What’s the effect here? I don’t think I like soft language, but can’t really pinpoint why I don’t like it. Is it bad that some company came up with toilet paper and now it’s bathroom tissue? Shell shock is now PTSD?
Who cares?
Who cares?
I don't think we want to describe sexual assault victims as having "shell shock". Even a soldier could get "shell shock" without encountering any shells. The language got softer not because we're all a bunch of softies but because we noticed a general pattern and generalized the name to match.
Either is possible, but I think you are wrong about Carlin being wrong. Language defines the quality of our conversations. If we can't be honest with it, some nuance will be lost.
It may help to think of it as a range.
It is sort of schrodinger stragety - you make claims and if someone strongly argues back, it was joke. If there is no strong pushback, we pretend it was serious.
I agree "shell shock" wouldn't suffice but you could just change his word to "past-shock" or something, and notice how different that feels than an 8-syllable medical phrase.
I do think putting big fancy words on things implies a fake level of understanding, takes the word away from everyday users, and has other real effects.
There are certainly times when shell shock makes no sense but I find PTSD dehumanizing especially since no one actually says post traumatic stress disorder.
Here's another example from George: calling a "rape victim" "involuntary sperm recipient". He said it in jest then but I'd believe that some committee might design such change into language of documents like police reports in order not to "offend" and spare the case worker from uncomfortable truths or some bs like that while completely neutralizing the pain and suffering of the victim.
Soft language is a long game. It's not something which effects are apparent in a year or two or even ten but decades down the line and things like that always begin in innocuous and innocent sounding targets. Like bathroom tissue.
Language is the water. We are the frog.
Toilet paper became bathroom tissue because some people think toilets are gross.
Shellshock became battle fatigue so that people aren't discouraged from going to war; "they're just tired". It became post-traumatic stress disorder to make it both clinical, and to put it on the person having it - YOU have a disorder after a traumatic event.
Modern day example, people self-censor to avoid getting downranked, censoring words like "sex" into "s*x", "kill" into "unalive", "suicide" to "sewer slide", etc.
The book 1984 takes it to its extremes, where the language has changed to control the discourse and masses.
All these people trying to make their language more soft and welcoming are ignoring the fact that the world is supposed to suck, kindness is a modern invention, and frankly we can all see that it was a mistake.
I recommend you curse at everyone around constantly to make them harder and stronger, they'll certainly thank you for your service eventually, once they too are strong like you.
Pardon? When was this era?
"Toilet paper" was embarrassing in the late 1800s when it became available in the US. Quoting https://www.heatandplumb.com/blog/history-of-toilet-paper :
"The next significant American innovation came in 1890, when brothers Clarence and E. Irvin Scott marketed the first toilet paper roll. They found more success than Gayetty thanks to negotiating trade deals with several hotels and local shops, Despite the steady income they generated, the brothers struggled to sell their toilet paper to the wider population; many Americans were too embarrassed to purchase it in public."
Or from https://community.oerproject.com/b/blog/posts/a-splinter-fre... :
"But many people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were reluctant to talk openly about poop. They were often too embarrassed to walk out of a store carrying an armful of toilet paper. People would instead order something like “wrapping paper” with a wink and a nod to the shopkeeper. But marketers eventually found a way to fix this problem. Have you ever wondered why so many TP brands have pictures of baby animals or baby humans on them? They used to have images of beautiful women on the packages. Advertisers wanted to emphasize softness and to avoid talking about the fact that these were rolls of paper designed to remove excrement from the human body."
You can see one way marketers worked to calm this embarrassment in a 1922 advertisement:
easy to ask for - easy to get
Ask for Northern Tissue. You don't
even have to say toilet paper. You
will get the most thoroughly safe,
pure, salutary product, fine and soft,
yet firm, 650 sheets to the roll, and
surprisingly low in price.
AND YOU CAN GET IT WITH-
OUT EMBARRASSMENT. SIMPLY
Ask for
Northern Tissue
at any of these stores
Here's a quote from a 1947 short story at https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... :
Jolan's wife came from the house and to the gate, a child in her
arms. "Here, Lora" she called in a loud voice. "You'll need this. It's
going to be all day." She handed Lora a small roll of toilet paper, a
precious article here. She spoke without modesty, for in a house with-
out windows if one blushed at such things one would bleed away into
blushes.
The idea that "toilet paper" was something improper existed until at least the 1950s. Here's a 1958 use from https://archive.org/details/ucladailybruin36losa/page/n127/m... :
One of the entries — the winning one has not yet been
chosen — is written entirely on Seppi paper (it's so
crude to say toilet paper) cutely bound with a feminine
pink ribbon.
When and why did ass-wiping paper become toilet paper?
Maybe if we didn't change what it was, it would've been a bit more difficult to send people to wars where they can get 'shellshocked' instead of 'experiencing PTSD'.
We can look to the post-WWI era 'Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry into "Shell-shock"' to see how in 1922 they viewed "shell shock" as a congenital or upbringing failing. From https://archive.org/details/b3217777x/page/96/mode/2up?q=con...
> Authorities are agreed that, in the majority of cases of war neurosis, there already existed a congenital or acquired predisposition to pathological reaction in the individual concerned, and that this constitutional characteristic was of vast importance.
We can see how many viewed it as simple lack of morale:
> Major Adie tritely expressed himself in stating that there was only one word worth mentioning, and that was “ Morale.’’ If you keep up the morale there will be no “ shell-shock.’’ The medical officer should know his. men, and can prevent the vast majority of nervous cases—mild “ shell-shock ’’—from becoming ‘‘shell-shocks’’ by retaining them at the front, or by giving them a little rest at the front. As long as they were living with soldiers, and in the atmosphere of the front line, the tendency was to recover. They were to be looked on merely as physically exhausted. - https://archive.org/details/b3217777x/page/158/mode/2up?q=mo...
> He agreed with the regimental opinion that a large number of ‘‘shell shock’’ cases in a battalion may be taken as a sign of poor morale. - https://archive.org/details/b3217777x/page/16/mode/2up?q=mor...
Then there's the difficulty of figuring out if someone is suffering from shell shock or is a coward - the latter being punishable by death:
> Asked whether he had any experience of cases of men charged with certain military offences, such as desertion, in which the plea of "shell shock" was put forward, the doctor said he saw many such cases. As Neurologist of the 4th Army, all cases which put in a plea of "shell shock" as an excuse for desertion were sent to him for medical examination and report, and he was always asked to give evidence in courts-martial on these cases. He confessed it was an extremely difficult and distasteful task, and he very soon came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible for the Medical Officer to make a decisive statement ... - https://archive.org/details/b3217777x/page/42/mode/2up?q=exc...
Or if someone is shirking duties by claiming shell shock:
> "Shell-shock" became recognized as a handy excuse, and, indeed, a suggestion also to the many who were ready to avail themselves of any subterfuge to escape from the terrors of the front. - https://archive.org/details/b3217777x/page/140/mode/2up?q=ex...
As a result, the British government decided "that quasi-medical words like ’shell-shock’ should never be used, that the whole question of psychoneuroses should be both recognized and played down, and that no pensions should be paid." (quoting https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957154x9901004... ).
The term "shell shock" was not used in WWII. From the last source, "’Not Yet Diagnosed (Nervous)’ (NYDN) or ’Exhaustion’ being the commonest. The troops had a variety of terms, notably ’Bomb Happy’ or ‘Windy’."
So no, it wouldn't have been more difficult. It was viewed as a moral or congenital failure of the solider to carry out his service.
"These poor people have been bullshitted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition, somehow you'll change the condition"
Terrorist or freedom fighter?
Uncomfortable truth or hate speech?
etc.
One does not re-translate what is said to one, into some universal, neutral idea.
So, you then have to wonder, are your thoughts actually your own? Are they based on what you yourself have perceived or on what has been provided to you? And who is it that is doing the provisioning? Have they got your best interests at heart? Do you have other people's best interests at heart when you say things to them? Do you only speak truth, or do you echo provided opinions? Etc.
Quite surprising the read:
> Who cares?
Surely everyone cares about having a valid understanding of reality?
...which is a soft way to say "wrong" or "evil"
'the economically disadvantaged' occupy 'substandard housing' in the 'inner cities.'
compared to
"Poor people live in slums"
works better for politicians. They haven't improved the situation, just swept it under the rug that is Oxford Dictionary.