Words Being Misused to Mean Their Opposites

            

           There are several words that are being misused nowadays in such ways as to mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean, or at least nearly the opposite.

Virtual

            The use of this word has been corrupted from that which is true, to that which is nearly true, to that which is fake.  A “virtual world” does not mean a true world, but an artificial, computer-generated one.

To Implode

            An implosion is that which draws matter in (i.e. is attractive).  It is being used in order to refer to that which has becomes unattractive (i.e. is repulsive).  An implosion is the opposite of an explosion.  In an explosion, material is ejected outward (repelled) from the source, whereas in an implosion, matter is drawn into the source (attracted).  The confusion arises because certain explosions, such as controlled building demolitions, mimic the results of implosions.  The use of the word implosions to describe such events has led people to conclude falsely that an implosion is synonymous with collapses, both of the literal and figurative kind, especially those that figuratively collapse of their own weight.  Therefore, the figurative collapse of an institution, policy or enterprise that causes it to lose public support (to become unattractive or repulsive) is being described with a word that means that is attractive.

Viral

            The use of this word refers to the ability of a virus to replicate and transfer itself.  However, it is being used in reference to that which is copied and transferred by others, in addition to its figurative use in regard to computer viruses, which spread themselves.  Viral is thus being used to refer to something that spreads like a virus, but only in the sense of rapidity and not in the characteristic manner in which a virus spreads.  In fact, the manner in which the word is being used is opposite that used by a virus. 

Lame duck

            This term has been expanded beyond its original meaning of an elected official who has been defeated for reelection and is now being use to refer to an elected official who has been re-elected.  It is not meant for all out-going elected officials, but only those who have lost political legitimacy by losing reelection, as opposed to those elected officials who many not stand again for election, but who have not lost political legitimacy by losing reelection.

Agenda

            This word comes from the Latin for “things to be done.”  It comes from the same root word as in the cognate to act and thus necessarily implies action.  It is being used, however, to describe not only things to be done, but also refraining from things to be done.  An agendum (note the singular form of his plural word; there is no such word as “agendas”) to refrain from something, such as increasing taxes or violating neutrality, for example, by not taking any action is not something “to be done.”  Therefore, refraining from actions cannot constitute agenda. 

           As I have noted frequently on this blog, the correct usage of words is of critical importance to freedom when liberty is based upon written law.  In addition to offending the Truth, the danger to liberty in a republic of misusing or misunderstanding the meaning of words, coupled with disregard for the original intent of those who wrote the law, is manifested when laws are essentially amended or even repealed by judges in circumvention of public debate and the legislative decision-making of the representatives of the people.  To use words properly is to defend liberty.