diff --git a/README.org b/README.org
index c036991..4f4a447 100644
--- a/README.org
+++ b/README.org
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ not specified:
    ("Identity verification" is the same as "authentication", but since
    "authentication" sounds confusingly too similar to "authorization",
    we are not generally using that term in this document.)
-   Identify verification is important to verify "did this entity
+   Identity verification is important to verify "did this entity
    really say this thing".[fn:did-you-say-it]
    However, the community has mostly converged on using [[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-11][HTTP Signatures]]
    to sign requests when delivering posts to other users.
@@ -262,11 +262,11 @@ to listen to them, say that this is censorship.
 Except that freedom of speech merely means that you have the freedom
 to /exercise/ your speech, somewhere.
 It does not mean that everyone has to listen to you.
-You also have the right to call someone an asshole, or stop listening
+You also have the right to call someone a jerk, or stop listening
 to them.
 There is no requirement to read every spam that crosses your email
-inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there a requirement to listen to
-someone who is being an asshole.
+inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there a requirement to
+listen to someone who is being a jerk.
 The freedom to filter is the complement to freedom of speech.
 This applies to both individuals and to communities.
 
@@ -278,14 +278,14 @@ they don't like.
 This is easily demonstrated; see how many people on the internet are
 willing to threaten women and minorities who exercise the smallest
 amount of autonomy, yet the moment that someone calls them out on
-their /own/ bullshit, they cry censorship.
+their /own/ garbage, they cry censorship.
 Don't confuse an argument for "freeze peach" for an argument for
 "free speech".
 
 Still, what can we do?
-Perhaps we cannot prevent assholes from joining the wider social
-network... but maybe we can develop a system where we don't have to
-hear them.
+Perhaps we cannot prevent jerks and bigots from joining the wider
+social network... but maybe we can develop a system where we don't
+have to hear them.
 
 ** Did we borrow the wrong assumptions?
 
@@ -718,8 +718,8 @@ or both stamps.
 She might even decide to hand him the authority to send messages to
 her in the future, for free.
 
-But say Bob is a spammer and is sending a Viagra ad; Alice can keep
-the stamps.
+But say Bob is a spammer and is sending advertisement for illicit
+pharmaceuticals; Alice can keep the stamps.
 Now Bob has to "pay" Alice to be spammed (and depending on how we
 decide to implement it, Alice might be able to keep this payment).
 There is always a cost to unwanted messages, but in our current
@@ -1376,7 +1376,7 @@ Lem really isn't sure, but insists that /he/ is not the one that did
 it.
 
 Alice trusts Lem enough as a person (but not as a person who
-practices good security hygeine), and distrusts Mallet enough, that
+practices good security hygiene), and distrusts Mallet enough, that
 she finds this story plausible.
 Still she considers with satisfaction that placing the blame "on the
 capability she gave to Lem", whether or not it was Lem that did it,