But on the most basic level, pirate "brand image" is not an Orwellian use of language for the very simple reason that the author is not advocating or justifying piracy, either overtly or covertly.
I do not see how that is relevant ; what feels Orwellian is not the promotion of piracy but that of enterprises' buzzspeak. And I do not say these are the aim of the speaker ; indeed, the particularly Orwellian moment is not when the propagandist uses Orwellian language, but when others use it, and find it normal.
How about the claim that pirates had pioneered a sophisticated system of "worker's compensation"?
This is a somewhat sloppy anachronism, too, but it is less part of, well, company buzzspeak. Which is one it doesn't feel as much as an Orwellian moment. And also, it is, in fact, what seems really new in what the pirates were doing, and thus the anachronism is the point ; whereas reputation through massacre has a much, much longer history. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I think this is where we differ.
You seem to believe that corporate/economic buzz-speak is intrinsically Orwellian, even when the ends to which such terms are applied by the speaker/writer/thinker are politically neutral.
I believe that for something to be Orwellian, there has to be an intent to deceive or distort. In the case of this particular economist (putting aside the merits of his theory or lack thereof for now), he is not trying to deceive or distort, but rather to inform and elucidate.
But this does raise an interesting point: When the mere use of certain terms reinforces the legitimacy and/or appeal of an ideology or culture that supports the dominant power structure (even if that usage creates potentially bad associations for those terms), then does using those terms become intrinsically Orwellian (because no matter how and when and to what end the speaker uses them, they serve to reinforce the dominant power structure)?
So if we were living in a society that was not dominated by corporate power, using the words "brand image" and "branding" would not be Orwellian, or at least not as muuch. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Using (in an imprecise way : because after all, the original meaning is still valid) buzz speak when the speaker does not intend to promote it feels much more Orwellian than when there is such a promotional intent.
I believe that for something to be Orwellian, there has to be an intent to deceive or distort
Because the problem with Orwellian speech is not its use as propaganda, easily recognisable as such, but but when indeed its formulations and simplifications become part of common discourse, orienting thoughts its way... I'd find it much more worrying if the economist was using "brand name" without being aware of its impreciseness rather than because he was fishing for some speaking tour in business conferences... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Here is the paper in which he develops the idea (I have not read it, just the Scientific American interview):
Pirational Choice: The Economics of Infamous Pirate Practices
linca: Because the problem with Orwellian speech is not its use as propaganda, easily recognisable as such, but but when indeed its formulations and simplifications become part of common discourse, orienting thoughts its way.
Here I think you are presuming people guilty until proven innocent of being intellectually compromised by corporate buzz speak. I believe the burden of proof goes the other way around. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
I'll also note that the author is a member of the Georges Mason University Department of Economics, which was heavily funded by right wing fundations. Giving a bit more of that Orwellian vibe. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
