PrisonPlanet Forum
May 24, 2013, 12:50:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Euphemisms!  (Read 1432 times)
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,866


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« on: November 25, 2011, 11:50:00 AM »

George Carlin on Euphemisms

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. 'Cause 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. I'll give you an example of that.

There's a condition in combat, most people know about it, it's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum -- can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap. In the first world war, that condition was called "shell shock." Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables: "shell shock." Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.

Then a whole generation went by, and the second world war came along, and the very same combat condition was called "battle fatigue." Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. "Shell shock!"..."Battle fatigue."

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called "operational exhaustion." Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. "Operational exhaustion." Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course came the war in Vietnam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceit surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called "post-traumatic stress disorder." Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon! "Post-traumatic stress disorder." I'll bet ya if we'd of still been calling it "shell shock," some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha that. I'll betcha that.

But it didn't happen. And one of the reasons, one of the reasons, is because we were using that soft language -- that language that takes the life out of life. And it is a function of time. It does keep getting worse. I'll give you another example.

Sometime during my life, sometime during my life, "toilet paper" became "bathroom tissue." I wasn't notified of this. No one asked me if I agreed with it. It just happened. "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 landfill."

"Car crashes" became "automobile accidents."

"Partly cloudy" bacame "partly sunny."

"Motels" became "motor lodges."

"House trailers" became "mobile homes."

"Used cars" became "previously owned transportation."

"Room service" became "guest-room dining."

And "constipation" became "occasional irregularity."

When I was a little kid, if I got sick they wanted me to go to the hospital and see the doctor. Now they want me to go to a "health maintenance organization," or a "wellness center" -- to consult a "healthcare delivery professional."

Poor people used to live in slums. Now the "economically disadvantaged" occupy "substandard housing in the inner cities." And they're broke! They're broke! They don't have a "negative cash-flow position." They're f**king broke! 'Cause 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 workforce"?

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 anybody anymore; they "neutralize" people, or they "depopulate" the area. The government doesn't lie, it engages in "disinformation." The pentagon actually measures nuclear radiation in something they call "sunshine units." Israeli murderers are called commandos. Arab commandos are called "terrorists." Contra killers are called "freedom fighters." Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part of it to us, do they? Never mention that part of it.
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,866


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2011, 11:50:50 AM »

http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02232009.html

The Language of Looting

What "Nationalize the Banks" and the "Free Market" Really Mean in Today's Looking-Glass World

By Michael Hudson
CounterPunch
February 23, 2009

"Banking shares began to plunge Friday morning after Senator Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the banking committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was concerned the government might end up nationalizing some lenders “at least for a short time.” Several other prominent policy makers – including Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – have echoed that view recently.”

-- Eric Dash, “Growing Worry on Rescue Takes a Toll on Banks,” The New York Times, February 20, 2009

How is it that Alan Greenspan, free-market lobbyist for Wall Street, recently announced that he favored nationalization of America’s banks –- and indeed, mainly the biggest and most powerful? Has the old disciple of Ayn Rand gone Red in the night? Surely not.

The answer is that the rhetoric of “free markets,” “nationalization” and even “socialism” (as in “socializing the losses”) has been turned into the language of deception to help the financial sector mobilize government power to support its own special privileges. Having undermined the economy at large, Wall Street’s public relations think tanks are now dismantling the language itself.

Exactly what does “a free market” mean? Is it what the classical economists advocated – a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests – a market protected by the rise in public regulation from the Sherman Anti-Trust law of 1890 to the Glass-Steagall Act and other New Deal legislation? Or is it a market free for predators to exploit victims without public regulation or economic policemen – the kind of free-for-all market that the Federal Reserve and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) have created over the past decade or so? It seems incredible that people should accept today’s neoliberal idea of “market freedom” in the sense of neutering government watchdogs, Alan Greenspan-style, letting Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide, Hank Greenberg at AIG, Bernie Madoff, Citibank, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers loot without hindrance or sanction, plunge the economy into crisis and then use Treasury bailout money to pay the highest salaries and bonuses in U.S. history.

Terms that are the antithesis of “free market” also are being turned into the opposite of what they historically have meant. Take today’s discussions about nationalizing the banks. For over a century nationalization has meant public takeover of monopolies or other sectors to operate them in the public interest rather than leaving them to special interests. But when neoliberals use the word “nationalization” they mean a bailout, a government giveaway to the financial interests.

Doublethink and doubletalk with regard to “nationalizing” or “socializing” the banks and other sectors is a travesty of political and economic discussion from the 17th through mid-20th centuries. Society’s basic grammar of thought, the vocabulary to discuss political and economic topics, is being turned inside-out in an effort to ward off discussion of the policy solutions posed by the classical economists and political philosophers that made Western civilization “Western.”

Today’s clash of civilization is not really with the Orient; it is with our own past, with the Enlightenment itself and its evolution into classical political economy and Progressive Era social reforms aimed at freeing society from the surviving trammels of European feudalism. What we are seeing is propaganda designed to deceive, to distract attention from economic reality so as to promote the property and financial interests from whose predatory grasp classical economists set out to free the world. What is being attempted is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the intellectual and moral edifice of what took Western civilization eight centuries to develop, from the 12th century Schoolmen discussing Just Price through 19th and 20th century classical economic value theory.

[Continued...]
Logged

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://webofdebt.com
http://schalkenbach.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0
diamondgussetinthecrotch
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26

where you need it most!


« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2011, 12:08:23 PM »

George Orwell on soft language from "Politics and the English Language":


...In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!