And in the “Here we go again” department…
Last week, Novel Rocket ran an article by Tess Gerritsen, NY Times bestseller, entitled When Loathsome Characters Say Despicable Things. Apparently, Gerritsen had been “taken to task” by a reader because one of the antagonistic characters in her book The Silent Girl snipes, “Are you a retard?”
The reader wrote to tell me that she has a mentally challenged child and she was furious at me for using such a word. She felt I was insensitive and should never have used it. And the truth is, I myself would never use it. Just as I would never call anyone a chink, a whore, a gook, and any number of things.
But over the years, my characters have used such words. And they were not nice characters. Their choice of words, in fact, helped define the type of people they are, and evoked an emotional response in the reader. Many times, writers get slammed by readers because those words turn up in our books. We are supposed to clean up the language of our characters, however nasty they may be. Our characters — even the murderers, the crime lords, the gang bangers — are supposed to speak in antiseptically sensitive language. (emphasis mine)
After reading the article, I felt simultaneously vindicated and flabbergasted. Let’s start with the vindication part:
This is a subject near and dear to my heart (see examples HERE and HERE and HERE and…). Sadly, one of the defining characteristics of Christian fiction has become “antiseptically sensitive language.” The topic never fails to stir debate, anger people, and evoke recitations about how Christians should be separate from the world and that good writers can avoid such language. So seeing Gerritsen, an author with considerable clout, make the same point, brought a smile to my face.
Writers face tough choices with every word we pick. Do we write dialogue that’s realistic, or dialogue that doesn’t offend? Do we sanitize every line of dialogue so that it’s lifeless, stilted, and completely unbelievable?
Instead of saying “Are you a retard?” should that nasty character, a mobster, have said instead “Are you mentally challenged?”
It just doesn’t sound right. Does it?
No, Tess, it doesn’t.
Now for the flabbergasted part: Some people still don’t get it! Not only did the comment thread plunge into a lengthy discussion about whether it is appropriate for a Christian story to address adultery (much less have a protag who’s committed it!), but another word was added to the censorial lexicon.
Now, “retard” is the “R” Word.
In fact, one commenter politely informed Gerritsen and the NR readers about a national campaign to ban the “R” word. Kidding, right?
Either this is a case of being way too easily offended or having extremely narrow, moralistic, conceptions of fiction. Perhaps it’s both. I do find considerable solace, however, in the fact that these squabbles even impact NYT’s bestsellers.
It would seem, then, that if such Christians want to “avoid the world” and base most of their ethics on that supposed universal (and easy-to-discern) “standard,” they could simply see the secular critics of this book’s Raunchy Language, and avoid being like them, right?
… Or maybe, just maybe, Scripture’s main ethic is a proactive “be like Jesus,” instead of an “anti-[something]” as our axiom … which is impossible to practice consistently anyway.
Yet another example of anti-Biblical Pelagianism gone amok. You’re not the sinner, not by yourself. “Sin comes not from your own heart, but from syllables, or hearing or reading the Sinful Syllables in a fictitious scenario. So want to get rid of the sin? Get rid of the Syllables!”
Mike
I was going through my second book draft this past week while at the beach. I’m having to make some changes because of the edited changes in my first book coming out in October. A main character in my book is, ahem, African American. He is based on one of my best friends and his speech patterns and mannerisms are spot on based on my best friend and brother in Christ, Gerald. I even asked Gerald if it was okay to do this.
But, in a comment on one of your previous posts I was criticized for being a “white middle age man” and not having any idea about how to create such a character. So, I went back in my second book and decided I would try and make the character more generic giving him a multi-racial background as an African American/Samoan/Hawaiian/Hispanic mix. I was nuts! What made me even think of doing such a thing. It just DID NOT work!
I took every reference out of the manuscript and put my character back as he should be. In fact, his characteristics and personality DEMANDED he speak and act in a certain way. And, I am sure I will be criticized royally when the book comes out next year. But, as you have pointed out, we must be true to our story and we must be true to our characters. I have a grown daughter who has battled epilepsy since age 8 and I don’t like the word “retard” either. But, I know it doesn’t refer to her. It refers to the biased, ignorant person who utters that word. And this is the point. We put words in the mouths of our characters that are demanded by their make up and personality. If we are not true to our own creations, how can we be true to real people? We are being asked to be just as biased with our filtering as we are in being asked to be so politically correct.
I’m sorry a reader was offended by that word. She should get mad at the character, not the writer. After all, that is what the writer intended for the reader to do in the first place. If you can’t stand the jargon, stay out of the book!
Something caught my attention there in Bruce’s comment:
“She should get mad at the character, not the writer.”
Honestly I don’t think a lot of readers (both CBA and ABA) have enough understanding of the nuance to get that. They enjoy a book where crazy things happen, but one word/sentence/phrase can throw them out of the fictive world. They don’t understand this or the jargon I’m using, but it is what happens. Then it is no longer a character saying something. It is the writer that used the offensive term, and this type of reader can’t discern a difference.
I think of readers who have been “offended” by free books on the Kindle that were by Christian authors, and left scathing reviews on Amazon. “How dare somebody preach at me in my fiction?” Well, you’re the one that hit the download button, bub.
I would like to see readers with enough sophistication to realize when it is a character saying something and not the writer. I don’t think many will ever get there. Plus, authors have their own times where their views slip in, so what if it *isn’t* the character speaking at that time? OK, that will be the exception considering Mike’s example (the mobster), but we’ll never get all readers to the place we’d like them to be.
Jason, I really agree that many readers lack “sophistication” and “understanding of the nuance” of storytelling. However, it’s a rather touchy assertion. Who are we to judge someone’s intellect or preference? Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel that a more savvy readership would not need to have the difference between what an author and her characters say, explained.
Well, I can’t see myself dissing a reader for “lack of sophistication” anytime soon, but some people have a sense of right/wrong or black/white and won’t budge. We’ve all got areas of inflexibility, but can we be open to be a little more flexibile without compromising our core.
Some very close to me, very intelligent, but she holds a harder line with elements of fiction/storytelling that would be considered “edgy”. She falls back on the “why put something in your head” argument. It’s her conviction, so I’m not going to change her opinion easily.
I’m seeing a marketing slogan coming into focus for you though:
Mike Duran – fiction for the savvy reader
Wow.
Having a “discussion about whether it is appropriate for a Christian story to address adultery (much less have a protag who’s committed it!)”
Christians read the Bible, right?
At least we are instructed to. We are urged to. These are understatements.
The Word is God is full of..examples of sin. Bad stuff went down. Stories of sin and sinners. In the end of course we have redemption. But not before the recounting of why anybody needed salvation in the first place.
I wonder what the Word would be without “addressing” adultery or deceit…or murder.
The “r” word. Many of those people who want to rid the world of the “r” word insist on even eradicating it from the vocabulary of a fireman. Seriously. I was part of this movement when I first heard of it. I want it to end as an insult. Just like the “n” word or various other racial epithets. End them as abuse. But then I started noticing an extreme point of view and I was out. That is my stance on that issue.
Back to language. I worked in a maximum security prison for many years. I heard things…
..but I didn’t become that.
I think that is what many Christians are wary of. They feel they will succumb to becoming that way. That writer’s not a real Christian. Look at how he writes. No. If certain ways of speaking make the character real, then by all means. That is our job. But never make it gratuitous. Now of course this doesn’t mean to go out and listen to and watch “raunch” but I think you get my gist.
A quote I read the other day is perfect: “My story isn’t always joyful but it is always one of hope.”–Rebekah Joy Plett
I sympathize with both sides on this one! Absolutlely, a bad guy should sound like a bad guy. Anybody who calls people names says a lot more about himself than the people he describes. As for the R-word campaign, I’m all for parents teaching their kids that some words don’t belong anywhere. I think the biggest problem with that word is that it’s used so casually, while it inflicts a lot of hurt on some people. I wish the English language had more words that insult an individual without bashing a whole group of people.
True. Based on Joe Konrath’s post the other week, turns out we Christian writers aren’t alone, even when it comes to depicting sexuality.
I imagine there are quite a few words that would offend a liberal type, whereas that same person wouldn’t flinch at a smidgen of blasphamy. Depends on who you are, and what your moral standards are, I guess. And since it’s a free country, readers have the right to complain, despite how grating it might be to those of us who are just try to create real characters.
I hear this all the time and it makes me equally furious. There are some people who choose to live in a bubble, especially regarding their entertainment choices. If that is you, more power to you. Others choose to read things that represent real life. The truth is that there are people out there doing a myriad of horrible things, saying things in an extremely offensive and insensitive way. It IS offensive, that’s the point.
Another complaint is when the evil behavior doesn’t come with severe repercussions. That’s life as well. Sometimes crime DOES pay. Sometimes terrible people are successful and rewarded for bad behavior. What better way to make people understand a unfairness in the world than to tell a story that makes people incredibly angry about the result.
Sanitize the book if you want to market to the bubble people – they deserve their entertainment too. But as much as I allow them their myopic view of the world they should allow authors to express the world as they see it.
As the parent of 2 disabled kids and a fiction writer, I see both sides of this argument. I do, however, come down on the side of realism…the character needs to be who he or she has, and not constrained by what our moral outrage dictates.
The reason this is getting Gerritsen in trouble now is because the disabled community is working hard to fight the “R” word. We are in a transitional time when this word goes from sometime use to be as offensive as other words I could quote here with a letter. The problem is that many people still see this word as “Ok” and do not understand yet how demeaning it is. When people see it in a book, it makes them irate.
It goes back to, would you edit Mark Twain? (Apparently they are, though, and I disagree with this “sanitization” of literature.) At some future time, the “r” word will hopefully be as offensive as any other term that turns our stomachs, but it’s not yet, and then we can look back at this novel and realize the lowness of the character. It’s a bit harder for every reader to see now, and thus the pushback. Just my writerly, anti-R word 2 cents.
The word was supposed to be offensive. It succeeded beyond the author’s wildest dreams! What is to complain about?
“Retard,” in this sense, has always been offensive. When the terminology “mental retardation” was developed as a medical descriptor, those who were classified as having it were never properly called “retards.”
Calling someone a “retard” has always been a pejoritive slur, regardless of whether the targeted person is mentally challenged or not.
It is important to remember that “retarded” was adopted as a “nice” descriptor to replace the formerly “nice” descriptors that had fallen out of favor, such as “idiot” “imbecile” “moron” and “feeble-minded.”
“Special” has already become a slur, and I know a few people who are deeply offended by “disabled.”
“Idiot,” on the other hand, is hardly offensive at all, certainly (on balance) far less offensive than “retard!”
It is weird how quickly (in this case, about a hundred years or so) our language adapts to its opposite sensibility. “Retarded” used to be the neutral replacement for such a horrible pejorative as “idiot” but today, you may safely consider yourself an idiot if you dare use the word “retarded.”
gina, I appreciate you commenting. However, I still don’t think this addresses the writer’s conundrum. Gerritsen used the word to offend. That’s the point. Her character needed to be shown as a meanie and using the word “retard” showed that. So even if the R-word becomes as culturally offensive as certain other words, that still does not speak to whether or not novelists should not let their characters use those words. In some ways, the more offensive that word becomes, the more useful it is in the hands of an author. Once again, I appreciate your thoughts.
Huh, that’s kinda funny. I spent the weekend agonizing over a blog post I just published today that talks about my relationship with Christ and how, like Jacob, sometimes I wrestle with Him. And I dropped the F bomb in it. We’ll see how the debate goes down with that, but I’m guessing it might be similar to what sparked this post and discussion. It’s par for the course.
I guess there’s wisdom in asserting that we writers must censor ourselves or risk being censored by others, including the state. On the other hand, one can’t help but try to poke the eyes of a society that, let’s admit it, has become ridiculously sensitive. Unless you’re descended from European stock and profess faith in Christ, you’ve got carte blanche to offend the crap out of anyone you like because you’re an oppressed minority. Face it, in a world where such an absurdity as “reverse racism” is feasible, we the thinkers have a lot of weapons arrayed against us.
The only solution is truth. That means we must be bold when others will not, and make connections between ideas and attitudes that will challenge the status quo, because the status quo is quite sick. I personally won’t be shrinking back because my work challenges people occasionally or makes them feel bad. Someone’s got a problem with a writer using the word retard? Welcome to the grownup world, hun, and I pray you can get over yourself soon.
From Christian readers, you’ll be derided for the “F” bomb. But, you’ll get more criticism from the “real” world for using the “R” word!
5 words, 1 #: You’ve. Got. 2 Be. Kiddin’. Me! Then again, I was raised religiously and it confused me to the point I didn’t know if I said “hell” if it would be a cussword (like my dad used all the time… among other stuff) or in reference to Hell, so I ended up saying “Dark Kingdom” just to make sure I didn’t swear. Now I find it to be something of a trivial matter. But only something of it.
Two points come to my mind (though probably not just two, but I’ll try to limit it!) One, I’ve been one to make the statement that one can write a really edgy, realistic story without necessarily going into raunchy language. And when I say that, I’m referring to story filled with such stuff. Maybe that comes from not hearing it all day, every day in my life, which I consider pretty real. But I understand others have different experiences, and my real will probably not sound real to them. And sometimes, as writers, we have to write from that other reality, not the one we are familiar with.
To that, I think balance is the key. I don’t mind a bad word here or there. If it is full of it, however, it ruins the story for me, because it comes across to me as unreal. Show the bad character as bad, there are lots of ways to do that, which their language is only one way. There are scads of books and movies who have told very compelling and realistic stories without filling it with trash talk. IOW, a story without that doesn’t equal “sanitized and unrealistic.” True, some authors do write that way, but it isn’t the absence of such language itself that is the problem with the story, it is the writing skills of the author that is the issue.
Two, the above as a given, and this addresses your point more directly, Mike. There are times to remain true to the character we have created where such language will need to be used, even names that are offensive. I could even make a case if I were writing a book in the black culture, and wanted to show the antagonist as a racist bigot, I would have him use the N word. That doesn’t mean I would ever use that word, or approve of the word being used. Indeed, since the “bad guy” is using it, one would naturally assume that I as an author think only bad people would use the term. And the same goes for your example of the R word. I would never use that in speaking about anyone, but if I wanted to show what kind of people do use that word, what better place for it to be used than by the antagonist?
Okay, point three, but it’s short. I think as writers, once our work gets read and “popular,” we’ll find people criticizing a lot of stuff in our stories. I already know what types of complaints I’ll likely get, though I’ll probably be surprised by some of them too. It comes from being a public figure. I’m sure the last book in my Reality Series will not be liked by some people for several reasons, but one of them will be because I have one cuss word in the whole book.
But I agree, such things can make good fodder for articles.
“Do we write dialogue that’s realistic, or dialogue that doesn’t offend? Do we sanitize every line of dialogue so that it’s lifeless, stilted, and completely unbelievable?”
I love how this statement forces people to choose either or. You either write offensive dialogue, or you write lifeless, stilted, completely unbelievable dialogue. The idea that you must do one or the other is ridiculous. A result of the narrowmindedness that has developed because of the argument. This is becoming much like the self-publishing vs traditional publishing debate, where each side sees absolutely no merit in the other.
It all comes down to preference. The preference of the author, and the reader, and the market, and the publisher. You publish in CBA, and the readers/market, and the publishers, seem to prefer cleaner dialogue. ABA can get away with a lot more because, again, the readers/market and the publishers. I don’t understand why this is so complicated. . .write the story YOU want to read, and publish it wherever you can.
Tony, a couple of things. Gerritsen writes for the ABA, which adds a twist to the discussion. While Christians have their own set of language issues, writers across the board still must wrestle with this issue: How do we make our bad characters appear bad? What public sensibilities must we respect when doing so? Can we disassociate evil characters from the novelists who put words in their mouths? You might not think it’s complicated, but it is.
Secondly, if it is a matter of “preference,” why is it that Christian authors, writing faith-driven stories, publishing in the Christian market, still get flak for transgressing certain moralistic boundaries. (Please read the comments in that NR post, if you haven’t, to see the discussion ensued about whether it’s appropriate to have a protag in a Christian book who’s committed adultery.) It’s just not as easy as saying, If you want a character to cuss, then shop ABA. Or if you want a lead character who commits adultery, then don’t go to the CBA. Is that really how cut-and-dried this has become?
I don’t see why not. I’m aware that Gerritsen writes for the ABA, which only proves my point. She’s published. And she ain’t no small fish. She’s doing well for herself. We can’t expect abolutely no one to find what we write offensive, no matter what. Some people might even attack you for keeping it clean. Might call your characters stilted and unrealistic, for example.
I love that King points this out in his book On Writing: Polite society should be the least of our concerns as writers. Because, honestly, it doesn’t have much of impact on us besides a bit of hate mail. . .unless, again, you write in CBA.
Preference still applies in either market, but it’s not ONLY about the writer’s preference. As I said, it’s a mix of the writer, the market, and the publisher. The market is the real problem when it comes to CBA stuff. And so it’s impossible to get anything too gritty published. But hey, write for the secular market and you can pretty much get anything (well written) published: Richard Laymon, I rest my case.
Seems pretty simple to me. 😉
Or maybe I’m just overly apathetic?
*abSolutely, rather.
I’m sure there’s more typos, but I’ll have to let them go. 😛
Oh for pity’s sake.
Sally, please refrain from such language. “Pity” is a quality that should not be so carelessly tossed about in mixed company. I’m Norwegian: we don’t believe in pity. Its mention offends me.
I’m getting so tired of the narrow mindedness of people that I’m almost getting angry! Since when do our characters need to be politically correct? Isn’t this the point of fiction? To show a variety of characters in all their gruesome HUMANITY? You are so right, Mike. The ‘antiseptic’ camp is beginning to kill off more than just a few germs. It’s almost it’s own infection.
I wish people would focus on real issues in the REAL world rather than picking on fiction. It’s fiction for goodness sake! Sheesh. (Notice, please, my very clean and antiseptic language. I refrained from real expletives in sensitivity to our Christian readers …)
I wonder if the aggression and mocking attitude toward people for — heaven forbid — being offended and speaking out about it, isn’t something to be concerned about.
Can you write foul language and still be a Christian? I hope so, otherwise I might be hellbound. . .but can you be intentionally cruel/rude/mocking toward those who disagree with you and still be Christian? I don’t think so. I suggest we all be wary of the way in which we discuss this issue.
Ummm…are you serious?
Did you really mean to say that the sin of being rude and mocking is too big for the blood of Christ to cover? Surely you don’t think only people who are never rude are Christians. I don’t know a single Christian who has never been rude. Who then can be saved?
Not saying there is any excuse for rude behavior. It is not loving and it is sin. Simply saying that to suggest that rude people can’t be Christians is…false doctrine.
Bleh. Don’t be silly.
No sin is too great. But as Christians, we don’t intentionally commit sinful acts and brush it off lightly. We recognize disobedience to God. We recognize when we aren’t behaving as we should. And we correct it. Being rude, and mocking, and cruel. . .these are not things Christians should take part in. That’s all I’m saying.
Hope that clears it up for ya.
I’m a cripple. I’m handicapped. I’m disabled. But depending on where I go, various other disabled, handicapped cripples hate one or the other of those terms.
It makes me so tired. I never know how to refer to myself anymore. In one exchange I said “I hate being disabled” to which the Language Policewoman replied “don’t call yourself that! You’re DIFFERENTLY abled.” To which I replied “Whatever. I still can’t open that d—–ed door, so would you be so kind?”
She was so concerned about policing my speech she failed to realise I was stuck on the outside of the building and needed genuine ACTUAL help, not a boost to my already-fine self-esteem.
Words are a way for people to look like they’re doing something even though they aren’t. To look they have control. Taking umbrage over someone else’s speech is a form of control over that person and a way that people exert power in social situations. I tend to think of anyone who parses another’s choice of words as a genteel bully. And frankly, I’m more offended by “between you and I” than I am by the various F, S, C, R, K and J words.
Katherine, for a while I worked with a man who was a dwarf. For the first couple of weeks it was really awkward. Everyone tip-toed around him (figuratively speaking). What broke the ice was when he started telling “midget jokes.” Really. He’d heard all of them, and had the best “short people” jokes you’ll ever hear. It was really quite refreshing and helped me to understand and respect him more than if he’d ever demanded understanding or respect.
I am reminded of the story of someone being interviewed about the movie Apollo 13. They were one of the real life people involved in the drama. They were asked how realistic the movie was. They said it was completely realistic – except for the language. If they had used that kind of language in NASA anything, they would have been fired on the spot.
Yet the movie makes put it in there to be realistic.
Honestly, at times I wonder which came first, the “realistic” language in fiction or the language being used by people in every day life. Because based on that example, some times the “realism” put into our entertainment isn’t very realistic.
This is a brilliant point. I can’t tell you the number of entertainments where “realistic” language is anything but. It happens in movies all the time, but sometimes in books, too. Fortunately not as often.
It absolutely can swing the other direction. If an author needs a rule of thumb, it might be this:
1) If you are spending more than 70 seconds to find a synonym for a character’s oath, man up and use the oath.
2) If you aren’t spending any time weighing the oaths of your characters, change the oaths.
One other funny rule I use that may be no good to anyone:
If I have the same word (other than articles or character names) within 150 words (or by sight, on the same page) of another word, I look hard for a better word. Repeated words, of any sort, can lead to reader boredom.
Anecdote: I went five (or so) Terry Pratchett novels before coming across a potentially offensive word. It was very well placed and very funny.
Another thought. Should writers depict life as it is, as it should be, a combination of both? Authors have much power to set the culture, and with that comes great responsibility (to rip off Spider-man because it is true.)
That’s what has been bothering me whenever you bring up this issue. To say, “That’s how culture is so I need to put it in” is a cheat when you think about what power you might have to change the culture for the better. And yes, the language that your characters use truly does count.
(BTW, I am also well aware of how some people react to the R word. It’s as bad if not worse than the N word. No offense to Tess, but she should have been ready for that response when she put it in her book. I’m shocked she’s only gotten one response.
And all this is coming from someone who is very upset by the people whitewashing the N word out of Huckleberry Finn.)
I think we’re consistently approach this topic from the wrong angle. I’m all for discretion and sensitivity, but the whole notion of parsing and sanitizing terms so as to not “offend” is going too far.
You’re always going to offend someone, somewhere. The power of definite or strong language to “alienate” is also contingent on the audience. Jesus did say “Be careful how you hear.” It’s not automatic. (perhaps it is, among the hyper-sensitive, or other agenda-ed…)
Spool out that same the flaccid logic, and you’re reduced to uttering nothing but insipid, impotent noise that ends up offending God.
When did people loose the ability to discern? Hell, to not think everything is all about them and let stuff roll off their back? I’m disabled, but I don’t demand the rest of the world hobble itself for me.
Accounting for the writer’s personal convictions and target audience, it’s critical they hone their skills and write honestly. That’s seems to me to be the only legitimate solution.
The intertitles to the Jackie Coogan silent version of Oliver Twist suggest that Dickens’ original text indicated that it portrayed criminal life as accurately as possible, except for the coarse language which would be too offensive for sensitive ears.
Which is pretty funny, considering that a) the quoted material is not from Dickens’ original text and b) that it was emphasized in a silent movie where the actors could have cursed til who laid the rail and no one in the the bijou would have ever known!
Mike, I think this incident shows that the language sensitivities aren’t actually a Christian issue but a cultural issue. You won’t find anyone in the media using the “N word” these days and people have gotten fired for doing so. Now people are pushing to ban Tom Sawyer and Huckelberry Finn because of the frequent uses of the word.
You’ll find some of the same kinds of “sensibilities” (clearly not “sense” abilities) with some who think they are protecting the status of women. (Horrors if a novel had a male character say something like, “What do you want, woman?” or worse, “She’s my woman.”)
The thing is, “Christian sensibilities” put us at odds with our culture. I have no problem thinking that’s OK. What I have a problem with is when those “sensibilities” conflict with or ignore Scripture.
The whole idea of language being offensive is a bit shocking to me. We as Christians should not be offended when a non-Christian acts like a non-Christian — or sounds like a non-Christian. We should be offended that they are spitting on the Savior who died to redeem the world. Their lost state is the offense. Their rebellion against our Sovereign is an offense.
This majoring on the minors is … not profitable.
The woman with the “mentally challenged” child is right to protect him and to expect that he won’t be held up to ridicule. She is not right to think that a novelist putting the word “retard” into the mouth of one of her characters is ridiculing her son, or making it OK for someone else to do so.
Christians above all others should be noted for something more cosmic, something more universal, something more eternal than bickering about what words are “bad.”
Too much time and too much press on this subject, I believe.
Becky
Becky, I know you think I expend too much energy on this issue. I believe your initial comment points to our divide. You said: “…language sensitivities aren’t actually a Christian issue but a cultural issue.” If CBA guidelines are any indication, language sensitivities are far more a “Christian issue” than a “cultural issue.” While readers in general (both ABA and CBA) have their “R” words and “N” words, it’s CBA readers who also worry over “D” words and “B” words and “S” words and “H” words and “F” words and “C” words and…
PC is overrated. The nebulous deletion of words and meanings from “appropriate” language is a prejudice in itself: a prejudice against opinions.