
Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar
As the banning of TikTok in the United States approaches, now comes the time to reflect on some of the effects the app has had on social media as a whole. One of these effects is an influx of self-censorship that has spread to seemingly every mainstream social platform.
Conversations of topics such as death and rape have become infested with terms like “unalived” and “graped.” This censorship is counterproductive and heavily minimizes the impact of serious situations.
These sorts of replacement words originated as a workaround for algorithmic censorship. Users avoid directly naming subjects that may result in their videos or accounts losing monetization, though no explicit list of bannable words is within TikTok’s terms of service.
This attempt at dodging bans, however, is not where the issue lies. While clever in theory, it has evolved into something done simply for the sake of individual comfort. Now, years later, users discuss the “unaliving” of victims to selfishly make themselves feel at ease with difficult topics.
“Soft language” is a term used for this phenomenon, and it has made its way to sites like Instagram and X in recent months; with both apps often used for news and political discourse.
The reality of this, though, is that no one should feel comfortable during conversations about heinous crimes and tragedies.
Death, assault and politics are and will always be hard-to-swallow topics. This is by design, and, while tough to endure sometimes, is integral to upkeep. An important part of hard conversations is making sure they remain impactful, so as to remind ourselves why societal changes are needed.
When hearing of tragic events, the deliberate use of descriptive words reminds readers of the devastation that comes with them. If soft language like “sewerslide” is used, that impact is completely nullified. No one is going to be angry reading that someone “unalived” another person, or someone in the news was “graped,” and that’s a problem.
Sex crimes and death should evoke negative emotions. Anger, sadness and fear are the fuel for social activism and tangible change, which are more than necessary in times when marginalized people fear for their lives and safety.
If we allow ourselves to become comfortable with these topics when they arise, we will also become complacent. When complacent, no one fights for those who fall victim to brutality and oppression.
So, no, unarmed victims of police and bombed civilians have not been “unalived,” and other highly politicized issues should not be diluted for the sake of keeping oneself at ease. Being upset during times of tragedy is part of being human.
While conversations surrounding crime and brutality are undoubtedly tough to approach, watering down these subjects is only harmful long term. We are meant to be disgusted by those around us being harmed, and no one should be allowed to skirt around that.
Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at [email protected]