Trying to remove sexism, racism, and violence in language is not effective. You are more prone to turn a blind-eye to the issue by coining childish euphemisms in an attempt to remove it from the English language.
Take violence for example. There are varying levels of violence and each level has a word associated with it. A small bruise to a dismembered arm. Imagine trying to describe war wounds without using any violence in your description. It's improbable, it's fiction, it cannot happen. If you were to remove violence from the English language, a paper cut would suddenly be just as violent as a leg lost to a bomb.
Much like Kakutani points out about those who want "political correctness", they "seem to think that simple suppression of a word or concept will magically make the problem disappear." Take rape for example. There isn't a substitution for how to describe rape, because you can't. It is as violent as any word can get, and trying to remove it from our language will not make it disappear. Rape will still happen whether these "gung-ho advocates of politically correct language"(Kakutani,765) believe it or not.
See violence expresses emotions in our language. These varying levels express how deeply we feel about a certain topic, Whether it be extremely polite or full of swear words, we understand one another based upon how violent our tone is. It follows the rule that Pinker made for every sentences' purpose, to "convey a message and continue to negotiate that relationship."(Pinker 746) By employing varying levels of violence into our speech, we give off a tone that establishes certain relationships. A phrase you might say to your bestfriend might change drastically when spoken to an adult. However, if you were to take violence completely out of the phrase it might lose its meaning entirely. Take the phrase "Blown out of the water" (North York Womens Teachers' Association,766) The original phrase is meant to describe an overwhelming win for one team, and an ultimate loss for the other. It contains violent language such as "blown" to exaggerate on this description. If you were to change the word "blown" into something less violent, the phrase would lose its impact and wouldn't be the same.
Name calling fits Pinker's claim too. "A device to make us form a judgement without examining the evidence upon which it should be based." (Institute for Propaganda Analysis) When you call someone a certain name, you correlate a set of emotions to them. If someone was described as arrogant, you don't need to personally know them to know who they are. Violent descriptions follow this correlation. If you know that your friend described someone as creepy or abusive, you are automatically inclined to stay away from them. It sends off an alert that you shouldn't interact with them. If all violent language was removed, how would we know how dangerous someone could potentially be?
It is impossible to remove violence from our language because our language revolves around violence. We associate every situation to a set of words that develop a certain level of threat in our minds. Overtime the importance of violence has accumulated in our language and has found itself has a building block to our speech.