On the stretching of meanings

[matticus]

The most vigorously discussed recent example being TERRORISM!!! It's clear that this word referred to violence used to achieve political means.
The government bolted on "criminal damage" (because it suited their needs); the unfortunate by-product of this is people say:
"They're terrorists - look at all the damage they did!"
"But they're non-violent ..."
"Doesn't matter! Look - terrorism includes criminal damage. It's their in black-and-white!!!"

I am against this! It's clearly being done to label someone in a way that suits your argument - a variation of guilt by association?

Another example - being discusssed in the other place - is Vigilante. I do not believe that anyone hearing that word envisions a chap standing in front of a car, asking them to reverse back down the No-Entry they've "strayed" down.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vigilante&udm=2&safe=active&ssui=on

 

[C R]

As with many other things, in this many modern institutions are reading 1984 as an instruction manual rather than as a warning. If you control the language, you can control the kind of thoughts people are likely to entertain.