I don't think the intention was to water down the words' meaning. The intention was to get attention on just how terrible a certain thing was/is in the short run (This idea is abuse/violence!). The long term effects of this is future claims of abuse get ignored in the discourse because the words have been so watered down as to lose their meaning.

The problem is that it seldomly was abuse or violence. These are misplaced or exaggerated words for effect, which is what creates the long term effect. If they're exaggerated, that makes me think this was intentful. If they're misplaced then we've failed in educating a whole group of people on a very fundamental level in a multitude of areas from language to emotional management.

"misplaced or exaggerated for effect" appears to be a natural thing. It's not a new thing, but it definitely seems to be accumulative.

Friends say bands are "awesome", long meetings are "excruciating", guys in mock turtlenecks say products are "magical" or "revolutionary". Boys cry "wolf". What does it all mean?

What words do we choose when the correct words are no longer meaningful? What is the value of a word that describes a situation that almost never happens?

> Friends say bands are "awesome", long meetings are "excruciating", guys in mock turtlenecks say products are "magical" or "revolutionary". Boys cry "wolf". What does it all mean?

Do these exaggerations, or use of flowery language, carry any real world consequences? The words "abuse" and "violence" (and other vernacular that people are using around problems they face) carry consequences under the law, reputational damage, etc... I suspect the people who replace, "So and so said something that offended me" with "So and so said something that was abusive to me" know they're participating in deceptive language that carries real consequences.

I lean in the direction that these folks believe the ends justify the means but I've yet to hear anyone speak in earnest about why they do this. Usually when they explain themselves it involves a lot of imagery and mental gymnastics as well as a wide array of unprovable assumptions you must accept in order to understand their point but always conveniently skips over their language choice.

In fact, there's entire rhetoric designed to avoid this subject called "tone policing" whereby someone is allowed to make outrageous claims because they feel some way about something. It's then on the rest of us to sort out their emotional baggage from the hard facts and produce something from it.

Generally, I've noticed humans will use flowery language when bullshitting, speaking abstractly, or trying to sell something. When we talk about problems we tend to try to be more concise, as being concise lets us address the problem more directly while using flowery language is both deceptive and distracting.

Actually I often wonder if people think about the extremity of their words.

Absurd exaggeration is the norm. That's fine in the form of metaphor (though I still dislike "murder" and "rape" to describe the vagaries of competitive sports and business!) but it's something else when the words can have legal/moral/professional ramifications.

Power gained by the previously-disempowered is rarely handled responsibly. But the powerless should be empowered. I don't know how to get from A to B without collateral damage.

That's a fair point and one I'm willing to accept, but this has been going on for at least half a decade if not longer. I guess at some point, the sort of meta-conversation you and I are having will have to be had.

Much much longer than half a decade, I would say.

And ultimately, there will be no reasoned conversation or balanced future. It will just happen, in fits and starts, and we will land in a new semi-stable state of imperfection. Until the next time.