Halt! Stop what you’re doing. Cease all unauthorised thinking this instant. Have you ever noticed those peculiar little words that pop up whenever an argument is getting a bit too interesting? Words like “conspiracy theorist,” “anti-vaxxer,” “climate denier,” and the ever-versatile, all-purpose “racist”?

These are not mere words, my friend. Oh no. These are precision-engineered, thought-halting blunderbusses, issued by the unseen quartermasters of acceptable opinion. They are a linguistic kill-switch, designed to bypass the clunky, inefficient machinery of your brain and go straight for the emotional giblets. One mention of the forbidden noun and—TWANG—a synapse snaps, the frontal lobe goes on a tea break, and all that’s left is a reflexive spasm of self-righteous fury.

If you encounter a person deploying these terms, you are not in a debate. You are the target of a psychological pest-control operation. These are not arguments; they are spells. Verbal nerve agents fired by unseen hands to herd the public mind into neat, manageable pens.

Recall, if you will, the glorious birth of “conspiracy theorist.” Picture the scene. Langley, 1967. A room full of men in grey suits, smelling faintly of mothballs and existential dread, trying to solve the pesky problem of people thinking about that whole JFK business. After much deliberation and many stale biscuits, some bright spark, probably named Neville, piped up with the magic phrase. Genius. A gold star and an extra digestive for Neville. The slur did the work like magic.

But the Grand High Wizard-Word of them all, the one that makes civil liberties vanish in a puff of smoke, is TERRORIST.

A hundred years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find it. Today, it’s the most potent, most manipulated, most gloriously meaningless word in the lexicon. As the great Glenn Greenwald pointed out, it’s a semantic blancmange. It means whatever the person wielding it wants it to mean. Point at someone, anyone, and utter the incantation. Poof! Rights gone. Poof! Due process gone. Poof! Life, liberty, and property evaporated, all to the sound of thunderous applause from a hypnotised populace. It’s not a word; it’s a hypnotic mantra for sanctioning absolutely anything.

The Antidote (Use with Caution, May Cause Spluttering)

Fortunately, for every spell, there is a counter-spell. For every hypnotic mantra, there is a bucket of cold, logical water. The method is deceptively simple: demand a definition.

The moment you do, the spell shatters. Watch them. Watch as their argument collapses like a badly made soufflé. They will flail. They will shriek! They will point! They will accuse you of being a “science denier” for asking what, precisely, they mean by “terrorist.” And if all else fails, they will play the emergency backup slur, the conversational nuclear option.

When sophistry is all they have, a simple question becomes kryptonite. The propaganda breaks the moment you refuse to flinch. It’s a fragile magic, you see. Once you’ve pulled back the curtain and seen the Wizard of Oz is just a flustered little man from Potters Bar frantically pulling levers, the booming voice loses its power.

So never, ever stop thinking. Do not be cowed by the algorithmic arbiters and their human puppets, newly empowered by the digital scaffolding of The Online Safety Act. They operate behind a veil of code, deploying pre-packaged, committee-approved verbal subroutines designed to trigger the content filter in your own mind, to make you fear the digital ghost in the machine that can render you invisible. Their goal is to have you shadow-ban yourself into silence.

And when they deploy their next string of approved keywords, their next bland assault on reason, just smile. A wide, unnerving, slightly unhinged smile. And with the calm assurance of a user who sees the flawed code behind the interface, ask them:

“Is that the entire subroutine, then? Is that the limit of your programming? Is that all you’ve got?”