Essay Example on George Carlin: Exposing the 'Truths' Concealed by Euphemisms

Summary of the Performance

George Carlin's presentation concerns ethics in communications. The speaker talks about the frequent use of euphemistic terms and phrases among the Americans, which hide the actual unpleasant or unwelcome meaning of an item or a condition. According to the speaker, euphemism help speakers to conceal the truth and conceal reality. This aspect is contrary to the expectations of some of the society members, including Carlin. His comedy attacks the American systems that aids in the invention of the soft and positively biased terms and phrases that he does not welcome. According to the speaker, focusing on the positivity has led to many euphemistic terms in American English. He blames the human nature that leaves people with challenges of accepting reality, making them choose to lean towards positivity. The speaker says that most American words have undergone alterations to soften the psychological impact they can cause ones they reach to their recipients. To substantiate his argument, Carlin cites several examples, including the transformation of the stressful condition that attacks the nervous system of people at war blocking them from taking any input. During the First World War, the name of the disease was 'Shells hark.' Today, physicians refer to the condition as ‘Battle fatigue.' Despite the latter appearing friendly, it does not present the actual impression of the disease's effect. The speaker attributes these changes to humans taking advantage of time.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Why I Disagree with Carlin

Several reasons substantiate my disagreement with Carlin's proposals and insinuations. Effective communication does not only rely on the transfer of information but also considers the effects of the information to the recipient. Therefore, it is essential to note the results that a specific tone of communication would generate. Several examples in the speech indicate how dangerous the careless use of words would destabilize the rapport between agencies, groups, or people. I find it abusive when Carlin describes his subjects, the people that support the positive alterations of terms or phrases as ‘smart greedy well-fed white people’ (4:24). He also uses sarcasm to attack the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by saying that the agency does not kill people but only neutralize them (4:30). Carlin sarcastically compares the different descriptions of raiding soldiers in Israel as commandos while those in Arabic nations as terrorists (4:50). This type of language questions the authenticity of established authorities, which is dangerous to people's stability. Also, when communicators use language appropriately, it serves as a tool for encouragement. The use of disrespectful words and descriptions can lower self-esteem in some groups of people. Therefore, Carlin's suggestion of the use of disrespectful words like 'cripples' instead of the physically challenged is also unwelcome.

What We Should Do To Correct the Mess

Although most of Carlin's insinuations are not appropriate, some might make sense to some people. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an elaborate guideline that facilitates the use of an acceptable language and tone when communicating. The instructions can have different sections, for instance, those that deal with communications between people, organizations, and countries. If the guidelines for inter-personal communications proposes the evaluation of what is suitable for the receiving part, those for organizations will ensure that information reaching people resonates with their expectations about the body. Guidelines in the type of language between countries should purpose to indicate fairness to all parties. This approach will promote the use of language for the benefit of most groups taking part in communication.