Our Language is two or more standard deviations away from the average IQ score of 100.

I recently got into a debate with some one online about the use of the word "retarded" as an insult: I believe that the word is acceptable to be used, though it may offend, while my opponent disagreed. Here is the transcript of our conversation (along with the moderator's), with all names being altered with the exception of my own:


Ms. Y: That's insanity!! The use of the word "retard" is wrong, no matter what context, unless the use is clinical. You would think a mother of a child with special needs would feel as strongly about it as anyone else. How dare she excuse it at all, much less in one place and criticize the other. Maybe one day she'll remove her head from her butt.

Ethan: Hmmmm, I kind of disagree. The words "stupid", "moron", and "idiot" were clinical terms as well, yet we use them as a description. Let's not forget the use of the word "gypped", which has racist roots, but we use it. A word is just a word, the intention is what makes it evil, neutral, or good. I could make the word "bread" evil if I tried.

Moderator: hmmmm...I kind of disagree with your kinda disagree. Many words have been used historically that most of us would be uncomfortable using in most circumstances...the "N" word and the "K" word (for Jews) being the two that come to mind first...yet cultural sensitivity and caring about other peoples feelings make these words inappropriate (most of the time).

Ms. Y: Oh Ethan, I do see your point but I also have to disagree with your disagreement. Mentally Retarded is a clinical term and is defined as two or more standard deviations away (lower than) from the average IQ score of 100. It's a recognized classification of disability. Much like the racist terms that make my stomach churn even thinking of them, using the word retard, or a form of the word, is wrong, unless it's a clinical diagnosis. Using the word retard as a descriptor of anyone/anything is just as offensive as the slurs that have the potential to see legal prosecution under hate crimes.

Ethan: I can appreciate from where your arguments stem, however I subscribe to the George Carlin view of words being innocent and the meaning being guilty. For a simple example, people often use the word lame to describe something that is disliked, however the word lame can also mean disfigured or crippled. However, the meaning is different. Also a number of my gay friends use the word gay in the same fashion as lame. I am also an egalitarian and think it is illogical and discriminatory for society to approve of one group using a word and condemn it for another. That is the definition of discrimination. Finally to you, Moderator. Your examples of those two words is not a good comparison. The original and nearly sole intent of those words is hate and discrimination, while the word retarded is not. If you wish to make a comparison the juxtaposed words should actually be comparable beyond the fact that they are composed of letters.

Ms. Y: George Carlin had many valid points, I'm a fan of his. Words are innocent and the meaning is guilty, then where exactly does that put using the word retard (or any other you see fit)? I'm all for freedom of speech (thought I'd throw that inthere before you attempt to use it against me) but when in life has it become okay to say and do whatever you like because you adopt famous people's views of language? We were not created to be and operate as islands. We are all interconnected and have been created to serve one another. Where exactly does using any word in a slanderous way move the Kingdom forward? When did we stop caring about others? When did it become "cool" and "a right" to insult one another? When did philosophy adopting give us the perspective that words don't hurt? Keep trying Ethan. OH, and Ethan, can you explain to me exactly how calling someone a retard is not discriminatory and hateful? Just wondering....

Ethan: Okay. First of all, the reason I cited George Carlin was not to say "Hey, someone famous said it, therefore I am right." It was more to give an example so I didn't have to explain the whole thing here on Facebook. The entire point of his statement is as follows: those who get offended at the word X, which they believe has the implication of Y, areoffended by the definition, not the word itself. So, when the definition is different, offense should not be found. I was under the impression that English was one of those cool languages where words could have multiple definitions. I am not denying that people take offense, as that is quite evident in the fact that we are having this conversation. Now, I shall try to go through my points sequentially so I don't lose my path: 1) You are correct, we are not islands, and we thrive through social interactions. However, social interaction is a two-way street. It is not simply, "I'll say I'm offended, and you will stop what I say offends me." It involves give and take from both sides, such as people working on not getting offended at things that have no offensive intention whatsoever. 2) "We ...have been created to serve one another." I could see using this mentality as a justification for slavery. And I will not agree with this statement for many reasons, not the least of which is "created". 3) As for your question about how this moves us forward, I would like to do a little thought experiment about where the path of politically correct censorship leads, and I can't help but see Orwell's Double Speak at the end of the tunnel. 4) Words can hurt. Any word can hurt. But words are simple devices for conveying a definition, a larger concept. Thus, with words that have multiple definitions, a single word can convey many different concepts; only in cases such as this are all of the definitions connected no matter what the intended implication. A thought comes to mind: the word retard does have other uses, ie. "Don't retard the process." Is this sentence acceptable? It does not use the definition of "a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning...", nor does it follow the definition of "an insult to describe some one acting in an illogical way". 5) Finally, can I explain how calling someone a retard is not discriminatory or hateful? Yes. First of all, do physicians still use the word "retard" to describe someone with "a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning"? If YES: Then the word is not always used to discriminate. If NO: Then the word is not used clinically to describe those with "impaired cognitive functioning", and thus is free for other definitions. Regardless of which is true, the discriminatory and hateful senses of a word comes from its definition, its implication, a sentiment that you agreed to in your previous post. Thus, if the word is used with no intention of hate, no intention of discrimination, then it is not hateful.

You told me to keep trying. I will.

Moderator: I don't find words themselves insulting...but when a word used to describe one group is used to insult another then it's as if we are saying the characteristics of the first group are inferior and therefore to say you are like them is an insult. Using the word Jew to describe me is fine...saying to someone else that "you jewed me" (meaning took financial advantage of) is saying to be like a Jew is bad and therefore I'm using it to insult you and insulting me at the same time...it's the use of the word...when both Limbaugh and Emmanuel used the word "retard" they said you are behaving like a person with a particular disability and therefore it's an insult to both the person it was used against and the people it refers to. It is, of course, ok to hurl an insult at someone, but I don't think it's ok to implicate, and potentially hurt others, while hurling it.

Ms. Y: Ethan, our philosophies on creation are not important here, so you're right, we need not go into that. I respect whatever your belief on that is. However, serving one another is far different then enslaving. You're a young boy and as you grow and mature that definition will become much broader than a likeness to slavery. Serving one another in love has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. 

George Carlin did have a point, but it's not the only point and it's not entirely correct. Let's remember: he made his living doing comedy, not matter how timely his comic routines may have been.
Your alternate definition of the word retard also has no bearing on this discussion as the use is correct but completely unrelated to humans or human behavior. There are also flame retardent clothing. Also, no bearing here.
People who are classified anywhere on the scales of mental retardation, which yes-is still a diagnosed disability, not "impaired cognitive functioning", that would be a definition, not a diagnosis present with many challenges. When that is used to insult another, it is insulting both sides.
The moderator did a fantastic job of saying exactly what the rest of my argument was going to be, so I don't feel I need to say it all again.

Ethan:  ...I have stated it before, I am not using George Carlin as an appeal to authority; I don't know why you keep saying that I am. I was taught in school to cite people, maybe I was wrong. 

1) Now, the most important concept we have to keep in mind is something known as the Euphemism Treadmill, where words and titles constantly change in an attempt to reduce offense: retard was a replacement designed to reduce offense. One of the key principles to this concept is that if a word has both a neutral meaning and a negative meaning, the negative meaning will eventually win out at the word will become taboo.
2) Also, you both seem very focused on the etymology of the word retarded being used as an insult, where it came from. It is true that the original intent of the word as an insult was to associate the person being insulted with someone who was clinically retarded. However, that is no longer the intention. At all. By saying someone is retarded, the person is not attempting to use the word that is labeled to one group and throw it on another. That is not the point. That is a different definition. We are also not attempting to say that some materials have "two or more standard deviations away (lower than) from the average IQ score of 100", because the definition is different. Whether you would like to admit it or not, the definition used as an insult is different in the mind of the user.
3) This brings me to my next point: the difference between "being offensive" and "taking offense". You have a choice to be offended. You have a choice in whether or not you get mad. No one makes you angry, you get angry. It is you, not me. Maybe the malfunction lies with those who take offense, not those who use the word.
4) Frequent usage of a word separates it from its origin. A quick example: "God bless you". Now, if I am an atheist and someone tells me after I sneeze "God bless you", it would be illogical of me to take offense because the person does not literally mean "I hope that my God bless you and helps you". Though the original intention of the phrase did involve a God literally blessing someone, that is no longer the case, much as it is no longer the case that someone using the word retarded is associated with "two or more standard deviations away (lower than) from the average IQ score of 100". Another example: "Eric Clapton is a God!" Now, I am not saying that Eric Clapton is a divine being who has the power to turn water into wine or judge others for eternity, because it is a different definition of the word. Both describe people, both describe qualities of people, but the meaning is different, and most people can recognize that. How about "Damn you"? If I say that to someone, I am not actually hoping that that person is damned to an eternity of hellfire, but it is simply a way of expressing displeasure. What about when someone, who knows me very well, calls me "stupid"? That person and I both know that I am not, and both of us know that that person is not trying to say that I truly am, it is simply an expression.

Out.

Ms. Y: 1. Citing people is a sign of citing authority. You don't get to dodge that. 

2. How is it you've come to this conclusion, "However, that is no longer the intention. At all. By saying someone is retarded, the person is not attempting to use the word that is labeled to one group and throw it on another. That is not the point. That is a different definition." What other way is that possibly used??!! You can't make generalization to that degree on something you are not an expert.
3. I'm not sure why your anger discussion is included. Other than people, all people, any people SHOULD be angry and get involved when there are wrongs in this world that need our attention. And yes, this is one of those items that needs/deserves attention. I encourage to you to speak with people who have family members who are Mentally Retarded and/or educators who work with students with this diagnosed disability. I am sure you will find we all agree that the use of the word is absolutely unacceptable.
4. How do you know people don't want God to truly bless you when you sneeze?
5. Don't fall back on friendly (yet still offensive) banter. That also has no part in this argument.

Ethan: Okay, Ms. Y. 

1) Your first statement is false and misleading. Citing someone is CITING authority, but I denied APPEALING to authority. There is an obvious difference as defined in the types of logical fallacies. You are accusing me of APPEALING to authority, while I do not deny CITING it.
2) How did I come to this conclusion? Simple observations. I use the phrase. I do not use it with that intention. My brother uses the phrases. He does not use it with that intention. My girlfriend uses the phrase. She does not use it with that intention. So far the odds are looking good. Ask anyone who uses the phrase "When you say someone is retarded as an insult, are you intending to demean the community of those who are clinically retarded?" They will say no. I admit that I am not an expert on this subject, but you are not either. I haven't seen your PhD and series of published studies into the field of how people intend the phrase while using it. Please do not insult my authority while you, though being a teacher of those with clinical retardation and having taken courses and read books, are not an expert. You also do not know how much reading and studying I have done on the issue.
3) Need me to speak with people who have Mentally Retarded family members? Okay. Done. One of my close friends at school and another at work. I have spoken to them about this issue before writing a paper on the topic for a 400 level course atWashington University in Saint Louis about the history and evolution of the English language (Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I have in fact done my research). No, they don't all agree with you. And even if they did, you misunderstood my point. People do not make others angry, you get angry. It is not I who makes anger, it is you who creates it.
4) Really? Did you just ask this? You need proof? I don't mean it. There. Also, the origin of it involves the expelling of demons and the stopping of the heart at the moment of sneezing, both of which could lead to premature death. These have been scientifically disproved and are not on people's mind when they say "God bless you". How about Eric Clapton is a God? Do you think someone means he is actually divine?
5) If my banter offends, I do apologize, but you have used two phrases to deliberately demean me, as well. "You're a young boy and as you grow and mature..." The implication of this statement is that my disagreement with you stems from my age and my lack of "maturity". How about "You can't make generalization to that degree on something you are not an expert"? I never claimed to be. After all, I am arguing on Facebook. If I were an expert, I would be writing essays in journals and conducting studies. My banter is friendly, and with no intended offensiveness. Once again, you are finding offense where none was intended."

The Moderator cut us off here (something I promise to never do). Please pitch in, either with me or against me, or even a third view!

AA is for Quiters!

Well, the title isn't exactly what I'm talking about, but it's close enough.

Before I begin, I would like everyone to read the 12 Steps, directly quoted from the website 12Step.org:

"The 12 Steps

1 - We admitted we were powerless over our addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable

2 - Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity
3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God
4 - Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
5 - Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs
6 - Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character
7 - Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings
8 - Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all
9 - Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
10 - Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it
11 - Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for us and the power to carry that out
12 - Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs"

Now, it is wonderful that many people have been able to stop abusive drinking, smoking, drug use, or whatever "addiction" it may be by using these steps. However, the problem I have with the program is not the method itself, but rather how it is used through the government.

If someone is found guilty of drug possession, drunk driving, or some other drug related crime, one of the frequent punishments is the requirement of the guilty to attend a certain amount of AA/NA meetings, with additional sessions if it is found that said person did not successfully participate in the meetings. This is where the problem lies.

Our legal system requires people to attend meetings that require a belief in a higher power. Now, I have heard people attempt to defend this by quoting the third step, which says "God as we understand God". But what if we don't understand God at all? How could one be expected to follow a program that requires theism if he, Shiva forbid, was an atheist?


This is, in the most basic of forms, the legal system mandating religion; no one particular religion, granted, but religion in general, and that is still a violation of the rights of Americans.


People, if you or some one you know is put in this situation, there are plenty of alternatives, plenty of organisations that use the same principles without bringing God into the picture. By the way, if it works without God, why bring him in? Occam would be proud!


foolish out

How Politically Correct Language Alters Understanding and Thought

"It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words." - George Orwell, 1984.

Language as a Means of Communication:

How Politically Correct Language Alters Understanding and Thought

Dr. Noam Chomsky, the renowned linguist and philosopher, once said that if “human language has a function at all it's for expression of thought. So if you just think about your own use of language, a rather small part is used for communication. Much of human language is just used to establish social relations.” (Nancho) Through further reading of Chomsky's discussion on this subject, the reason that he makes the statement about communication being a minimal aspect becomes clear: his definition of the word 'communication'. However, it is interesting to note that Chomsky put such a great emphasis on language as a mode of thought expression and social relation, for it is in these areas that the concept of political correctness comes into play. In terms of language as a mode of expressing one's thoughts, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis enters the equation. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that language is not simply a mode of communicating our thoughts, but is also the way in which we form our thoughts (Stafford). Politically Correct Language (PCL) attempts to alter language in the most intense of fashions: removing certain words from use. One of the possible consequences of this, though not necessarily to the extreme degree suggested by Whorf, is that our thoughts are altered as well. Addressing Chomsky's second quality of language, its usefulness in the formation of social relations, it is primarily due to this characteristic of language that Politically Correct Language first came into being.  The primary purpose of PCL, to this day, is to minimize the possible offensiveness of certain pieces of our language, and thus improve the qualities of interpersonal communication. These two qualities of Politically Correct Language are not disputed; the questions at hand are what makes something politically (in)correct, is it censorship or something new, whether or not PCL improves our ability to communicate our thoughts, whether it impacts the way we think, and if the attempt to minimize offensiveness within language is worth the consequences inflicted upon the language itself. Politically Correct Language consists of a myriad of euphemisms for certain words and phrases that are otherwise offensive to a significant amount of the community. Several questions, to which there are no clear answers, arise out of this definition: Who determines what is offensive? How many people must be offended before a word is removed from common usage? Where does it end?
To the first question, the best answer that can be given is that everyone is able to say what is offensive, but those in some form of power determine whether the word or phrase is offensive enough to be altered. It also is interesting to note that words, phrases, and subject matters vary in terms of acceptability depending on the speaker and the subject; a famous example of this is the film “The Producers”. The film, by Mel Brooks, first came onto the scene in the late 60s, not too terribly long after the fall of the Third Reich, and focused around two Jewish producers attempting to cheat their way into wealth by putting on a fictional play known as Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden. Though the film received mixed reviews initially, it is now one of the most well known films and stage musicals. Were this play to have been written by anyone other than Mel Brooks, or another equally well known Jew, it is unlikely that the film would have even made it to screening, let alone to popularity. The story involves a great deal of racial and religious humor, and it makes fun of the most infamous character in the world at the time: Adolf Hitler. However, despite these racy qualities, “The Producers” is not known as politically incorrect, it is not censored; in fact, the year the first version came out, it was praised with many awards, including Academy Awards for Best Writing, Story, and Screenplay, and a Best Actor in a Supporting Role nomination for Gene Wilder. Although the film met with slight resistance, it would appear that the primary reason for this acceptance, is that the person who wrote it was in fact a Jew, which lends credence to the concept that perceived correctness varies depending on the speaker.
To the question of how many people need be offended before something is deemed taboo,, there is one particular set of phrases that, though they both mean the same thing and are equally offensive, have not been censored in the same fashion: “Billy jewed me down” and “Billy gypped me”. Both of these phrases convey the message that Billy swindled me, and both use a particular ethnic group in order to express this method. The former example, however, is considered extremely politically incorrect, and would likely cost any public official his career, while the latter is still a common phrase in mainstream conversation. An even more interesting detail about the word 'gypped' is that, with a quick perusal of a basic Internet search engine of the word, it appears to be common knowledge that the word is derogatory, but the usage is not diminishing. This evidence furthers the theory that there is a threshold that must be met prior to a word becoming taboo; however, there is room for a second option: the phrase 'gypped' refers to gypsies, who have often had, and still often do have, a negative reputation, and thus the derogatory nature of the phrase takes a back seat to the reputation of the group to whom the phrase refers. Regardless of which theory is the genuine reason, or if it is a combination of the two, it is clear that not all offensive phrases are censored out of the language.
This leads into the third question previously posed: where does the politically correct path end? This is a question that cannot be effectively answered, because it is quite likely that it will not end,  but it possible to hypothesize where the path will eventually lead. Steven Pinker, an experimental neuro-psychologist, upon examining the way that euphemisms function within language, discussed a concept known as the “Euphemism Treadmill”. The theory quickly summarized is this: a euphemism, or “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant” (Merriam-Webster), used to replace a taboo word or phrase will, eventually, become taboo itself, requiring yet another substitution to occur. The clearest examples of this treadmill effect fall in the category of disabilities, either mental or physical. For example, “during the 19th and 20th centuries, people with developmental disabilities experienced a range of labels (idiot, imbecile, moron, defective, trainable)” (State Councils on Developmental Disabilities). Since that time, new euphemisms have come into existence, such as crippled, retarded, and disabled, and have been removed from usage just as quickly. 'Handicapped' is still the most widely accepted term for someone who is physically disabled, but that is simply because the suggested substitute, 'differently-abled', was ridiculed as ridiculous and trivializing from its conception, much like another equally absurd suggested substitute, 'handi-capable'. However, as soon as an acceptable substitute is created, 'handicapped' will likely fall into the ranks of outdated euphemisms, to be substituted with another, equally short-lived expression. In attempting to fully answer the question of where this entire process will lead, one must first acknowledge how willing people seem to change their language in order to not seem bigoted through their speech. It is a bit of an exaggeration, but Orwell's “Newspeak” is a good model to hold in mind if one is attempting to see the future that the PCL movement could bring. It obviously will not subvert the communication of thoughts such as freedom and revolution, but perhaps it has the potential to completely eliminate the discussion of race from our accepted vocabulary, or any physical or social differences at all.  The word “minority”, for example, is moving down the treadmill, soon to be replaced by another euphemism. Since it is not truly possible to see where this will end, especially if the Euphemism Treadmill concept holds true, we must refocus our attention on whether the movement could go too far in its attempts.
Simply put, the answer is yes. The reason it is so simple to answer a question concerning the future is the fact that Politically Correct Language has already gone too far in many cases. Lenora Billings-Harris, a Business Communication Consultant, put out a short list of suggestions that, if followed, will make your speech in the workplace more acceptable and more politically correct. The very first phrase that she addresses is “black sheep”, with a suggested replacement of “outcast” (Billings-Harris). This issue may catch many off-guard, as they may not see why such an obvious replacement is necessary; admittedly, I was much in the same boat. Eventually, however, it became clear that Billings-Harris's reasoning is the word “black” within the phrase. It is here that it becomes obvious that the fear enforced by the Politically Correct Language movement has started to impact the way in which we think. As PCL is concerned with not offending anyone, it is implied that, without PCL, we will inevitably offend one person or another. It is because of this fear that the phrase “black sheep” made it onto Billings-Harris's list. Race and gender are the two most frequent issues dealt with by PCL, to the extent that even mentioning the color black is taboo, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of human skin. The phrase “black sheep” actually comes from the fact that a sheep with the rare, recessive trait of black wool stands out from the herd of white-woolen sheep. Had natural selection worked out differently, the phrase, might be just as accurate if said “blue sheep”; perhaps we could substitute “white crow” instead. This irrational fear of colors within language has made us associate any usage of the word “black” with the Negroid skin tone, any usage of the word “white” with the Caucasoid skin tone. The ironic part is that the one who utters the phrase “black sheep” likely had no thoughts concerning human skin color, while the person who gets offended by the phrase is the one focusing on skin tone, and thus is the more bigoted party. Billings-Harris includes one other example in her list that goes to much the same point, and that is “white lie”. This phrase does not come directly from the concept of skin color, but is “based on the ancient Western idea of polar opposites, represented in popular culture through white meaning good and black its evil antithesis. We have white magic, for example, beneficent magic that’s opposed to the malign black variety....Along the same lines, a white lie is one that lacks evil intent, as opposed to a black lie, which is most certainly malevolent, though normally we don’t bother to specify that lies are evil.” (Quinion) This visual polarity of black and white can be seen within Western art and literature long before any true racial tensions, and thus should be more associated with that concept than with the possible racial implications. These are just two examples of how being overly concerned with political correctness leads to the unnecessary changes that inevitably ignore the history of the word or phrase in question.
A more modern, technological example of language getting altered due to implications rather than actual meaning, comes in late 2003. At that time, “an unidentified worker spotted a videotape machine carrying devices labeled 'master' and 'slave' and filed a discrimination complaint with the county's Office of Affirmative Action Compliance.” (CNN) Within the technological world, the terms “master” and “slave” refer to a primary and secondary device, and their functional relationship within the system. The complaint filed by the unidentified worker caused quite a ripple, and has lead to a large percentage of technology companies to change the phrases. The interesting part about this case is that the worker filed a “discrimination complaint”, when in fact he was not being discriminated against in any way, when in fact the phrase was referring to two pieces of technology. It cannot be denied that the phrases “master” and “slave” within technology take their titles from the human relationship, but it is certainly not referring to one specific instance of slavery, nor is it intended to put down a particular group of people; it was simply the most accurate way to describe the interaction between the two pieces of technology. The notion of Politically Correct Language and offensiveness has led us, as language users, to see the worst in every aspect of language. This leads into another aspect of the Euphemism Treadmill, specifically the idea that if a word or phrase has both a negative and neutral meaning, the negative meaning will eventually win out and the word will become taboo. The best examples can be found within the animal kingdom, with words such as “ass” and “bitch”; both of these words initially referred to a particular animal, and were also given more negative meanings later. These negative meanings eventually prevailed, becoming the primary usages, and thus the words have become taboo. To close the discussion of whether Politically Correct Language can go to far, I yield to someone far more apt to discuss it than I, George Carlin:

Because we do think in language. And so the quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good as the quality of our language. So maybe some of this patriarchal shit ought to go away....But they take it too far, they take themselves too seriously, they exaggerate. They want me to call that thing in the street a "personhole cover." I think that's taking it a little bit too far! What would you call a ladies' man, a "person's person"? That would make a he-man an "it-person." Little kids would be afraid of the "boogie-person." They'd look up in the sky and see the "person in the moon." Guys would say "come back here and fight like a person," and we'd all sing "For It's a Jolly Good Person," that's the kind of thing you would hear on "Late Night with David Letterperson"!

(George Carlin, IMDb)

Politically Correct Language, in its attempt to purge offensive content, often passes the point of usefulness, eventually consuming us so much that we start imagining racism and bigotry where there is none. It is in this fashion that political correctness first starts to influence how we think.
Upon accepting that Politically Correct Language often goes too far, to the point that it ignores the history and meaning of the phrases that it seeks to alter, we find ourselves stuck with yet another question: how does that impact the quality of our language? In order to answer that question, I will refer back to two previously discussed issues: the language used to describe mental and physical disabilities, and the Billings-Harris list of suggested phrases. It has already been shown that many phrases have been used in the attempt to describe mental disabilities, both in an attempt to make them more accurate and less offensive. However, in our attempt to use less offensive phrases, we have started to negate the earlier attempts at increasing accuracy. One humorous anecdote found on the WebMD web-log, Healthy Children, sums up the issue nicely:

It was an all too common story in our School Achievement Clinic: 12-year-old Bertie was doing terribly in school and had just failed 6th grade. Her parents believed it was because she was "lazy" and because the school had lousy teachers. On formal testing, Bertie's IQ was in the high 60s, meaning she had scored in the "mild mental retardation" range. So it was no mystery to us why school was so difficult for her. But it was to her parents. "Mentally retarded!?" they exclaimed, incredulously and angrily. "We have known she was developmentally delayed since she was 3 years old, but no one ever said anything about mental retardation."          

(Parker)

In an attempt to soften our language and minimize offensiveness, we have started to lose the ability to effectively communicate and understand each other. Due to the fact that it is difficult to find any PCL advocates who directly address this issue, it would be interesting to discover when those in favor of PCL feel clarity takes precedence over kindness, or if minimizing offensiveness is always the primary goal. Is there a true difference between the phrases “developmentally delayed” and “mentally retarded”? If there is not, then why do we need two phrases, when people obviously interpret them to mean different things. Other examples of this come from within Lenora Billings-Harris's suggestions. The issue of the “white lie” has been discussed previously, but it is now relevant to examine the suggested substitution: “Lie (Calling it white does not make it okay)”. Billings-Harris suggests that whenever one would use the phrase “white lie”, one should instead simply say “lie”, in an effort not to include any racially offensive language. This attempt destroys the meaning of the phrase and limits its usefulness and limits our ability to understand each other. The intention of the phrase “white lie” is communicate that a lie is “harmless or trivial, frequently one said in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings” (Quinion). However, the suggested euphemism, “lie” does not communicate this same concept, and thus one would need to say, “John told a harmless, trivial lie, with the intention of avoiding hurting Lauren's feelings,” instead of simply saying, “John told Lauren a white lie.” This is a breakdown in language efficiency and usefulness, all for the purpose of avoiding offensiveness that was not in the phrase to begin with, offensiveness that was superimposed by those with the goal of weeding out bigoted language. Another, more controversial example from within the same list involves the use of the words “bitchy or 'PMSing'”, which Billings-Harris says should be substituted with the word “assertive”. However, once again, the original word and its euphemism communicate entirely different concepts. This is not a defense of the phrase “PMSing”, but the implication of that phrase is not the same as the word “assertive”. One final example of PCL's interference with the effective communication of thought comes from the world of Star Trek, specifically the captain's monologue during the opening sequence. In the original Star Trek, starring William Shatner, the opening monologue ended with the phrase, “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” However, with the next incarnation of Star Trek came a revised version of the opening monologue. In Star Trek: The Next Generation, starring Patrick Stewart, the opening monologue ended with the phrase, “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” The difference between these two endings is subtle, but it manages nonetheless to completely change the meaning of the phrase. In an attempt to minimize offensiveness, the reference to “man” was removed and replaced with “one”, a common solution to this problem within writing. In this case, however, it also alters to literal meaning of the phrase. To say that you are going where “no man has gone before” implies that you will go where no human has ever been; this meaning makes perfect sense in a reality with alien civilizations. On the other hand, saying that you are going where “no one has gone before” implies that no one at all has ever been there, a statement that is not accurate within the reality of Star Trek. The Politically Correct Language movement, however, is less interested in accurate communication of thoughts, feelings, and concepts, and is more interested in using censorship to create a language with no risk of offending anyone.
The primary reason the the Politically Correct Movement is so effective, and so dangerous, is that it is not mere censorship, but a form of self-censorship. By imposing an arbitrary value system, making users of some words bigoted, and users of other words moral crusaders, we begin to censor our own language, which eventually leads to changing the way that we think. As an example, not too terrible long ago, it was commonplace to be given peanuts on an airplane by a stewardess; this was the word that was used both in conversation and in our thoughts. Eventually, however, that word became taboo and was replaced by the more acceptable “flight attendant”. This change obviously did not happen overnight within the vernacular; instead it was altered by people's catching themselves starting to use the newly outdated word, and then deliberately using the new phrase. Eventually it was no longer an effort, and the new phrase replaced the old word within people's mental vocabulary. The final stage of this is that one no longer sub-vocalizes the word “stewardess” when thinking about the person handing out peanuts or pretzels on an airplane, but instead thinks the phrase “flight attendant”. There are many other examples of this, including “policeman” becoming “police officer” and “mailman” becoming “mail carrier”. If you think about the way you currently mentally voice these occupations and the way you previously did, you will likely realize that the way in which you think about at least one has been influenced by PCL. Interestingly enough, all three of the aforementioned examples involve a euphemism which is longer than the original, implying a slight breakdown in the effectiveness of the language itself: using two words to communicate the same concept that was previously implied with one. Self-censorship starts with simply editing what we say, but eventually it results in altering what we think.
Many questions have been posed throughout this investigation, and the majority have been answered.  The hypothesis suggested by Whorf and his predecessor, Sapir, does not hold entirely true; it is not true to the extent that Orwell suggested, that without the word for “freedom” one could not think of the concept. However, it is true that the language we use impacts the way that we think, and Politically Correct Language attempts to alter both the way that we speak and the way that we think.    The Political Correctness Movement's effort to reduce offensiveness in expression, often superimposed by those wishing to control our language and ideas, hinders our ability to effectively communicate thoughts, feelings, and concepts through self censorship.

Thank God for Book Burnings! Bring Marshmallows.

Oh, North Carolina, how you save me from writer's block.

Well, it's back, folks! That's right, a good old fashioned book-burning. Can't you just smell it? Come on down! Bring your Harry Potter (because it includes satanic magic) and your Golden Compass (because it's anti-Christ). Go out and find a copy of The Origin of Species, since I know good Christians like you wouldn't own a copy (after all, it contradicts the Bible and forwards scientific thinking). Bring your Qur'an and your Bhagavad Gita and, last but certainly not least, all of your Bibles that aren't the King James Version!

The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in North Carolina is making me all warm and tingly inside with the feeling of nostalgia.

Okay, sarcasm over.

This is really happening. These deluded people are actually going to burn books to celebrate Halloween.

Not only are they going the classic route with burning fantasy books and books by atheist authors and The Origin of Species, which is an absolute must to bring to your next church-sanctioned book-burning, but they are burning Bibles.

This church is burning all Bibles that aren't the King James Bible, which, naturally, is the only true word of God.

I wonder if these people know the story behind the King James Bible. In 1603, King James VI, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, came to power. He was viewed to be very liberal, as he strongly disliked the Geneva Bible's use of the word 'tyrant' as a synonym for 'king'.

The Puritans literally met him halfway on his trip to take the throne so that they could ask him to make some changes, including having no rings exchanged at weddings and no kneeling before Christ. After meeting with a Puritan and Protestant representative, the King James Version was born, basically because James was tired of hearing people complain.

From the KJB comes some of the most famous phrases, like “Eye for an eye”, “Ye of little faith”, and “Wolf in sheep's clothing”.

There is nothing better about this version of the Bible, trust me. I have marked up copies of the KJB and a cheap version I was handed by a Gideon on Yom Kippur (Oh, the irony). Both have the same faults. Both of beautiful lines. Both fail in many ways.

But think about it! These followers of Christ are burning books that attempt to turn people to his (intentionally not capitalized) path. With the amount of internal wars these people fight, its no wonder they can't land a punch in the battle with atheists.

I'm sure this is exactly what their God wanted. He created us in his image, gave us the ability to create beauty, just so his followers would have well-decorated kindling.

A book-burning in America.

Ray Bradbury, cover your ears.

I just hope Hitler doesn't notice. He might let out a little cheer, where that bastard is buried.

Just to make it better, I hear that they are actually having a Barbecue afterwards. All I can hope is that they cook the chicken over the embers of free-speech, or at least bring some marshmallows.

An Indication That People Suck

I have proof. Now, not all people are bad, not all people are evil, stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and self-centered, but I have proof that there are a lot of them.

This story I am about to retell is not terribly new, but I was just reminded of it and felt compelled to prove that people are evil in many ways.

There is a video game out there known as World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft is described as a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". It involved a lot of people from around the world playing together and to achieve common goals. Often, people realize that they like playing together, and they will form "guilds", which often consist of hundreds of people that can become friends.

One of these guilds had a member who fell terminally ill, and died. The members of his guild were all very close and were friends and grieved the loss of life in general, and the loss of their friend specifically. All his online-friends decided to have something similar to a memorial for him in the only way that they all could: online, in World of Warcraft.

Is this idea odd sounding at first? Yes. But it is a genuine attempt to honor the memory of a friend and show him respect. There are good people out there.

But, that would have been too easy.

Apparently, news of this event spread through World of Warcraft, and an opposing guild got wind of it.

So, while the group of friends was gathered to perform their version of a funeral, speaking with each other over an online voice-chat program so they could express their memories of their friend, the opposing guild swept in and interrupted the ceremony by killing all of their characters.

Let me quickly recap that:

1. Friend dies
2. Friends organize to mourn his death
3. Other people do the digital equivalent of breaking into a funeral and defecating on the corpse

I can only hope that when these people are grandparents, if, in fact, these poor excuses for human beings should ever be fortunate enough to make it with a member of the opposite sex, and their grandchildren ask what they were like when they were younger, they look back and regret this action.

But I know they won't. I know they probably forgot about it the next week. And I'm honestly not sure which is worse: the action, or the casual nature with which I am sure it was performed.

The final detail about this story that I feel you should know is how other people have reacted to it. I first heard about this story from some one who thought it was hilarious, as have most people with whom I have discuss this event. When I question him as to what was so funny, he responded by explaining was geeky and lame the whole idea of the digital lament was.

How silly of me. I forgot that simply because you believe some one behaved in an odd way, you have the right to ruin his attempt at mourning his friend's death.