The Leftist Linguistic Overseers and the New Unabridged Dictionary

I think the Leftist Linguistic Overseers are doing quite a worthwhile thing in their limitations on the language. I wish they would continue on. Of course, 'monkey' is the present culprit. But I can see them getting even more ambitious in the censoring of other linguistic transgressions: the color 'black' is an obvious one; and while we're at it, I can hear them say, "'color', 'pigmentation', 'skin' are words that could cause harm especially among those of us who are of the enlightened intelligentsia." But they really shouldn't stop with those. Time itself transgresses! Such events as when twilight ends and becomes 'night'. Isn't that an awful term? Perhaps we can come up with another, less injurious expression. One must have a hardened heart to not surely see that 'night' carries with it unfortunate connotations such as the absence of light. And while we're at it what of 'dark' and 'darkness' as well? And heaven help us with such offending phrases in the Bible as: "Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." Of course I'm nearly positive that this particular gospel (John) is no doubt taught as a very theologically insensitive book and displays the primitive patriarchal racism of this beloved disciple in so many of the more enlightened places of higher learning today. I mean if the Leftist Linguistic Overseers kept at it without any let up we could really have a stream-lined new unabridged dictionary that would be quite a bit thinner than most abridged ones that aren't as palatable to our taste. In conclusion, verboten would be any description of how a person looks or acts. Yes, anything that could be construed as having a meaning that may offend twenty-first century sensibilities must be deleted from the present lexicon. Such offenders of course will be catalogued as requiring reeducation and diversity training. Books that have any physical, emotional, mental, spiritual description in them that could have a possible offensive connotation in the eyes of our intellectually elite would and should be banned. So get ready. Get ready for the books to be banned. Well, not only banned but let's simply toss them to the fire. Better they be burned. And afterwards when you are called upon to describe what the burned books looked like you better, you just better not say they are 'charred'. You just better say something a little less pigmentally provoking unless you wish a reprimand and more training at the new sensitivity center for correct speaking.