>"Problematic" is an example of increasingly popular newspeak. Translated it means "I don't like it, but I'm too lazy to explain why, and/or I'm afraid that if I do explain myself my biases and desire to abuse authority will be evident".

Exactly. In the true and tried method of labeling the "elements" in internal Party skirmishes, where just slapping a label on someone was enough to end his career. And the recipient is immediately under suspicion, and whatever he may say is equally suspect now.

Just the same as when today you hire lawyers to sue someone on the basis of any ridiculous rumor, and everyone knows there's nothing to it, doesn't even get to the court, but serves the purpose: next month you can sic your media dogs to call him controversial. Repeat the adjective several times, and the stain never washes away.

>"Toxic" is very similar. "Toxic" means a large Twitter mob can be relied upon to denounce it (as far as any Twitter mob can be considered reliable); "problematic" commands a smaller mob. Anyone who uses the word "problematic" would prefer to use "toxic", and it's their earnest goal to promote anything they consider "problematic" to "toxic".

The use of "toxic" as a weapon is a toxic invention by itself. Specially that episode when "toxic masculinity" was expanded to encompass any use of brains for problem solving, acting against trouble etc.

>These newspeak examples are just those that immediately jump to mind. Serious commentators avoid them. IMO anyone who uses them is suspect by default.

"Failed state", when used to mark the country we want to bomb.
"Regime" vs "government", depending on how friendly they are to our commercial interests. Ditto for "forces" vs "militants" etc etc. There's a whole double dictionary there. Today's mercenary may turn out to be a member of security tomorrow.