PC Language

I feel like politically correct language is all based on perspective. For example, Luntz describes that "the word, 'foreign' conjures up negative images in the minds of many Americans" - but what about those American minds that don't? To these minds, the two words "mean the exact same thing and yield the exactly the same result" (Luntz). All of the tension that the words bring are a result of "many reasons unrelated to [the] specific issue" (Luntz). A phrase that is "too violent" for kids may be more influential on certain kids more than others, so changing the language to cater to those who are more influenced yields some benefits, but also hurts those are aren't as influenced because no two words have the exact same meaning and ever so changes the true meaning of these phrases. He also describes that the concern with the word has increased since 9/11, like the word itself was responsible for the tragic event instead of the few specific foreigners that were. This is the major problem with politically correct language as changing the language in which an event is described may ease the conscious of certain people, the real problem is still at large - calling the underdeveloped the developing doesn't change the fact that the country is struggling. Changing the terms, in turn, changes how people perceive the event, which satisfies the goal of political correctness but brings on the problem of accuracy. It's like lying to save someone's feelings, but in the long run hurts more than telling the truth.

Waste

Waste. So much of it. We live in a world where we produce so much more waste than we know what to do with it, seeing how landfills are essentially giant plots of land to fill our million pounds of trash - we are wasting land to dispose our other waste, while wasting time overall. But for what purpose? I don't think there is one, which seems to be more worrying than if there was. At least having a purpose allows for room for correction - how can you correct something if you do not even know what to correct? Or why to correct it? "The largest farms don't produce food at all, they grow feed" (Williams). Why is so much more food grown than needed? The root lies in capitalism, where in their eyes, the more the merrier. It's to the point where the excessiveness is hurting themselves, yet they still continue to mindlessly produce. It seems like all they care about is "saving the whales, [and] screwing the fish" (Williams). There's no clear cut answer to these problems, but all we can do is be more aware of the problems at hand and avoiding the worst outcome - not doing anything at all.

Marked

Being marked or unmarked is essentially just a big stereotype, which forms in any sort of environment where patterns arise. For example, if a girl consistently wears formal/spiffy clothing, such as dresses and high heels, she is marked as a girl who wears formal clothes, but is also unmarked in the sense that she never changes her style - being unmarked is to be the "norm". If she were to suddenly change her style to a very casual one, such as jeans and a T-shirt, she becomes more marked than she was before, all because she broke her traditional style. To anyone who is observant of everyone else's style, everyone is marked in some way - "he always wears sweatpants," "she stopped wearing makeup all of a sudden," "he never has a clean shirt." But to others who are not as observant of other styles or simply just doesn't care, everyone is unmarked. Tannen states "[men's] shoes are dark, closed, comfortable, and flat. In short, unmarked." This is true to a certain extent, but what if a guy wore sandals all the time and then switched to these said shoes? He would become more marked, considering that he is already marked as "that guy who wears sandals all the time."