Language Has No OWASP

I. Opacity Is a Feature

Language is the interface to reality. If the interface is corrupted, you cannot fix the machine behind it.

Political and bureaucratic language is routinely described as "unclear," "jargon-heavy," or "poorly written." This diagnosis is wrong. The language is not failing at communication. It is succeeding at something else: preventing accountability.

Recent work in mechanism design confirms this. When institutional failure is irreversible (loss of funding, political termination, public trust collapse), rational agents don't respond by lying. They respond by garbling the information channel. They reduce how much precise information reaches the audience, suppressing belief states that would trigger consequences. Opacity is the mathematically optimal survival strategy for institutions under accountability pressure. It isn't an accident of bad writing. It is an evolved feature of institutional defense.

This essay is a field guide to that defense. It catalogs 22 distinct patterns by which institutional language obscures accountability, hides agency, shifts costs, and prevents people from understanding what the institutions that govern their lives actually do. Governments are the most visible case, but the same patterns operate in corporations, law firms, universities, NGOs, and any organization where someone has power and someone else wants to know what they're doing with it. Each pattern has a definition, a mechanism, examples, and a counter-protocol: a specific question or cognitive operation you can deploy when you encounter it.

The OWASP Top 10 catalogs how web applications are attacked: name the vulnerability, describe the exploit, provide the patch. The same logic applies here. Name the linguistic pattern, describe the mechanism, provide the counter-protocol.

The patterns are not unique to any country or language. They operate wherever institutions face accountability pressure. The examples draw from multiple jurisdictions; the mechanisms are universal.

II. Why These Patterns Exist

Five structural drivers produce institutional opacity. Understanding them matters because the patterns aren't primarily caused by malice:

• Institutional habit. "This is how we've always written." Bureaucratic language is inherited across generations without anyone asking why.
• Professional deformation. Bureaucracy rewards vagueness. Precision creates accountability; ambiguity protects. The bureaucrat who writes clearly can be proven wrong.
• Defensive reflex. When precision has been punished (media scandal, lawsuit, political attack), the system learns to avoid it.
• Genuine incompetence. Nobody taught them to write clearly. Universities teach academic jargon, not operational language.
• Systemic pressure. When veto networks block decisions, language adapts: it begins describing process instead of outcomes. The language reflects the dysfunction.

The result is the same regardless of cause: language detaches from reality. Words stop binding. Promises stop obligating. Citizens lose the ability to understand what is happening.

The engineering framing bypasses the debate over intent. It doesn't matter whether any individual bureaucrat is being deliberately evasive or just following a template. What matters is the mechanism: the language, as deployed, prevents accountability. The system produces opacity the way a river produces erosion. You don't need to attribute malice to a river to build a dam.

III. Suitcase Words

Before the specific patterns, one meta-pattern that underlies many of them.

Marvin Minsky coined "suitcase word" (2006) for terms that pack multiple conflicting meanings into one label. "Intelligence," "consciousness," "fairness." Each listener unpacks a different meaning. Everyone agrees on the word; nobody agrees on the content.

In institutional and political language, suitcase words are weaponized. They create the illusion of agreement where none exists. A word is a suitcase word when it satisfies three conditions:

1. Mechanism concealment. The word hides structure. Hearing it tells you nothing about which mechanism is being discussed. "Capitalism" can mean price signals, capital accumulation, competitive markets, monopoly, or exploitation. Which one?
2. Tribal sorting. Using or avoiding the word reveals which camp you belong to, not what you think. "Welfare state" is a badge of honor on the left and a term of abuse on the right. Same machine, two emotional charges. Zero information.
3. Analysis termination. The word functions as verdict, not diagnosis. "That's capitalism" ends the conversation. "That incentive structure rewards short-term value extraction at the expense of long-term capital" starts one.

Test: If the word doesn't convert to a specific, testable claim about a mechanism, it's a suitcase word. "Capitalism is bad" is untestable. "This incentive structure rewards short-term extraction at the expense of long-term capital stocks" is testable.

The false Schelling point: A suitcase word is a coordination mechanism that de-coordinates. "Let's meet at the square" works because everyone knows which square. "Let's meet at justice" doesn't work because everyone is standing in a different square. Everyone pledges to support "justice." Nobody is in the same place. This is pseudo-motion at the level of language: apparent agreement, no coordination.

Counter-protocol: When a conversation stalls on what a word means rather than how a mechanism works, ban the word from that conversation. Not universally, not permanently, but operationally: "This word is blocking us. Describe the mechanism you mean without using it." Each party describes the structure they're referring to. Often they discover they're talking about different things entirely, or the same thing, and the whole dispute was a meta-level illusion. Either way, the conversation moves forward.

This is Yudkowsky's "Taboo Your Words" (2008) operationalized for institutional discourse. It works because it forces the speaker past the emotional-tribal layer and into the mechanical layer. If you can't describe your position without the suitcase word, you probably don't understand the mechanism you're arguing about.

Confucius said it 2,500 years ago: if names are not correct, language does not accord with reality; if language does not accord with reality, actions fail (Analects, 13.3).

IV. Semantic Emptying

Words that look meaningful but bind to nothing.

1. Semantic Vacuum

Definition: A statement that sounds meaningful but commits to nothing concrete.

A semantic vacuum is not a lie. It is something worse: a lie can be exposed. A vacuum cannot, because it asserts nothing.

Mechanism: The politician is a mesa-optimizer. Their objective is not to solve your problem but to appear to be solving your problem while minimizing the risk of being proven wrong. A semantic vacuum produces the impression of action without the risk of failure.

Rule: If a statement cannot generate a testable prediction, it is a semantic vacuum. "We will improve services" is a vacuum. "We will reduce wait times to 14 days by January 2028" is a commitment.

2. Semantic Erosion

Definition: The process by which an institution or concept is preserved syntactically but emptied semantically. The name stays; the function disappears.

Programmer's analogy: The function signature is kept for backward compatibility, but the implementation is replaced with return void.

Examples:

• The UK's "NHS Constitution" guarantees an 18-week wait for treatment. Actual waits routinely exceed this. The guarantee exists on paper; the enforcement mechanism returns empty.
• Many national ombudsmen investigate complaints, issue findings, and change nothing. The institution's form survives; its function is dead.
• The Containment Pattern is semantic erosion applied to critique: absorb the critic's language, redefine it, declare the problem solved, continue unchanged.

Counter-protocol: "What does this institution do, not what is it called?" / "What is the gap between de jure (the law) and de facto (reality)?" / "Show me the metric, not the name."

3. Uncovered Claims

Definition: A "right" that lacks a producer, an enforcement mechanism, and enabling conditions.

Many "rights" never eroded. They were born empty.

An uncovered claim is a "right" missing three things: (1) A producer: who is obligated to deliver it? (2) Enforcement: what mechanism compels the producer to act? (3) Prerequisites: what conditions must hold for delivery to be possible?

Example: UDHR Article 25: "Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living." Who produces this? Through what mechanism? These answers are absent. This is not a right that "eroded." It was never operational. (See The Rights Bubble and UDHR Annotated.)

Distinction: Semantic erosion means the institution once worked but was hollowed out. An uncovered claim never worked. It was aspirational from birth.

Counter-protocol: "Who produces this right? With what resources?" / "What happens if the right is violated? What is the sanction mechanism?" / "Is this a protocol or a wish?"

4. Zombie Law

Definition: A law that is in force on paper but dead in practice.

A law is alive when it has four elements:

If any element is missing, the law is a zombie. Test any statute: "Shall ensure" (who ensures?), "adequate resources" (how much is adequate?), "in a reasonable time" (when exactly?), "as necessary" (who decides necessity?).

Why this isn't accidental: In coalition negotiations, multiple parties sign "adequate resources" because each interprets it differently. The ambiguity doesn't resolve; it migrates to implementation, where a bureaucrat decides without democratic mandate. Vagueness becomes discretionary power. Legislative authority transfers from parliament to administration.

V. Cost-Shifting

Hiding costs by moving them elsewhere: across space, time, or causal chains.

This section is treated in depth in Complexity Laundering. The four patterns here are the linguistic forms of what that essay analyzes as structural mechanisms. These patterns work because civilization runs on a dozen capital stocks but only one has a ledger (see Full Accounting). If you can't measure it, you can hide it.

5. Spatial Laundering

Costs appear in a different place or population than the benefits. Benefit visible here, harm invisible there.

Example: Rent control "helps renters" (visible benefit) while reducing housing supply and deteriorating building quality (invisible harm elsewhere). The state mandates an obligation and takes the credit; the municipality funds it and bears the cost.

Ask: "Where does the cost land? Who bears the burden?"

6. Temporal Laundering

Benefits appear now, costs appear later: next decade, next generation, after the current term ends.

Example: Unfunded pension promises deliver votes today and insolvency in 2040. Infrastructure deferred maintenance saves money now and produces collapse later. The laundering interval: the political cycle is 4 years, the feedback cycle is 20-30 years. Because consequences land on the other side of the interval, the current politician is never held accountable.

Ask: "What is the impact of this decision in 2050?" / "How much does this cost the taxpayer of 2040?"

7. Causal Laundering

Responsibility is obscured by creating a long causal chain where every link can claim innocence for the final outcome.

Instead of A → B (minister cuts → hospital closes), the chain becomes A → X → Y → Z → B: minister changes funding formula → allocation shifts → hospital budget shrinks → quality deteriorates → patients leave → hospital is "not viable" → hospital closes. Each intermediate step is defensible in isolation. Nobody "closed the hospital." It just "happened."

Ask: "Draw the causal chain. Who made the first move?" / "If this fails, whose career suffers?"

8. Accountability Laundering

Responsibility is outsourced to consultants, independent reviews, or expert panels.

When a minister commissions an "independent review," they are purchasing a shield. If the project fails, the fault was "in the methodology." The consultant's model is often proprietary ("trade secret"), so no one can audit the calculation that justified the decision.

Ask: "Who commissioned the review? Who paid?" / "Are the calculations public? Can I run them myself?" / "What is the commissioner's liability if the review is wrong?"

VI. Attention and Time Manipulation

9. Attention Laundering

Definition: A matter is "addressed" for so long that the original complaint is forgotten.

Mechanism: Exploits finite human memory. The problem expands in time until the complainants exhaust themselves, not until the problem is solved.

Examples: Parliamentary committees that run for decades. Consultation rounds that fragment debate. "We'll study this further" repeated until the critics give up.

Ask: "What is the deadline?" / "What happens if the study isn't completed?" / Set a reminder: return in 6 months and ask for results.

10. Investigation as Substitute for Decision

Definition: A form of power where decision-making is replaced by "investigating."

The investigation is no longer a preliminary step before a decision. It is the decision's replacement. The working group is a political freezer.

Examples: The UK's Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War took 7 years (2009-2016). The Grenfell Tower Inquiry took 7 years (2017-2024). US presidential commissions routinely deliver reports that change nothing. Two decades, three major reviews, zero structural change is a common pattern in social policy across Western democracies.

Ask: "Is this an investigation or a decision?" / "What happens if the working group doesn't reach consensus?" / "What is the investigation's binding force?"

VII. Weaponized Opacity

11. The Opacity Shield

Definition: Strategic transparency inversion. The state sees the citizen (tax records, registries, surveillance), but the citizen cannot see the state. Information is technically available but practically incomprehensible.

Six mechanisms:

Distinction from cost-shifting: Cost-shifting creates complexity in the terrain (the system is actually complex). The opacity shield creates complexity in the map (the presentation). A simple truth can be hidden in a 500-page report.

VIII. Agency Erasure

Grammatical structures that make political choices look like natural forces.

12. Passive Voice as Power

Definition: Grammatical construction that hides the agent.

Passive voice transforms a political choice into a natural event. When "cuts will have to be made," there is no one to blame. Only abstract necessity.

The modern variant: "The algorithm decided." Here the agent isn't hidden grammatically but outsourced to code nobody audits. Same function: no one to hold accountable.

Counter-protocol: When you hear passive voice, perform immediate conversion. "Cost pressures have accumulated" → "We spent more than we produced." "Difficult decisions were made" → "Person X chose option Y knowing its consequences."

13. Nominalization (Zombie Nouns)

Definition: Turning verbs into nouns, which hides the agent and freezes the process into a thing.

Orwell identified this in 1946: political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. A zombie noun is a dead verb: a word that once contained an agent and a timeframe, now frozen into an object.

Mechanism: When a verb becomes a noun, the agent disappears and the process solidifies into a thing. "Austerity" sounds like a weather pattern. "The government is cutting spending" sounds like a choice. The zombie noun is the passive voice's stronger form: passive hides the agent grammatically; nominalization hides the entire action's existence.

Counter-protocol: Convert the noun back to a verb. "Who is doing this? To whom? When?"

14. Necessity Rhetoric

Definition: Presenting political choices as necessities.

Examples: "There is no alternative" (TINA). "We have no choice." "Circumstances require." "Structural pressures demand." "The markets expect."

Mechanism: A political choice is disguised as a law of physics. If it's "necessary," there's no accountability. If it's a "choice," someone is responsible.

Ask: "What happens if we don't do this?" / "What alternatives were not presented?" / "Who benefits from framing this as a necessity?"

IX. Symbol Hijacking

15. ROP Attack

Definition: Using a legitimate symbol against its original purpose.

The name comes from programming. In a Return-Oriented Programming attack, the attacker doesn't write new code. They recombine existing legitimate code fragments to achieve an unauthorized function. Same logic: use existing legitimacy to push through something you couldn't get through directly.

Mechanism: The symbol's original force is preserved, but it's redirected. The critic who opposes the hijacked use appears to oppose the symbol itself. "Do you oppose democracy?" when you actually oppose a specific decision made in democracy's name. "Do you oppose science?" when you actually oppose a specific claim made in science's name, distinguishing the method (falsification, replication) from the institution (authority, consensus).

Ask: "What did this word originally mean? What does it mean here?" / "Is the use consistent with the original purpose?" / "Who benefits from using this word this way?"

16. Framing Manipulation

Definition: Pre-selecting the options before discussion begins.

Examples: "The options are A or B." (What about C, D, E?) / "Do you support more funding or more staff?" (What about structural reform?) / The wording of a referendum question.

Mechanism: Pre-selection is hidden power. Once the frame is set, discussion happens inside it.

Ask: "What options were not presented?" / "Who set these options?" / "Is the question correctly framed?" / Demand the map: show all alternatives before choosing.

X. Emotional and Moral Shielding

17. Empathy Trap

Definition: A moral firewall that silences structural criticism.

Mechanism: When you point out that a system is broken, the response is: "But we have values. We must care for the vulnerable." This turns the conversation from structures to feelings. The structural criticism is reprocessed as moral failure.

Counter-protocol: "Genuine care requires functioning structures." / "If 60% of every tax dollar is lost to friction, that isn't caring. It's waste." / "Efficiency is morality: every wasted dollar is an untreated patient."

18. Virtue Washing

Definition: Harmful policy disguised as virtuous.

• "For future generations" while consuming their capital stocks.
• "Equality" while producing new hierarchies.
• "Sustainability" while shifting costs to the future.

Ask: "What are the actual outcomes, not the intentions?" / "Who benefits? Who pays?" / "Show me a metric, not a story."

XI. Epistemic Protection

Mechanisms by which broken theories protect themselves from reality.

19. Input Fallacy

"We're increasing funding, so outcomes will improve."

Definition: Black-box thinking. The magical assumption that input (money) becomes output (results) without specifying the transmission mechanism.

If the engine is broken, adding fuel doesn't fix the car. It burns the car faster. If the process is flawed, increasing resources just accelerates waste.

Ask: "Don't tell me the budget. Tell me the transmission mechanism." / "How does this dollar become an outcome? If the mechanism isn't described, this is wishful thinking."

20. Latency Blindness

"Results aren't visible yet. We need to give it time."

Definition: Misusing time constants to avoid accountability.

"Waiting for data" sounds scientific, but it's often accountability evasion. If the mechanism analysis was done properly before the decision, you know what to expect. You don't need 20 years of data to see whether something works. The causal chain either holds or it doesn't.

Ask: "What is the causal model? What does the mechanism predict?" / "If the model predicted A and we see B, the model is wrong. Don't wait for more data. Fix the model."

21. Model Blindness

"Our calculations show this will save X million."

Definition: Blindness to a model's assumptions. The model may be mathematically correct but axiomatically false.

Mechanism: The model assumes ceteris paribus (all else equal), but the policy itself changes the culture, incentives, or trust that the model held constant. The model is precise but untrue.

Ask: "Don't show me the result. Show me the assumptions." / "What do you assume about human behavior? On what data is that assumption validated?" / "A model that's blind to its own boundary conditions is a wish."

22. Purity Argument

"It didn't work because it wasn't implemented purely enough."

Definition: Protecting a theory from criticism by blaming imperfect execution (No True Scotsman).

Examples: "That wasn't real communism." "That wasn't real free-market capitalism." "That wasn't the real reform we proposed."

Ask: "The mechanism must work with actual humans in actual conditions." / "If the model requires ideal conditions, it's a utopia, not a plan." / "Leaders are accountable for outcomes, not intentions."

XII. The Cognitive Toolkit

Summary of all 22 patterns. Print this page.

Five-Step Field Protocol

When reading news, listening to a politician, or processing any official text:

1. Spot the vacuums. Find statements that commit to nothing concrete.
2. Find the agent. Who is doing this? Who decided? Who pays?
3. Follow the cost. Where does the burden land, in space and time?
4. Check the frame. What alternatives were not presented?
5. Demand the mechanism. What exactly happens? When? By what metric can I verify?

XIII. Clarity Is Civilizational Maintenance

The full chain: Clear thinking → Clear language → Clear specification → Auditable logic → Accountability → Functioning institutions → Civilizational flourishing.

The chain runs both directions. When language is foggy, thinking becomes foggy. When thinking is foggy, specifications are vague. When specifications are vague, logic can't be audited. When logic can't be audited, accountability can't be assigned. When accountability can't be assigned, institutions decay. When institutions decay, civilization dies.

Most officials are not lying. They write the way they were taught to write. The problem is not malice. It is incompetence and institutional pressure. Nobody ever demanded clarity, so clarity was never learned. Vagueness protects, so vagueness is produced.

When you demand clarity, you are not being difficult. You are performing epistemic infrastructure maintenance.

Every clear sentence is a repaired bit. Every named agent is a removed vacuum. Every deadline is a blocked laundering operation.

Clear language is the signature of a civilized people.

When you hear a semantic vacuum, ask: "What does this mean in practice?"

When you hear passive voice, ask: "Who did this?"

When you hear "the matter is under review," ask: "Is this a study or a decision?"

These questions are a gift, not an accusation. They teach clarity to those willing to learn, and they expose those who are not.

Related:

• Complexity Laundering — The structural mechanisms behind patterns 5-8, with full taxonomy
• The Containment Pattern — Semantic erosion applied to institutional critique
• Simulated Metamorphosis — Pseudo-motion: the feeling of changing things as the mechanism by which things stay the same
• The Governance Alignment Problem — Why politicians are structurally misaligned agents (the generator of semantic vacuums)
• Cargo Cult Epistemology — Navigating a low-Integrity intellectual world
• The Rights Bubble — Uncovered claims at civilizational scale
• The Vibes Constitution — Wishlist constitutions: rights without hierarchy or enforcement (institutional, not linguistic)
• The Copenhagen Trap — Structural stupidity: institutions that don't need to understand their clients (institutional, not linguistic)