In a valiant effort to see who can descend furthest into educated imbecility, Brandeis University in Massachusetts created an “Oppressive Language List” to compel students to avoid uttering certain words that might oppress their fellow students. The list includes a host of words that it has deemed oppressive.
The Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center (PARC) is the entity that wasted time and money coming up with this new and creative way to stifle speech. On its website, it said: “PARC recognizes that language is a powerful tool used to perpetrate and perpetuate oppression.”
“As a community, we strive to remove oppressive language from our everyday use,” it added.
PARC was kind enough to break examples of “oppressive language” down into five categories which include: “Violent Language,” “Identity-Based Language,” “Language That Doesn’t Say What We Mean,” “Culturally Appropriate Language,” and “Person-First Alternatives.”
Under “Violent Language,” students are encouraged not to use the phrase “killing it” when describing how another person did a good job. Why? Because “if someone is doing well, there are other ways to say so that don’t equate it to murder.”
But how do you know they aren’t “killing it” in self-defense?
In the same category, PARC suggests using the term “general rule” instead of “rule of thumb,” because “this expression allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.”
Looks like someone has seen the movie “Boondock Saints,” a few too many times.
Under “Identity-Based Language,” PARC urges students to refrain from using terms such as “crazy, “lame,” or “wild” because “ableist language can contribute to stigmas about and trivializes the experiences of people living mental health conditions.”
They also take issue with the term “people of color,” which, surprisingly, is spot on. RedState’s Kira Davis has written on this matter and explained the issue perfectly.
Under “Language That Doesn’t Say What We Mean,” PARC pushes students to stop using terms like “victim” or “survivor” because “these labels can make a person feel reduced to an experience. Person-first language is great here, unless the person identifies with either word. If they do, honor them by using that word!”
In the “Culturally Appropriative Language” category, the agency exhorts students to stop using terms like “spirit animal” because “in some cultural and spiritual traditions, spirit animals refer to an animal spirit that helps guide and/or protect a person through a journey; equating this with an animal you like strips the term of its significance.”
Last, but most certainly not least, the “Person-First Language” section tells students that they should not use words like “addict” or “mentally ill.” Instead, they should use terms like “person with a substance use disorder” or “person living with a mental health condition” respectively.
PARC also invited students to submit their own examples because apparently, they want the entire university to be in on this insanity initiative that could have only been cooked up by people living with mental health conditions.