system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is right - language does have a large influence on thought

I've read things like "Russian doesn't differentiate between light blue or dark blue" or something similar and also that people are more likely to blame someone in English due to the way its set up, i.e. "John broke the plate" rather than another language which would say "The plate was broken".

This theory is probably the basis of political correctness, which can change people's opinions based on phrasing, "are you gonna murder your own unborn child you monster" vs "termination of pregnancy" and also in the army, 'collateral damage' rather than 'exploding innocents into hamburger'

Of course people can still see blue and thoughts exist without language in 'mentalese' as Pinker calls it. For example on LPT I saw something about the word 'sonder' that was made up to express the idea that everyone you see has a full and complicated life just like you, having the word allows you to think of this idea more, although of course you probably had this thought before but just couldn't express it.

Language has also helped in the way minorities are perceived, for example, one thing I noticed was the increased popularity of the Paralympics. Perhaps this is due to increased advertising and coverage, but also the positive terms used for athletes with a disability like 'superhumans' has helped IMO.

Of course one concession I will make is that whenever a word is changed to be more politically correct, that word will then become pejorative and have to be changed to a new word if people use it pejoratively. This does not stop there being some influence that words place on our thought however.
gpt
It sounds like you misunderstand the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to some extent. 

First, it's important to know whether you're talking about the strong or weak form of the hypothesis. To quote Wikipedia,

> The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

Also, most of the examples you're using are unrelated to the Sapir-Whorf hypothetisis.

> This theory is probably the basis of political correctness, which can change people's opinions based on phrasing, "are you gonna murder your own unborn child you monster" vs "termination of pregnancy" and also in the army, 'collateral damage' rather than 'exploding innocents into hamburger'

Those are intentional wording choices rather than products of the rules or structure of language. Same with your paralympics example.


Also, just as a side point in case you were wondering, Russian has two separate words for light and dark blue.