Jonny Thomson vs REACT — مقارنة حسابات إنستغرام

George Orwell once argued that the language we use around politics and economics is becoming flatter. It’s becoming hollow and vague, and so our ideas are becoming hollow and vague as well. For example, Orwell pointed out that so many people often resort to abstract clichés rather than trying to convey meaning or reach some kind of consensus. We are presented with a menu of soundbites or clichéd platitudes. For example, we say ‘enhanced interrogation’ rather than ‘torture.’ We say ‘efficiency gains’ rather than ‘a third of the company was laid off.’ We say ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘civilians were killed.’ Today, politicians and leaders have entire teams telling them how to frame a situation. We talk in terms of ‘messaging’ and ‘storytelling’ rather than ‘clarity’ and ‘honesty.’ And of course, that makes sense, because it allows a degree of plausible deniability. It gives you somewhere to retreat to when things go bad. Because it’s easier to talk about ‘necessary sacrifices’ than ‘you will be worse off because of this decision.’ Orwell argued that the more corrupt our language becomes, the harder it is to think. Because if our language can be made muddy, our thoughts can be made muddy too. So, whenever you hear somebody using big, dead, platitudinal, ready-made clichés, ask yourself: ‘What they are trying not to say?’ Because our modern political language has become so saturated with this meaninglessness. They are trying to make lies seem like truth and make mess seem like normal.