Fun with etymology

As we all know, language evolves over time. We can see that in the list of “words to avoid at all costs” we covered earlier. Many of these terms, such as “moron,” “imbecile,” and “idiot,” were once official medical terms used to describe a certain range on the bell curve of intelligence quotient (IQ) scores. Now they are insults: when you call someone who cuts you off in traffic an idiot, you're not actually making a claim about their scores on an intelligence test. But you are evoking the older meaning, even if it’s not your intention.

 
The meaning of words also shifts and changes. Sometimes words are used in a sense different from the one they had when they were first introduced. Sometimes they come to mean the exact opposite.

 
But the fact that words change doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look back at their original meanings once in a while. Doing so can show us the assumptions that might be contained in certain words — assumptions that are not necessarily spoken aloud. Let's look at the word “vulnerable.” We use it to mean a person at risk of harm, but we also use it as a euphemism for someone who is disabled or unprotected. The root of the word “vulnerable” is the Latin vulnus, meaning wound. A person who is vulnerable is someone who can be hurt, someone who is “wound-able.” Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there has been a shift in the language. Public-health officials speak of “vulnerable groups.” Only people in those vulnerable groups are told to take precautions or considered to be at continued risk.

However, no human being is invulnerable. Everyone can be wounded. Everybody can be hurt. Everyone knows this, on one level or another. The way health professionals, politicians and the media have used “vulnerable” encourages people to think of it as an exception — as, let’s say, special. In this way, “trusted voices” in the media and health professions encourage members of the public to think of themselves as outside these vulnerable groups.
I’m not saying there aren't some people who are at higher risk than others are for certain health outcomes. But framing two options only — some people as “at risk” or “vulnerable” and some people as not — can discourage people from thinking critically about and accurately calculating their own risk. Indeed, by framing mainstream news audiences as not part of the “vulnerable,” the media is actually encouraging people to underestimate their own risk.

Looking back at the origins of words can show you how intent and usage have shifted over time — and you may discover that earlier connotations are, in fact, still present.
Everything in this section so far has been driving at a certain point which is…