The Inherent Instability Of Euphemisms

  Blender Dumbass
October 29, 2024

👁 25

https://blenderdumbass.org/articles : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/lets_discuss_moderation__misinformation__censorship_and_freedom_of_speech : 👁 1

Often it is required of a storyteller to say less in order to say more. Steven Spielberg had to censor the most gruesome parts of the holocaust in order to make a movie that was actually watchable, and his intuition was arguably right. The movie ended up being a hit, exposing millions upon millions of people to the the holocaust. But it wasn't the horror. It was a watered down version, made so people would not be too upset watching it. The reality of the situation was so much worse that Spielberg didn't even think a movie showing the actual truth was possible. Nobody would be brave or masochistic enough, he thought, to actually see it. A similar story happened to Dunkirk, another World War II movie, this time by Christopher Nolan, who deliberately avoided the worst aspects of a war film to make a film which the audience could watch without taking their eyes from the screen, and as a result, a film that is arguably scarier because of that. Nolan's masterful management of tension is so good that the movie doesn't need violence and blood to be visceral. And yet, to some extent the movie is a watered down version of what war supposed to be. And some argue it is a lesser film because of it.

Euphemisms are words, sentences or entire story structures which are designed specifically to avoid uncomfortable associations with an idea. Going to the toilet is a euphemism for shitting. A word so apparently uncomfortable that it became banned. A curse word. In certain circles, the amount of euphemisms used is so gargantuan that to describe it will require more euphemisms. I'm of course talking about bureaucracy. An of-shoot of politics where all of the complicated decisions were made, and now the job is to file all of the appropriate reports, which should describe the underlying, often uncomfortable ideas, in a way that will not hinder the boredom of the job itself. The formal language, so to speak. A language so devoid of passion that it seems like it was designed to test people's stamina by inducing so much sleepy-drugs into one's system that only a trained lawyer would survive it through.

Yet, in the same time, euphemisms, when used correctly, seem to be extremely useful for political activity. Though in true politics using only formal language will result in under-appreciation of the message from the general public, consisting not only from lawyers. Basically, to win over the public one needs to talk passionately and to the point. Which might require a certain informal lack of euphemisms. But in the same time, one must manage the cognitive dissonance of that same public by careful insertion of euphemisms, which gives the speaker a chance to get away unharmed when addressing uncomfortable issues.

On October 26th 2024, 3 days after publishing a link to my previous article to Mastodon, the moderators decided to remove it, probably due to somebody reporting it, for, as far as I can tell, my lack of euphemisms in the article and it's title. To the point that some people were confused enough to think that the article was potentially illegal. I was talking about a certain type of attraction of a certain demographic of people to a certain other demographic of people, that for the reasons of certain differences between the two demographics, is deemed so inappropriate that any and all logical fallacies created by trying to stop the attraction from happening are welcome and deemed necessary. I guess to finish the joke, I need to say the word describing what I am talking about. But I hope the reader is smart enough to at-least click the link that was provided in this paragraph and read the title. Everything will become clear as day. But I warn you. You may get uncomfortable doing so.

From one side I was going to talk about how evil Mastodon moderators are for censoring my freedom of speech. But on further investigation into the nature of the, so called, offense, I stumbled upon this interesting topic. Euphemisms. And how perhaps, in order to survive as a political philosopher that I apparently became from years of writing those strange pieces of text, I need to embrace, at least to some extend, the strange utility and sometimes even wit associated with clever use of euphemisms.

In the perfect world euphemisms are completely un-required. People should be able to speak their mind in any words they see fit. But that quickly becomes unpractical, especially when one is no longer preaching to the choir. People are often repulsed to unbelievable magnitudes when it comes to foreign ideas. And euphemisms seem to be a perfect tool to lessen this repulsion. Though in some aspects, the use of euphemisms themselves results in a quasi-repulsion stemming from understanding that a foreign idea is masking itself in a form of a euphemism.

To solve the issue, one must undergo anti-repulsion training, when it comes to thinking through foreign ideas. People like myself who inject cognitive dissonances like stimulation drugs, might even start enjoying thinking through the uncomfortable ideas. As I falsely assumed in my last article that "the comment section will be entertaining", because I had an intuition that people would argue the article. In fact those who disagreed probably didn't even finish reading it. Rubbing me of my pleasure. But unfortunately not a lot of people are willing to go through this kind of training, leaving us with the only other option. Which is unfortunately to use euphemisms.

The inherent instability of euphemisms is in their constant changing state. Once "shitting" was a perfectly good word, but people understood what it meant and you had to use "going to the toilet". But then people understood what that meant that you couldn't use that anymore and now it is "going to remove some ballast". Perhaps then people will no longer accept that as appropriate and you have to invent something like "going to the willy wonka's chocolate factory". Which later becomes "assembling candies" and then "going to the sweet place" and "the place that makes your teeth hurt" and so on and so forth. There is no end to the euphemisms game. As soon as everybody has a clear understanding what you are referring to, the expiration date of a euphemism is due and you have to install a new one.

In a way political argumentation is the game, that some people name the "4 dimensional chess". You have to assume the position of the opponent. You have to adjust to the ever-changing landscape. And you have to state your strategy carefully enough, so both the opponent could see what you are doing, like in chess, otherwise there will be accusations of ulterior motives, and in the same time, your moves and strategies have to be effective at persuading the opponent. Where the analogy with chess ends. Because at this point your strategy is to turn the opponent into an ally.

Uncareful use of words might trigger the repulsion, we were talking about, in the opponent, making the opponent more aggressive against you. On the other hand, over-reliance on euphemisms, especially too recent ones, risk complete lack of understanding from the opponent. If you speak too safely, you say nothing at all. So a clever game of balancing and wit in absolutely necessary in argumentation.

A different approach, used sometimes to a great effect is to use humor. Inducing a great enough laughter in the opponent might undermine any repulsion one might have to an idea. But there are two problems with this approach. A person might not get, and subsequently might not laugh at the joke. Or the matter of the joke could be way too uncomfortable to that very person. In which case euphemisms are a must. Perhaps I was over-reliant on, probably not too clever jokes, in my latest article. Which prompted such a vile reaction to what I have written. I personally can't find any illogicality in what I wrote. But perhaps the issue wasn't logical to begin with. I just dared to touch a subject, without being careful about it.

Euphemisms, contrary to some people's belief, are not about lack of free speech. You can always say that you are "shitting". But rather, it seems, euphemisms are about strategy of speech. About how to dip your toes into the water of the idea without hurting your chances at persuading your opponent.

Happy Hacking!!!

Subscribe RSS

Author
Website

In my opinion
Post