Many people believe that being political correct is the right way to go. Political correctness is the thought of language and environment that does not offend anyone. That some words are better to use than others. Many argue that words hold great power, which I agree with, however, freedom of speech is and will always be extremely important for everyone in society.
In the article ”Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean ’migrants’”, Al Jazeera English states that they will be using the term ”refugee” instead of ”migrant”. This is because that the words has different meanings. A refugee is someone who is forced to flee to another part of the world while a migrant is someone who choose to move somewhere. In the article they argue that some people will assume that the refugees are ”economic migrants”. Therefore they change the language they use. Although I do agree that it is problematic that people believe that all refugees are economic migrants, changing the word used is not the right way to go. You can not assume people will interprit …show more content…
There is no honour in murder”, Dexter Dias and Charlotte Proudman argue that people should not be using the term ”honour killing” because it has nothing to do with honour. According to the UN population fund, 5000 fall victim of honour killings anually. Even though something has to be done about honour killings, changing the word used to describe it will not change much. In my experience, the meaning of the term honour killing has always been very straight forward. It is obvious that there is no honour in honour killings as the article states. Once again it is argued that a word should be changed because people might assume that it means something else. The belief that people will not understand the true meaning of a word and therefore having to change it is quite cynical. For communication to function you have to assume that people have the same definition for the same
In the article ”Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean ’migrants’”, Al Jazeera English states that they will be using the term ”refugee” instead of ”migrant”. This is because that the words has different meanings. A refugee is someone who is forced to flee to another part of the world while a migrant is someone who choose to move somewhere. In the article they argue that some people will assume that the refugees are ”economic migrants”. Therefore they change the language they use. Although I do agree that it is problematic that people believe that all refugees are economic migrants, changing the word used is not the right way to go. You can not assume people will interprit …show more content…
There is no honour in murder”, Dexter Dias and Charlotte Proudman argue that people should not be using the term ”honour killing” because it has nothing to do with honour. According to the UN population fund, 5000 fall victim of honour killings anually. Even though something has to be done about honour killings, changing the word used to describe it will not change much. In my experience, the meaning of the term honour killing has always been very straight forward. It is obvious that there is no honour in honour killings as the article states. Once again it is argued that a word should be changed because people might assume that it means something else. The belief that people will not understand the true meaning of a word and therefore having to change it is quite cynical. For communication to function you have to assume that people have the same definition for the same