Språkpoliserna will do no good but much harm,

In my article, I wrote about the aggressive språkpoliser coming up with more and more prohibitions and requirements. The response has been tremendous. The comment field can accommodate over 345 posts of which the vast majority of confirms my theory: språkförmynderiet has gone on for too long.

for dagens nyheter, has published several story lines. With regard to a correction of SAOL's team, I hope that SAOL is right and I am wrong. However, the existence of ordlobbying, that's what we agreed on. They are quite similar; they require a more or less balanced, tend to be less up-to ordaktivisternas defense.

I started my article with one important sentence: ”Decency demands that we speak respectfully to our fellow human beings”. This is matter of course to develop the vocabulary of critics of several hundred words. Why is that?

Now, do I get the command you want to hint at, or sometimes even say outright, that I am a white, heterosexual man” who does not understand me and respect.

Yes, I wrote that språkpolisen at the disposal of the sanctions: ”to label someone as violent, sexist, homophobic, misogyn, employment and poverty”. I am now in my judgment; I would like to suggest, or sometimes even say outright, that I am a white, heterosexual man” who does not understand me and respect. By the way, they seem to think that I would probably have to have a weird agenda, and, deep down, would like to encourage the prejudices, vulgarity, and profanity. Those who have read my text with the oförvillade eyes, know that these attacks are completely baseless. They are racist sexist, and heterofoba.

and then it will do no good but much harm. I was speaking of freedom and against paternalism. The one who knows is often misunderstood.

Ken Gammelgård, secretary, DHR, has (as I have in my article), noted that most people prefer the polite, in front of the offensive language. Yes, that is precisely why we should rely on the good will of others, and not the mastery of them, by the imposition of a different kind. The unions like to change the words all they want, but they should not dictate to the other. This is proven to be counter-productive, and those should, instead, devote their time to their members. Don Kulick argues, in its reply, that there is some room for improvement.

another unsubstantiated hope that these words will cause us to think about, reflect upon, and ripen, to the noble attainments. So, the words appear in the dialogue, but it's all about straight orders from the top down, then, in obedience to, or rebellion. No one to reflect on.

No one in this debate has been, in any case, right here, nailed to the science of words and the power of the idea, but it does show time and time again, that they should believe in their words, in all cases, though, in any way, are the magic forces at work. What they don't. This is the språkaktivistens livslögn. Another ill-founded hope that these words will cause us to think about, reflect upon, and ripen, to the noble attainments. So, the words appear in the dialogue, but it's all about straight orders from the top down, then, in obedience to, or rebellion. No one to reflect on.

" a savanna, and the advance has been driven by the conversations in the small groups, in which the old words are transmitted, that is to be created, in which all of the words from slipping into the importance and measurement, and in which the language is fine-tuned to the existing information and adapt to new ones. Språkingenjörer need the () ' s are not. These fantasiljoner call, showing the kind of creativity that should be språkaktivisterna to blush.

It is easy to see that the words created in this spontaneous manner (that is to say, the vast majority of words) is more agile, more intelligent, and funktionellare than the pitiful attempts that have been made by the committee. So, to rely more on the language spontanutveckling than that of the activists!

Trust the result of this spontanutveckling than that of the activists! These show a disregard for the ordinary people outside of their own institutions. They do not believe that the swedes can speak English.

This shows a contempt for the ordinary people outside of their own institutions. They do not believe that the swedes are able to speak English, or that they are fantasiljonerna they can work, but aktivisthjälp. They think that a bit of linguistic liberty would be open to a game, out of ignorance, prejudice and vulgarity. Fortunately, the world is much more complicated than that. There is more to understanding than that of a wider vision, more compassion than cynicism, and with more openness than secrecy. We need to find Ken Gammelgård at his word and rely on the good will of others.

and to say, ”You are wrong, and your wrong.” However, there is an answer.

at Least one or two of the lines, after all, is more about ideology than about the language. Has Ericssonlaget suffering from normkritikers focus of the scientific and Språkrådslaget is controlled by the socialkonstruktivisters konstruktionsdrift. It is one of the teams tend to overuse ”ideology,” and the other ”powers”. Clearly, they want to control and regulate than to listen and analyze. Ideologies are not to be confused with the fantasiljonerna the calls are just calls, not the master-of-täppanlek.

the Language is not in the world. The fantasiljonerna the discussions are based on the relaxed, spontaneous speech, and this is where the language of the hands, and not in the meeting room.

Well, what are the conditions?

in the DN Debate the comment field, and my mailbox indicates that a great many feel mästrade. I've never had such a response at this time.

(with the exception of point 2, of course).

Why should the Words appear in order to the gentle of the activists 'attacks, not to be blunt, nodding' yes ' to paternalism, and the answer of a good day of the life of my contribution to the debate.