I disagree, content gets automatically age restricted for a valid reason. You don’t want to show kids a video on tiktok where someone is talking about suicide. If the word is detected, tiktok would flag the video as not suitable for all audiences and then views would plummet. It wasn’t pearl clutching, it’s just the way algorithms have to work when you can’t verify the age of 95% of your users.
(source: I have 3 teenagers in my house)
That’s because they don’t mean the same thing. “Gifted” specifically means “gave as a gift.” You can give things without them being gifts. For example, if I give you a folder, I might just want you to look at it. If I gift you a folder, I may want you to look at it. If I give you some beer, it may just be for you to drink. If I gift you some beer, I gave you a wrapped up sixpack for a special occasion.
The word took off because English lacked a single word for the concept, and the meaning is intuitive to those who haven’t heard it. (It follows the usual verbed noun rules.)
For most of my life, no on used this term to make that distinction. “Give” could mean either thing, in context. The only time I encountered “gifted” was when I worked as a paralegal for an estate planning law firm. It was a term of art used in wills and trusts.
I’m not saying it’s wrong or inappropriate. I raised the example solely to demonstrate how fast a word fad takes off. And to me, that’s what it is: A fad.
I will continue to give people things, including gifts.
It sounds to me, though, like the lawsuits in question are about employees dying due to events or conditions at the workplace, rather than, say, just keeling over with an unrelated fatal medical problem or deciding to commit suicide in the office? In other words, situations in which we’d typically say that the late employee “was killed on the job”, rather than “died on the job”, specifically to convey the fact that the cause of death was a workplace accident or incident of some kind.
Yes, I can see how employers in those situations would like to back away from the use of “was killed”, with its secondary connotations of murderous intent.
That used to bug me a lot, too, and personally I still avoid using “gift” as a verb. But I’ve reluctantly come around to the acknowledgement that the two words have somewhat different connotations.
“To gift” is a more specialized term indicating deliberate bestowal of a token of appreciation and/or participation in a gift-giving ritual, unlike the much more broad meaning of “to give”. You can give somebody a shove, or a piece of your mind, or three steps toward the door, or five in the mush. You can unwittingly give somebody an STD, or deliberately give them enough rope to hang themselves, or 50% off the sticker price, or an extra ten minutes, or something to cry about. Etc., etc., etc.
But when you “gift” somebody something, it very unambiguously means that you’re presenting somebody with some specific thing as a mark of affection, gratitude, appreciation, etc. I agree it’s not really necessary to have a new term with that much more specific meaning, but I see why it’s become a standard term to connote the specialness of gift-giving.
This is pretty much the opposite, though. It’s not a term invented by an authoritarian to control thought, it’s a term invented by people to express a concept an authoritarian is trying to suppress. It’s actually evidence that the concept of Newspeak couldn’t have worked. People will just invent new terms to communicate the ideas you’re trying to ban.
“Snowball” is offensive because he led the rebellion against Comrade Napoleon.
You can influence language by demanding words be used, or you can influence it by forbidding words from being used - there’s no difference. The result is the same.
And we have seen the extent to which after some tragedy media and commenters make a Big Deal of how the person had hits for “suicide” or “guns” or “explosives” or “ISIS” or “14/88” or whatever in their history and OMG how is this allowed and not redflagged.
But I wonder if what will happen is that “unalived”, “seggs” or “bad mustache man” will themselves be identified and the verbal arms race/euphemism treadmill will continue.
A bigger cynic would say “sure, because the way to protect kids from something is to make sure they know to not let their adults hear them talk about it, but instead trust some rando in their DMs on the Down Low /s”. But I can also see why you may not want it to be trivially simple, either.
…
(Re: gifted)
Contrast Spanish “dar” (to give, generically) and “regalar” (to make a gift of something).
Until I read this thread title, I’d never even heard of the goofy term “unalive”. I do, however, remember watching hammer films 60 or so years ago with Peter Cushing & Christopher Lee about the “undead”. 
I heard a young woman use it in an interview on a news channel a few weeks back. I believe the interview was about a war. She made a comment about how many people had been unalived in whatever battle, attack, whatever the discussion was about. It sort of took me by surprise to … well even hear it. I’d only seen it on the web and thought it sounded sort of dumb. It sort of distracted me from the actual seriousness of the issue.
Maybe, but I think there’s a difference between a word invented to enforce compliant thinking, and a word invented to circumvent compliant thinking, and “unalive” is one of the latter.
People changing their language so as not to anger the Powers That Be is a form of compliant thinking. What they change it to is not really important. It’s not circumvention, it’s submission.
In the sense that if I were to walk into my kids’ elementary school and felt that I couldn’t drop F bombs left and right so I chose other words, I’m “submitting to the Powers That Be.”
In general, I don’t see this as mattering as much as most here seem to be suggesting – it’s pretty easy to remember to use a few of these specific terms for a broadcast, and it’s sometimes even nice to have a new term that doesn’t immediately have the same baggage, like being used too often as an exaggeration or pejorative.
That said, I haven’t watched any videos specifically on sensitive topics, like talking to survivors of sexual abuse, or ways to cope with suicidal thoughts, say, recently. The blunt rules must be a royal PITA for making such content.
Everything old is new again.
Google Ngram Viewer: unalive,unalived
According to Google Ngram, the peak usage of “unalive” was in 1831, with some variability over the decades.
Now I’m imagining a world where cockney slang starts working its way through social media.
You know…I’m a sceptic, because “sceptic” is followed by “tank” which rhymes with “yank”!
So we could use “Maynard” because his friend was “Zed” and “Zed’s dead” (to quote Butch)
Then all of that would be bowdlerized and we would be right back where we started.
A new euphemism treadmill.
It’s not “not to anger the Powers That Be.” It’s so that videos are not automatically taken down and posts automatically blocked by computer algorithms.
It’s the opposite of submission.
Ngrams is a useful tool, but requires going into the hits found. Unalive was used before 1830, but not in the modern sense. The examples there have the connotation of “insensitive” or “lacking”.
unalive to their real value
unalive to sentiment and fancy
unalive to those soft impressions which betoken a sensitive nature
That usage was still around more than a century later, as this one from 1976.
Being unalive to the risk of error and failure
Then it went through a period of metaphorical deadness, a lack of joy, as in these from 1975 and 1986
unalive, a product of conditioning. Yet that very mechanical society is the close friend of our own operating potentials, created by them to fulfill the function of making us mechanical, passive, automatic, unfeeling, unalive ..
unalive. I swam in the pool and struck the water, I read and cursed the words. Unalive, unalive, I can’t remember how long it’s been
By 2021 you see the modern meaning in all its meaningless.
I was about to unalive them both.
And then resurrect them, only to unalive them both a second time.
Nah, submission would be not talking about the subject they’re trying to prevent you from talking about. This is rebellion. Low key, low stakes rebellion, sure, but it’s absolutely the opposite of submission.
And who writes the algorithms? Do they just arise, spontaneously, from the aether?