In "Consider the Lobster," author David Foster Wallace notes that food and food names seem to relate to how much humans "identify" with the food they eat. Language, as Wallace shows, has a great deal to do with perception. He writes, "Try to imagine a Nebraska Beef Festival at which part of the festivities is watching trucks pull and the live cattle get driver down the ramp and slaughtered right there on the World's Largest Killing Floor ..." (Wallace 62). Language like "slaughtered" as a huge deal to do with perception and how we view things in life. We do not view boiling a lobster alive as a type of "slaughter," but it is, and as Wallace notes, we "avoid thinking about the whole unpleasant thing" (Wallace 62). We put many of these uncomfortable ideas out of our heads, or create alternative languages to make sure we do not remember the real meaning or action of words. Language helps us ignore these unpleasant facts, such as "preparing" lobster, rather than killing it in our own kitchens.
             There are many other examples of language that performs a role in our everyday lives. For those who want to ignore the unpleasant fact of child sexual abuse, there are child "sex offenders" instead. For those who want to ignore the implications of putting a condemned man to death, there are "lethal injections" instead of medical shots that kill. There are many examples of language like this that indicate we understand what is happening, but want to ignore it. Wallace writes, "The truth is that if you, the Festival attendee, permit yourself to think that lobsters can suffer and would rather not, the MFL can begin to take on aspects of something like a Roman circus..." (Wallace 64). That is why we develop alternate language to describe things we do not want to acknowledge. Very few people could deal with eating Bambi, but they have no problem with venison. Others could never eat bunny, but have no problem with rabbit or hare. It is all ...