Ban ALL The Words!

Well, it's happened. We've come off the rails again. I had no idea there were so many rails that we were on that we could so easily slip off of. Today's rail is that of sensibility and it's in New York. The falling off took place when it was decided that certain words should be banned from appearing on tests in the city's schools. Yes. They're banning words. And the words that they're banning? Well, let's just say that you don't have to worry about your kid getting offended by seeing 'dinosaurs' on a test. Wait. What now?

Correct. The word 'dinosaur' cannot appear on any of the tests because what if, God forbid, a fundamentalist child saw that and became upset? (I guess fundamentalists don't go for the idea of dinosaurs or Jesus ponies or whatever they refer to them as? Makes me wonder how they explain all of those big bones that we're constantly digging up out of the earth. They're from dinosaurs. And just because you don't believe a fact, that doesn't make it not true!) Look, you believe whatever you want, but could it at least be based in fact? Kids LOVE dinosaurs. If you can't handle having your precious little snowflake see the word 'dinosaur' on a test at school, lest he be beset by the devil, I'm going to have to suggest that you seriously consider homeschooling your snowflakes. That's insane. Yet New York City schools are bowing to that idea (that I can't imagine would ever happen), so who's crazier here? It's hard to say, but I'm thinking the schools might win that one.

You also won't be finding any references to birthdays on tests because Jehovah's Witnesses don't do birthdays and they are apparently so dainty and fragile that even just seeing the word on a test might cause them irreparable harm. Or something. Again, if your little snowflake can't be exposed to just the word birthday, then you have to home school. But again, I don't get the impression that any of these things are actually problems. No, the real problem is the people who came up with this crap.

You can't shield children from everything that they might be offended at! And actually, exposing them to things that they might conceivably possibly ever find offensive and letting them figure out how to deal with that doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Unless you're the New York City school system. Then it's a terrible idea. Banning words is much more logical.

Want to know what else you can't have on a test in New York City? Well, you can't have the word "Halloween" because it might suggest paganism. Tell you what. You show me a room of third graders. Actually, make it any elementary age children. Show me a room of those children and ask them to write one word that they think of when they hear "Halloween". If ONE child writes down "paganism" then you win! But do you know the chances of that actually happening? ZERO. That is correct! So WHY are they doing this? No one is willing to give an answer!

You aren't allowed to reference "computers in the home" because those without computers in the home might feel excluded. You can't reference wealth because poor kids might be sad. Oh, but you can't mention poverty because then the poor kids WILL be sad and feel singled out. Good Lord. People are different! This is supposed to be a school system! Are they trying to send the message that everyone is the same?! Because I have news for them! They're NOT. You can try to get that message across, but I wouldn't exactly put that in the same category as I would teaching.

According to the New York Post, "Homes with swimming pools and computers are also unmentionables here — because of economic sensitivities". Economic sensitivities? You know, I have dumbass sensitivities. I'm very sensitive about dumbasses. They make me crazy and I want to physically harm them (possibly by punching them in the neck). Where do I get help? Can the New York City schools help me? What's that? They are the dumbasses? Oh. That's right. They're not going to be of much help. To me or ANY of their students, apparently, if this is how they do things.

You can click here if you'd like the full list of what cannot go on tests in New York City schools. But I'm just going to prattle of a few more because it's fun. (Well, it's fun right up until I get a headache. You know. Because of all the dumbassery going on here.) You can't say/use:


Geological history. (Because...people are...sensitive about...facts? I got nothing for this one. God forbid if there's a little learning that happens when you're trying to teach someone something.)

Cigarettes and smoking paraphernalia. (So...no bongs?)

Dancing, though ballet is acceptable. (Is New York turning into that town in Footloose? How is ballet acceptable if you're going to exclude all other forms of dance? Wouldn't certain religious groups have a problem with ballet because of how scantily clad the ridiculously underweight toe-standers are? How does that work?)

Homlessness. (So...no questions like "Five hobos were living under a bridge. Two died of cirrhosis that was brought on by their excessive drinking. How many hobos are left?")

Religious holidays and festivals (including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan) (You know how I feel about the war on Christmas. I don't like it and I want to slowly choke those who think that just the mention of Christmas is going to set off some sort of holy war between inner city youth.)

Homes with swimming pools (So, no Beverly Hillbillies? They had swimmin' pools AND movie stars. Wait. I think...yep. References to celebrities are banned too. And the Clampetts were poor and then they were rich. They cover a multitude of banned words! Who knew that referencing the Beverly Hillbillies would draw such ire. Such stupid, stupid ire.)

Sphere: Related Content

WTF? New Words?

The Oxford English Dictionary added some new words, phrases and symbols the other day. Does it seem to you like they just did this the other day? It felt that way to me. That's when I learned that they update the thing every three months. Really? Every three months? That seems a bit extreme to me, but they take this sort of thing fairly seriously over there.

Even though I knew that one particular addition was inevitable, I was not looking forward to it. Yes, that's right. LOL made it in. I guess in some ways, that's good. I mean, maybe now people won't think that it stands for 'lots of love' and text inappropriate condolences. (Example: "I heard your mom died. I'm so sorry. LOL!") I've just never been a big LOL fan. I think that's because I never believe that people are actually L-ing OL when they write that. Something has to be pretty danged funny for me to be vocal with my amusement and I feel that it's that way for the majority of other folks as well. But I'm pretty sure that CQTM (Chuckling Quietly To Myself) isn't going to catch on anytime soon.)

They also have added OMG (Oh, my God), BFF (Best Friends Forever) and IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). But for some reason, they have yet to add WTF. That HAS to be in there eventually, right? I checked the Oxford Dictionary Online to see if there was a definition for the F-word. Not only was it defined, it was quite thorough. I was pleased. Thus, I'm guessing that WTF can't be far behind. If you're going to have IMHO in the dictionary, you have to have WTF. Not that I'm the measuring stick for any of this stuff, but I don't think that I have ever used IMHO. WTF, on the other hand, is a daily staple.

But what really surprised me wasn't all of the acronyms that they shoved in there. (They also included the heart symbol. As in "I Heart New York". It means you love something. I'm not thrilled with the thought of the dictionary turning into some sort of hipster rebus.) It was all of the words that made it in that, astonishingly, weren't in there already. I'm perfectly OK with them adding things like "fnarr fnarr" (used to represent sniggering, typically at a sexual innuendo), "kleftiko" (appears to be some sort of lamb dish), "rozzle" (some sort of slang that either means hugging, joking around, or thinking someone is hot) and "yidaki", which I think is a type of didgeridoo. (No word on whether didgeridoo was already in there or not.) Those are words I've never heard of and if they're going to make them official words, that's fine. But what about "rude"? Wait. What?

"Rude". They added "rude". According to the page where the updates are, "rude, n.1" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary. They didn't have that in there before? It appears that they're defining it this time as a noun, so maybe that's the difference? Words that I would have thought would have already been in the dictionary include "router, n.6", "la-la land, n.", "dotted line, n. and adj.", "biker, n.", "car crash, n.", "headline, v.", "rototill, v.", "taquito, n.", and "stonewash, n., v.".

Car crash? Cars have been crashing since the invention of the car and they're just now getting around to putting it in the dictionary? And biker? Really? That wasn't in there before now? Amazing. How did stonewash elude the pages of the OED for so long? Where were these people in early 1990s? I don't get it. I thought they would have been a little more on top of things.

Sphere: Related Content

You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

Sphere: Related Content

Welcome, New Words!

A little while ago I wrote about some guy who was trying to get a bunch of rejected words into the Oxford English Dictionary. My main gripe about them was that they were a) ridiculous, and b) a little too cutesy. I was kind of proud of the OED for standing their ground. Oh, if only I could feel that same sense of pride for the Oxford Dictionary of English, as they have caved into the cutesy-ness of etymology and have just added several new words to their dictionary. And I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked to learn that many of them displease me for a variety of reasons. Let's delve, shall we?

It's over there on the NewsFeed section of Time where we get a partial list of the 2,000 words that were added. Granted, I was only partially annoyed at the whole thing, but that doesn't mean I wasn't mostly annoyed. I was. I'm just not into making up words for things that don't need a word.

For instance, freaking staycation made it in. That's where, instead of going somewhere on vacation, you stay home instead. That's not a thing. It's staying home. It's not doing much. See, one can go on vacation. One can't go on a staycation. Just because it rhymes, doesn't make it right.

Another one of those would be bromance. That's a close, but allegedly non-sexual relationship between two men. For example, some people might say that two guys who go to Hawaii together are having a bromance. I would call two guys who go to Hawaii together gay.

Then there's the highly annoying automagically. I have never heard that one used before, but now that it's on this list, I'm sure that I'm going to be hearing/reading it all over the place. It's defined as "automatically and in a way that seems ingenious, inexplicable, or magic." We can't just use suddenly or somehow for that? What's wrong with "as if my magic"? It's funnier that way.

Another one that I have never heard used before (and am really hoping that I don't) is chillax. It sounds like a Dr. Seuss character, but it's not. (You might be thinking of The Lorax. I know I was.) It's defined as "calm down and to relax". Aren't those kind of the same? Can you be calm and not relaxed? Can you be relaxed and not calm? I don't think that you can. Therefore, there is no reason to combine the two. They're the same! What is wrong with you people? I can't do either one when I'm reading this sort of nonsense!

Another addition was LBD. This allegedly stands for "little black dress". I have never heard, nor read, this term ever being used. Ever. You can't just go around monogramming something! Along the same genre (that of fashion), they also included matchy-matchy, defined as "excessively colour-coordinated". I hope they know that it's also used when two people are dressed in a similar fashion. They're usually a couple. When couples are coordinating their outfits to compliment one another in an extremely gag-ifying manner, it's matchy-matchy. It's also barfy-barfy.

Apparently, the Oxford Dictionary in English is not in it for the laughs. Or maybe they are. Maybe that's why they added the extremely laughable hikikomori. Never heard of it? Why would you have? It means "the abnormal avoidance of social contact, typically by adolescent males". In JAPANESE! Do they not read the title of their own book? It's the Oxford Dictionary in ENGLISH. It's right there in the name. ENGLISH. Why are they throwing Japanese words in there? Besides, there's already a word for that. It's called "a gamer".

They included a few words that I can't believe weren't already in there. Seriously, they just now got around to adding buzzkill? On Family Guy, they've had that Buzz Killington character on there for quite some time. Are you telling me that the Oxford Dictionary in English folks don't fancy themselves purveyors of The Family Guy?

They're also just now adding wardrobe malfunction. Are you kiding me? That term has been around since 2004 when one of Janet Jackson's hoots accidentally popped out of whatever skin tight outfit she had donned that evening. We have had to hear about that 9/64ths of a second that America was flashed for the past six years. Just NOW they add it? What are they doing over there, exactly, that keeps them so busy? Or, at the very least, so completely unaware of pop-culture and the emergence of a Jackson breast?

And they've finally put in overthink, social media, chill pill and turducken. If you're not familiar with the last one, it is a chicken that is stuffed into a duck that is then stuffed into a turkey. It's also known as yummy. The deliciousness factor should always be taken into consideration when adding words to the dictionary.

You can see a very small chunk of the 2,000 words at the News Feed link that I provided above. It doesn't seem as if they add words very often, so for now, we're spared any more of this nonsense. But somewhere out there, someone is already tweeting some made up crap that we'll have to deal with next time. I guarantee it.

Sphere: Related Content

They Were Rejected For A Reason

When I saw the title of a certain article over there at AOL News, I knew how the whole thing was going to turn out for me. The title was "Unused but Useful: Oxford English Dictionary's Reject List". I enjoy words. I enjoy reading about words. I do not enjoy people making up words and expecting everyone to start using them all the time as if they had just invented the word "dog" or something to that effect. Articles about made up words usually end up annoying me. And this one did just that. Annoyed the crap out of me.

The basis for the article is something that I think we could all surmise. (And when I say "all" I mean everyone who isn't a mouth breathing, paste eating, moron.) The Oxford English Dictionary rejects quite a few words every year that are submitted to them. And God bless 'em for it. Lord only knows what we'd be subjected to if there wasn't some sort of discretion. (Not to mention common sense and the ability to just say, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No way is it going in this dictionary.")

The author of the article, a one very competent and capable Theunis Bates, starts off by writing "Ever engaged a freegan in nonversation, or does the very idea make you want to precuperate? If you haven't a clue what we're talking about, don't worry, you're probably not xenolexic." See, I've heard of those "words" and just reading that almost made me cringe. But he goes on to say that if you haven't heard of some of those words that is because they are "...non words": Words that have allegedly been submitted to the Oxford English Dictionary...but rejected on the grounds that too few people currently use them." That's what I like. Rejection based on infrequency. Seems like a reasonable principle to have in place at all times. (For example, I reject talking to many people due to the infrequency of the number of times that they have anything of substance to say to me. Thus, I talk to very few people and I am much happier because of it. Therefore, I can conclude that such a system works very well.)

Theunis (that's kind of a cool name) goes on to tell us that all of the "...failed words are hidden away in a secret vault at Oxford". Oh, awesome! He also goes on to tell us that access to said vault by outsiders is not going to happen. Hmmm. Not so awesome. But a one 22-year old Luke Ngakane, through "...his own research and logophile contacts...quickly built up a pamphlet's worth of non words." Said pamphlet consists of 39 words. It seems to be Luke's goal to "...get as many of these unique words back into circulation." Based on the selection of words that Luke chose, I can only hope that the re-circulation of those words does not happen. Ever. They are horrible words. There is a reason that they were rejected in the first place! A lot of them use that cutesy little trick of changing one letter so that the new word simply sounds like the old word, only has a whole new meaning based upon the change of the letter. You know, like "staycation" (which is just ridiculous) and "manscaping" (which I really don't want to think about).

Let's look at some of the choices, shall we? If you're interested in Luke's entire list, it can be found in Theunis's article via the link that I provided earlier in this post.

Accordionated: Being able to drive and refold a road map at the same time. Clearly, this is a play on the word "coordinated", only with the word "accordion" incorporated into it to illustrate the folding of a map. With GPS and Google Maps and all of that these days, this word seems outdated at best.

Espacular: Something especially spectacular. So, something that is especially spectacular gets half of the word "spectacular" removed from it so that is sounds like some sort of Spanish spackle?

Freegan: Someone who rejects consumerism, usually by eating discarded food. Um, I already have a word for this sort of person. In fact, I have several. I tend to alternate between "bum", "hobo" and "Bob, the homeless guy who lives behind the bank".

Fumb: Your large toe. Is it a "fumb" instead of a "thumb" because it's on our foot and "foot" starts with an "F"? That's F-ing ridiculous. If that were logical, then wouldn't the thumb simply be called the "humb" because it's on our hand and "hand" starts with an "H"? Or would we just call the whole thing stupid because that's how I'm starting to feel by trying to comprehend all of this?

Nudenda: An unhidden agenda. We already have a word for this, too. It's called a "plan". A PLAN. Say it with me. A PLAN. Good Lord...

Precuperate: To prepare for the possibility of being ill. That's called a hypochondriac. Stop making up words.

Sprog: To go faster then a jog but slower then a sprint. Sooooo....run?

Wikism: A piece of information that claims to be true but is wildly inaccurate. Also known as a "lie" or "bulls**t". Your choice.

If I thought that this little movement had any legs, I'd be ready to stab my eyes out (and probably my ears, too, just for good measure). But I doubt it's going anywhere. I wonder if Luke has found a word for that yet?

Sphere: Related Content

The WOTY is What Now?

It's Word of the Year time! The WOTY! (Good Lord, if I ever use the term 'WOTY' again just in just a casual context like I just did, please shoot me.) Every year, for some reason (and I'm blaming The Internets), the Oxford English Dictionary, the ol' OED gives us what they have deemed the Word of the Year. They are, apparently, the only ones who get any say in this sort of thing. I'm actually glad about that because if it were left up to the general public to vote, the Word of the Year would almost always be something like "hella" or "piehole", both of which barely qualify for words as it is, let alone Word of the Year. What I'm not so glad about was this year's winner.

And the Word of the Year as dubbed so by the folks over there at the Oxford English Dictionary and no matter what you say is.......

UNFRIEND

Wait. What now? "Unfriend"? You mean as in to remove someone from your Facebook because they were being a douche to you? I thought it was "defriend". What in the hell is "unfriend"? Well, according to the Oxford University Press (that would be those who do the OED), "unfriend" is "defriend". And while according to OUP that "unfriend" is "defriend", according to me, "unfriend" is wrong.

If I were the only one to think that it should be "defriend" instead of "unfriend" it probably would not stop me from ranting about it. But I am not the only one who thinks that it should be "defriend". In fact, so many people were doing the Scooby head tilt at this one that they asked the OED people what they were thinking how they came to this conclusion. According to a story over there at ABC News, a one Lauren Appelwick, a publicist with Oxford University Press, Inc., said, "Unfriend was chosen because it's much more common than defriend." She also stated that she "couldn't elaborate on Oxford's methodology." Right. Because if we all knew how you came up with the lame-ass "unfriend" as being more popular than "defriend" then we'd all be going out there and doing our own word popularity studies. Uh, no. (Translation: We blew it, but we're not telling you that. "Unfriend" is our story and we're sticking to it.)

She added that "It's funny because there seem to be little clusters of people who have never heard the word "unfriend,"...but added that research indicated that "unfriend is far, far more popular." Yeah. It's funny, all right. Hilarious. Hmm...I don't know about folks who have never heard of the word "unfriend" (that seems completely unlikely unless those "clusters" are folks who are over eighty), but you know who doesn't use the word "unfriend"? That would be a one Chris Hughes. Who now?

Chris Hughes. You've probably heard of what he's accomplished rather than who he is. He's one of the three guys who invented freaking Facebook. According to Syracuse.com, Hughes says “I was surprised that that was the word that they’ve chosen." The article also stated that "Hughes says that’s the term he and his friends use" and "Instead of “unfriend,” he would have gone with “defriend.” But, the OED folks did extensive research that they're not going to explain to us, but we're supposed to take their word that all of us who have only used "defriend" are in the minority (perhaps even in the "clusters" with the oldsters). Whatevers.

Over there at the Oxford University Press blog, we learn that according to a one Christine Lindberg, Senior Lexicographer for Oxford’s US dictionary program. “It has both currency and potential longevity. In the online social networking context, its meaning is understood, so its adoption as a modern verb form makes this an interesting choice for Word of the Year." Oh, it's an interesting choice all right...because it's wrong!

In order to make the incorrect choice of "unfriend" for Word of the Year, the OED folks had to sift through some other words which they held in contention for the title. Of those, I have heard of most of them. The ones that I don't think I have ever heard used in the mainstream lexicon of English speech would include:

intexticated - distracted because texting on a cellphone while driving a vehicle (See, I don't call this behavior "intexticated", I call this "being a dumbass".)

choice mom - a person who chooses to be a single mother (Sooooo....lesbian?)

deleb - a dead celebrity (I have never run across this term being used anywhere. And really, after the 24/7 coverage that went on way too long covering the demise of Jacko, I'd really prefer that they don't refer to them as any particular term and that they just stop talking about it, for cryin' out loud.)

paywall - a way of blocking access to a part of a website which is only available to paying subscribers (Yeah, the term is pay wall, not paywall. Oh, but don't worry. It really is "unfriend"!)


Other words in the running which I am thankful did not take top honors included:

birther - a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s birth certificate (Translation: Moron.)

death panel - a theoretical body that determines which patients deserve to live, when care is rationed. (Theoretical? Shouldn't that be hypothetical? I don't know of a scenario in which that theory would be applicable. But don't worry! It's unfriend! For sure!)

And my personal favorite: teabagger - a person, who protests President Obama’s tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as “Tea Party” protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773)

Yeah, that's not quite exactly what folks are meaning when they're using the term "teabagger". See, I think that the term that the OED folks are looking for is teapartier or teapartier. See, a "teabagger" is a somewhat derogatory term due to the fact that it's a slang term meaning to place one’s scrotum on the face, eyes or mouth of an unsuspecting person. It is in no way a pleasant experience for the one getting "teabagged" (as the description would imply. A scrotum that isn't yours in your face? Very unpleasant indeed.)

But again, don't worry! They're sure that it's "unfriend".

Sphere: Related Content

I Can't Say What?

It's happened again. You'd think that by this point, we'd be past this sort of thing. But apparently we're not. Well, we are. They are not. And by 'they' I mean those who are self appointed members of the Politically Correct Word Police. 'Pinheads' would be another acceptable term.

It would seem that some folks over in the UK are extremely concerned about things that 'might' happen. Now, there are lots of things that 'might' happen. That does not mean anything as far as how likely they are to actually happen. For example, monkeys might fly out of my arse. That does not mean it's going to happen. But it might! (In case you're wondering, I'm guessing it would have to involve some sort of a mishap with some Sea Monkeys, but that's all I've got.)

One of the things that a bunch of "taxpayer funded organizations" are concerned that might happen is that some folks may be offended by words or terms or sayings that have the potential to offend. Now, I'm not real big on the notion of 'potential'. (Obviously!) And especially when it comes to banning speech due to the "potential" for "offense". From what I can tell, there are very few things that actually offend others. There are people who like to claim that they're offended, but they're really just being a pain in the ass under the guise of offense. That's why I'd like to recommend that before folks run off and start creating this mythical Utopian society that they have in mind, they really stop and think about what it is that they're suggesting happen.

As far as the words or terms that might be offensive, some examples of this, according to the Times Online, would be "The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day." Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?

They claim that "...certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”." The term "black day" is one of those words? Allegedly? Why, yees! And..."The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”. " Um, what now?

It can imply? Under what circumstances can it imply that something is smaller and "less important"? I find that almost laughable as in the United States, the term "ethnic minority" often connotates exactly the opposite of something "smaller and less important". But I digress. Back to the Word Police.

Terms believed to be offensive to those over at The National Gallery in London include “gentleman’s agreement” (potentially offensive to women) and “right-hand man” (again, potentially offensive to women). Those softheads suggest replacing the potentially offensive terms (that may not have offended anyone ever since the beginning of time) with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” for the former and “second in command” being deemed more suitable for the latter. :::: sigh ::::

For some reason the Word Police is extremely fixated on any word that might have any connection to any sort of slavery. For example, the Learning and Skills Council "...wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it." Right. Because that would be offensive to....who? Slaves? I don't think there are any slaves these days. If to "master ones brief" was to be offensive, it would have to denote that the person was making the brief itself do the work. Actually, it's the other way around. It's the anti-master is what it is! What about the game Master Mind? Are we supposed to change that to "Perfect Mind"? I don't think we are. I know I'm not!

div align="justify">Over at the South West Regional Development Agency, they are able to admit that the terms that are "potentially offensive" have nothing to do with the part that would be offensive (if anyone were actually offended by it, which I doubt they are). They say “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black." So what should we use in their place? Dark? The dark sheep of the family? Dark mark? (Oh, please. No politically correct rhyming or I might just have to hang myself.)

I almost went over the edge when I read that "Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic." ::: blink::: :::: blink :::: That is the perfect example of someone just out to be an ass. And doing a fine job of it as well, might I add.

Over there at AOL News in an article on the same subject, a one Anthony Horowitz tries to talk some sense into people by explaining, "...our modern language is based on traditions which have now gone but it would be silly — and extremely inconvenient — to replace them all. We know what these phrases mean....Banning them is just unnecessary." Yes! It would be silly to replace them all! Who can argue with that?! Anyone?! Oh, crap. This chick can. And does.

A one Rosalie Maggio argues that she "...sees nothing wrong with finding alternatives to these troublesome phrases." And I agree with that. But I don't agree that the phrase "gentleman's agreement" is troublesome in the least bit! This woman is the author of something called 'The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage' and 'The Nonsexist Word Finder,' just in case you were wondering where she was coming from. Her identity is the Word Police! She says "A 'fireman' could be a guy on a train. 'Firefighter' tells you -- it's an action verb. ... It tells you what they do. A mail carrier carries mail. A firefighter fights fires." What now?

A fireman could be a guy on a train? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Does it mean he's any less of a firefighter? Or is she talking about the guy on the train being literally on fire? Man, this chick must be a blast at parties! Are you kidding me?! But wait! She's not going to tell you what you should be saying. She claims that, "People can use whatever words they choose, but there's no reason to fall back on ones that carry "unintended baggage." Like what? Bellhop?

Ms. Maggio also mentioned that in the United States during the 1980s, folks "... argued over words such as "snowperson" and "personhole"." OK, stop. Stop. Stop. STOP!!! What. The. Hell?!?!

Personhole? WTF is a personhole? (If I was in charge of this, Ms. Maggio would be my definition of personhole. Nice job, personhole!) Seriously? Like...as a replacement for manhole?? You have got to be kidding. First of all, if I ever hear anyone use the term 'personhole', I might have to punch them. No, I will have to punch them. Second, I cannot think of one woman I have ever met in my entire life (and there have been several!) who would have been offended by the word manhole.

I feel the need to make a suggestion to all involved in the Word Policing of societies. I'm going to strongly suggest that you take up a hobby. Perhaps get yourself a pocketknife and learn to whittle. Buy a banjo and pluck out some of the classics. Anything. Anything to keep you from nitpicking the English language to death.

But here's the perfect example of just how stupid (yes, stupid) this whole thing is and how there is the potential for everyone to be offended by everything and you can't go around banning certain words for fear of offending one soft-headed moron. (Why can't they just toughen up is my question.)

A one Christopher Cerf recalled "...a Long Island feminist in the 1970s who tried to change her name from Ellen Donna Cooperman to Ellen Donna Cooperperson." (I'm assuming Ellen Donna Imadumbass was taken?) "...she's a better person for it. Except that she forgot that 'person' has the word 'son' in it." Bravo, sir. Bra-VO.

What other words can we get rid of because they might offend people? Let's not limit it to just gender, for cryin' out loud!

What about 'handsome'? Could be offensive to amputees.

What are we supposed to do about the 'best man'? Best person? I don't think so.

Therapist? Offensive to rapists?

Manslaughter? You folks really want to go with 'personslaughter'? I don't think you do. Besides that, it could be offensive to depressed people. Mans laughter? Ahhhh...see?

Calling someone "a chicken"? Offensive to poultry.

Oooh...Headmaster! Offensive to both slaves and people without heads!

Sightseeing? Offensive to blind people.

See how silly the whole thing is? Well, it's silly all right, but I'm about to make it sillier. One of the nitpicky language usage books that Ms. Maggio has authored is titled "How to Say It" and it does just that; instructs the reader of the most acceptable (according to her) ways of composing various types of letters (ie, acceptance, complaints, responses, etc.). She goes very far out of her way to include every sort of name possibly imaginable, presumably so that there is no ethnic stereotyping or gender stereotyping in the responses. But this woman takes it to the extreme. Behold! Extreme political correctness. Or something.

Mr. and Mrs. Masterson Finbury

Chang Ch'un Meditation Center

Anders

Selina

Vickers

Shreve

Penrod

Dr. Cheesewright (wtf?)

Mr. Van Druten

William Portlaw and Alida Ascott

Marion and Leopold

Nguyen Van Troy and Tran Houng Lang

Edna Bunthorne

Gabriel Bagradian

Leon Gonsalez

Chuzzlewit, Ltd.

Uncle Thorkell (what?)

Rabbi Wasserman

Mr. Brimblecombe

Sphere: Related Content