No, not a computer world, but a politically correct one. More and more we find ourselves always aiming to do the right thing and say the right thing, and many time it isn't because we intend to be good or virtuous, but rather it's because we don't want to offend someone by doing otherwise.

Our social etiquette has shifted to concentrate on what is politically correct and what isn't. It's not longer appropriate to say "policeman" or "fireman" because women are able to work in these occupations too, so we switch to "police officer" or "fire fighter". As well, it's not acceptable to say someone is the "worst" at something - rather they are "least best".

I can see why we would switch words like policeman to police officer, just to be fair to both genders, but a lot of terms seem to be over the top and unneccessary. It coule be just to save from being to harsh, like calling someone vertically challenged rather than fat.

Euphemisms are a part of our daily lives, so much that we seldom recognize them. Some are easier to recognize than others. “Administrative assistant” is a euphemism most recognize as really meaning “secretary.” Although “administrative assistant” sounds more prestigious than “secretary,” the job isn’t any more glorious, and a fancy title seldom means more pay. A euphemism is “a way of describing an offensive thing by an inoffensive expression,” or as “the act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive.”

The problem I have with the usage of some euphemisms is that they are often used in an effort to be politically correct. Don’t confuse my dislike of euphemistic language with an overall dislike of political correctness, but “politically correct” could be seen as a euphemism for politeness and sensitivity.

But in euphemisms, I think the effort at sensitivity goes a bit too far.

The problem I have with some euphemisms is that they assume the replaced word to be “harsh, blunt or offensive.” For example, I know somoene who is paraplegic and has been referred to as “differently-abled,” or “handicapable.” She hate these words.

She wonders why people think she'd be offended if someone had referred to me as “paralyzed,” “disabled,” or “handicapped”? These are all the truth, and to me, none seem harsh, blunt or offensive. The inability to use one’s legs is a “handicap.” We also both agree that she is certainly not “differently-abled.” (until, of course, she perfects her so-called telekinetic abilities...that'll be the day Olivia). The only people this euphemism actually applies to are Stephen Hawking and the guy the movie “Rainman” was based on. They certainly are “differently-abled.” But beyond Dr. Hawking and a savant, this term applied far too often.

The use of euphemisms is not only limited to political correctness, but extends to all sectors of our society.
Before World War II, the U.S. “Department of Defense” was known as the “War Department.” “Department of Defense” sounds far less hostile and gives the impression our military will only be used for defensive purposes.

Maybe they should change the name back.

The government likes to use euphemisms to bolster support for certain programs or strategies. Some of our missiles are called “Peacekeeper” and “Patriot” which are both ironic because anything named “Peacekeeper” should hardly be an instrument of war, and the “Patriot” missiles cannot always distinguish between incoming missiles and American planes.

The substitution of a euphemism for a more “harsh” term can sometimes lessen the impact of the term to the point that it loses its intended effect on the reader.
In World War I, soldiers were “shell shocked” by their experiences in battle. By WWII, the same condition became “battle fatigue,” and eventually evolved into “post-traumatic stress disorder” during the Vietnam era.
It seems obvious to me that “shell shock” gets much closer to the heart of the issue than does “post-traumatic stress disorder." As George Carlin said, “Maybe if the term had stayed ‘shell shock’ more of the Vietnam soldiers would’ve gotten the help they needed.”

An examination of euphemisms Americans use can give a fairly accurate portrayal of where our values lie. We are a society that values youth and thus says a person is “moving on in years” or “getting up there,” as opposed to saying the dreadful “O” word.

People in this country don’t get fired, they get “a pink slip” or are "let go". We don’t have unemployed people, we have “displaced workers.” Like either of these euphemisms is going to make you forget you no longer have an income.

Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about the effectiveness of euphemistic language, one element remains true: these words are used as social gloss – words and phrases we use in order to either not address an issue, or pretend there was never an issue to begin with.

I think part of the value of free speech is the ability to be direct in that speech, and not have to fill it with superfluous language.

But then again, when speech is free, words can be cheap, and who am I to tell you how to spend them?