In The hidden dangers of euphemisms by Mark Peters, Mark explains and shows examples of euphemisms especially for the corporate world. He displays that there are euphemisms for just about anything and he explains, “The list of euphemisms for firing people is long and could fill a book”. The author of the article doesn’t seem to like the excess use of euphemisms and he understands that they can be useful in sensitive situations like when a family member dies. Mark focuses more toward the negatives of euphemisms and how they make us more like robots in a sense. I agree with the authors view that euphemism can be annoying and they can be used to smokescreen false or sensitive statements. I believe that euphemisms have made people less trustworthy. After reading the article I shared the same ideas about euphemisms and I agree with the authors view on them. Euphemisms have been a way to shell a word and make it less blunt and straightforward. Like the comedian, George Carlin talked about mentioned in the article about PTSD. George Carlin says, “shellshock devolved into battle fatigue, then operational exhaustion, before finally morphing into the mouthful post-traumatic stress disorder”. Shellshock was a pretty good term and it was nice and short but after each war, the term changed and by the end of the Vietnam war, the term began post-traumatic stress disorder which is 8 syllables compared to the 2 syllables for shellshock. This term was simple and it doesn’t make sense to me to change the term. I believe that corporations and politicians use euphuisms the most and they get creative when they talk about certain topics. The author writes about a corporation’s creative ways for firing people. The author writes, “The list of euphemisms for firing people is long and could fill a book”. Companies want to avoid the word fire because it gets bad publicity so they use words like de-select, dehire, and a mouthful career change opportunity. I hate euphemisms like these because it can mislead people the wrong way and I see it as a cop-out for companies too scared to use the word fire. I believe that using long words or phrases that could be easily understood with the original word and this can make a company look less human and it almost dehumanizes the company. The author also talks about saving euphemisms in situations that will do good and we will never really get rid of them. Mark writes, “If a person’s spouse died, saying they passed away is a much kinder choice than being slangy or literal.” I agree with the author about sensitive situations and it is helpful to the person’s feelings and it helps them stay positive and avoid offending the other person. This article has some power to it in my opinion. It mainly leans toward the negatives about euphemisms and it is a biased article but it shows how much euphemisms are used and how the term has changed over the years. Like shell shock transformed into post-traumatic stress disorder making the word to describe traumatized soldiers a lengthy term. Overall I believe most of what Mark talks about is right and I agree with saving euphemisms for situations that it will do good in.