Euphemisms are best changed frequently (2016)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of the euphemism treadmill

  • Many agree the treadmill is real but dispute that it’s “healthy.”
  • Core criticism: changing labels rarely destigmatizes the underlying thing (disability, low intelligence, out‑groups); it often just resets the clock.
  • Some see euphemisms as clarifying and more accurate in specific cases (e.g., PTSD vs “shell shock”), but others see palliative language as obscuring brutal realities (echoing Orwell).

Platform censorship and “algorithmic euphemisms”

  • Social media moderation and advertiser rules generate new euphemisms (“unalive,” “pew pews,” oblique war phrasing) to avoid filters.
  • These initially look like in‑group slang but then leak into offline speech.
  • Several commenters expect LLM-style moderation to close these loopholes and push users to ever more convoluted circumlocutions.

Race and identity labels

  • Heavy debate over “colored people” → “people of color” → “BIPOC,” “African‑American,” “Latinx,” ADOS, etc.
  • Some view umbrella terms as useful when referring to “all non‑white people”; others see them as vague, dehumanizing catch‑alls imposed by elites or HR.
  • Multiple comments note that many target groups don’t actually like or use some of the new labels (e.g., “Latinx,” “African‑American”), yet institutions and media push them anyway.
  • Confusion over inclusion (e.g., whether Asians/Indians are in “BIPOC”) illustrates how opaque these constructions can be.

Disability language

  • Several disabled posters strongly reject euphemisms like “differently abled,” “visually challenged,” or “dis‑ability” respellings; prefer “disabled,” “blind.”
  • They describe such terms as infantilizing, patronizing, or invented by non‑disabled people without consultation.
  • Reclaimed slurs (e.g., “crip,” “queer”) may be acceptable in‑group but not from outsiders.

Virtue signaling, shibboleths, and social conflict

  • Many see new terms as shibboleths: markers that someone is “up‑to‑date” and morally aligned, and tools to stigmatize those who aren’t.
  • Others argue language updates can be genuine attempts at kindness and inclusion; accusations of “virtue signaling” are themselves a signaling move.
  • There’s concern about ageism and ESL burdens: rapid cycles make older or non‑native speakers anxious and easy to police.

Politics, power, and class

  • Distinction drawn between slow, organic semantic drift and rapid, top‑down renamings driven by institutions, activists, or branding (“Department of Defense,” “cash assistance,” “TANF”).
  • Euphemisms can function as dog whistles (coded hostility) or die when bigots feel safe stating the quiet part aloud.
  • Some see language policing as disproportionately a professional‑class, U.S.-centric phenomenon that deepens class and political divides.

Tech and domain-specific euphemisms

  • Analogous shifts noted in tech: “surveillance” → “advertising,” “tracking” → “telemetry,” “whitelist/blacklist” → “allowlist/blocklist,” “master” → “main.”
  • Opinions split between those who welcome clearer or less loaded terms and those who see needless churn driven by ideology.