where science and ethics intersect with politics
Words like “harvest” and “processing” are not neutral descriptors—they are carefully chosen euphemisms that sanitize violence and erase victims from public consciousness. By examining the language used to describe animal exploitation, this piece explores how softened terminology shields harm from scrutiny and why precision in language is an ethical act, not a rhetorical one.
When headlines remove the actor from the sentence, harm begins to look like an accident rather than a choice. This installment of Language, Examined explores how passive phrasing and abstract language quietly erase responsibility—and why that matters.
Take this brief quiz to see whether you can tell the difference between Orwellian propaganda (i) that was actually invented by Orwell himself and (ii) that has been championed by the U.S.’s Democrat-Republicans.
A poem on linguistic conflicts related to the interpretation of words
Through language other animals are made to bear the crudest human acts, the ugliest human thoughts, the deepest human guilts, the worst human crimes, the most unspeakable human evils…
The Humane Herald 