Thought requires relevant points and interpretations are limited so as to be manageable. Numerous, complex experiences must be condensed into something of value if they're to be used as points. There are many opportunities within this process to arrange things so as to arrive at conclusions that suit us.

With specific word choices, we can neatly highlight what's to be focused on, and what's to be ignored. We can direct the attention of the listener towards seeing things in the way we're seeing them. Be that as it may, words have rules for their use and these meanings or rules are generally agreed to work. That's what's required for language to function after all, but although words have an agreed-upon meaning and agreed-upon rules for use, there's also room for interpretation and the rules have flexibility.

A circumstance may qualify to be described using a wide variety of words or phrases, which each select different aspects of that circumstance for emphasis, or highlight ways of interpreting present concepts. From the large array of available options we can choose from, their qualification or applicability not being in question, the patterns with which we select will establish how we process circumstances.

However, words or phrases that may technically qualify might be rejected by manipulating the process. For example, words like brave, loyal, innovative, ambitious, dependable, and conscientious might be words that could be used to describe a hypothetical human trafficker. Nevertheless, we hate human traffickers, so we're definitely not going to use any of those words which paint this scumbag in a positive light. We'll bring up evidence that supports negative descriptions, deny evidence that supports positive descriptions and emphasise the negatives.

There are also words that are seemingly designed to have double standards such as brainwashing. A necessarily negative word, which you'd mostly only use to describe something you didn't like. It wouldn't be appropriate to call merely teaching one's child to follow certain political beliefs brainwashing, but if it's a racist or hateful ideology then it's brainwashing. Teaching one's child one's faith is fine, but if the faith is radical and violent then it's brainwashing. Brainwashing can't be good, so even if something should technically be able to be called brainwashing, if it's good or permissible then it can't be, so we need to figure out a way to make sure it isn't.

Our arguments which are built upon words, and the description of things, are all biased by the word choices we made before we even got to that point. So, what's the solution? There definitely isn't one.

Firstly, this practice is socially enforced, so even if you did decide to start labelling human traffickers using language in a supposedly unbiased way, your peers will tear you apart for doing it. If you try to call innocuous activities "brainwashing", you're going to start losing friends. Secondly, there are simply too many possibilities for use, and you can't work with them all, so you need some selection process. I think it's definitely valid to argue that one selection process is superior to another, but not that it won't be biased.

In summary, we will choose our words based on our feelings and intent, in an unavoidable process that necessarily biases our perspective and conclusions. Subjects may vary in how greatly they're affected, and specific methods of reaching a conclusion also vary. And no, I don't feel threatened by this, I'm comfortable with asserting that opinions can have value while still being biased.