I respect "tactical" products and sort of look for them purely for functional reasons: they tend to be more durable, aren't laden with logos, and are relatively

I respect "tactical" products and sort of look for them purely for functional reasons: they tend to be more durable, aren't laden with logos, and are relatively neutral in color and appearance. They are very functional in general, and I've purchased them. Having said that, I've been puzzled by the "tactical" label. It used to be that the tactical label just meant it meant some durability requirements and was free of logos or advertising. Now it's really vague and sometimes does come with military functions that no one in civilian life would really care about, but sometimes just seems to be a sort of... cultural signifier? Kind of like how traditional camo started showing up everywhere? People I know have started discussions because they're not even sure what "tactical" means anymore. So I think it's fair to ask why that particular label, or any label at all. It used to be you could just go to a brand and expect quality and no-nonsense characteristics. There are plenty of brands like that but they're harder to find. So why the police-military association in particular? I guess I had a different reaction to it, which is that it's about time someone asks what is going on with this "tactical" label. I don't think it's necessarily a cultural distaste issue, it's something that's a little weird to a lot of people, even to people who buy this stuff. I don't know that I think it's a good or bad article, it's just an important question to ask. And if you're being complete in exploring the question, I think it's fair to ask about cultural climate and so forth, because language is cultural. Another way I look at it is this: "tactical" has become sort of a useless term to me because it's overused. How did it get this way?