Language Control is Thought Control

If the impressions for an idea exist, yet the words do not, that does not make the idea non-existent, simply unrefined and unfit for exposition and experimentation.  That is to say, it is unfit for communication to another human being without likely causing confusion or anger as they misinterpret your attempts to explain a concept you do not even know for yourself. Yet it may still exist. 

                The elimination of a word or words, or to divorce a known word from its true meaning through subtle changes in its definition may seem innocuous, after all, words come and go, language is fluid and constantly evolving. Yet, when the opponents of a concept, those who would propose its antithesis, are the ones permitted to dictate the definition of its refined form as a word, you begin to lose the concept as an active agent in human interaction. 

                One human being may have for himself an impression, a thought which does not fit into any of the existing linguistic frameworks, and so the idea is contained, it is impotent. It may exist, but it lacks the limbs to stir itself, it is a cripple. Now what if there was a word for this hypothetical man's impression? But what if those who reign over the means of propagation, dictionaries and academia (the intellectual uses of language) and the media (colloquial uses of language) are opponents of the impression? Then you will see constant conflation of that word with things it does not, or did not in the past, represent. You will see the language constantly being redefined always to marginalize those words which emerge to represent our impressions. 

                Today this process of marginalization of language is referred to as Political Correctness. This is a concept that you will often hear derided and made fun of in private settings, or even in public ones where the concept is unattached to a specific action and thus free of any of its socially toxic specificities. The concept of PC is one which takes advantage of the panopticon concept. The idea was originally developed as an institutional building designed by English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham. Or more plainly put, it was designed as a prison.

                The physical layout of the panopticon prison was designed to take advantage of humanities social tendencies for the sake of control. The prison's physical layout was a large circle with a single guard tower in the middle of the circle. Cells were then arranged around the interior of the circle, meaning that there was never an opportunity not to be seen either by the guards, or your peers. Thus behaviors were modified, not through coercive means (which can result in conflict), nor through classical conditioning (which has to it an involuntary and reflexive component), nor even pure operant conditioning (where behavior is modified through an active consequence) but through an insidious expectation of consequence by those equally hesitant about consequence. 

                By designing society, by marginalizing words, they are ensuring that specific concepts will never be successfully articulated. And why? Because the architects of your prison, the engineers of Political Correctness have cause to fear your ideas. An idea which is truly foolish, is truly wrong, is no threat to the truth. It is a capering jester which may mesmerize the eye and capture the heart, but will never earn respect or honor. You only fear that which is a threat, and in the realm of intellectual debate, the only threat to an idea which claims truth, is an idea which has in fact greater truth.