You Just Can't Say That, George.

Have you ever found yourself “watching what you say” in public? Do you ever feel like we are constantly imposing restrictions on our language? Almost every day, more words are being classified as “politically incorrect” or “dirty”. The manipulation of language by a certain group can lead to a manipulation of information and even a gradual change in how that culture is educated. In a country where one of our most basic freedoms (possibly the most important) is freedom of speech, it’s amazing to see speech limited in many different forms and forums. Other than language that is threatening harm to another person or their property, what type of speech needs to be restricted? There is no right to not be offended in our Constitution, so why does the government or anyone else in the general public feel they have the authority to limit our vocabulary?

Whether you are aware of it or not, your daily speech is affected by this ability to control how we are supposed to refer to certain people. Most call this type of language manipulation “politically correct” speaking. A man who is unable to use his legs was once deemed a cripple, or lame. Over the years, this same man transformed from cripple, to disabled, to handicapped, to “physically challenged”. Why was this man forced to change his identity? Well, it seems that by changing the wording, he will magically feel better about himself and think more positively. And I also suppose that if I call him “crippled”, it will make me look insensitive towards the physically challenged. It’s a great way to defeat political opponents at any level, whether it’s a meaningless conversation on the street or a presidential election. If you have the ability to call someone insensitive to the plight of all handicapped people, you have an advantage in swaying the minds of the disabled and their families into your corner, not to mention all the idiots who now believe the politically incorrect are evil for making fun of the physically challenged.

The same thing happens when we talk about “little people”. I remember when we used to call them a midget, or dwarf (which happens to be a clinical definition). Now they are commonly referred to as "little people" and I’ve even heard them labeled as “vertically challenged”. Is it just me, or is this absurd? Same thing goes for people who are retardates. (I’ll bet you didn’t even think that was a word. Well, it is…look it up.) Today, we have to refer to them as “mentally challenged” so as not to offend them. Whatever you do, never call them retarded. What kind of insensitive a**hole are you?

This brings me to another concern of mine…all those dirty words.

What most people call “swear words” or “cursing”, I more accurately refer to as “words of emphasis”. These words are exactly that – words. Most of them are slang and used by the younger segment of our population. While people may sound ignorant using them, there is no need to ban them from public use. Remember, we do have freedom of speech; our First Amendment to the Constitution lays that out for us.

The words of emphasis are very versatile and when used properly, they can have a great effect on storytelling. They shouldn’t be required to have a certain degree of moral quality in order to be used. After all, what exactly does the F-word mean by itself? Does it mean having sex? Is it an expression of frustration? Why do we feel compelled to gasp and cover children’s ears when someone says, “Oh, sh*t!” in the middle of a shopping mall? If we are going to not allow certain words to be spoken in certain places, why not restrict the use of all words that have similar meanings to the “obscenities” that we commonly identify? The same meaning can be drawn from the word poop or crap as it can from sh*t. The same goes for screwed and fudge in relation to the F-word. Here’s a brief list of words I recommend we ban in a public forum:

Gosh, golly, frickin’ (or freakin’), crap, shoot, darn, shucks, dang, screw, ticked-off, d’oh (which has recently been added to some dictionaries, believe it or not), fudge, poop, stink, stinkin’, blow, suck, dagummit, fiddle-faddle, son-of-a-gun, mother-of-God, and holiest-of-holies. (There are many more, but I did say “brief.”)

Why ban these words? Well, because I am actually offended by them. And amazingly, some of them make people sound dumber than the ones using “foul” language.

So, who are the people responsible for this type of censorship of our vocabulary? Well, two groups come to mind: liberals and the religious crowd. Who else would have the balls to tell us not to say naughty words? After all, using those bad words can be offensive to an innocent bystander and isn’t very God-like.

We also have a problem with words that refer to someone’s ethnicity. Many people are reluctant to even characterize someone as, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or any other racial description for fear of classifying them “incorrectly” or just for identifying them according to their skin color. The color of someone’s skin is probably the first and most dominant visual attribute we recognize, but how do we describe it? Are we supposed to use black, or “African-American”? Having known many black people, almost all of them had a response similar to this when the subject came up:

“I’m not from Africa. I don’t even know anyone from Africa. So how can I be African-American? I think that’s stupid.”

I agree. And what would you call someone from Mexico? Are they Mexican (and you definitely don’t want to call them Puerto Rican, or Bolivian by mistake!), Hispanic, or Latino? Why is it that everyone who looks like Dr. Phil or Brad Pitt is considered “white” or “Caucasian”? Why can’t they be European-American, or Russian-American, or even Australian-American? Not that I’m a fan of hyphenated Americanism (see my article, “Multiculturalism and You”), but why are white people all lumped together into one category? The same can be asked by all the government-defined “racial classes”. Is it just me, or are the Asians the only ones who seem to be okay with their classification? I never really hear them complain about anything.

I understand the necessity of having racial identifiers. It helps with law enforcement and can sometimes help bring attention to social problems in a community, and people should not be afraid of calling someone black, white, or Hispanic. It doesn’t make you racist, biased, or prejudiced if you describe people with these terms. If you don’t like the terms being used, come up with a new one and have the entire world learn it. And this whole argument about racial profiling is ridiculous as well. If we know that an Arab-Islamic terrorist is going to try to blow up an airplane, it would make sense to pay special attention to Arabs while they’re being screened in an airport. Refusal to do this because of “racial insensitivity” is just plain stupid...but I digress.

Since we’re on the subject of racial terminology, let me jump into this fire. I think it is a shame when words have to be virtually eliminated from our language because of their near-homophonic qualities. The words niggard (a stingy person) and snigger (a partly suppressed laugh…now known as “snicker”) are two examples of this language suppression. The uses of these words are frowned upon. Why? Well, it appears that they too closely resemble the infamous N-word that has been forbidden - but only from the vocabulary of white people. I’m sure that words like niggling (petty) and jigger (a drink-mixing measurement device – about 1.5 ounces) will soon be on this list, if they are not already. Racial sensitivity can lead people to mangle a word’s meaning into a form which allows it to be banished from use by a certain group of individuals because of the way it sounds or makes other people feel. Eventually, words like cripple, retarded, and midget may join the N-word in its exile.

So, when does a word suddenly become inappropriate to use? I’ve tried to figure this one out for some time now, and I’ve come up with a rather simple answer. They are deemed indecent anytime someone else is offended by them for whatever reason. (Being offended is not a problem with the person being “offensive”. If you don’t like what someone else is saying, that’s your problem.) Like I said at the beginning of this article, there’s no right to not be offended. An easy way to help protect that imaginary right would be to forbid the use of perceived “derogatory” or “foul” language. Remember, a lot of these words are slang and the only thing that gives them meaning is the context in which they’re used. The rest of them are real English words that may be used out of context. Knowing this, how can someone be offended by hearing the F-word? Are they truly offended, or do they just want you to behave more like them?

I don’t have a problem with parents or teachers telling kids not to use slang in their vocabulary. It’s important for everyone to understand proper terminology. I do have a problem with government agencies (the FCC) telling corporations (various television and radio networks) what words they are allowed, or not allowed to say. Perhaps we need a rewrite of the First Amendment to extend free speech rights to network television and radio, which were not invented at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, therefore allowing them to be excluded from enjoying this basic right by future politicians.

The manipulation of language can lead to controlling the dissemination of information, and this can eventually lead to controlling a population. It is not coincidence that politicians are constantly changing the way we are supposed to refer to certain people, things, or events. If you control language, you control information. If you control information, you control the way people are educated. If their education can be controlled, so can their way of thinking. At this point, individualism will be lost and your freedoms will shortly follow.

I believe that centralizing communication into the hands of the State was a staple of Marxism…so maybe you should watch what you say.