Pick any sentence and trace the words back to their origin and you'll find some sort of story about where it was borrowed from. That's just how language works. It isn't anything new -- we're all just older than we've ever been. Every generation coins new terms.
If you're taking the time to write one or more posts about this, you are implicitly against language growth, you've just found a justification for being against it that you find acceptable to your worldview.
Yes, there are occasions where I would take exception to language evolution. If we entered a pattern of 1984-era newspeak I'd take exception there as well. I think it is usually the product of a poorly considered stance for one to be an absolutist about the vast majority things.
Euphemism is already common, particularly when discussing sensitive topics like the cycle of life, bodily functions, etc. You are probably okay with many existing euphemisms because they are familiar. This really isn't a social media thing, newspaper obituaries also use euphemisms for death. e.g. "passed away", "departed", "eternal rest", etc.
Yes, because that euphemistic language is there to lighten the blow. "unalive" is an attempt to bypass a social media filter and speaks to the shift in how and why words enter our lexicon.
Well, because "suicide" isn't profane. It might be considered a pseudo-profanity, but people don't stop saying swearing because of profanity filters. This is an instance where the filter is feeding back into the zeitgeist.
I get the opposite out of it. Using the negative prefix weakens the word, emphasizing what it is not instead of what it is, when act like suicide is not just the state of being not alive. The phrasing isn't committed enough to be oxymoronic and it ends up feeling impersonal and indirect.
