“Unalived” Needs to Die

Though “unalive” dates back to 1828 in its adjective form, its modern use as a verb is to clumsily circumvent content filters, likely causing more harm than good. Make no mistake, I believe in reasonable moderation; these platforms have to maintain safe online spaces. I’m referring to the unintended consequences of finding ways around filters and then overusing them. For example, in its adjective form: “He stepped into the long-forgotten catacombs, lit a torch, and struggled to shake the oppressive sense of unseen eyes lingering on him as if the motionless, unalive denizens were waiting for his next move.” No one talks like that, but in narrative writing, it effectively sets a tone. In contrast, there’s a trend of using the word as a verb, as in “This Tesla driver nearly unalived me while I was minding my own business on my motorcycle.” As a verb, it’s an ineffective pseudo-euphemism that dilutes language and cripples our ability to discuss serious topics. Distorting language trivializes everything we have to say.

I understand why it has risen in usage, but some of you may need an update: “unalive” is often used as a graceless way around content moderation filters on social media (because some filters block content containing words like die, murder, or kill), allowing posters to maximize their reach. It’s annoying when I see it on social media. But it’s appalling when I hear it used outside of social media. Consider this narrative example: “The assassin stood over his prostrate target. ‘You could have avoided this, Ramsay, but your meddling has caught up to you. Now you have forced me to unalive you.’” While the rest of that passage may not be Shakespeare, that final verb shatters any attempted eloquence. 

Speaking of Shakespeare, it’s important to recognize that language evolves, reflecting society’s needs. Writers like him expanded English vocabulary by introducing useful words that filled gaps in expression. They gave us terms like authority, examination, fable, and universe–words that have clear meanings and significant utility. In contrast, “unalive” as a replacement for established action words illustrates a regression in our language. This term neither enriches our vocabulary nor enhances our communication; rather, it merely serves as an unnecessary substitute. Euphemisms can be useful; a man who is between jobs conveys a different image than an unemployed one. It may be funnier to say a colleague is “economical with the truth” than to call him a liar. 

“Unalive,” however, is a siren call for younger audiences or those looking to circumvent content moderation. It epitomizes linguistic laziness, often used by individuals with underdeveloped communication skills or as shallow attempts at edginess. They unironically believe they’re part of some counterculture movement while following the latest fad. Yawn. 

Those resorting to hollow phrasing fail to realize that they’d be better off focusing on meaningful thoughts. Anyone with substance can express it without relying on inelegant terms. If they can’t, perhaps they lack something substantive to share! Instead, they dilute language with these worthless neologisms that defang words with actual bite. They diminish the gravity of serious topics like death and mental health, as these nerfed words ultimately find their way into in-person conversations, often among younger audiences or those less careful with language.

My previous examples are fabricated, but the real problem with pseudo-euphemisms goes far beyond fiction. Language matters. It’s a powerful tool for confronting reality. When my late wife was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, I didn’t dare tell my sons, “Unlike the breast cancer she just beat, this cancer is going to unalive her.” That would’ve been cowardly. Cancer killed her. She is dead. How can we confront life’s hardest realities if we rely solely on euphemisms? She is not unalived. I will not someday unalive. I will die. You will too. Over-sanitizing our language risks desensitizing us to reality. It weakens our ability to discuss mortality, grief, love, and passion meaningfully. None of us would dream of hugging our babies and telling them how much we unhate them.

“Unalive” needs to go. It’s crucial that we communicate precisely and meaningfully, which we cannot do with watered-down, internet-born workarounds contrived by chatbots and attention-starved social media users. Let’s take the gloves off and have real conversations instead of bland, soulless dialogue. To live boldly, we must speak boldly, honoring the truth with clear, precise words.