Arguments against certain social and political euphemisms and being honest about them

George Carlin hit the nail on the head concerning certain social and political doubletalk used to argue certain positions, and I'll paraphrase below:

"Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it."

The man was a prophet because there are several topics where this exact problem prevents an honest discussion between people of differing views because one or both have to cloak it in soft language.

I shall cover a few of these topics below.



1. Illegal Immigration


Now, this one is subject to a strange form of doublethink by some parties. While willing to admit to greater or lesser extent the immigrants in question have violated the laws, there are numerous attempts to soften the reality, like

A. Undocumented immigrants.
B. Undocumented citizens.
C. Undocumented aliens.


Now, I find this series of euphemisms is little more than an attempt to not so much conceal the truth as to try and blunt the severity of the impact. If we take any of these titles for those who are not legal immigrants of the country they reside at face value, it sounds like they are legal residents in some capacity, they are just victims of a paperwork snafu.

Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on whether they deserve to exist or not, let's not sugarcoat reality: The "illegal" part is that they did not complete the legally recognized process to be considered a citizen, and thus have broken the law.

So, despite any sympathies anyone may have for their situations or not, the crux of the matter is that they are in contravention of established law on the matter.

Therefore, any honest discussion of the matter, regardless of side, must begin on the premise of how to handle these parties not legal residents of the country they are in.




2. Abortion

Now, this discussion is rife with all sorts of euphemisms. Even the name "abortion" is a softer alternative to what it really is:

Killing something that otherwise could be a fully functional being.

Now, whether you support or oppose abortion, any argument on the topic must begin with that truth in mind. Arguments about when conception begins are pointless in the long run, it's a line drawn in the sand of a much more relevant question and muddies the water on the real question:

"Should we or should we not have the ability to kill something that should be able to become a fully mature being? If so, why? If not, why not?"

Any argument on the abortion question needs to start here and work outwards if anyone wants to have an honest debate on the topic. Pro-life and Pro-choice are also euphemistic misnomers, it's more "Pro-Spare Life" or "Pro-End It Before It Lives A Life".



3. Transgenderism


My favorite, because this one is RIDDLED with euphemistic language. Even the name for it is a euphemism for something much awkwardly but honestly rendered:

"Live Action Role Play Of One Gender Being Another"


When I put it the way I do above, it sounds insulting, but that's what transgenderism is even if we take the parties who are transgender at their word about being another gender as sincere on their parts.

This is because of the following:


1. Humans are the only species sapient enough to not only be aware of our self-identity, but we are also the only species who are sapient enough to want that concept to be a malleable topic or are even able to consider that possibility.

2. True transgenderism is not within genetic possibility for humanity. We cannot turn from one gender to another at will on a genetic level, and any intersex condition is a rare genetic exception, not an invoked norm on a biological level.

3. The transgender community, again assuming we take them all at their word, admit they believe they are correcting something wrong physically so it matches their mental conception of what it should be. Assuming that is correct, then transgenderism begins and ends in the mind.



Now, wherever you sit on the topic, no honest discussion can take place without acknowledging the above and arguing based on the following:

1. Why are hormones and surgeries the FIRST resort for so many people for a condition that we assume in good faith is a belief on the part of the participant is the physical correction of something that does not match mentally? If this is truly trying to correct something where the mind and body don't seem to match, why are so many so sure the body and not the mind needs to change?

And further, what proof is there for why the surgeries and hormones have to be the only valid way to fix the perception issues?


2. Sex-change surgeries are cosmetic surgery and need to be regarded as such because they don't actually change anything on a genetic level. A man who gets a sex-change still retains all the remaining male internal plumbing like the prostate and whatever survives of their genitalia, which is often repurposed to whatever has become their surrogate for actual female genitals. Vice-versa is true for women.

Any argument on this topic needs to acknowledge these surgeries don't change inherent genetics and both sides need to acknowledge that before any honest discussion of this particular topic and its pros and cons can be debated.


3. If we take every transgender at their word, being one is supposed to redress a mental concern, meaning they have a mental illness, because something is wrong with them mentally and this is supposed to be the treatment to redress it.

It's no shame to regard transgenderism as treating the mentally ill because, if we take it at face value, that's exactly what it is, and if both sides are honest, they both need to concur it's based on the presupposition of it being a basis for treatment for mental imbalances that manifest as perception the body and mind do not match the same conceptual self-image.




The crux of this little thesis is that the above-discussed topics (among many others) are subject to a lot of "soft language" to cushion their impact, hide their brutal reality, or otherwise obscure their true motives, and if they are to be discussed openly and honestly, then both sides of their respective arguments for their proposed solutions to these debates should speak frankly and without evasion as to any unpleasant truths.

No true solution can emerge unless those that argue these topics can do that.