Language policing

Language policing

The meaning of words changes. New meanings can be added to words. Obscure words can become more widely used whilst other words drop into obscurity. Language evolves. Within that evolution, words can imply things that they did not before. Unwritten rules emerge with varying degrees of acceptance. Some words become swear worlds - in some languages, in some parts of the world. Whilst people may consider a word to be a swear word, they fail to justify why they should not be used. We should not swear in front of children say some. That is odd. They may be the least offended by a swear word. They may find swear words amusing rather than offensive. We are trained by tradition to refrain from using some words. Swear words may make us appear uncouth. That could be a reason for being told not to use them, particularly in a formal context. However, what you find uncouth others may find endearing. Context matters, how we say something matters, but most importantly opinion matters the most. Opinions differ though. Popular opinion can prevail - for a while at least.

People will scold you for using words that they consider to be racist, ageist or blasphemous etc. Whilst people have a firm belief regarding the valid use of certain words, there is no globally recognised body that has any right to determine what words are appropriate to use or not use. The words which seem permittable to describe something, or someone are not set in concrete. They change. When a new word/phrase if proffered in exchange for a contentious one, it appeases some people. That seems good, but it becomes apparent that this change also annoys others. This can lead to the list of acceptable words changing once again. Changing once, then again, ad infinitum. Do not believe that you are using the right set of words now. It is never long before someone will find fault with how you say things. Things acceptable today will not be acceptable in years to come. On it goes. Never consistent, rarely rational and infuriatingly over-exacting.

The heart of discrimination lies with debarring. Denying entry. Refusing to serve someone because of their perceived type; creed, colour, ethnicity for example. Your choice of language to describe or name someone doesn’t automatically debar, deny or alter their opportunities. We can insult people with a slur. We can hurt people with our use of words whether intentionally or not. We may direct such words towards particular people because of certain characteristics that they have. We single them out. This can make them feel isolated, but this differs from debarring. We debar when we reject someone applying for a job or prevent entry to a building. Not including, not welcoming - hostility is debarring. Our use of words to describe people may be the first step towards debarring, but not always.

When someone is telling you what you should and should not say, be mindful that it is their opinion and their interpretation. People that use the should word have an agenda, an agenda that might run counter to what you consider to be the best/right thing to do.

Should rules of the land take precedence over rules of faith and belief? Rules of the land are formed collectively by those living, past and present - all people not just those that follow a religion. We can justify putting laws above rules of faith because not all share the same spiritual belief and not all have the same superstitions.