I just reread considerations for obtaining a stronger position in social discourse, which amounted to the fact that we all terms besatzt entspechend unilaterally by the mainstream, twisted, or taboo, should avoid to offer so no surface.
This is of course naive beyond measure. How am I supposed to talk for example of Europe without saying Europe, as Monsanto or Goldman Sachs or the Bilderbergers or 9.11 without calling a spade a spade?
How do I express myself critical of Islam without saying Islam?
As I say Rheinwiesenlager without saying it?
Of course, fell to me because in all cases something a. I can from the western end of the Eurasian - speak continent, well, of the countries north of the Mediterranean - damn. Then, not by the company with the GM maize, that bank which owns the majority of politicians, the annual meeting of influential personalities who did not exist since the fifties until recently, that Drillingsturmzerstieben, the religion of nichtmosaischen (the word "Jewish" to need) Non-pork eaters, the post-war soldiers leisure.
Something may well sometimes make sense, especially in a satire, but otherwise leads nowhere. One may possibly make even more suspicious. Or ridiculous.
That the struggle for some terms, many are tired, that approach understandable, therefore, does not change the fact that he continues to lead. And, outside of satire, by clearly understandable, appropriate use.
This has, because of the countless pitfalls and ropes that are waiting everywhere, of course, quite to do with filigree Applied Linguistics. Since it is a paid nothing in fact.
Let's take the term racism. The suffers in many places already in mind that, for example, rejection of Islam is called a racist, a mostly unwidersprochenes Absurdum. Then, my many (many places it is almost a dogma) that there is only evil racists, but no races. These assholes are formed the only one. These white assholes. Were the coffee-brown to mix (Coudenhove- Calergi et al.) So that finally stops. (more ...)