“Someone in power might use the word ‘sick’ to describe opponents because it’s a quick way to discredit and dehumanize them,” Kritsas said. “Labeling others as fundamentally ‘abnormal’ or ‘broken’ shifts focus away from their ideas and instead paints them as unworthy of respect. It also rallies supporters by creating an ‘us versus them’ dynamic, reinforcing loyalty through shared disdain.”
She emphasized that the strategy simplifies conflict, avoids nuanced engagement, and thus strengthens control.
“It’s a good way to ignite fear into people to gain more power ― saying ‘That person is sick, but I will guide you. I’m the person you need to listen to,’” Riaz said. “It’s this idea that ’I’m the strong leader who will take care of you. I’m in control and need to continue to be in control.”
She believes the ambiguity of the word “sick” is powerful as an attack on a political opponent because it attacks their character without engaging in any specific acts or policies. Political disagreement is then warped into personal defect.
“It’s easier to talk about the person than about an issue they’re presenting, like universal health care, for example,” Riaz noted. “It’s emotionally immature and superficial, but it can be powerful to attack the person presenting the idea, rather than engage with issues on a deeper level and contend with that ambiguity and nuance.”
While plenty of people would like to talk about bigger issues and could probably find more common ground in these discussions, she believes using words like “sick” is a way to silence any opposition and shut down these conversations.
“Trump’s use of ‘sick’ employs a contagion metaphor,” said Daniel Midgley, a linguist and co-host of the Because Language podcast. “Think about what being ‘sick’ means. When someone is sick, you might also get sick if you associate with them. So, if ideas are a kind of ‘sickness,’ then the logical response would be to only associate with people who share our own ideas.”
The unfortunate outcome of this approach is intellectual siloing, he added, so people never hear any ideas they haven’t already thought.
“It’s fine to exclude some views from our information diet, but this should be because we’ve decided their content makes them a waste of time, and not because we fear contagion,” Midgley said.
What is the impact of this insult on individuals and society as a whole?
Discover more from InstiWitty Media Studios
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
