George Carlin on soft language

Idiocy of political correctness taking it's toll. Always relevant George Carlin: [VIDEO] In 20 years, next Github will be taking down projects that have "cognitively impaired" in it, because that's what we're going to be using to insult each other.

If there existed some form of global consensus across the English-speaking world on what the inoffensive version is, I'd be happy to abide by it. In the meantime, suggesting that people on a venue as global as HN have some sort of a responsibility to follow and observe the random cultural variations in whichever narrow bubble you were referring to strikes me as presumptious and absurd. I also wish more people valued clear language over these battles of ever more contrived euphemisms. George Carlin has a brilliant sketch on this very issue [1], which is both thoughtful and inoffensive (specifically references "handicapped" around the 5:30 mark). [1] [VIDEO]

It's not "imposing the necessity of the word", it's calling out the nonsensical euphemistic language that gets churned out by the most neurotic of society and then imposed upon everyone. George Carlin called this specific phenomenon out decades ago [0]. You can kvetch about using words that signal your virtue, but homelessness has a codified definition [1]. [0] [VIDEO] [1] [LINK]

I’ve often wondered how George Carlin would react against the modern progressive movement towards gatekeeping speech. Especially with his soft language and dirty words bits. [VIDEO] Sometimes it’s easy to get so wrapped up in your well intentioned culture where you end up being ridiculous and detach yourself from reality.

Off topic: "high net-worth" is word "rich" not politically correct anymore or what is the thinking behind using three words instead of one? This reminded me of "George Carlin on soft language" [VIDEO]

In our entitled and highly litigious society I call this Corporate Normal Form. First Corporate Normal Form is messaging derogatories, or things perceived as such, to have a unoffensive coating and makes speaking about them not immediately trigger your fight or flight response. On a related note, George Carlin has a funny skit about how messaging has gotten softer over the years that you might enjoy. [VIDEO]

Looks like this kind of soft / euphemistic language dates back to even earlier than that. Here is a YT clip of George Carlin railing against it in his 1990 special: [VIDEO]

> I'm biased of course, but when I read "$X is backing $Y to do $Z", I read $Z as what $X is specifically and intentionally backing $Y to do. Fair! I agree with you and I hadn’t realised the sentence as is was accusing Y Combinator in that sense. My intention was something along the lines of “Tell HN: Y Combinator backing AI company whose product aims to abuse factory workers” but it was too long and some nuance was lost in the trimming. > Nor is the phrase neutral; it's obviously accusatory. Again, I agree. But as I mentioned before, I also don’t see a non-critical stance which would make the situation worth commenting on, and I do believe it should be commented on. The only reason it’s worth commenting at all is because it’s bad. > Some commenters have suggested things like "production line monitoring". Which is a phrase so sterile and euphemistic it immediately made me think of George Carlin’s bit on soft language. [VIDEO] Also, I disagree with that description because it fails to capture the point (see below). > I'm sure it's true that technology like this can turn into a Taylorist nightmare, but there surely are also ways to use it humanely The crux of the matter to me is that this is inhumane by design . It’s not just the video, their page on YC’s website makes it patently clear via the written word they care about factory owners but not the workers . This is neither a marketing problem nor an issue of bad clients abusing the product—the founders plainly described how t

because you lose the meaning over time. Emotional aspects of language can be useful. George Carlin's famous piece on it: [VIDEO]