Society And The Rest Of Us

I started this essay between six and seven years ago, but I never finished it. The time has come, even though the slant now may be different from what I originally intended. I've edited it to conform to my current philosophy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone repeats the same sentence several times. He is getting older and his children are tired of hearing him. What's to be done? Perhaps the affliction is pathological and requires a remedy.

A man goes around the room straightening every picture – some only a millimeter or two off his mark. He has obsessive-compulsive disorder. It clearly abnormal. Everyone agrees he needs to be treated.

A child looks out the window every time a teacher starts speaking. It must be attention-deficit disorder. Such a problem is clearly detrimental, and the proper medicines and counseling must be instituted to alter this behavior.

A woman talks incessantly, not leaving an opening for anyone else to talk, and apparently unaware of what anyone else has to say. Though irritating, it's normal and requires no professional intervention, although someone may say something.

No, this isn't a misogynistic or any other type of rant. My target, rather, is the way we set standards of what is normal and what isn't. I'm a little put out by the way we decide what falls outside the range of the acceptable, in speech and in behavior, and what we should – or is it what we can – tolerate. I'm concerned because I view our standards as being based on politics or some kind of imagined correctness and not on any objective criteria.

Let me give an example: A “pin-up” calendar in a men's locker room would be viewed as provocative and unacceptable, while lush wallpaper in a ladies' lounge, wallpaper that includes images of virile Greek gods, would not merit mention. How this attitude entered our society isn't clear, but there are many men, in addition to women, who agree with the view. Somewhere along the line society has conditioned us as to what's acceptable and what's not.

So our comfort is what counts, and the man with OCD needs treatment because it's bothersome to others – not necessarily to himself. And it's easier to diagnose a child as having ADD, and possibly put him on drugs, than to look for any other reason for his behavior. Perhaps the elderly individual who cannot remember what he said would benefit from therapy, but the problem is most striking to the listener, not to the one repeating himself – though he may be judged by the courts to be incapable of making decisions and forced to undergo therapy that others choose.

Most of the problems for which we have devised solutions derive from what society has taught us. And society's dictates vary from time to time. To the point that we no longer accept the Constitution of our country as it was written. Extensive interpretation is necessary. Free speech is nice unless it offends someone. And if it bothers someone we've designated as a member of an “oppressed” group it may constitute hate speech. “This is your punishment for deviating from the Bible. I pray that you are forgiven.” Though the speaker may sincerely wish for the benefit of the person he is addressing, said to a homosexual it constitutes deplorable hate speech. The concepts of free speech and freedom of religion, and religious views, are less important than the feelings of the listener. (Often it is a non-involved party whom it offends more than the one to whom it was directed. No one will find it offensive if somebody accuses you of being a gun supporter, though it may be accompanied) by more hate than the biblical remark.)

And words that were perfectly acceptable in the past are no longer to be used. Euphemisms must be substituted. A child who was once said to be retarded is now “special.” But if everyone knows what the euphemisms mean, they're no different from the words they replace. Except to the “sensitive” among us. Meanwhile other words, anatomical designations or expletives once forbidden in public discourse, are used freely and without disapproval.

There's no solution to the problem. Some people will insist that only the way they speak is acceptable, and those who disagree should be silenced. But, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Or, in the words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The freedom to express ourselves any way we want is paramount (although those who see their nation's flag burned, or who see Nazis protected by the government while marching through the streets may want their representatives to revisit the issue). And our behavior as well. Forcing us to obey the rules of the intolerant is contrary to any ideas of freedom. Making us fit into societal norms is tyranny.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I said then, and I still believe that what we say and what we do (as long as we're not physically harming others) is our own business and should be protected by society, not controlled by it. Limitations on free speech are only rarely justified, and such action should be taken only after careful consideration of the consequences. As for forced, or pressured, therapy, we went through the tragedy of eugenics early in the last century, and we should know by now that no one should be treated for any real or imagined disease unless he chooses to be.

The United States was founded with the intent of offering freedom. Destroying that freedom in order to soothe the majority must not be tolerated.






February 9, 2017

There's A Word For It

When we got the comic book home we devoured it. It had cost ten cents, a significant piece of change for us at the time, and we weren't going to miss a thing. It was good guys against bad – supergood versus superbad. There was no subtlety. Sure the girls read comic love stories, but they weren't very subtle either. And superheroes were mostly for the boys anyway. Archie and Jughead, Betty and Veronica, provided some of the laughs.

Sometimes we sat on the floor in the back of the candy store as we read them; sometimes we devoured them on the subway train. Our parents weren't thrilled by the idea, but we were reading. It wasn't all bad. Especially considering some of the other, less civilized, activities of youth about which they read in the newspapers. They urged us to do our homework before reading the comics, but they knew we'd read them sooner or later.

After all, they read the comics also. They were in the newspaper and could be better hidden – even when they were in public. But no adult would read a comic book on the subway. It was evidence of childish ignorance and fantasy.

It's different now. Now there are comic books for adults. We've made them acceptable and you now see people (usually women) reading them on the subway.

What accounts for this change in behavior? Well, it doesn't hurt that they're the size of pocket books and look less like the childrens' variety. Nor that they're a little less subtle and a little more “sensitive.” They also cost more which puts them in the adult range.

But the real reason for their newfound popularity is that they're no longer “comic books.” Sure they may look like them, but they're “graphic novels.” That's all it takes. Now it doesn't sound like something for kids. They're adult fare. It's just a commercial application of something we've been doing for years. We think that words govern the nature of matter – that words matter.

Well, they do. It's not far-fetched. Consider the Sapir-Whorf (or Whorf-Sapir – it depends on whom you read) Hypothesis. Their view was that if there's no word for a particular concept, you can't really think about it. So, they conclude, the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view. Perhaps you suffer from yokomeshi. You'll never know. Perhaps when you try to speak Japanese you get anxious. Still you'll never realize that you're not alone and there's a particular syndrome of stress induced by trying to speak a foreign language (and the Japanese have that particular word for it). So you just suffer through Spanish and Russian classes without knowing why you're nervous. Or, perhaps, you felt satisfaction, when your neighbor's prior success went down the tubes. It's actually Schadenfreude, an ailment from which we all suffer – or which we all enjoy. And the shades of meaning of unfamiliar concepts in unknown languages is one of the main causes of yokomeshi for translators, though they view our discomfort with Schadenfreude.

Words do mean something. But it may not be what we think. They're flexible. They change over time. So “nice,” which is derived from nescio, the Latin word for the idea of not knowing – ignorance – is now more positive. I suspect that at one time a “nice distinction” was one without a difference, but now it's one that makes an important point. Quite the opposite. Over the millennia, “nice” has gone from a pejorative to a word of praise and compliment.

That, however, is evolution. Revolution takes place as well. It may be the invention of new words and phrases that takes place with slang, but there may be more sinister intent. Thus Orwell, in 1984, introduced the use of “Newspeak,” which both limited the meanings of words and, sometimes, gave them connotations, opposite to what we understood them to be. Or, as with “blackwhite,” contradictory meanings depending on the circumstances.

Readers, though, understood Orwell's intent and the word usages. It was all part of a story. It was imaginary even if it was threatening. But we've gone further, by changing the meanings of words to rid our language of ideas we don't like – and it's not fiction. We use euphemisms to disguise ideas that may “offend” others. (Actually, most of the time we're the ones offended. Not those we claim to protect.) We no longer have “retarded” children. They're “special” now. For a while they were “slow learners,” but even that was too harsh. There was a time when some children were diagnosed with “minimal brain dysfunction,” MBD, but parents didn't want their offspring so labeled – partly because it reflected on the kids, and partly because it suggested that they may have passed on a defect to them. With a change in the label – though no change in the cause – the process not only became acceptable, but was accepted with joy as a justification for a variety of problems. Indeed, ADD, attention deficit disorder (or ADHD which often accompanies it, especially in boys), is in fashion and over-diagnosed, to the great benefit of the drug companies.

Having noted the scent of “hurtful” words, we now smell them everywhere, whether or not they are present. “Niggardly” is misunderstood to be derived from the “N word” (we shudder to go beyond the first letter – to spell out what we think) even though there is no relationship between them, and the idea of “trigger” words and “microaggressions” is limiting our right of free speech, especially on college campuses where the exchange of ideas should take precedence over “sensitivity” and the eager adoption of ignorance rather than learning.

Our efforts to “reach out and touch somebody” have all the subtlety of a comic book graphic novel. We're sensitive to the point of non-communication. Even our superheroes have matured. It's a laugh.

September 20, 2016

Words Fail Us

If you've been reading these essays, by now you know that I'm a hermit. I hate people and I hate small talk. Mostly people try to inflate themselves with their comments, and I'm not impressed because I'm so much better than they. (For the record, I'm condescending and arrogant. I'm opinionated. I'm a curmudgeon. Contrary to those in Paul's audience, I don't suffer fools gladly. I hate (small) people and small talk. The people are a waste of time and their views border on idiocy.

As for my bad points, I occasionally doubt myself, which doesn't make much sense because I'm never wrong. But we all have our weaknesses, and my most foolish is that I give others the benefit of the doubt when they don't deserve it. If they doubt me they warrant no benefit.)

I prefer solitude and silence. Well, music is OK. But, apart from news, I'm not much interested in what is said on the radio. And even the news broadcasts seem to be designed more to entertain rather than inform. I'm word weary. There doesn't seem to be any refuge from Man's inanity. As I said, I prefer silence. But, according to Jean Arp (1887-1948),

Soon silence will have passed into legend. Man has turned his back on silence. Day after day he invents machines and devices that increase noise and distract humanity from the essence of life, contemplation, meditation. Tooting, howling, screeching, booming, crashing, whistling, grinding, and trilling bolster his ego.

What's worse, is that the situation is deteriorating day by day. Arp wrote in the first half of the last century, and since then the technology has gotten more sophisticated and the language more corrupted. I won't waste my time discussing the infernal electronic gadgets with which we communicate, but I'll limit my remarks to the content – the “corrupted” language. I'm not suggesting that languages don't change with time. They all do. It's to be expected. A few years from now English will be different. And in the past it was different. The English of Chaucer is completely foreign as far as I'm concerned, and Shakespeare is difficult for me when I don't have any commentary to help me. But they're not the problem.

What concerns me more is the way we now use our native tongue. Like, I mean, whatever. Even fillers like “like” have always been an acceptable part of the language, and these, too, are of no great concern (aside from sounding stupid to me). Similarly, words borrowed from other languages – whether they represent specific items like “chutney,” or concepts like “Schadenfreude” – have been adopted and have strengthened English.

More horrifying for me – and what makes me glad that I talk to so few people – is the decision to make our language more and more a political tool. It's not something new. We have long recognized not only that the pen is mightier than the sword, but that the basis of this idea is that words are powerful. Too many among us feel we need protection from some of them.

But modern society has gone too far. We've decided that our first responsibility is to spare the feelings of others. On the assumption that whatever we find indelicate will spark the same feeling in others, we have substituted euphemisms for all “unpleasant” words and ideas. For example, a cretin (in the correct medical sense of the term) is “special,” “challenged:” a dwarf (also a useful medical concept) has “stature issues.” A person we used to call “queer” is now “gay” (although the LGBT population has no problem with the term as is illustrated by such groups as, for example, The Queer Film Society and The Association for Queer Anthropology), and if a movie like “The Gay Divorcee” were remade, the Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire roles would have to be changed significantly. Meanwhile the English language has lost a useful word and concept.

And Ginger Rogers would no longer be an actress. We consider it demeaning to have a feminine term for “actor,” although may languages are gender based. (By the way, “gender” is a linguistic term substituted for “sex” in our culture for a variety of reasons that I won't discuss here.) But nowadays we've tailored our language to egalitarian concepts. She doesn't exist anymore. (That's “she,” not she. We haven't eliminated women – just the pronoun.) And our new gender-free language sacrifices itself on the altar of egalitarian ideas. The singular pronoun for man is “they.” The singular pronoun for woman is “they.” We rebel at the idea of sexually classifying anyone. Male chauvinism must be expunged.

Indeed, we don't risk offending someone else in any way (such as saying “I see” in the presence of one who is blind visually impaired). If something is offensive to any individual we view it as an attack, whether sexual, racial, ethnic, or “whatever.” And that makes it hate speech, which is not politically correct (PC). It's considered by the PC police as offending or causing some disadvantage, or even discomfort, to someone or some group. It doesn't matter if the charge is true. If made, it takes precedence over the Constitution and any right of free speech. And even the accusation of such an offense is enough to tar the accused.

Another imagined crime is “microaggression” which is the interpretation of something that is said, by anyone, as an attack. Such a charge may not be justified by the words themselves or the interpretations of others, but if an individual believes he they is (awkward – in fact wrong – but I don't want to offend anyone) being attacked, everyone must accept that judgment. Paranoia can govern reality.

And there is the demand in too many places for “trigger warnings.” That's the equivalent in other circumstances of movie ratings (like G, PG, R, X, and others) but it's transferred to schools, libraries, and similar settings. Part of the first paragraph of an article in a recent issue of The Atlantic is illuminating:

(see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356)

Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

There is a belief among many that people should be warned against books or lectures or anything else that may cause them distress. They should be able to protect themselves from any unpleasant ideas, or concepts with which they disagree. That college students, who presumably are there to be exposed to new, and possibly uncomfortable, ideas should be protected from them, is idiotic, but that's the view of some.

What we're left with is an unrecognizable, emasculated (my word processor had no gender- neutral word for this) language, which restricts our thinking rather than expands it. We are losing the free speech of which we boast. And all in the name of sensitivity.

It doesn't make sense. I'm glad I'm a hermit.

Next episode: “Heresy” – Sticks without stones won't break very much.

Writing It Right

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in a homogeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own history and at the society in which Man lives. Both are changing. We know that the first man killed in the American Revolution was a Negro. We recognize the plight of illegal aliens and are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays a man will not pay for his girl's movie ticket – they'll go Dutch treat. We even let our wives pay for our meals when we go to the Chinese restaurant. We've done away with old and outdated practices which we viewed as evidences of our courteous culture. Prostitution, and other examples of sexual activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that we watch. In short, many of our practices have to be disabled and replaced with more tolerant ones. We will not be guinea pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be gypped.  We will not let ADHD, dyslexia, learning disability or other affliction hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of handicap to limit us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the Queen's English.

The thought is noble (if stilted), but the language leaves a lot to be desired. Problematic text is indicated. Talk is cheap, but cheap talk can be very costly. Better to speak softly and carry a big eraser.

But the computer is mightier than the pen, and Moosehead Industries has the answer – “EupheWriter.” It's a program designed to rid your text of any language that may be offensive to anyone.

Thus far there are five modules: GendeRighter, that makes any document gender neutered; ERace, that obliterates any race-based references; UnDocumented, to Americanize those whose citizenship may be in question; Expletives Deleted, which can change “R” language into “G;” and Kinder Gentler Words, which tones down the rhetoric against other targeted groups. The sensitive writer can use more than one module at a time, and in any word processor. An efficient way of accomplishing this goal is to purchase Soft Spoken, which includes them all. More modules are on the way. (The program itself was perfected by Anish Bandopadhyay, a Native American from Mumbai.)

The program functions in accord with your needs. You may choose to have it identify but not change questionable language (for example you may decide that “The Postman Always Rings Twice” should not be rendered “The Mail Postal Deliverer Always Rings Twice) or have such verbiage automatically corrected. Depending on your wishes, the corrections may be marked or unmarked. An example of an unmarked version of the text above might look like that which follows:

The world is changing. America even moreso. “Condemn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

We have learned that we do not live in an LGBTgeneous world; we have learned both by looking at our own past and at the society in which people live. Both are changing. We know that the first individual killed in the American Revolution was a person of color. Everyone recognizes the plight of those seeking to become American citizens and they are acting to correct the situation. We realize that nowadays an individual will not pay for their date's movie ticket – they'll each pay their own way. Many even let their partners pay for their meals when they go to a foreign restaurant. We've done away with time-tested and outdated practices which we considered as evidences of our egalitarian culture. Sexual work, and other examples of intimate activity, are portrayed on television and in the movies that the visually enabled watch. In vertically challenged, many of our practices have to be otherwise enabled and replaced with more sensitive ones. We will not be Italian pigs in society's experiment in bias. We won't be cheated.  We will not let different learning, different learning, different learning or other different learning hamper our progress, nor permit any kind of physical disadvantage to affect us. And linguistic change must come first, lest we be left with a dated variety of the gender dysphoric's English.

As you can see, while it's very good it's not yet quite perfect. What is? (By the way, have you ever read the product of voice-to-text technology?) Version 2.0, on which we're working right now, corrects some of the problems. But individualization will remain a feature.

After all, to each their own.

Next episode: “Emphasis" –  That'll larn ya.

 

Niggers Ain't So Bad

“A spade, a spic, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar.”

No. Wait. Scratch that. This isn't going to end well. Let me start again and find a different way to introduce my subject. Dysphemisms make for a bad start.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”ⁱ

That's better.

When we speak (or write) we communicate using words. And that, by itself, is a very complicated process. It involves not only a speaker and a listener, but the words themselves, and their meaning. And their meaning, or at least their planned meaning, derives from the intent of the speaker.

But their understood meaning is determined by the listener.

One way to explain the difference is by a lesson I learned when I was young. It consisted of the idea that when a non-Jew told a Jewish joke it was evidence of anti-semitism. That wasn't always the case, but whatever the intended meaning, it was understood by the (Jewish) listener to be a slur. While that understanding was usually correct, it was not invariably so. When the same joke was related by a Jew, however, it was funny.ⁱⁱ

An analogous truth relates to other words. Nowadays it's “the N word.” Whereas “nigger,” when used by a white, is understood to be evidence of prejudice, when used by a black in a conversation among blacks it may be neutral.ⁱⁱⁱ   "People of color" is acceptable, though never "colored people."

But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.

According to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "For us, Hamas is not a terror organization; it has never committed any act of terror." But that was not Ankara's first sleight-of-hand for an entity that vows to kill every last Jew on earth. President Erdogan has repeatedly described Hamas militants as "freedom fighters." ^iv

As the saying goes, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Words mean different things to different people. Or, perhaps, this illustrates a fourth meaning of a word – the one that a listener wants to convey as his understanding, even if it's not. Perhaps PM Davutoglu understands “terror” as most other people do, but he wishes to make a political statement. Notwithstanding our own President's avoidance of the terminology, Muslim extremism exists.^v

Discounting the political, however, where a conscious effort is made to use words to convince the listener of a “truth,” our words are generally an unconscious part of what we say and, for the most part, reflect unconscious ideas, often colored (that's probably a bad choice of words), rather than premeditated slights. I don't mean to suggest that everyone would prefer to be unbiased and sensitive to the feelings of others. That, sadly, is not the case. But more often, ill thought-out comments reflect a lack of thought rather than a plan. We live in an age of speed, of rapid response, of short attention spans. We do not take the time to craft everything carefully. We express our thoughts thoughtlessly – without refining or filtering them. We pay too little attention to meaning – to what is explicit and to what is implicit. And words hurt.^vi  But don't blame them. They're not really the problem. It's us. It's what we do to them.

The common response in the last few decades has been to accept the use of euphemisms and coded speech, and to avoid any word or idea that may be “painful” to the hearer.  In all likelihood, however, it is more painful to the advocate of euphemisms than to the object of his pity. The person who is blind knows he is blind, not “visually impaired.” And to call someone who cannot walk “differently abled,” rather than disabled, is most generously viewed as condescending. The problem is not with the words nor, usually, with the audience. Even when the speaker is “sensitive” and words are carefully chosen – even when politically correct language is used to spare their feelings – people usually understand what is said.^vii

And what is meant.^viii

The problem is not simply what people mean, for all-too-often people haven't even thought about what they mean. The problem is mean people. A limit on free discourse by the prohibition of “hate speech” will not solve the problem. It will only lead to even greater misunderstanding complicated by the restraint of all of our constitutional rights.

The problem with our society is our society. Our moral standards, as reflected in the news media, on television and in the movies, are less restrictive than in the past. We assume that all politicians are crooks and we don't trust our government. We can't anticipate any legislative answer.

And laws cannot end prejudice any more than Prohibition ended alcohol consumption. Perhaps the solution is education or time. More likely it is a problem that will never be solved except by our understanding of it, and our rejection of its practitioners. There will always be prejudice by those who feel inferior or put upon – people looking for an excuse for their own inadequacies. The only answer is the marginalization of those people by the rest of us, rather than efforts to limit their words. Their ideas may be abhorrent, but let them give themselves away.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 4” – Your turn.

I        Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Lewis Caroll, 1871

ii       Actually, it wasn't always funny. Some of the jokes were just plain bad. But they (usually) weren't anti-semitic.

iii      The Oxford English dictionary describes the term as “usually contemptuous,” “[e]xcept in Black English vernacular, where it remains common.”

iv       Excerpt from Hamas in Turkey: “Humanitarian Activity” by Burack Beckdil, Gatestone Institute, March 6, 2015. Cited in CIJR Isranet Daily Briefing, March 12, 2015.

v        Ignoring reality doesn't make it cease to exist.

vi       Actually that “truism” is false. Words don't hurt, people do. (This is not a Second Amendment argument about guns, but a different point which I'll make shortly.)

vii      Intent usually can be determined by content and context – not by vocabulary.

viii     If anything.

Je Suis An Islamophobe

There are lines between fashion, fawning, and fear. They're almost invisible, so you don't always know when you're crossing them. And there are times when they become irrelevant – it doesn't matter what the motive is, as long as the action is suitable. Now is one of those times.

Several decades ago – it's not clear when – it became fashionable to substitute euphemisms for the terminology that most people used. Whether it began with “gender neutrality” or in response to other perceived slights, political correctness became the answer selected to deal with the hurt feelings.ⁱ It was trendy to speak of postal workers instead of mailmen, Native Americans instead of (American) “Indians,” Afro-Americans rather than blacks – at least in this country, “special needs” as an alternative to mental or physical disability, and visually challenged rather than blind. And there were many other terms – some facetious – to describe individuals or groups that might object to existing terminology. Short people were “vertically challenged,” deaf people were “hearing impaired,” and French Fries became Freedom Fries.

It may have begun as a fad, with the “correct” people as examples for the rest of us, but it soon became virtually mandatory. The practice of using the new jargon became an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with everyone and those who didn't follow the trend were considered insensitive and prejudiced. It was, and is, especially prevalent in academiaⁱⁱ – in its practices and in its publications. They were catering to anyone who might be offended by something someone said or did.ⁱⁱⁱ Well, not “anyone,” but to certain groups. It was again a matter of fashion. For a long time the catering was to blacks, and one of its major manifestations was affirmative action. The tool has been applied to other groups as well – women, the poor, people from particular areas.^iv

Fear came into play when some of those groups took offense to something they viewed as a manifestation of prejudice or blasphemy and responded with violence. The tactic was often effective, and following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims viewed as blasphemous there was rioting and killing. Out of fear, many newspapers would not reproduce the cartoons to prevent the violence from affecting them. Yale University Press would not allow their inclusion in a book specifically about them.^v

Ever since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, anger at Muslims, and fear as well, have been increasing. So has our vigilance. But the response to increased security efforts – a response by non-Muslims as well as Muslims – is that they represent Islamophobia and should be discontinued.

The recent events in Paris and elsewhere in Europe, suggest that preoccupation with the Danish cartoons and those of a Paris magazine justify additional violence. And there have been numerous other terrorist incidents around the globe, including the United States. One common feature of such terrorism is that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims.^vi And the attacks do not have to be aimed at those seen as the attackers of Islam. They are aimed at terror, and unpredictability is a feature of terrorism. And they are justified by the belief that there are Islamophobes everywhere.

But what is Islamophobia and is it justified? A phobia is a fear. It is not opposition or hatred. As such, it may be justified. “Anti-” signifies such opposition, and often hated. Someone with acrophobia is afraid of heights. An antisemite hates Jews. So Islamophobia is not a manifestation of an anti-Muslim philosophy, but a fear of Muslims and of the religion that teaches its children and its adults that killing, and dying as martyrs, are worthy goals.

Is it irrational to be afraid of those who may be infected with this philosophy as we are afraid of those with an infections disease? That's all Islamophobia is. And to that degree Islam is winning. It is inspiring fear in many people who realize that a terrorist attack may come at any time, and if it does, it will most likely be caused by a Muslim. The fear may be irrational and the likelihood of harm may be overstated, but that fear is caused by those who are working to provoke this reaction.

I am not anti-Muslim. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims, whatever their personal concerns about the world around them, do not represent a threat. But a few do. And they are unpredictable. And I am afraid.

I       Actually the term was used much earlier, although it's original citation (see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. {2 Dall.} 419, 1793) gives it a straightforward meaning, speaking of conformance with existing political doctrine.

ii      Most recently, Duke University wanted to let Muslim students use the tower of the church on campus for heir call to prayer. After protests the decision was revoked.

iii      Those who opposed this form of censorship were considered reactionaries and right wing crazies for their criticism of this form of censorship.

iv       Affirmative action has a long history, apart from its use racially. For example, donors and alumni get preference when it comes to college admissions and veterans often get extra points in examinations for jobs.

v        See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=0 The report in the New York Times is interesting since the “Gray Lady” also kept the cartoons off its pages.

vi       Jews have been described as the world's canaries. What happens to them will ultimately be visited on everyone. (A recent citation – one of many that have appeared over the years – is http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Canary-in-the-coal-mine-387914) Muslims have long tried to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Now their terror attacks are affecting others.

Morons And Oxymorons

                                                                                                 

Every family has its story. Not its saga; not an endless history of many generations and many continents, but a story that makes those in the know smile. Actually, most families have several, but I recall a single one that seems more and more pertinent with the passage of time. Even if it doesn't seem especially interesting of amusing to an “outsider,” we got a kick out of it.

It concerns an aunt of mine in the 1930s or 1940s. As I remember the story, she was taking an examination for a license to teach in the New York City Public School system. Part of the ordeal involved speech and her speaking voice, and she was declaiming before her inquisitor. She was telling about something that had two parts and she described it as “half [rhyming with 'laugh'] and (remembering the situation in which she was at the time) hahf.”ⁱ Having rescued herself from the lapse, she passed the examination, got a license, and spent her working life as a teacher.

Perhaps I have some of the details wrong. It's been a long time and I only heard the story second-hand, but I enjoy it. It reminds me of a time when what you saidⁱⁱ and how you said itⁱⁱⁱ were considered important criteria for deciding on your personal qualities and upon your ability to transmit a message. So clear and understandable speech were among the requirements for teaching.

It was also a time when radio news broadcasters were expected to speak clearly and without any speech patterns that differed from the “national” sound that the networks preferred, and the broadcaster was familiar with his station's style and pronunciation manual. And reporting then was the act of an individual, not a team; it was unaccompanied by the badinage we now have to endure between the “anchor” and the other reporters. News came straight and without comment – using standard speech, not jargon. And it was a time when the host of a music program could pronounce the names of the composers correctly, and he knew more about the music he was playing than what was written on the album's program notes; when verbal precision was a basic, and an expected, quality for someone communicating with others.

It was a time of precision. It's not important now. Everything is entertainment. Language is of no consequence. At least not in terms of providing meaningful communication. We've learned to live with superficiality, solecism, unconcern, and distraction.^iv Machines have taken over. Everyone has a pocket or hand-held device^v to transmit his “status,” about which no one but himself really cares. Our main interest in words is in finding someone's errors, or otherwise trying to act smarter than anyone else. We tend to focus on the oxymorons without giving due notice to the morons who use silly language. And on those who promote euphemisms and other forms of politically correct speech. The cover is more important than the book. Don't pay attention to what's behind the curtain.

And masquerading as erudite by the use of high-sounding, if misleading or unthought-out, language abounds. One of the phrases I find most annoying is “calm wind.” The justification is that on the Beaufort Scale of wind speeds there is a category, Beaufort number 0 [zero], in which the wind speed is less than a mile an hour. It is called “calm.” The idea, however, that there can be such an entity as a “calm wind” – wind that is not moving – makes no sense. But it must be true. I heard it on the radio.^vi

And I've heard, repeatedly, of harm coming to “innocent bystanders.” I'm not sure if there are guilty bystanders as well, or whether the intended victims are innocent or guilty. I suspect the newscaster is simply reading from a prepared script, and that neither he, nor the person who wrote script, recognizes how silly it sounds.^vii As do the ideas that some situations are “more unique” than others,^viii that in difficult situations “both” sides must compromise,^ix and the designation of some murders as “hate crimes.” Presumably all the other murders are done for the sake of love. I doubt that the victim is much concerned about which type of murder is designated as the cause of his demise. Either way he's dead and the term used shouldn't affect the severity of hispunishment. As for my perspective, I could care less.^x

And we hear all the time of crimes that occur at ATM machines – a redundancy, since ATM itself means automated teller machine – and of stolen PIN numbers, about which the broadcaster reads about right after reporting on the SALT treaty and the latest news concerning the HIV virus. But the problem is not limited to the media. The less than ideal education we receive is aimed primarily at getting us to achieve high scores on our SAT test so we can get a good job with the employer making a big payment into our IRA account. Our education has helped us know the difference between AC and DC currents, LED and LCD displays, and etc. Isn't that special?

No, it isn't. According to volume II of my Webster's New International Dictionary,^xi “special” means “Distinguished by some unusual quality ... esp., distinguished by superior excellence, importance, power, or the like.” But that was then. The term nowadays lacks that positive connotation. Dictionaries of euphemisms remind us that “special” really means “mentally or physically inferior,”^xii and we're more likely to speak of such things as special students – students who learn slowly if at all – and the Special Olympics – sporting events for the disabled. Actually I shouldn't have used that word. A quadriplegic is not disabled, only “differently able.” I'm not sure what his different and “special” abilities are, but I do know that I mustn't say anything that might damage his self-image. In reality, though, the use of euphemisms is primarily aimed at making us feel less guilty. Very often the objects of our pity are better able to deal with their problems than we are. And the use of tortured terminology is of no help in their adaptation to reality.

But I'm carping. Languages change. They always have and they always will. However the reason shouldn't be that speakers are lazy and don't care, and don't pay attention to what they are saying, and they're hoping and wishing that listeners won't care either. Do that long enough and there won't be any listeners. Sloppiness will make it so.

Next episode: “Fiscal Cliff Notes” – Time to increase taxes and cut back on spending.

 

i      It's funnier told orally.

ii      Ideas and word choice.

iii     Grammar, logic and rhetoric. The trivium.

iv     As Walt Kelly said in 1953 (in “The Pogo Papers”), and Pogo Possum later on, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

v      Don't U no? (Perhaps the correct punctuation is a period or exclamation point instead of a question mark, but I'm not up on the current trends and I don't know if the expression is meant as a question or is intended to place emphasis on the statement that precedes it. I suspect it's just the Irish form of “ya know?” but that it's really intended as a mild intensifier [there's an oxymoron for you] rather than a question.)

vi     Of course I might have gotten it wrong because I had a bad cold when I first heard it. If only it had been a good cold I'm sure I wouldn't have made any mistake.

vii     I suspect, as well, that those involved in the production of the program are similarly unaware of the meaningless nature of the words.

viii   Implying that there are degrees of uniqueness, and ignoring the fact that “unique” is an absolute. Something is either unique or it isn't.

ix     Of course both sides must compromise. One can't do it alone. Takes two to tango.

x      Actually it should be “I couldn't care less,” but common usage has eliminated the correct idiom and replaced it with one that says the opposite of what intends. Know what I mean? I could care less if you don't.

xi     Second Edition, G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, Mass. 1940.

xii    “A Dictionary of Euphemisms,” R. W. Holder, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain, 1995.

 

Hate Speech – The Case For (Against?)

“Suffer you mother-*#&@%<~ son-of-a-!%*&$. I hope you rot in Hell.” Not a nice thing to hear. Especially if you're being kicked at the same time. It's assault, and it's punishable as such.

But what about “I pray that you are forgiven.” Said to a homosexual, as the speaker knocks the wallet from his hand while he is preparing to make a contribution to an LGBTⁱ charity, it's hate speechⁱⁱ and it may also deemed assault,ⁱⁱⁱ but more than that, because of what was said, in this instance it's also a hate crime.

The First Amendment, it seems, has become a framework for various pressure groups to use when promoting their aims. Thus:

“In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Neo-Nazi parades and demonstrations. Skokie, Illinois at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens. A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court.”^iv

Free speech had to be protected irrespective of the consequences, but in an age of diversity and multiculturalism

“Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet.”

That statement, and its explication of “acceptable speech,” as printed in the blog of Caliphate Online, doesn't come as much of a surprise. The fact that important American publications refused to publish those cartoons, however, is a little more troublesome. Although there are loud protests whenever their own actions are criticised, and accusations that other parties would abridge their First Amendment rights, “Major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, did not publish the caricatures. Representatives said the story could be told effectively without publishing images that many would find offensive.”^v They chose, in this instance, to practice self censorship. Free speech was less important than not offending others. Sensitivity was the prime consideration in reporting this piece of news. When it comes to expressing editorial policy, however, the same papers are not at all reticent about stating views that many will find offensive. First amendment rights and free speech^vi are for those who can afford it, and they can exercise it whenever they choose to do so. And, as they have demonstrated, they can eschew it whenever they choose to do so. Notwithstanding any protestations of virtue and concern, their agendas seem to reflect politics rather than sensitivity.

And some publishers had other motives. “John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said the press has a long history of defending free expression, but the risk of violence in this case, outweighed the benefit of including the images, which can easily be found on the Internet.”^vii The same fear of violence motivated other publishers to take the same course.

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... ” That was the take on speech in 1789^viii But that has since been viewed as more a theory than as an appropriate reality. Though the Constitution said nothing about judicial interpretations of that or other mandates, nor about legislative measures that respond to the Court's decisions, it's clear that the First Amendment (as well as the remainder of the Constitution and its amendments) is flexible.^ix It shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's not an absolute. It is more important that we not risk the possibility that emotional harm that might come to anyone who is in a preferred^x group. That, of course, is not everyone, as the ACLU has shown.

And the definitions of “free speech” and one's First Amendment rights are also somewhat fluid. They include both the requirement that one be able to express his views, even if others^xi may find them hateful, and that he be able to prevent those others^xii from expressing theirs. It may not be clear from a simple reading of the Constitution that these “rights” exist, but executive, legislative, and judicial practice reflect the fact that they have a significant presence in the American ethos. Surely they're in the Constitution. How could it be otherwise? If we haven't found them, we haven't looked hard enough.

We are left with a language of sensitivity and euphemisms. We are reluctant to “call a spade a spade.” So we deny the language we learned as children and substitute code words when we suspect precision will cause discomfort (without always asking those we see as “victims” whether they agree). Later, however, we'll have to substitute other code words when we feel that the ones we have been using have taken on the pejorative tone at which we cringe.^xiii We practice self-censorship and the censorship of others with whom we disagree. And if we cannot censor, we punish. Somewhere along the line “hate speech” has become more offensive than any crime it might accompany. And the ACLU seems to take note only of certain “offenses” while ignoring others. It is clearly inappropriate to defend those who would insult Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, or others who might be offended. That would show a lack of sensitivity for their feelings, and the Constitution certainly shouldn't protect that. But if Nazis want to affront Jews or others, stopping them would be in violation of the same Constitution.

I know it's wrong of me to think so, but from my perspective there should be a single standard – either all speech designed to express opinion is permissible^xiv or it isn't. If the latter position is to be adopted, then it should apply to every instance in which an individual takes exception to what is being said or done. It should not be made the rule only for some preferred people of groups. But in any case, I don't think that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. If the media are free to express opinions, so are individuals. And a crime is a crime. It is the crime that should be prosecuted, irrespective of the motive. If the opinion of the perpetrator is the decisor of the significance of the crime, we have lost the freedom to form our own opinions, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless. However attractive that may be to many among us, we will all lose by it. “Acceptable speech” is not acceptable.

Next episode: “Mom, Pop, And Jack The Killer Giant” – Burnt fat and me.

i     Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender.

ii    The previous declaration, since it mentions “mother” and “son,” clearly expresses family values and represents a statement of love, not hate.

iii    And it's probably a few other crimes as well.

iv    Wikipedia article on ACLU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

v     U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive, Joel Brinkley and Ian Fisher, New York Times, February 4, 2006

vi    Ditto propaganda.

vii    Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, August 12, 2009. The view, apparently, was that others should take any risks involved. Yale was playing it safe.

viii    That's when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the new states. It wasn't ratified until 1791.

ix    I'll comment on the Judiciary in a future essay – a continuation of the ongoing series on proposals for changes in the Constitution.

x     Read “minority,” although that is a political, not a mathematical term.

xi    Who are not in one of the favored groups.

xii    See note x. It is permissible, indeed appropriate, to shout down those who would espouse a contrary view.

xiii    I recently heard on the radio about a politician who was taken to task for using the word “disabled.” Some felt that this was too harsh. Presumably they preferred “differently able” or “challenged,” but the individual who had been careful not to specify the disability (lest it be considered insensitive) was berated.

xiv   Holmes's exception for speech intended to cause danger – he mentioned “fire” in a crowded theater – however, makes sense. I'd also make an exception for speech (or publication of material) that threatens pubblic or national security. Some governmental secrecy is necessary if we are to be able to deal with other nations.