Bureaucratic-juridical vocabulary itself euphemizes the violence of drone strikes.

Evidence

I believe it is important to make such clarifications and carefully examine the validity of opposing arguments in the light of their own categories. However, doing so involves a risk, for necroethics is characterized not only by a number of particular theses but also and perhaps above all by a particular style of both thinking and writing. This style, which combines the dryness of academic writing with the juridico-administrative formalism of bureaucratic rationality, by its vocabulary alone engenders a massive euphemization and derealization of the violence that constitutes its true subject. What, actually, is “collateral damage”? What does a “humanitarian weapon” actually do? What bodies lie buried beneath these words? — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 491

Categorization

• SEED: Essay angle: how administrative language functions as a weapon of derealization in modern warfare.
• XREF: connects to: Semantic and philosophical redefinitions are being weaponized to legitimate state violence. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 122; The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 536; Violence becomes purely technical and instrumental when bureaucratized — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 287 (+2 more)

Related

• Semantic and philosophical redefinitions are being weaponized to legitimate state violence. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Semantic and philosophical redefinitions are being weaponized to legitimate state violence. #expands (0.75) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 122
• The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court #corroborates (0.40) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 536