Say What You Mean!
Found this as I was cleaning out my inbox ... an oldie, but goodie.
***************************
Stand-up "comedian" George Carlin has a routine that he does on the subject of words and their meanings, or, more particularly, the ever-evolving euphemisms that conceal the truth of words in our day. Here is an excerpt from that routine:
"You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth. I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms or euphemistic language. And American english is loaded with euphemisms. Because Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth. So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it. And it gets worse with every generation. For some reason it just keeps getting worse.
Sometime during my life toilet paper became 'bathroom tissue' ... Sneakers became 'running shoes'. False teeth became 'dental appliances'. Medicine became 'medication'. Information became 'directory assistance'. The dump became the 'land fill'. Car crashes became 'automobile accidents' ... House trailers became 'mobile homes' ... Room service became 'guest room dining'. Constipation became 'occasional irregularity'.
When I was a little kid if I got sick they wanted me to go to a hospital and see the doctor. Now they want me to go to a 'health maintenance organization'. Or a 'wellness center' to consult a 'health care delivery professional'!
Poor people used to live in slums. Now the 'economically disadvantaged' occupy 'sub-standard housing' in the 'inner cities'. And they're BROKE! They're broke. They don't have a 'negative cash flow position' ... Because a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. Management wanted to 'curtail redundancies in the human resources area'. So many people are no longer 'viable members' of the 'work force'.
Smug, greedy well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins. It's as simple as that. The CIA doesn't kill people anymore, they 'neutralize' people or they 'depopulate' the area. The government doesn't lie, it engages in 'disinformation' ... Arab commandos are called 'terrorists'. Contra killers are called 'freedom fighters'.
[Airlines] say they're going to pre-board those passengers in need of 'special assistance' ... CRIPPLES! Simple honest direct language ... But we don't have cripples in this country anymore. We have: the 'physically challenged'. Is that a grotesque enough evasion for you? How about 'differently abled'? I've heard them called that ... We have no more deaf people in this country. 'Hearing impaired'. No more blind people. 'Partially sighted' or 'visually impaired'. No more stupid people, everyone has a 'learning disorder' ... Psychologists have actually started calling ugly people 'those with severe appearance deficits'.
And we have no more old people in this country. No more old people. We shipped them all away and we brought in these 'senior citizens'. Isn't that a typically American twentieth century phrase? Bloodless. Lifeless. No pulse in one of them. A 'senior citizen'."
As funny as this routine is, it's also very true. And I happen to agree with Carlin. However, I would like to oppose his rather leftist sensibilities by tacking on a few more examples of words that have been euphemized until their meaning is completely hidden:
"Pro-Choice" - Let's call it what it really is, ok? "Pro-abortion." Why don't we call it "pro-abortion?" Because it's got that nasty little word in it, "abort." That's right: "abort." You know, as in abolish, abrogate, annul, axe, black out, blot out, break, break off, call off, cross out, cut off, cut short, delete, destroy, ditch, do in, drop, efface, eliminate, end, eradicate, erase, expunge, fail, finish off, halt, interrupt, kill, nullify, obliterate, off, omit, quash, remove, render invalid, repeal, repudiate, rescind, revoke, rub out, scrap, scratch out, scrub, sink, smash, squash, stamp out, terminate, total, trash, undo, wash out, wipe out?
No, no, we can't call it that, because that would indicate that there was something which was begun, initiated, conceived, created, and started, which could otherwise be continued, fulfilled, preserved, extended, prolonged, and sustained instead of being cut short, eliminated, halted, interrupted, rescinded, and terminated: namely, a human life.
So we'll just call it "pro-choice." Yeah. Choice. That's a nice, friendly word, isn't it? Everyone loves choices, alternatives, free will, license, opportunities, preferences, prerogatives, privileges, and rights. Don't they? What monster would oppose such things?
"Birth Control" - Now here's an innocuous little term! It's even got a slight hint of virtue in it: control. This reminds us of regulation, temperance, level-headedness, restraint, and sensibility. However, as G.K. Chesterton once pointed out, "birth control" is a total misnomer. It is, isn't it? When you use "birth control," there is neither a "birth," nor is there any exercise of "control" over the passions.
So let's call it what it really is: artificial contraception. Oooh, now there's an unfriendly label. It's artificial, so it's bogus, counterfeit, fabricated, factitious, fake, false, man-made, manufactured, mock, phony, plastic, simulated, synthetic, unnatural and unreal. It's got that root word "contra" in it, which modifies the word "conception," giving us the sense that contraception is against, anti, at cross-purposes with, at odds with, averse to, in conflict with, contrary to, an enemy of, hostile to, in opposition to, incompatible with, in opposition to, and in protest against conception, birth, fertilization, formation, germination, and impregnation.
Well, no decent "pro-life" American would want to be labeled as "contra-life," so when they choose to indulge their passions and simultaneously avoid the responsibility of their actions, they'd rather just call it using "birth-control."
"Homosexuality" - Let's just call it what it is, shall we? It's called "sodomy." Why can't we use that word? Simple: because it reminds us of that one unfortunate city called Sodom, which, because of the many sodomites who inhabited it and regularly practiced sodomy, was judged by God and burned with fire and brimstone. Not a pretty picture. That's why sodomites won't admit to sodomizing each other - they'd rather call it "making love," "expressing affection," and "an alternative lifestyle."
This also brings up the question of the label so wrongly applied to those who oppose sodomy: "homophobic." Well, last time I checked, the word "homo" meant man, sameness, self, or human, and "phobia" meant fear. I, for one, am not afraid of man, nor of humans, nor of myself. So let's just call it what it is: anti-sodomy.
"Anti-Semite" - This label is in the same category as "homophobic." To be "anti" something is to be in opposition to something, that much we agree on. But what's a "semite?" A descendent of Shem, or Sem, the firstborn son of Noah. The problem is, Shem's biological lineage also includes the Arabs, so it can hardly be restricted to the Jews alone. I have a real problem when one ethnic race tries to arrogate the term "semite" to themselves exclusively.
Here again, let's call it what it really is: anti-Zionism. Zionism is a particular political-religious movement amongst the Jewish category of Semites, whose goal is the world-wide spread of modern-day Judaism. As you may or may not know, Judaism, in its modern-day manifestation, is anti-Christian and in opposition to Jesus the Messiah. As a Christian, you bet I'm anti-Zionism - but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitic.
"Religious Tolerance" - Finally, we have another misleading term that isn't really what it says it is. The "religiously tolerant" profess to accept, tolerate, embrace, and respect all religions. They are utterly opposed to those who would attempt to "impose" their individual beliefs and opinions on anyone else. Therein lies the rub: those who profess "religious tolerance" expect that everyone will abandon their own beliefs and simply adopt the Tolerance Religion of the Religiously Tolerant.
Well, what if my Religion teaches intolerance? What then? Will the religiously tolerant group simply accept, welcome, appreciate, embrace, and tolerate my intolerance? Of course not! They want me to reject my Religion of intolerance as sub-standard, and "convert" to their idea of what Religious Tolerance ought to be.
Alright, then, so let's call it what it really is: "Tolerance of My Religion." If the apostles of Religious Tolerance would be honest enough to admit that what they mean is, "you need to adopt my religious views of toleration and acceptance," at least they wouldn't be hypocrites.
Words have meanings. Let's not hide behind misleading euphemisms.
***************************
Stand-up "comedian" George Carlin has a routine that he does on the subject of words and their meanings, or, more particularly, the ever-evolving euphemisms that conceal the truth of words in our day. Here is an excerpt from that routine:
"You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth. I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms or euphemistic language. And American english is loaded with euphemisms. Because Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth. So they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it. And it gets worse with every generation. For some reason it just keeps getting worse.
Sometime during my life toilet paper became 'bathroom tissue' ... Sneakers became 'running shoes'. False teeth became 'dental appliances'. Medicine became 'medication'. Information became 'directory assistance'. The dump became the 'land fill'. Car crashes became 'automobile accidents' ... House trailers became 'mobile homes' ... Room service became 'guest room dining'. Constipation became 'occasional irregularity'.
When I was a little kid if I got sick they wanted me to go to a hospital and see the doctor. Now they want me to go to a 'health maintenance organization'. Or a 'wellness center' to consult a 'health care delivery professional'!
Poor people used to live in slums. Now the 'economically disadvantaged' occupy 'sub-standard housing' in the 'inner cities'. And they're BROKE! They're broke. They don't have a 'negative cash flow position' ... Because a lot of them were fired. You know, fired. Management wanted to 'curtail redundancies in the human resources area'. So many people are no longer 'viable members' of the 'work force'.
Smug, greedy well-fed white people have invented a language to conceal their sins. It's as simple as that. The CIA doesn't kill people anymore, they 'neutralize' people or they 'depopulate' the area. The government doesn't lie, it engages in 'disinformation' ... Arab commandos are called 'terrorists'. Contra killers are called 'freedom fighters'.
[Airlines] say they're going to pre-board those passengers in need of 'special assistance' ... CRIPPLES! Simple honest direct language ... But we don't have cripples in this country anymore. We have: the 'physically challenged'. Is that a grotesque enough evasion for you? How about 'differently abled'? I've heard them called that ... We have no more deaf people in this country. 'Hearing impaired'. No more blind people. 'Partially sighted' or 'visually impaired'. No more stupid people, everyone has a 'learning disorder' ... Psychologists have actually started calling ugly people 'those with severe appearance deficits'.
And we have no more old people in this country. No more old people. We shipped them all away and we brought in these 'senior citizens'. Isn't that a typically American twentieth century phrase? Bloodless. Lifeless. No pulse in one of them. A 'senior citizen'."
As funny as this routine is, it's also very true. And I happen to agree with Carlin. However, I would like to oppose his rather leftist sensibilities by tacking on a few more examples of words that have been euphemized until their meaning is completely hidden:
"Pro-Choice" - Let's call it what it really is, ok? "Pro-abortion." Why don't we call it "pro-abortion?" Because it's got that nasty little word in it, "abort." That's right: "abort." You know, as in abolish, abrogate, annul, axe, black out, blot out, break, break off, call off, cross out, cut off, cut short, delete, destroy, ditch, do in, drop, efface, eliminate, end, eradicate, erase, expunge, fail, finish off, halt, interrupt, kill, nullify, obliterate, off, omit, quash, remove, render invalid, repeal, repudiate, rescind, revoke, rub out, scrap, scratch out, scrub, sink, smash, squash, stamp out, terminate, total, trash, undo, wash out, wipe out?
No, no, we can't call it that, because that would indicate that there was something which was begun, initiated, conceived, created, and started, which could otherwise be continued, fulfilled, preserved, extended, prolonged, and sustained instead of being cut short, eliminated, halted, interrupted, rescinded, and terminated: namely, a human life.
So we'll just call it "pro-choice." Yeah. Choice. That's a nice, friendly word, isn't it? Everyone loves choices, alternatives, free will, license, opportunities, preferences, prerogatives, privileges, and rights. Don't they? What monster would oppose such things?
"Birth Control" - Now here's an innocuous little term! It's even got a slight hint of virtue in it: control. This reminds us of regulation, temperance, level-headedness, restraint, and sensibility. However, as G.K. Chesterton once pointed out, "birth control" is a total misnomer. It is, isn't it? When you use "birth control," there is neither a "birth," nor is there any exercise of "control" over the passions.
So let's call it what it really is: artificial contraception. Oooh, now there's an unfriendly label. It's artificial, so it's bogus, counterfeit, fabricated, factitious, fake, false, man-made, manufactured, mock, phony, plastic, simulated, synthetic, unnatural and unreal. It's got that root word "contra" in it, which modifies the word "conception," giving us the sense that contraception is against, anti, at cross-purposes with, at odds with, averse to, in conflict with, contrary to, an enemy of, hostile to, in opposition to, incompatible with, in opposition to, and in protest against conception, birth, fertilization, formation, germination, and impregnation.
Well, no decent "pro-life" American would want to be labeled as "contra-life," so when they choose to indulge their passions and simultaneously avoid the responsibility of their actions, they'd rather just call it using "birth-control."
"Homosexuality" - Let's just call it what it is, shall we? It's called "sodomy." Why can't we use that word? Simple: because it reminds us of that one unfortunate city called Sodom, which, because of the many sodomites who inhabited it and regularly practiced sodomy, was judged by God and burned with fire and brimstone. Not a pretty picture. That's why sodomites won't admit to sodomizing each other - they'd rather call it "making love," "expressing affection," and "an alternative lifestyle."
This also brings up the question of the label so wrongly applied to those who oppose sodomy: "homophobic." Well, last time I checked, the word "homo" meant man, sameness, self, or human, and "phobia" meant fear. I, for one, am not afraid of man, nor of humans, nor of myself. So let's just call it what it is: anti-sodomy.
"Anti-Semite" - This label is in the same category as "homophobic." To be "anti" something is to be in opposition to something, that much we agree on. But what's a "semite?" A descendent of Shem, or Sem, the firstborn son of Noah. The problem is, Shem's biological lineage also includes the Arabs, so it can hardly be restricted to the Jews alone. I have a real problem when one ethnic race tries to arrogate the term "semite" to themselves exclusively.
Here again, let's call it what it really is: anti-Zionism. Zionism is a particular political-religious movement amongst the Jewish category of Semites, whose goal is the world-wide spread of modern-day Judaism. As you may or may not know, Judaism, in its modern-day manifestation, is anti-Christian and in opposition to Jesus the Messiah. As a Christian, you bet I'm anti-Zionism - but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitic.
"Religious Tolerance" - Finally, we have another misleading term that isn't really what it says it is. The "religiously tolerant" profess to accept, tolerate, embrace, and respect all religions. They are utterly opposed to those who would attempt to "impose" their individual beliefs and opinions on anyone else. Therein lies the rub: those who profess "religious tolerance" expect that everyone will abandon their own beliefs and simply adopt the Tolerance Religion of the Religiously Tolerant.
Well, what if my Religion teaches intolerance? What then? Will the religiously tolerant group simply accept, welcome, appreciate, embrace, and tolerate my intolerance? Of course not! They want me to reject my Religion of intolerance as sub-standard, and "convert" to their idea of what Religious Tolerance ought to be.
Alright, then, so let's call it what it really is: "Tolerance of My Religion." If the apostles of Religious Tolerance would be honest enough to admit that what they mean is, "you need to adopt my religious views of toleration and acceptance," at least they wouldn't be hypocrites.
Words have meanings. Let's not hide behind misleading euphemisms.
<< Home