The Tyranny of Tender Words: How Soft Language is Shackling Free Thought

In the age of equity, inclusivity, and emotional correctness, the sharp edges of truth are being dulled by the velvet hammer of vague language.

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor who was suspended due to a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers.

Please subscribe to receive at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month, less than USD 4. Everyone says, "Hey, it’s just a cup of coffee," but please choose my coffee when you come to the Substack counter. Cheers.

It is a peculiar trick of the modern age that tyranny no longer arrives in jackboots but in pastel tones and HR-speak, dressed in euphemisms and carried forward by email. Gone are the days of grand inquisitors and thundering verdicts. Instead, we are softly suffocated by a bureaucracy that speaks in the tongues of concern and care. The new instruments of control? Words like “unwelcome,” “unsafe,” “inappropriate,” “inclusive,” and “poisoned environment.”

Each of these terms, once conceived to defend human dignity, has been hollowed out, reshaped, and redeployed as a tool of institutionalised coercion. They have become, to borrow Orwell’s phrase, the linguistic equivalent of “giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Let us consider the language of modern human rights codes, those sacred scrolls of the equity age. The term “unwelcome,” for example, sounds like common sense. No one wants to be harassed or insulted. But its deployment in policy makes harm a matter of perception, not intent or action. To be “unwelcome” is not to be violated or abused, but merely to have made someone feel… something. Undefined, unmeasured, and utterly manipulable. What matters is not what was done, but how someone chose to receive it.

In this world, feelings become facts. Mens rea—the legal principle that intent matters—is discarded. Instead, you are tried not for your mind, but for someone else’s momentary mood. It is the courtroom of the subjective, and you are guilty until proven innocent.

Consider “harassment,” another term which once implied sustained, malicious, targeted behaviour. In today’s codes, it is defined as “unwelcome conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”

Translation: It is harassment if someone says it is.

There need be no pattern, no intent, no harm—just a whisper of discomfort. It’s institutional witchcraft: accusations without evidence, prosecutions without process.

Then comes the term “poisoned environment” – the linguistic equivalent of the fog of war.

A “poisoned” space no longer requires acts of racial slurs or physical intimidation. Now, a classroom, office, or even an email thread can be declared toxic by someone not even involved in the initial interaction.

The idea that speech can seep through walls and windows to harm someone indirectly is not just pseudoscientific; it is a theological argument disguised as policy. Invisible sins, unprovable harms, collective purification. Torquemada would be proud.