Historically Japanese used to call foreigners 外人 (gaijin) which means foreign person.( or if you wanted to be more specific it technically means "outside person" 外 means "outside" and 人 means "person" though 外人 mostly gets translated as "foreigner" by google translate)
And then over time 外人 was considered to be "rude" and "politically incorrect" because 外人 refers to anyone that was not of Japanese ethnicity even if they had Japanese citizenship, so they started saying 外国人 (Gaikoku jin) which means "foreign country person" (or outside country person though again google translate translates it as "foreigner") which is the term used by the Japanese government and media. There's still people who say 外人 but the mainstream term is now 外国人.
And now there are those that even take it one step further to start saying 海外の人 which means overseas person.
So who exactly was responsible for the political correctness being pushed over there?
This is similar to the bastardization of language in the West. its like how "illegal alien" started becoming "illegal immigrant" and then it became "undocumented immigrant" or even why the West doesn't even describe foreigners in their countries as foreigners anymore, or how "transvestite" became "transgender". Political correctness became so bad that even conservatives stopped using "illegal alien" and started using "illegal immigrant" similar to how even in Japan conservatives started saying 外国人 instead of 外人 even though they are clearly still using the term anytime they see anyone that doesn't look of Japanese ethnicity.
It would be interesting to see something like Carlin's (yes, he was a shitlib) 'softening of language' bit in kanji.
What's fascinating about this is that it's somewhat subconscious. It's a really great illustration of the massive power of language (and suggestion.) If I'm not careful, I'll find myself calling them immigrants.
Likewise, with your point on "transgender," that's just the term now. The 'genders took over from the 'vestites and the 'sexuals. Trans = transgender, nowadays, almost exclusively. They certainly won that language war.
I came here to mention his bit about shell shock->combat fatigue->post tramatic stress disorder.
"Here’s an example. There’s a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse. In World War I it was called 'shell shock.' Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. It almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was more than eighty years ago.
"Then a generation passed, and in World War II the same combat condition was called 'battle fatigue.' Four syllables now; takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. 'Fatigue' is a nicer word than 'shock.' Shell shock! Battle fatigue. "By the early 1950s, the Korean War had come along, and the very same condition was being called 'operational exhaustion.' The phrase was up to eight syllables now, and any last traces of humanity had been completely squeezed out of it. It was absolutely sterile: operational exhaustion. Like something that might happen to your car.
"Then, barely fifteen years later, we got into Vietnam, and, thanks to the deceptions surrounding that war, it’s no surprise that the very same condition was referred to as 'post-traumatic stress disorder.' Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon: post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed.
"But it didn’t happen, and one of the reasons is soft language; the language that takes the life out of life. And somehow it keeps getting worse."
While I see his point, the word "shock" to me implies something far shorter than the others. As in, something closer to just "ringing in your ears" that you just need to let pass and you'll be fine, like all other forms of colloquial shock where you just need to let your heartbeat slow because you were shocked by a scare.
Or, on the complete opposite end of the spectrum which is medical "shock" which usually implies literal sudden death is coming. Which kinda dramatizes it to a detrimental level, because it makes people expect something extreme and visible instead of the subtle and slower disorder that it is.
So while the middle two are soulless and seem closer to "we have no idea what we are doing to these guys minds, so we will just imply they are tired" I don't think "shell shock" is very good either beyond a quick "we just noticed this is a thing and need a name to describe it."
Whereas PTSD gives you the exact description of what it is and how it happened. Trauma happened, this is the post effects, and the stress of it is causing disorder.
So like a lot of things Carlin, its retarded nonsense meant to sound smart on paper to get his audience clapping like seals thinking they are smarter than everyone, but in actuality its just outright wrong to a degree that its making people dumber to think it.
I'll take that reply in to consideration the next time I'm sitting in the waiting room of a VA clinic. I will be here all day if I continue talking about the horrors of being at the VA, so let's stay on topic.
Carlin was a libtard, but even libtards can be right about certain things. SS->CF->PTSD was just one example given of inserting syllables to disconnect effects from horror.
We can also have a discussion about how in the Shell Shock era soldiers had more time to decompress on the lengthy (usually boat) ride home. I've been on deployment, stayed up for the last ~40 hours before it was time to leave, slept through the flight, got absolutely shit-faced in the airport at the refuel layover, and
passed the fuck outslept through the rest of the plane ride home. Someone going through some serious shit (we had a few on the plane) isn't going to have as much of a chance to wind the fuck back down before being dumped back in to the absolute bullshit that is being at your primary duty station.But that is my disagreement. I don't believe that is entirely the case, as it requires removing the entire definition of the words themselves, and the connotation they evoke, to distill it down to only its syllables because that is the only way to make the point work.
I can do the "all day" about the politics and history of mental illnesses and the DSM, but at the simplest form PTSD is a far more useful term. It tells you everything you need to know about what is going on, rather than limiting to only war born and using a word that has multiple unfitting abilities to describe it proper.
As in, its the opposite of "softening of language" because instead of dancing around the meaning with emotionally charged words, it accurately gets right to the point of what is going on. Which is the polar opposite of what the Left does with more of their word games, such as replacing pedophile with "minor attracted person."
Which is why I mock Carlin on it, because its specifically framed to make the audience feel like they "cracked the code" and are now smarter than all the other sheep for it, but it only works if you just accept the framework without question.
I'll grant, all of this doesn't matter if you think PTSD should only apply to soldiers and veterans, which is a popular opinion, because then it absolutely has disconnected for nothing. I don't agree with that perspective, but I acknowledge it has merit.