Okay, fair enough. I used hyperbole, and you didn’t bite.
But the problem is, your own arguments are similarly hyperbolic. You decry “control of language” as a bad thing, when it is, instead, the natural function of language in society. You’re still throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Civilization has rules of behavior, for the purpose of smoothing social interactions. We do discipline each other, by the thousand and ten mild social criticisms we encounter every day. If someone shouts seriously offensive words, he won’t get invited to many parties.
So just bitching “This is control of language” isn’t a valid rebuttal. Of course we want to control some of the excesses of language. You can’t come and take a crap on my sofa, either.
Raising children and limiting the range of acceptable thought are not analogous. But I like how you wrap your blatantly despotic politics in an appeal to the welfare of children.
Don’t wear yourself out grasping for straws big guy.
Ah, *there’s *the Orwell! Had a suspicion it was coming.
I’m not sure why on earth I would “own” a thoroughgoing misrepresentation of my views. Of course language shapes thought. This is pretty clear throughout multiple disciplines. I can recommend several excellent texts on linguistics and linguistic anthropology, if you’re interested. Here’s a pretty good start.
I’m sorry you find my views so offensive. I think you’re reading a lot more into my posts than I’ve actually written, and I think your seeking offense where none is intended or implied. I neither said nor implied that you are paranoid; I think that immediately jumping from “change” to “control” seems to imply a great deal of fear that I do not share.
Why does that make “change” the same as “control?” I’ve posted a lot on this board about gay rights issues, hoping to change people’s minds so that they’d support gay rights. Was I exercising mind control by trying to do that? Were the people I was arguing with, who were opposed to gay rights, trying to control my mind?
If you try to persuade somebody, then you’re engaging it a debate. But that’s not what I commented on. I commented on andros’s comments about changing language to change minds.
Political correctness does not work by persuasion. It works by coercion of language and the circumscribing of acceptable speech and opinion.
Hence, speech isn’t being changed by persuasion, but by control of the language itself, with the aim of controlling minds.
So you do think you’re synonymous with personal autonym? Please expound. Somebody with your great reading abilities must be an excellent writer as well.