          disingenuous (adj). Lacking in candor. Also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: CALCULATING.




                                                          (From Merriam-Webster online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)



                                                          While I'm not finding this (explicitly) in any dictionary definitions, I'm also used to "disingenuous" carrying a connotation of being manipulative or sneaky.







                                                          share|improve this answer















                                                          share|improve this answer




                                                          share|improve this answer



                                                          share|improve this answer








                                                          edited May 29 at 23:09

























                                                          answered May 29 at 21:40









                                                          Randall StewartRandall Stewart

                                                          1,4544 silver badges11 bronze badges




                                                          1,4544 silver badges11 bronze badges


















                                                              Popular posts from this blog

                                                              He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                                              Bunad

                                                              Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum