John Donegan appeared to have some trouble grasping the concept of a humane society’s use of language, as evident in his opinion piece last week (“Cancel culture and forbidden words,” June 5).
Language is a powerful tool. Language helps shape our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors, and it also has the power to affect other people and the world around us. In addition, our language, like any language, is dynamic, in that the meanings of words and connotations can change over time, sometimes rapidly. Our language is hopefully evolving as we hopefully evolve into a more understanding and compassionate society.
The use of respectful language is a way to promote the inclusion and acceptance of others, especially when used to describe a group or an individual’s attributes or situation in which they have no or limited control or choice in the matter. For example, using the words “bum” or “derelict” to describe all people who do not have a roof over their head, in this day and age, given our society’s basic understanding of homelessness, is totally disrespectful. Some people may be homeless because of choice, but most are homeless due to a vast array of other reasons and combinations of reasons. The expression “people experiencing homelessness” is not a “painfully stilted euphemism” or a way to “disguise an unpleasant reality” as Mr. Donegan writes, but a more accurate description of that group of people and their situation. Also, when making a statement to describe them and putting the word “person” or “people” first, it helps remind us all that yes, we are all individuals/people/human beings above any other descriptors that follow. We are much more complex than any one label given to us.
Yes, most of us have all come, or may come, across a situation where we are ignorant about the most current and acceptable words or phrases to use. This is because, as stated earlier, our language continually changes. But as members of society, we should, when able, try to inform ourselves of the most appropriate language. This isn’t being “politically correct,” it is being civil, like when, if unsure of what name a person wants to be called, we ask them and then try our best to call them that name.
It’s not a matter of restricting free speech. No one has a hand or rag over your mouth. We are all free to say what we want in most circumstances. However, those who intentionally refuse to use the names a person or group of people request or use other derogatory descriptions to dehumanize them, may have to face the consequences, be it an ugly response in return or getting ostracized. The same goes for phrases too. For example, if someone says “All lives matter” as a way to minimize or dismiss the saying “Black lives matter,” which refers to a disproportionate number of Black people killed by police, shame on them.
I think, rather than being so concerned about having to use more respectful language, our real and huge concern at this time in our society, should be the use of less respectful language and the effect it is having on all of us.
Kathy Riedemann
Los Osos
This article appears in Jun 12-22, 2025.
The term “bum” or “derelict” has never been used to describe all of those who simply lack a home. Unfortunately, the homeless people we usually notice and are referring to, and who create the problems associated with homeless, almost always have a problem with addiction and/or mental health, and are not the more “invisible” folks who may simply temporarily lack a home for other reasons. If you don’t think that “people experiencing homelessness” is a painfully stilted replacement for simply “homeless”, I suggest that you have your hearing checked. The best forms of communications are those which convey the message as simply as possible, in as few words as possible. Larding up the language with surplus verbiage does not do that.
I agree that language is “dynamic” and always changing. However, my point is that many common and customary terms which have long been respectfully used have suddenly been decreed by a small subset of society to be offensive to them, and orders issued to use a replacement term. It is presumptuous for a small group to appoint themselves as the arbiters of what language may, or may not, be used. Too often these language scolds are the young, the least competent to exercise judgment or control over others. I remain reluctant to cede dominion over my social interactions to 14 year olds and their strongly held opinions of the moment.
As I mentioned in the column, there is no reason to intentionally offend or “dehumanize” others. But, there is also no reason to let tiny groups who somehow seize the media megaphone control society.
John’s grandkids think he’s a jerk and now this is everyone else’s problem?
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
This whole topic is retarded.
Sorry John, but you did seem upset about the words “bum” and “derelict,” as “every day identifiers” evolving into other words.
My hearing is great! “People experiencing homelessness” still sounds much better than “homeless people” just as a “person going through bankruptcy” sounds better than a “bankrupt person” and “people who are feeling ill” sounds better than “ill people.” These phrases sound better because they recognize the person’s or people’s situation rather than using the description to define their total identity. Simplicity is just one attribute of good language use, but sometimes using just 1-2 words doesn’t cut it. It’s not a matter of “larding up language,” it’s a matter of clarity and accuracy.
Whatever the group size or as individuals, we all should be able to express how we like to be addressed. And sometimes, even the young may have something to teach us.
ROBPETERFORPAUL
Could it be that you write “The whole topic is retarded” because you have some difficulty grasping the nuances of these concepts?
I say this topic is gravely important when understanding how the misuse of language is currently affecting our country. Look up Propaganda and you may understand. Or not.
@Kathy Riedemann: OK Kathy, since you insist that we be allowed to direct how others should address us, I opt for the following: “His Serene and Evolved Excellency, the Poobah of Political Print” But since I did earlier argue for brevity, please feel free to shorten it to the acronym “HSAEETPOPP”, although you’ll have to figure out the pronunciation.
You are free to choose to say whatever you want, just don’t complain if people think you’re an idiot.