Those whose focus is on controlling language are not primarily concerned about controlling your words. They're primarily interested in controlling you.
I'm old enough to remember when the word 'retard' was the politically correct term before it became "mentally handicapped" then "challenged" and so on. Same goes for 'cripple' which also accurately and concisely describes a particular class of physical impairment. Then it became "handicapped" and "mobility impaired". These are all euphemisms that do nothing but infantalise those affected while allowing those intent on using them to feel morally superior in doing so.
They think truth is subject to power. Look at how they describe hierarchies. And as no surprise, they power hungry authoritarians. By their own description, that’s just how the world works.
the production of knowledge is subject to power, Bill Gates has fundamentally altered medical research since his priorities decide where the funding goes. Universities require funding, academics need to eat, researchers outside of these institutions generally work for corporate-backed labs or thinktanks.
I agree with you that the purpose is to control the person, not the language—the language here being just a tool or means of control. This was made very popular in 1984 (I feel stupid just mentioning this reference but it seems impossible not to).
However, one problem here is that, when faced with this affirmative-that these people are trying to control you-I think many well-meaning persons will say ”you’re exaggerating”. That’s because I think that most of the time, the people who propose these rules (and the more passive ones who agree with them blindly) actually really believe they are doing a good thing-they strongly believe that they know better than you what you should say. I have to assume this because, if not, if I assume they are only just trying to control me, period, I’ll feel like I am wearing the same aluminum foil hat that they are using.
As such, it is important to understand that yes, they are trying to control you, and no, maybe they don’t realize this, because their moral superiority complex is just too deeply rooted. By understanding this you can be more broadly aware that these attempts of control will come from other directions than language (artistic taste, sexual preferences, behavior in general, political beliefs, etc.)
What really screws up the entire thing is that, their belief is so deeply rooted that, the next step of their logic then becomes: if they were so nice to inform you and educate you about the right way to behave, then why is it that now that you know the truth you still insist on not practicing it? The only conclusion is that you must be ill-intentioned on purpose.
> Those whose focus is on controlling language ... They're primarily interested in controlling you.
I don't know who are "those", but I think they're primarily interested in controlling backlash and preventing conflicts. They don't want lawsuits or twitter outrage.
I'm old enough to remember when the word 'retard' was the politically correct term before it became "mentally handicapped" then "challenged" and so on. Same goes for 'cripple' which also accurately and concisely describes a particular class of physical impairment. Then it became "handicapped" and "mobility impaired". These are all euphemisms that do nothing but infantalise those affected while allowing those intent on using them to feel morally superior in doing so.