The words we use daily are constantly evolving with every sentence we speak.

New words are created every year; many words die, and some even fall out of fashion then return to use.

Some words are deemed offensive despite their original use, and they often maintain that characterization for the rest of their lifetime.

As LSU students, we’re quite familiar with offensive language. Anyone who has been to an LSU football game is familiar with a certain phrase of words you wouldn’t say in front of mom. 

Rest assured, the language police would take that away from you if they could.

Puffin Books deemed the phraseology in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Matilda” too offensive for use with modern audiences, according to ABC news. They shuttered at words like “fat” and thought that “enormous” was better suited.  

Instances like this have become increasingly common. The language police are coming for offensive words in more places than one. Stanford University recently released a catalog of forbidden words to be struck down from their websites, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Among these words were many that might strike the average American as a bit odd. The redefinitions and rearrangements of some of them were quite comical. Among the examples of harmful language were “spaz, tone-deaf, American, Karen, stupid, thug, and user,” of which the catalog recommends the replacement words or phrases “clumsy, unenlightened, U.S. Citizen, demanding or entitled White women, boring or uncool, suspect or criminal, and client,” respectively, according to documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

There are hundreds more examples. Many of these words are barely within the bounds of offense and merely constitute descriptive language.

Descriptive language and words of offense have something in common: a relevance within particular time periods. A word like “Karen” is particular to our time period; it will likely not carry the same meaning to someone 100 years from now.

Many of the words expressed here also share such a close meaning, so the original thought is carried in much the same way.

This draws a question; how do we extract offense from our language? The only way to truly do so would be by extracting all words that could be construed as hurtful and fully disallow their usage.

This would leave us with no more words to speak.

This is ironically exemplified in Stanford’s lame and useless attempt to scrub the English language. Its own recommendations carry meaning that can be construed as negative; Stanford fails in its goals.

Another way to attempt at scrubbing language is to allow only positive language; even this has its problems. This is more akin to the scrubbing of the popular English children’s books mentioned in previously.

In “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” instead of saying “fat,” the word “enormous” is used to describe Augustus Gloop, according to the Evening Standard.

While the word enormous might be more androgynous and plainer in description, it still conveys a similar message. The language police fail to see that language evolves over time, and words gather connotative prowess with their usage, so the substitution of “enormous” has all but guaranteed that it will eventually take on the meaning that “fat” once had.

The language police deeply misunderstand the evolution of words. Those who wish to use words to express colorful thoughts, or even offensive thoughts, will always adapt to the constraints of their time.

The very beauty of old novels, poems, and newspaper clippings is that they paint the portrait of their time. With all their words, whether positive, negative or neutral, they convey a unique image to us.

Words express our symphony of thought. Language provides us with a roadway to travel the world of expression. Each word provides the fuel that propels our vehicles of meaning through space and time where there are unlimited routes to travel.

Sometimes this fuel will be tainted and may cause the vehicles of our meaning to break down; but, this is all a part of the journey. Without color and meaning to illustrate differences and construct frameworks unique to our time, all of humanity loses its meaning; all language becomes utilitarian. While that is one part of language, another is its expression of the good, the bad and the ugly.

The beauty of life is not in its sameness nor in its happiness. The beauty of life lies in its juxtaposition of happiness and sadness. It’s within each unique moment.

We can choose to arrive at different destinations, or even the same. Through whatever route we choose, we can explore life; each route is as unique and meaningful as the words and sentences that write the stories the word police seek to eliminate.

Brandon Poulter is a 27-year-old political science and psychology major from Baton Rouge.