We always need an "enemy" to motivate us to become "heros".
It is part of the culture. Certainly it is not restricted to government. In American business the "war" themes are extremely popular.
However, this sort of thing is everywhere if you are looking for it, embraced by people of all ages from all walks of life, and certainly in places other than the US. I remember when I first starting reading about cryptography and wondering why they kept using the word "attack". Or even something like software not being released/distributed/installed, but "deployed".
It is interesting how this seems to escape the focus of the political correctness language revisionsists.
I’m not sure but isn’t the etymology of “attack” and “deployed” in those cases based in US culture which was GP’s point?
When people use certain terminology, it doesn’t mean they “embrace” the cultural phenomena that led to its development. They could use it simply because it’s the conventional terminology.
We always need an "enemy" to motivate us to become "heros".
It is part of the culture. Certainly it is not restricted to government. In American business the "war" themes are extremely popular.
However, this sort of thing is everywhere if you are looking for it, embraced by people of all ages from all walks of life, and certainly in places other than the US. I remember when I first starting reading about cryptography and wondering why they kept using the word "attack". Or even something like software not being released/distributed/installed, but "deployed".
It is interesting how this seems to escape the focus of the political correctness language revisionsists.