Euphemisms: Linguistic Transmutation

wonderful design in it. I love the suit of armor, oh yeah, yeah, and I love some of the painted backdrops and stuff. But there's a great scene where so you know the basic story of Dracula. These characters are in I think late Victorian England and Dracula, Count Dracula comes to England from Transylvania and begins feeding on the locals in England. And uh, there is the character Van Helsing,

the Van vampire slayer, a man of great wisdom. And in the bram Stoker's Dracula France Ford couple of version, he has played by Anthony Hopkins in a wonderfully weird, hyperactive performance. Uh. And there's a scene where the main character's friend Lucy has been turned into a vampire by Count Dracula, and Van Helsing and his associates have just come back from slaying the vampire version of their friend Lucy and the character Mina Harker played in the movie

by win Owner writer. She asks how did Lucy die? Was she in great pain? And Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing says, yes, she was in great pain. Then we cut off our head, drove a stake through her heart and then burned it. And then she found peace. And I always love that because of the last line at the end there and then she found peace. Yeah, everything else is thoroughly non euphemistic. It's pretty straightforward. These are the steps we took to to tear her corpse apart

to to kill her her undead uh unnatural life. Right, But then you have to end it with a euphemism, so they they have these terms ready at hand. She found peace, she passed on, she went to a better place. These are the the friendly terms for death. He could have just finished as he began by saying and then she died screaming, but instead he uses the euphemism and then she found peace. And it's a great contrast. That's

it's why it's such a wonderful comic moment. But it makes you aware of the absurdity of the euphemisms that we use in everyday language. Yeah, I feel like in researching this episode, we both had to do a lot of self examination regarding our own use of euphemisms. Uh, you know just how ubiquitous euphemistic language is. It's everywhere, It's I bet it's half of all the talk you

do now. Of course, the concept of a euphemism is if you're not familiar with the word, it just means using a friendlier or more acceptable term to express an idea that, for some reason is taboo or uncomfortable. Yeah, it's interesting thinking about it in terms of having a four and a half year old in the house, because he he does not have a really a great use of euphemisms. Yet when he's very blunt, right when he'll be eating dinner and he'll say I need to go poop,

I'll be right back. He'll he'll even lay out a detailed plan. I'm gonna go poop and wash my hands, and I'm gonna come back, and then I'm gonna fish eater And wouldn't it be great if we could do that during dinner party? Yeah? No, no, like if an adult did that, you would just think they'd lost their mind or just we're the most uncouth first and imaginable, right, But but a child is completely free of this. But yeah,

we would use euphemism. We would say I need to go use the restroom, I'm going to go make use of the laboratory, or maybe we visit the water closet, yeah, like, or even I'm going to step out it. Yeah, I'm I'm gonna Well that that's a weird. I've never heard anyone use that I'm gonna step out, Like, what are you going to do if you're gonna step out? I don't know. I mean obviously something you don't want to

talk about. Um, Yeah, I tend to fall back on I'm gonna go visit the restroom or I'm gonna use the restroom and I'll be right back visit like you're gonna have some quality time. Well, I'm keeping it vague as to what. I'm not going to give you the particulars of what's going to happen. Maybe I'm just washing my hands, maybe I need to blow my nose, might just stare in the mirror without blinking. Yeah, but I'm not gonna say I'm gonna go poop and then I

will return. I bet there's a lot of stuff when you have a kid in the house that you have to do euphemistically that you you're used to talking more bluntly, maybe with your spouse or partner, but but once a kid comes along, you can't say everything the way you

used to. Well, it's interesting. There's a lot of there's a lot of back and forth too with kids regarding especially euthanisms regarding the human body, because some parents will we'll fall into this habit of using like cutes here less uh less accurate terminology for parts of the body, particularly genitalia, which I always find creepy when I hear no offense to parents who do that. I'm not actually judging you, and that's just my instinctual reaction hearing like

pp and stuff. It always sounds like, yeah, yeah, we try not to do that in our household. I mean that everyone everyone can, you know, do their own thing by all means, but yeah, we try and say, all right, penis, testicles, um et cetera. Because you know, I feel it's important for them to have an accurate understanding of their body and then to be able to describe their body, uh seriously, to say, you know a physician. Yeah, if they needed to talk to a doctor, they would need the correct terms.

But but that's an area where in parenting circles people kind of go on your arguments on both sides. Do you do you ever find yourself like wanting to curse in front of the child, but you have to find an other word. Oh yeah, all the time. Sometimes I don't find that other word. Um uh this morning, even driving through traffic, and my son reminded me, said, they can't hear you. I guess the other drivers cannot hear me. That is a perceptive kid. Yeah, But but I try.

I do try and use certain euphemisms or just it's almost easier for me to just come up with a nonsense word, so referring to other drivers as dumbledoors or calling them crab drivers or something like that. Crab drivers good because they're kind of scuttling around back and forth

right a side and stead of going in straight lines. Uh. Like I find that easier to do because sometimes it's difficult to make a euphemism stick because if I'm if I'm really irritated with another driver, my brain really wants to use, uh, the the F word or or the or the S word, or one of these more actually profane words from a vocabulary, and there's something about a

watered down version of it just will not suit. Yeah, it seems to to have a power, almost a magical power, And I think maybe that goes back to some deeply rooted part of the cursed tradition in our brains, where you know, thousands of years ago, somebody issues a curse, they think that that has power. I think it's actually doing something. Gang is not gonna not gonna got not gonna do. It's not gonna suit. Fudge is not gonna work.

So euphemisms in our house, Uh, my wife Rachel and I get a lot of enjoyment out of talking about our dog in un euphemistic terms when people normally would so. One example, when our dog's legs and jaws are jerking in his sleep, you know he's having a little doggie dreams. I think many dog owners would be inclined to say, oh, he's dreaming about chasing something. But we would say, oh, he's dreaming about killing, which he is. He's definitely dreaming

about killing little animals. Yeah, that's that's that, that's true. Yeah, I guess I do a certain amount of that with our our our pet as well. I'll give one more example though, about about raising a child and euphemisms, is that sometimes you still do not succeed in really driving home the names for things, and without the proper term, sometimes the like the children's name for it is going to be totally even more unsuitable. So I don't think I drove home properly. You know what the anus is

to my son. And so one day we had some people guests to the house and this is something he hadn't even met before, but he walked outside, just got it from the nap, and he probably announces, quote, uh, it itches where poop comes out on my bum and uh. And I think, arguably, like this, this is a more uncouth statement. Grantedies four and a half, so nobody cares, but still it would be more accurate to say my anus itches. Right. But in a way what he said

was euphemism. Really it's an anti euphemism, and we'll get into that in a in a bit the the euphemism is actually cuter there in the situation where a kid says it. If it's true the kid had said anus, that might have been weirder. Yeah, But if an adult had said it it itches on my bum where poop comes out, then that, you know, you would call the

authorities exactly. Okay, So, uh, let's zoom in on the concept of the euphemism and try to figure out what it does, what is its role in language apart from the obvious. Now we we did say that it's essentially a nice word. It's a word that takes the place of a word that, for some reason is inappropriate offensive. Uh, something people don't want to say or think about. Maybe that conjures up too concreteive an image. Yeah, I mean, on the surface of things, it's don't say that, say this,

But of course it's it's more than that. A euphemism has the power to alter the meaning of the word, or at least the spirit and tone of the word. Right. It's like a black and white image versus a colorized image.

Euphemisms allow us to colorize our our linguistic choices to a certain extent, and I think we can all think of various examples where a euphemism simultaneously makes a word less offensive and and yet creep here at the same time, such as many of these genitalia euphemisms that we've been discussing exactly yeah pp hearing an adult say it, it's creepy.

It even rhymes yeah. I would say most genitalia euphemisms, uh, kind of sound like that they have this this this vibe of being at one point that they're deflecting us from the thing we're talking about, and yet colorize it in a way that is distasteful. Okay, So there are a bunch of different ways that you can come up with the euphemism, right like you you can put it together in several ways. There's a word that people have instinctually felt somehow they want to start avoiding saying, but

they still need the concept in everyday language. You still have to be able to refer to the thing the word refers to somehow, So you've got to come up with a different word. So where do these different words come from? Well, you can of course really go down the rabbit hole figuring out what sort of euphemisms are doing what. But here are some of the basic classifications

to consider. There's a term of foreign origin, okay, like a dairy air or copulation urination, you're using a more elegant and uh and in foreign term for what you're talking about. In English. A lot of times the euphemisms kind of come from Latin constructions more so than from the Anglo Saxon constructions, where the the short straightforward word sounds kind of rude and concrete, and that the Latin origin words sounds more abstract and less like it less

it's less likely to conjure an image. Another example is abbreviations, for instance, s O B or food bar. These are both examples where we we simply abbreviate a A a phrase that would otherwise be offensive to some right, and I guess in most cases you would still consider the abbreviation somewhat offensive, but maybe less so. Yeah. Uh. The one I like you made the note of this, but I like the idea of using really vague abstractions such

as doing it, doing it or um. The source I was looking at mentioned like situation, like just referring to the such and such situation. One that always has annoyed me is the situation the situation room, like what what situation is the room for? Is it a war room? Because if it's a war room, let's call it a war room. Is it an emergency room? Is it let's let's call it what it is? The situation room could

be about anything, Okay. There would also be the concept of just saying that you don't want to say a thing, essentially like unmentionables. Yes, he who should not be named right lord Voldemort? Uh? And then there of course mispronunciations like freaking or god. I guess is gosh darn it? One is replacing God with gosh? Does that work? I guess it could be like go old? Aren't gold? Aren't?

That would be one? Yeah? And then their plays on abbreviation, which I really hadn't thought much of, but bull roar is one that we actually used recently in talking about BS or just to go ahead and bleet meum a bullet, right, But I don't think I've ever used barbecue sauce. I saw that one listed as well. Where did you see that? It was? In one of the papers so that we were looking at they mentioned barbecue. So I would like to hear from anyone who who says, oh, that's just

a load of barbecue sauce. Barbecue, I've never heard that. It must be a regional, regional thing. What kind of barbecue sauce, especially if it's regional North Carolina, South Carolina, I don't know. Or beasting. Beasting would be a good one. Oh is that actually used? No? I just made that up. I was trying to think, what what, what could you that's even that even has some of the same consonants in it? Yeah? Um, how about malarkey or maybe malarkey?

Is malarkey actually more offensive in in its origin? And we're just it's one of these things where we don't know what it means anymore. I have no idea where it comes from. It would be horrible to go look that up later and find out it's a deeply offensive term. Yeah, and you know, I feel like that happens a time or two as well. We we have something we think is is a euphemism, but in reality we're just using a far more offensive term than not that fewer people

are familiar with. Okay, But so when you use euphemisms, how however you form the new phrase or the new word, you're essentially doing maybe three different kinds of things, right, Yeah, when you bust out euphemism, you may be employing what is called circumlocution to to speak around that which cannot be said. Yeah, circumlocution, And that's something we often use in a non euphemistic way to like we use it when we're speaking a language we're not very familiar with.

If you've ever tried to speak another language, you often don't have the word for a thing, so instead you circumlocute, You say a bunch of things that are sort of explaining the concept of the word to try to get to it. But this would be a case where you do the same thing, not because you don't have the word, but because you don't want to use the word. Yeah. And another example would be a taboo deformation. So we're just we're altering the spelling or pronunciation of of that

which cannot be said. So go fudge yourself, um you mother effort. That would be an example of of the use of taboo defamation or gold arn't, Yeah, gold arn't. We're just take like thinking, think of the obscenity as this clay object, and we're just wrenching it into a less profane shape. But we still know what its original shape was it's still it's still echoes that form enough for us to use it, albeit in a blunted form. Yeah, and I guess the other main thing would be sort

of robbing the word of its power to conjure imagery. Yeah, double speak, right, Uh, making neutral the awful. I think one of the best examples of this is to say, uh, the enemy combatant was new traalized, which sounds far nicer than we We shot Rolf to death and his his

family will be without him. Now. You know, Rolf was hit with an explosive that resulted in complete body de defragmentation, which I guess is that'd be sort of that's kind of a euphanism as well, right, but defragmentation, what would it be? Rolf was hit by an explosion that severed many arteries. Yes, but you know it's not that funny. I don't know why I'm laugh No, no, but it's kind of getting it as we try to to dance around Rolf's death, and he even discussed more accurately what

happened to Rolf. Are some things in life almost like too dreadful, Like there's there's no way that language, at least brief language can accurately describe something that is that horrible. I don't know. I mean, it's interesting to look at the general categories of things that we have euphemisms for. It's not just arbitrary. It's like, it's not like we

just have euphemisms for any thing. We have euphemisms usually for terms having to do with the inevitable processes of the human body, like like elimination of waste, uh, sex and death. Those those are the big things that you have euphemisms for, but also for culturally sensitive issues like you know, for names of marginalized groups that are discriminated against or something like that. Yeah, and uh, you know,

as well as the way these things are shadowed. And certainly as there's a whole area of business euphemism to discussed as discussed as well. Oh absolutely, Yeah, of course, we have a number of different euphemisms to to to refer to firing someone, which is kind of the the workplace version of death. Right. Yeah, we have. For instance, you may have heard about layoffs, downsizing, right, sizing, that's like that's a euphemism on top of a euphemism like downsizing.

That's you know, we're not downsizing, we're right sizing. We're just we're just making the organization the correct size for what we're doing here. Head count adjustment or head count reduction uh an r I F or reduction enforce a realignment. These are also so fabulous, wonderful terms that allow UH management to do horrible things to people's lives. The wordout feeling bad about it. The worst is let go. It's like you're free. Oh yeah, we we had we had

to let we had to let you go. You should be thinking us, I think, maybe more than anywhere else I go in in my life, the business world is absolutely built out of euphemism. So I think a reason for this might be that the business relationship is essentially a cutthroat relationship most of the time. If employers can scam customers or employees out of another nickel and get away with it and keep making money, they will do

it most of the time, and vice versa. You know, every everybody in the business relationship is is trying to get an extra nickel and and give as little as they can for it. But at the same time, customers and employers and employees interact with one another all the time. You have to see your employer on a regular basis. I mean most people do. Uh. So they want to

have pleasant relationships with the people they interact with. So you kind of live in this state of denial about the heartless, cutthroat principle at the foundation of your work relationships. And it's weird trying to be friendly with your boss when you're thinking about the fact that your boss could fire you at any time, and in some places, for any reason. So we we sort of pack our business lives with euphemisms to avoid thinking about this cutthroat reality.

In addition to the euphemisms for firing. One thing I was thinking about was, Robert, have you ever noticed that, at least in my experience, maybe in years two, businesses seem to never want to talk about quote money. Yeah, so maybe I'm imagining this, but it seems like money it's always removed to one higher level of abstraction, like

revenue or returns or something like that. Uh. And it's as if talking about money directly would reveal that the whole enterprise is kind of tacky at its core, or you know, not only revenue but rev rev share, Like that's the term that is thrown around a lot in our industry. Now, and yet you talk about rev share, then it's just an item on on a sheet. But if you say I want you to give me more of some of the money that you're getting for the thing that I'm making for you so that you can

make money, uh, then it gets a little less tidy. Right. It's like, why are you making it like that? It's like you said something really mean when you're just saying in direct terms what you're talking about. Yeah, I often think about you know, we we've already studies in terms of businesses where corporations are essentially psychopaths. I often, and I often think of it in terms of like artificial

intelligence UM beings, then various cyberpunk stories. So a corporation is essentially this, this demon, and this demon is bound by whatever chains of law and UH and policy and regulations that we can muster to keep it in check. And then we we sort of handle it with specialized gloves, often you know, composed of euphemisms that allow us to handle it and benefit from its presence. But there's no

denying that it's it's horrible demonic nature. A nice analogy, it's it comes from I guess I read one too many Warhammer book and in my time, Oh, they have demon gloves for the corporations. Um, well know they have actual demons sometimes and they're chained up and they serve the who is it the witch hunters? Yeah, excellent, Well, I think we should take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to talk about some of the cultural implications of euphemisms. So, yeah, we're talking about

language here. We have multiple languages throughout the world. Every culture is it kind of emerges from its own linguistic world, and therefore we have we have different uses of euphemism in in different languages. We have different uses of euphemism in just different versions of different languages, different dialects British English versus American English, and so a lot of our reference points are going to be English, but uh, it is worth looking into the use of euphemisms maybe in

other languages too. Yeah, two great examples I think come from British English and Mandarin Chinese. So the the Economists ran a great and naturally unattributed article back in um titled making Murder Respectable, and it runs through a number of examples of euphemisms that are currently uh or or sort of previously in use. I think some of the British ones have fallen out of favor. Did you notice that nice euphemism they're unattributed, where the real term would

be the author's name is not listed. Yeah, you can either you would either say the the author is anonymous or or not credited for their work. But I mean that's the economist business, a whole separate, separate, separate discussion. Uh so, Yeah. We have a number of course American euphemisms, which the the author in this this article points out that these of course just replaced non offensive words terms

with new non offensive words in terms. We'll get into the details on this in a bit, but it entails something that's that's been referred to as the euphemism treadmill right by the linguist and general scholar Stephen Pinker. Yeah. Yeah, contemporary, very very much contemporary, still commenting on the world we

find ourselves in today. British euphemisms, on the other hand, they create quote a pleasant sense of of complicity between the euphemist and the individual that's listening to the euphemist. The first few examples that the author rolls outcome from British o bits, so a drunkard will be described as as convivial or cheery. That's great. Um, aniphomaniac is uh, and it has notable vivacity and in in prior times you would of course encountered a homosexual only as a

quote confirmed bachelor. With all of these, it's almost as if the person using the euphemism and the person hearing it are sort of in on a joke together. Yeah, yeah, there's a And that's something that the author gets into here too, is you you have to be on it on the joke to really understand at least proper British, proper British conversation. You have to know the cues, otherwise

you're gonna have no idea what you're talking about. One more from the o bit world, though, is that there's the mysterious burdened by occasional irregularities in his private life bit like, which is delightfully they like, what what I assume that means? Scandal scandal ridden life. But that's that's a lot sharper. So yeah. The author points out that there are a number of passive cues in sort of

traditional high British conversation, such as incidentally incidentally, Joe. Uh. This would mean I am now telling you the purpose of this discussion, even though I'm saying incidentally, as if this is just an incidental point I want to make, I'm actually saying, all right, cut all the crap, this is the real reason we're meeting here today. Another one

that the the author mentions with the greatest respect. With the greatest respect, Joe, Uh, that means you are mistaken and silly, which which which seems to be the complete opposite of what you're literally saying. I can think of a Southern American equivalent that bless his heart. Bless his heart. Yeah, he bless his heart. That means sort of the opposite of what it said. Yeah. I think that's a great example. Now.

The the author of this Economist piece also pointed out that there are a number of Chinese euphemisms U and these, like American euphemisms, often stem from squeamishness. It's not proper to be too direct, especially if you might offend somebody. So it's this idea of of a polite opacity. So instead of turning down an invitation, uh, And this might be like a this can be a really formal invitation,

like you know, a political of a political nature. One might be told that that something is a boufong bion, which means not convenient, when that, of course really means we're not doing that, that's not happening. So it's not like this is a bad time for me. Can we reschedule right? It's it's very reminiscent of I imagine everyone out there has some friend or acquaintance that's very flaky, very wishy washy about their appointments, who say, hey, do you want to hang out this week? Let me check

my calendar. Uh, let me see, I'll get back to you, you know, instead of like sometimes that means sometimes, yeah, that's that's the thing. And if you didn't if you didn't know better, you might and you know, you might have a policy of an official inquiry with with the Chinese government official and you and you might say, oh, well it's not convenient, I'll try again tomorrow. But no, you're not getting the message. It's not convenient, it's not

going to happen. Perhaps ever, Another example is uh is one might ask for an explanation of something and you might get buching chu, which means uh, I am not clear, which just means you're not going to be told like it basically means I can't tell you that or I won't tell you that. But uh, it's it's it's casting that in the guise of why I'm not really clear on the information, but it also kind of sounds like I am not clear and that I am not I

am open, I am open. Yeah, So I find it interests and there examples like this in every language, and perhaps our listeners out there, if you have particular examples you're aware of in a tongue that you speak or have some history with, we'd love to hear those examples. Oh yeah, I always love hearing the different idioms from around the world that we get from listeners. One of my favorites was we heard from a listener and oh, now I apologize, I can't remember which language it was.

I think it was Swedish or Norwegian or maybe uh, Scandinavian language, and the expression was it was an expression that means something is a miss and the term is there are owls in the moss. I love it. That's great, there are owls in the moss. That's that's pretty good. If you're the one who sent that to us, which

I still think about that a lot, Thank you so much. Okay, Well, for one other arena of of the interaction between culture and euphemism, I was thinking about what about religious euphemisms, so I sometimes see, here's just one example. I want to talk about a few different examples. One of them is the way some Christians use euphemism to talk about certain doctrines that they haven't explicitly rejected but obviously aren't comfortable talking about directly. And one example that I have

encountered before is the Christian doctrine of Hell. Yes, now, there are many doctrines of Hell, and I don't want to paint all believers with the same view, but one common interpretation throughout the history of the Church is the sort of Dante's Inferno interpretation saying that Dante is more or less correct after death, people who are non Christians or people who are unrepentant sinners go to a place of eternal torture and agony in fire. And some modern

Christians explicitly deny that premise. They just don't believe that in that or they don't interpret the references to Hell that way. Right, Yeah, we actually have an older stuff to bear your Mind episode on this that that goes through some of the theologies, and I think we have a we have a list or gallery that I can link to on the landing page for this episode of

stuff to Bring your Mind dot com. But yeah, you have everything from this literal interpretation to annihilation theology, which says, when you die going to hell, is that simply essentially you are consumed. Your soul is just completely obliterated. Yeah, you just ceased to be. Yeah. And then, of course, as you allude to, some some do accept and embrace it and say explicitly what they mean. You know, hell is a place of torment, depart from me and everlasting fire.

But there are some people who at least rhetorically seems stuck in the middle. I hear this fairly often. They don't reject the doctrine, but they don't want to talk about it bluntly. So you get phrases that are things like the the unrighteous or the unbeliever will suffer divine judgment or something like that. Seem it's euphemistic in nature. You know, you haven't rejected the belief, but you just don't want to talk about the particulars of it. That's interesting.

So they're basically they might, for instance, they might believe in this uh, this sort of torture or u revenge fantasy of Hell, but they're using the language of annihilation theology instead as a euphemism for what they actually believe, or just not being specific about what the judgment entails. Yeah, I mean, I think there are there are other terms too. That was the first one that came to my mind.

But it's such a weird area to consider, right, because so many of these when you're using a euphemism for you know, your your but you're talking about a thing that has a definite reality. There's there's nothing subjective. It's not a doctrine or belief, right, there is an objective, but there's an objective their objective buttocks. There is an anus. There's no denying there no there no no no denying these things. But when you get into Hell, they are

all these discussions. There's there's been, there's a there's a there's a broad spectrum of theologies regarding its existence or non existence. I mean, I'm I'm personally of the mind that whatever your belief about Hell is, you should you should you should speak clearly about it another type of religious euphemism, I would say, is motivated by a very different type of thing. Instead of being uncomfortable with certain concepts or not wanting to talk about certain things, it

extends from a a perception of holiness or reverence. And this is the evolution of the name of God in Judaism throughout history. So it's not that the name of God has changed so much, or at least not much in recent history in Judaism, but that at certain points throughout history, usage of the name has become taboo because of beliefs about not taking the name of the Lord

in vain. And thus it is required to have a new word if you want to talk about religious ideas such as your belief in God without referencing this word, that you might be using the wrong way. And so some of my info here is coming from uh book on Hebrew and Western The Hebrew and Western Christian Name of God by Robert J. Wilkinson. But in the Hebrew Bible,

the Jewish God has several names. You've got names like ale and ale yawn uh Eloheim, but the most common is Yahweh, the four letter word that's often called the tetragrammaton meaning four letters um. And at a certain point in the history of Judaism, and generally in that the Hellenistic period, you know, the Greek Conquest, a taboo on

pronouncing the name emerged. And so, to quote one story about this origin from the Babylonian talbot, to quote the Greeks, and that's referring to the Seleucid rulers of the region at that time decreed that the name of God may not be spoken aloud. But when the hasman Ians, and it was a group of Jewish rebels, grew in strength and defeated them, they decreed that the name of God

be used even in contracts. And an example of this might be something like, by the name of Yahweh, I will paint your chicken coop if you give me a tray of corn money, um and so. But then continuing from the Talmud, when the rabbis heard about this, they said, tomorrow this person will pay his debt and the contract will be thrown on a garbage heap. So they forbade its use in contracts. So it wasn't the use of

the name that was necessarily inherently wrong. It was just that using it in this way for sort of everyday purposes made it vulnerable to accidental defilement. Okay, so you have in a sence, you have a very secular use of divine terminology and uh, and it's not proper to throw that around, right, to just make up a contract with the name of God, and that you'd end up

throwing in the trash. It's like if you were what's the the the Clive Barker film where you say that the name three times and he shows up candy Man, candy man. So it's like candy man. Can't You don't want to say candy man all the time because he will show up and start killing people, and you've got a limited number of times you can invoke that. Yeah, So we need to have another name for candy Man. You call him like, you know, sweet guy, sweet guy. Yeah.

But then after a while, like there's still a candy Man is just so magical and so potent that he's going to creep into that term as well and start popping up when you say that words. So you gotta come up with another one. Yeah. But so anyway, going on, in the same spirit of avoiding accidental defilements, some Jews throughout history have avoided saying the tetragrammaton name out loud, even in context where I would think one would assume it was probably not being defiled, such as in reading

of the Torah. So you might have readings aloud from the Torah where the reader would come to the four letter name of God, and then instead of saying it, the reader would substitute something like the word ad and i, which means lord or master. But then in time, the originally euphemistic ad and i, which was just substituted to avoid saying the original name, also came to be charged with the aria general holiness of the name of God. And so then later you'd have some Jews referring to

God as Hashem, meaning the name. So you you have this evolutionary process by which um a word is used to avoid disrespect, but then that word sort of becomes worthy of respect in in its own right. But then anyway, so according to the Talmud, sometimes shortly after the conquest of Alexander the Great, the high priest stopped saying the name of God when when giving blessings. And in the Mishnah, which is a work of Jewish rabbinic literature, putting down

lots of Jewish oral traditions into writing. The name of God is often avoided and substituted with other words associated with God, like Heaven or the place, or the Holy One, blessed be he uh and so again. I think these ephemisms are interesting because they're not used to avoid mentioning something unpleasant or offensive, but to avoid accidental def ailement of a word that, in this religious concept context, is believed to be holy, believed to be treated with reverence

and respect. That's interesting because I think it's easy to to believe that you just have all these different names for for God solely because hey, God's really cool, really important and has all these uh these these different points in time where people are considering it and therefore they

need a different name for it, uh, you know. And then we see that that sort of loose interpretation reflected in our discussion of unreal deities, where so like Goes goes a the Ghazarian has several different names and Ghostbusters, um, probably just because goes Are is cool and needs a number of names. Right, Yeah, it's true, like you've lost the original, uh, the original rationale for all this diversification, but you've still got the process. It's a cargo cult

of naming deity. But I was just wondering, are there similar euphemisms and other religions too, for for either one for talking about concepts that might be uncomfortable to some believers, yet they haven't been fully rejected or talking about things that cannot be named out of respect. Yeah. We we briefly talked about this before we came in here, and we had a hard time nailing down another example. We we talked about the devil a little bit, but I

think that's not exactly the same. It's not because there's this there's this timeline in our development of of of the devil as a concept that's really kind of similar to our concept of hell, where the devil as this real popular conception of the Western devil or even like the classical devil or the or the Miltonian devil or Dante's devil, like, these are all vastly different things, and they occur at different points in our evolving conception of

the devil, and even just on a been a biblical basis. Uh, you go back to say the Book of Job, like, that's not the devil. That's that's some guy who works for God. It's called Satan that I believe stems from the Hebraic Hasitan, which was just a court role. Yeah exactly. But then I think we've also not, um, we've not had the same kind of evolution because the devil is

not really considered holy. So um. In fact, there's often the the the opposite effort to to really cast the devil down instead and refer to refer to it as a worm or or what have you. Sometimes we should do a history of the Devil show. Oh yeah, we should. But anyway, so I want to move on yet again, from one totally on uncontroversial subject religion, to another one politics. Um. So, there is definitely a strong cultural import of euphemism in politics.

And this is this probably won't come as a surprise to you, but exactly how it works out you might be a little fuzzy on. And this is something that is uh, you can definitely find explored in a really lucid and fascinating way in the nineteen essay by George Orwell, the English journalist and critic called Politics and the English Language. And in this essay, which by the way, is a lot of people might have read it in college as sort of just like a writing style essay. But I

think it's a great read. It's just fun to read. He's got a great writing style. Uh. And anyway, in this essay, Orwell lays out a series of criticisms as what he saw as the deterioration of the quality of published writing in English in his time. So he's coming right out of World War Two. You know, You've you've got a you've got a victorious Soviet Union to deal with. You've just you've just had the fall of the Nazi regime.

The world has been in chaos for a while. But anyway, he so he's talking about in this in this climate, the English language has really been put through the ringer. Oh and I just used a cliche that he would aborre as he attacks the use of cliches like that in his essay. But in one famous passage, Orwell translates a well verse from the King James Bible translation of the Book of Ecclesiastes into the style he's referring to in modern English. And so I just got to read

this because it's too good. The King James Bible says, I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bred to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill. But time and chance happeneth to them all. Okay, Orwell's

rewriting of that in modern English is objective. Considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. Now, it does communicate the same sense basically. Yeah, I almost feel like like his translation

of it is better. Maybe I think, I think maybe it just comes from reading too many, you know, god awful peer of viewed papers for work. But but I feel like that when kind of drove home a little, a little, a little easier for me. Oh man, I can't agree with you here, Robert, that is awful. Come on, yeah, hey, you know, okay, Well anyway, so, so Orwell goes on

to say in in his main characterization that quote. Modern writing at its worst does not consistent picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in coming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else and making the results presentable

by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy, and I think there's some truth to that, like that when you use these sort of cliches and bloated phrases, is it writing comes very naturally. You don't have to think as much about the images or the words you're choosing as you do when you try to write things in a simpler, uh more concrete way. Well, I mean there's this second example. I was I instantly thought of peer re viewed papers because there is this

this often very specific, clinical, technical discussion of what's going on. Often, you know, not not all the time, but sometimes this can feel a bit soulless. But you can you can read it, and you you basically you basically know what they're talking about in in great detail, and there's less interpretation involved, and so yeah, it's it's a less creative venture, uh, either to to write or to read. But is it

more exact? I don't know if it is. And I think Well or Well might disagree with you, but I would like to hear what you think. When season so, I want to get to his main argument. Then maybe you can come back and flog or Well for me. So for Well, the decline in the quality of writing was not just an esthetic concern. It's not just bad writing that is less enjoyable to read. It is actually

a threat against truth, freedom and social democracy. English quote becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenly of our language makes it easier for us

to have foolish thoughts. And so if you've read Orwell's novel novel nineteen eighty four, Robert, I assume you've read nineteen eighty four, Yeah, you'll recall that at the time of the story takes place, the totalitarian government in the novel, working under Big Brother, is engaged in the creation of a new form of English known as new speak and uh in in Politics and Language, Orwell says quote, if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought, and new

Speak in in nineteen eighty four very much embodies this. It reflects I think what orwell saw is the political power of language. Essentially, control the use of language, and you control how people think, control how people think, and you command them to your purpose. Uh. And so I want to read one long ish quote from Politics and the English Language where he really gets to how euphemisms are used in political writing and political journalism. So here's

the quote, with a few abridgements for length. In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question begging, and sheer, cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, The inhabitants are driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets.

This is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry. This is called transfer of the population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, shot in the back of the neck, or sent to die of scurvy and arctic lumber camps. This is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up

mental pictures of them. Consider, for instance, some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism, and he's talking about Stalinism. There he cannot say outright, I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so. Probably, therefore he will say something like this, while freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features with which the

humanitarian may be inclined to deplore. We must, i think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.

So what do you think about that, Robert, No, I mean, I I agree with that. It's it guess it comes down to, like this kind of this kind of writing they we're talking about, is it's essentially writing like a machine and and inviting the reader to think about the the topic like a machine with sort of this with

without any of these human touches. That that that add humanity to the subject matter, which in a I think in a scientific environment like or certainly and say a study about ecoli in a in a lab experiment, that's perfectly that's perfectly fair, Like that's the way to do it. But of course, when you when you're getting into um, you know, affairs of politics and war, certainly, um, even

domestic politics. You know, the people's lives hang in the balance, and if you distance yourself with language enough, then you don't have to deal with the the the actual flesh and blood ramifications of what you're talking about. But then the other side of that is, it's somebody's job, right

to make a better killing machine. It's somebody's job to uh, to to cut how the funding of public housing, you know, so it of course they're going to try and do it in a way that makes them feel less icky, right, I mean, so Orwell says political language uh And he says that this comes from both sides, from conservatives to anarchists, is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

And I think there is a lot of truth to that. Yeah, that you I mean, I understand the need for it. I'm not saying that it has done purely out of calculating malice. There there are people who work in in government who do things that you would probably think of as bad, but who don't think of themselves as bad people, and so they have they have they've got to come

up with some way of getting around this. And it's this circumlocution, or it's this neutralizing language, like we talked about earlier, coming up with these abstract terminologies, naming things

in terms of processes rather than of consequences. You know, Uh, it's not that we killed a guy, but the enemy was neutralized and for or well, you know, I think these types of phrases and euphemisms are they're not limited to the rulers themselves, right that They're not limited just two people who want to justify themselves in tyranny and stupefy the masses with this lullaby of empty, denatured language.

They're also used by people who should know better, people who who might even be critical of those in power. Euphemisms and mushy phrases are used, he emphasizes, because they're easy. They make writing easier, and they make thinking about concepts easier. Euphemisms are like a lubricant that just allows you to easily insert your mind into a conversation without struggling with

the most difficult implications of it. And for or well, this is not just applicable to these political euphemisms, you know, for killing and and and these horrible acts, but it goes into everyday conversation. So he writes quote phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind. Are a continuous and he says, those are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always

at one's elbow. And I really do like that idea of the euphemism as a painkiller. Yeah, it makes me think, well, yeah, I'm instantly thinking of various recent examples of of strong statements about about war and the use of war in a political climate. And here I'm using euphemisms already to

to talk about it. But it's it's like, it's like, if you have this sentence where you're gonna say, we are going to eliminate enemy combatants, all right, and if you if you start removing some of the euphemisms there, you still have to try and make that unacceptable sentence to whoever whoever is saying or um or listening to it.

So if if you replace eliminate with kill, if you replace eliminate with with you know, um, carpet bomb or something like that, and if you were then you're still going to have to try and make it a sentence that you can live with. And sometimes that comes. So what else can you change in that sentence? You can change enemy combatants to barbarians, you can, or or any

other various form that also dehumanizes what's going on. But by point should by changing the direction of the dehumanization, right, Well, that would be what was what is known as a dysphemism. There's that how you pronounce it. A euphemism would be you know, it's euphemism comes from you meaning good and female female meaning speech. So a dysphemism is the opposite. Essentially, you're you're taking a concept that's inherently neutral and applying a term to it that is a bad filtering terms.

It essentially filters out the good imagery or things you might associate with a thing and and gives it bad connotations. Well, what's a good example here of a dyspimism for our listeners? How about? How about somebody is not happy with a deal that they made, you know, they bought a car or something, and they say I got ripped off. Oh it goes, and to take it a step further, they would say, oh I got screwed. Yeah, I really got screwed in that deal. Did you really get quote unquote

screwed in any of the various interpretations there? No, you just bought something and you you later regretted how much you spent on it or something. But they have to use the screws on my hands and my fingers, and now I have lost the ability to write, oh is that for thumbscrews? And I'm thinking of a very medieval interpretation. Okay, But either way, ripped off you didn't ripped off means you got robbed. You didn't get robbed. You you made a deal that you're that you later regretted. But that's

a dysphemism. It's it's substituting a more negative connotation word for this originally, you know, more direct term, And I guess that would be kind of on the outskirts of hyperbole, Like you're not going as far to say this was highway robbery, but you're getting close. Yeah, But so that there are just like there are lots of euphemisms in

political language, there's some dysphemisms in it too. Like you might find an establishment language the government itself and and the bureaucracies that exist, and to speak in euphemisms to kind of make everything a little a little uh smoothed over and a little soothing. But meanwhile you might have sort of agitators and radical factions tending to speak in dysphemisms, talking about fairly normal things that you could express in

a fairly straightforward way in these just grandly negative terms. Yeah. I think, especially in his Facebook age, everybody can think of of strong examples of this. You know, what, how is saving New York Times uh explaining the situation? And how is your your your uncle Jim explaining the situation? Where how is the article that he's linking explaining it? Very likely I'd say The New York Times is probably

being a little euphemistic. I mean, even even their good writers, they tend to be a little euphemistic, just not putting things in very blunt, harsh terms. They might say, go to the restroom. It's the going to the restroom of politics. But there's plenty of dysphimism out there on the web.

But anyway, I want to come back to Orwell. So the question is, sort of, uh, so Orwell had these concerns about euphemisms, about their potential for enabling totalitarian is them and they're they're the threat that they represented to a free social democracy. So my question is, was Orwell's belief in the totalitary and potential of vocabulary correct? In some ways I'm sort of inclined to agree with him because the examples he gives very much makes sense to me.

By by using this sort of d natured, sanitized language to talk about killing people and you know, doing things that are very harsh and cruel and have real bloody realities and you know, down in the dirt of reality, I'm sure it makes it easier for people to assent to these things, to to sort of just go along with it, we've we've found some nice words for it. But then again, um, there are other strong arguments that sort of go against the idea that vocabulary has this

much power over our thinking. And I guess we can maybe address these after a break. Do you want to take a break. Let's take a quick break and we come back. We'll talk about the euphemism treadmill as well as the the war Fian view, uh and the work of Stephen Pinker. So we were talking about whether this totalitarian potential of vocabulary control is correct. Do words really have this much power to control the way we think?

Does language determined thought? So, as linguist Stephen Pinker has pointed out, the Orwellian view is really kind of based in what's referred to as the war Fian view. This is the work of American linguists Benjamin Lee Wharf, no relation to the kling on that different spell like I believe, also often known as the Sappier Wharf hypothesis. Yes, and uh, he to give you a timeline for him, he was

through one. That's when he was alive. And uh yeah, So his his argument and then therefore or Will's argument is yes, language, Uh we we language is how we think we think in language. This is the like the bare bones languages, the operating for the operating system for the human brain view. But a lot of cognitive neuroscience now says, I don't know if that view is correct.

In fact, it's probably not. Right now, I will say this, Uh, this is an important fact that to keep in mind about language is that while spoken language comes to us naturally or expose who are growing up, we simply absorb the words that fill our world multiple languages even, Um, it's not the same with written language. Written language takes work. We have to trick our brains early on in order

to avoid backwards letters. The dB confusion because our brains inherently try to decipher symbols and letters is three dimensional objects. I never thought about that. Yeah, it's a I was reading or listening to something about that recently. Uh. The point, however, here is that that written language is kind of a lie. So grammar, rules, dictionaries, all of these attempt to to chain that which is free, to solidify the inherently fluid

nature of language. Uh. Certainly humans have been saying the same things for a very long time and will continue to say, say the same horrible things, but how we say them changes the individual words the cultural weight of those words. Um and I often think of think of this in terms of weighted stones placed upon a sheet, Okay,

like a sheet that's held talk by yeah. Um. This is an exercise that's frequently used to demonstrate how massive planetary objects bend uh an exert gravitational forces, like the sheet of space time and and a rock is an object with mass. But instead of each stone being um, you know, planet, each stone is a word. And unlike actual stones and i'm, unlike words as we might experience

them in a dictionary, the weights change. So this is where we get into this idea that the Stephen Pinker gives us, the idea of the euphemism treadmill, the linguistic process by which euphemisms often become taboo or a So a euphemism is originally created in order to avoid having to say the taboo or offensive or uncomfortable thing, but then in time, the euphemism itself takes on the properties of that original word you were trying to avoid. Yeah.

Have you ever played a platform video game where your character has to jump onto a pillar and once you stand on the pillar, it begins to sink down. You have to jump to the next pillar, and that starts doing the same thing. And this is how you have to cross this entire expanse of muck. You've got to keep moving. Yeah, that's basically what's going on here with the euphemism treadmill. Polite language, you have to keep moving,

Pinker says. Quote. The euphemism treadmill shows that concepts, not words, are in charge. Give a concept a new name, and the name becomes colored by the concept. The concept does not become freshened by the name. So he gives examples of like the progression of terminology for people with disabilities. Uh. So he starts with the idea that crippled. Originally that was not an offensive term. That was a polite term right to describe somebody who had a disability, But it

took on negative connotations. People began to use it as a mean word to say about people. So then that was moved on and so so we no longer say that, and now we have handicapped. But then that also eventually became perceived as sort of like stale as a euphemism.

I guess, and this I guess it started to take on some of the negative connotations that crippled had acquired, and then moved on to disabled, and so you've got differently abled is is more of the current version, Like we've moved on again to another pillar in the right. So you can so on one hand, just if you're looking from the outside, you'd be like constantly moving words around. That seems kind of ridiculous, but it's not when you

consider how usage of words happens and how language works. Yeah, I mean people, if people are using a word with negative connotations, eventually people who want to use that word with positive connotations will want a different word. Yeah. Another great example of this that's so asided is the use of idiot or moron. These used to be neutral terms. They weren't insults, right, but over time they became they became insults, and now they are very much an insult.

And because someone an idiot or moron, you're using an insult. You're not using a neutral term. So we went from that to retarded, which at for like, it feels weird to say it because it now it is the R word unless you're you know, using it in very particular circumstances. Um. But but this was this was neutral, and then it became an obscene term. Uh. And then from here we

went to mentally mentally challenged and special. But even these I feel are degraded, uh to a large degree, especially special, like to say someone special. I can I can't think of any specific examples, but I believe I've heard that used at least flippantly, if not as an outright offense. Oh yeah, it is the thing mean kids say. Now, like a mean kid wants to they'll they'll call another

kids special children. If you're out there listening, I don't know why children are listening to, but you should not see the children. That's not very nice. But yeah, again, it shows that as soon as so you come up with.

And I'd be interested to see if somebody could create a a like time lag model of this, like how long after a new non offensive term is introduced does it take before that term takes on some unpleasant connotations people start using it as a term of insult or abuse, and people who want to speak politely feel like they need a new term, Like how long does it generally take? Another example of this I think would be in business. So we already talked about the robust use of euthanisms

in the business environment. But also think about the buzzwords, right, those buzz words. They gotta have buzz or they're not buzzwords, and buzzwords inherently lose their buzz. So you know, everybody might be talking about the I can't. I can't even think of what the most recent one has been in our circles. But to take an older one, like there was a time when when innovation, innovation or storytelling, we

are all story storytelling is the one. I hate that these words have been completely destroyed, but I believe they have. We need we need new words and storytelling. Come on, I love stories. Stories are like my favorite thing on earth. But when I hear when I hear business leaders talking about storytelling, I'm like, well, okay, we can't. We can't describe it like that anymore. Yeah, yeah, because it it

ends up losing that. It loses it's it's punch, it loses its value, and since it loses its holiness, oh yeah, yeah, it does lose its holiness. And it also comes to stop referring to the thing it originally referred to when it basically just means like any talking in any talking or writing or or any kind of communication can be storytelling.

That's not storytelling, right, what is storytelling? Yeah? Exactly. Now, to come back to the euphemism treadmill real quick, I also want to point out that I have seen it argue that this is essentially uh, this essentially lines up with Gresham's law Gresham's law in economics, which states that bad money drives out the good. This is a name for Sir Thomas Gresham, the financial agent of Queen Elizabeth

the First. And the idea here was that if some coins in circulation are pure pure silver and others are less pure, people are going to spend the bad coins if they're gonna keep the good ones for themselves. So what do you know? Yeah, so that that makes sense to me. Yeah, that that correlation with the euphemism treadmill. But also you have a note here, Robert about a different kind of treadmill that I found interesting. Yeah, we've

already mentioned disphemisms. There is a dispiphemism treadmill as well. And the example that that comes up is that sucks. That sucks stems from a a more specific us statement that is also still in use, but a more offensive one. You can say something sucks and it's you know, it's in kids TV shows, but you know it's it's on you know, whatever's on Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network during the day when children are watching, but they're they're not going

to say what something is sucking. Yeah. When I was a kid, I remember saying that sucks, thinking it was a totally non offensive phrase, and having a teacher, Uh, tell me, you know, if I had said that word, it would have been like I said a word that rhymes with it. Yeah, it was Uh, he was saying that that that is a really really offensive term. But it wasn't like that to me, and it was that

it had lost its dysphemistic qualities. Yeah. And it's one of those two when you start peeling out apart, it's like, why is that a stay? Why is that bad? I don't know. It's we get we get all our sexual politics wrapped up in in in how you feel about the latest X Men movie. Another one I can think of that we can edit this out if it's way

more offen ti than I think. But I think one is the British exploit British English expression bloody, which I think used to be considered incredibly offensive, like a highly offensive expletive, and now is an incredibly mild expletive that's so much so that it can appear in Harry Potter

books and stuff. Yeah, I wonder I've never looked into it, but I've often wondered, like, to what extent is it still a little more offensive in British circles than it is an American because so much American usage of it, we're just aping British usage of it without really having a strong cultural understanding maybe of what is being said. That's a good question again, maybe we're we're yet again

doing the cargo cult of euphemism. Yeah, and you kind of get a guess into the like the currency equivalences of of different insults or sorry, this wouldn't be of euphemism. Is the cargo cult of explotives? Okay, but let's come back to what we started talking about with the idea of the war fian view and or well, so we've got this this other argument from Pinker and from you know, cognitive neuroscience and all this. Who says they say, you know,

the words don't really matter actually all that much. Um, words don't have this power, but I I don't feel that, I feel very strongly that Orwell was onto something. Yeah. Yeah, and uh and I actually found a paper that gets into this a bit. It's very good as available is readily available online. Two thousand and eight paper by um By Stanford's daniel U Casa Santo has published in the

journal Language Learning. Uh. And the title is Who's afraid of the Big Bad warf Cross linguistic differences in temporal language and thought. So this is addressing the Wharfian view that language in some way determines or influences thought. Yeah. And it's interesting because he I'm not gonna say he takes a middle of the road approach. It's definitely more in Pinker's direction. He's not saying that the Warfian view

is valid completely, but that there that we can't. But but what are you saying is that we can't completely dismiss the power of this this war Fian Uh. Relationship between thoughts and words. Okay, so maybe that words don't totally determine thoughts, but they have some kind of influencing relationship. Yes, exactly. In fact, I'll read a just a quick quote from this article to to really drive this home. Why should

we continue to do war Fian research. One possible reason is that cataloging cross linguistic cognitive differences could be a step toward charting the boundaries of human biological and cultural diversity. If this is the goal, then the war Fian effects most worth findings should be extreme instances in which differences

between languages produced radically different experiences of reality in their speakers. Alternatively, cross linguistic cognitive differences could be tools for investigating how thinking works, and in particular, for investigating the role of experience and the acquisition and representation of knowledge. If people who talk differently from correspondingly different mental representations as a consequence, then mental representations must depend in part on these aspects

of linguistic experience. If discovering the origin and structure of our mental representations is the goal, then cross linguistic cognitive differences can be informative, even if they are subtle, and even if their effects are largely unconscious. Whether or not they correspond to radical differences in speakers conscious experiences of the world, Warpian effects can have profound implications for the study of mental representation. Okay, so yeah, he is taking

maybe I would call that a mental view. Even if even if he's saying, like the war Fian hypothesis that language determines thought is wrong, Uh, there's still influences that are worth investigating. Yeah, yeah, well I would say that. Yeah, yeah, I think that's the that's the point, like that, essentially that language is still too powerful, it's too ubiquitous, it's playing some sort of role. It's do we just have to It's just to what extent and in which cases

it's most transformative. Interesting. Well, so I wanted to end by thinking about a little more about what is the effect of using euphemisms on our minds and on our culture, Because when you come up with terms like, you know, the euphemism treadmill, I'm not saying Pinker necessarily meant it this way. I detect a little bit of amusement on his part, but I'm not saying he definitely meant it to be a term of derision. But you do get this idea of a treadmill being a thing that's sort

of like useless cycle. Uh, And it's not necessarily useless according to some thinkers. And I wanted to talk about an essay uh done for aon magazine in twenty sixteen by the Columbia University linguistics professor John mcwarder. And so he starts by recognizing Pinker's concept of the euphemism treadmill, and he gives a lot of really great examples of these types of treadmills throughout history. Like we talked about.

He he talks about the evolution of the concept of welfare um welfare originally being like uh, you know, home assistance, and then welfare and then cash assistance. Where each time there's a new term, it sort of starts to take on mean classist connotations, and then you need a new term because it starts to be used as a term of abuse. But for mcwarter, this he says, this treadmill is not only inevitable but pretty much good in in his words, a healthy process necessary in view of the

eternal gulf between language and opinion. Uh and he he says basically that thought changes more slowly than word usage, but it eventually catches up. And this requires that in a civilized society, people are going to frequently want to change their euphemisms. It's an inevitable thing, and it reflects people's desire to be polite and civilized toward one another, except of course, on the Internet, where one does not have to be polite or ciful. But that's that's kind

of that's a whole separate discussion right there. Right, of course, you're always going to have people who want to defy. But near his conclusion, he says, quote, the euphemism treadmill, then, is neither just a form of bureaucratese nor of identity politics. It is a symptom of the fact that, however much we would like it to be otherwise, it's easier to

change language than to change thought. In a sense, it's like you're you're simply asking someone, Look, I know you're not going to stop being awful anytime soon, but if you could at least use the language that doesn't, you know, wear your awfulness on your sleeve, and that would be great. And maybe in time that outward decency will will bleed through to some semblance of interdecency. Right, yeah, yeah, I

guess so. Like again, earlier, we talked about euphemisms being a painkiller or also being a lubricant, and in the sense it might be both of those things. Maybe euphem is UM's uh, or or finding a nicer new word for a word that is taken on negative connotations. If that's what a euphemism is, I guess um. It might not solve the underlying problem. It might not fix people's attitudes, but it might just be exactly what it seems like.

It's a lubricant. It's a painkiller. It makes interacting in society easier, makes people get along a little bit better. I can't help but think of the term African American. The adoption of that term to replace various other terms for uh, you know, black American citizens, uh has it?

You know it? It drives home the fact that this is your fellow American, This is a this is an American, and they have a particular origin, just as you and your uh you know, Caucasian or or Asian or what have you, just as as your your family has an origin somewhere else as well, like they are. These individuals are are not that different from you. So do you think that that term actually helps people change their way

of thinking? Or is it just this just this lubricant that makes it easier to live in a polite society and get along with each other. I don't know. I guess I hope. I like to think I would prefer to live in a world where the language changes the way you think that in in in in having to call an individual something more humanizing that eventually you will

see them in more human terms. But then again, I don't think any of us believe that language alone is the sole operator here, like that it has to has to come as part of a larger suite of of of social change instruments. So yeah, I think i'd agree with that, and with what mcwardour is saying. But I guess the flip side of it is that we're accepting

some truth of what Orwell is saying. And in many cases euphemisms are also going to corrupt clarity of thought, may guess sort of dull and irresolute, and and make it harder for us to resist evil. And so maybe maybe the case is not about whether euphemisms are good or bad, but just that some euphemisms are more worthy than others. I think. So yeah, I mean words are powerful,

and the right euphemisms are also powerful. So all you can do is hope that uh, you know, whoever is in a position of power has the best words at their disposal and that cheerful note. Let's let's end by just discussing a few favorite euphemisms. What are some of yours, Joe? I love how you'll see this a lot in Europe. The bathroom, which is itself a euphemism. Is the WC that has just been reduced to a couple of letters, like not even water closet. I like that, like w C.

Fields Um. I don't know if it's quite a euphemism, but I have always been fond of the I believe. I don't know if he invented the phrase, but it certainly shows up in Shakespeare's Othello, making the beast with two backs as a euphemism, or or perhaps the opposite for sexual intercourse. I don't know if that's a euphemism. That's fairly expressive, it's it's it's expressive, but it all, but it definitely changes the meaning of the thing, like uh,

I don't know. I guess it comes down to would you are there cases where you would say making the beast with two backs and it would be more polite than saying they were having sexual intercourse, they were having sex. I don't think that's the case. It's there must be another word for whatever. That type of thing is where you have a word or a phrase that means the same thing as something else and it's not more polite, but it's just like more I don't know, funnier, like

making whoopie. I think that would be an example, because whoopi is like whoopee. It's it's fun. It's fun like if you were just okay here. The three choe us is imagine you're in a roommate scenario and you have to say, oh, well, I walked in on my roommate and um, he and his partner were making the beast with two backs like that, or if you were to say, well, I walked in on my my roommate and he and his partner were making whoopie. Like which of the two,

But the two summoned vastly different images. They're both highly polite, yes, incredibly generous. Al Right, Well, uh, I know everybody out there has their favorite euphemisms and uh and certainly some some cross cultural examples we'd love to hear, so you

should definitely reach out to us about them. You can find us in a number of places, but the best starting point is to just go head on over to stuff to blow your Mind dot com because that's where you'll find this podcast episode, all the other podcast episodes. You'll find blog post videos, and a links out to our various social media accounts such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter,

uh Tumbler. Wherever you do your social media media eing, you will find us, And if you want to get in touch with us directly, you can always email us that blow the mind of how stuff Works dot com For more on this and thousands of other topics, is it how stuff Works dot com