this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
717 points (97.7% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7837 readers
246 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its Twitter.
Its run by a Nazi.
And no, performative semi-censorship is not the closest thing to NewSpeak.
That would be probably be corpospeak, the art of using a lot of vague yet fancy terms to say basically nothing of any precise meaning.
Either that or what TikTok has done to psychology terminology, warping and misunderstanding so many phrases that we now have 'therapyspeak' as a similar set of vocabulary terms that have vague and undefined meanings, because so many people use them so innapropriately, so often, that they basically mean nothing in a general, non specialized context.
As an example: Trauma bond.
People seem to think this means that people who suffer together, grow a bond between each other, based in overcoming shared struggles due to / caused by external stressors.
That's not a trauma bond.
A trauma bond is more like when someone is consistently mistreated and abused by another person, that first person cannot really imagine life without that second person, without being oriented around them, so the idea of totally disconnecting from their abuser is itself existentially terrifying, and they thus paradoxically begin to defend the relationship with abuser.
I don't know, I don't think you can be a language prescriptivist like this, and it hasn't happened because of TikTok.
To your point, the Dawn Wall feat. Tommy Caldwell came out in 2017. Even back then the marriage between Tommy and his first wife was described as the result of a trauma bond due to a terrifying kidnapping situation they survived together.
It is fine to say, "Trauma Bond means X in a medical context" but if people use a word to mean something, the dictionary changes to reflect that.
I can be a language prescriptivist like this, and the increase in overuse and misuse of psychological terminology is very very significantly due to how it proliferates and warps on TikTok.
(Though of course this also occurs on other social media platforms, and bleeds over between them, and into other cultural spaces.)
(But, with TikTok specifically, we have academic studies showing that around half of the 'psychological advice' given on TikTok is significantly misleading, and a portion of that is found to be dangerously misleading, when evaluated for actual accuracy by actual psychologists. Its misinformation, definitionally.)
These are technical terms, and their broad overuse and misuse by lay people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about is a significant problem.
This is such a significant problem that many psychologists on TikTok and YouTube have videos calling out how much of a problem this is, how perverted psychology terminology is now at the point where it serves as a dialect by which narcissistic abusers can manipulate people and avoid responsibility and accountability.
I don't care that some particular story from some particular book may or may not have served as a a starting point for one of these terms to be misunderstood by laypeople, beyond an etymological sense of understanding the process by which this has occured for that particular term.
I care about the harm caused by the weaponization of language.
That a bunch of people are confused and wrong about something does not make them....valid in their misuse of words.
It makes them into psuedo-experts (where psuedo means basically 'false' or 'fake'), misusing technical terminology the same way that woo peddlers and scammers and con artists and grifters do.
NewSpeak is ultimately the concept of manipulating language such that certain previously thinkable concepts become unthinkable. In 1984, this is done in a deliberate, top down, mandated fashion.
What Orwell did not forsee (or at least, exemplify in 1984) was the nature of mass digital communications, the proliferation of basically absurd amounts of nonsense, as another means of making the communication of certain concepts very difficult.
TherapySpeak is extremely good at providing a toolset for social manipulators to criticize anyone who criticizes any of their actions or choices, of reframing themselves as either being reasonable and fair, or as themselves actually being the victim.
So, through a more complex process, it becomes much more difficult, much less socially acceptable for people who have been harmed by these kinds of manipulative people to express and describe that harm.
Orwell did not forsee that this could happen in a bottom up fashion... but its not truly a bottom up fashion.
Corporate social media uses algorithims that primarily optimize based amount the amount of rage that they cause, optimize based around the amount of controversy they cause.
Then, they crowd source the content.
This functions as an insidious, warped way of manipulating all of culture such that it rewards self centered egomaniacs, and also strongly encourages the formation of literal cults.
Its a more complex way that a top down paradigm of media established by the powerful leads to the seemingly natural and unplanned growth/evolution of language...
... but its no more natural than the artificial selection of wheat or various dog breeds by humans over centuries and eons.
It just happens much faster, and seemingly unintentionally, from the standpoint of the crowd whose ideas are being selectively promoted or demoted by those who wrote and control the algorithms, the crowd that has forgotten that the water they are swimming in is an artificially constructed hyperreality, which is directed with intention by those who control it.
I agree with you about a lot of this, especially the dangers of non-expert psychology advice, but I disagree about "trauma bond" specifically, and about language prescriptivism in general.
Ok.