We Are All Racists

Time to flog a dead horse. According to a Harvard study about a year ago, all whites are racists. All oppose blacks – often unconsciously. They can't help it. It's all around them.

Do you question Affirmative Action? You may justify it by demanding equal ability for equal opportunity but in reality, consciously or not, you really oppose any benefit for blacks. You're a racist. Do you note that there are more violent crimes in black neighborhoods than white? You wouldn't even be thinking about it if you weren't a racist. Do you oppose entitlement programs? The truth is that you oppose any program that helps blacks – especially assisting unemployed ones at the expense of taxpayers. That might never enter your thoughts, but it's there. You're a racist.

And that's the way it's always been. We've always followed the teachings of our society, whether we learned them in school or on the street. Only we never labeled each other based on that learning. We never faulted ourselves for believing – even subconsciously – “common knowledge.” “Givens” earned that position because we all know them to be true. And sometimes they are.

But even if they're not, belief or disbelief in a commonly held view should not, because of our own uncertainty, or our own wish to rise above bigotry, be the cause of labeling – or our refusal to do so. When the media report that a truck was driven into a large crowd, and the driver emerged carrying an automatic weapon with which he shot the survivors while yelling “Allah Akhbar,” it is not Islamophobia to consider it a terrorist attack. And, on the other hand, it makes no sense to label one who challenges a law that violates his conscience as a “religious bigot.” But that is the current practice – a practice selectively (and usually politically) applied.

We're all sexists. Men and women are different. It's true. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are. (I'm not quite sure “should” and “shouldn't” enter the picture. DNA and evolution have decreed that males are sexually aggressive while females use other methods to attract the bearers of that aggression.) Over the millennia people, and the societies in which they live, have developed approaches to the situation, and attitudes about it. A line existed between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and, though that line was often crossed, violations were, in the past, usually viewed as “the way it is.” Not necessarily right, but not always as one-sided as we see them now. Current sensibilities tell us that the man is always wrong and women who accuse them of acts that happened decades earlier are reliable bearers of truth. And acts formerly considered unexceptionable (and often desirable) by the standards of their times are now prima facie evidence of abuse by a more sensitive society – even it they occurred when there was a different view. And those who question current reasoning are sexists. (As are those who don't believe that the same salaries should be given to all who do the same job, irrespective of decades of experience as opposed to a new hire.) So are those who are reluctant to hire pregnant women – women to whom they will almost immediately have to give paid leave.

If we don't make accommodation for a short person to play in the NBA, we discriminate against those who are “differently able,” while we are “ageist” if we have second thoughts about hiring someone close to retirement age for a long term position. And, of course, we're bigots if we require that an immigrant be legal. Nowadays we criticize whatever we don't like. We add an “ism” to it and accuse others of intentional ill-feeling irrespective of the mood of the times. Only a few may be doing the accusing but the label sticks, with media, eager to attract attention, trumpeting whatever a politically correct public will buy. It's society's fault.

Perhaps the reexamination of a question raised earlier will introduce some context.

“Do you question Affirmative Action?”

For whom and for what?

Anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years but we've never raised this question in relation to the Jews. Obviously there can be no compensation for lives lost. And we bridle at the idea that we may have to make good for the ills of other societies. But there is no debating the fact that here in America it has been practiced since before the country was founded. Are we responsible for the sins of our fathers – sins which continue to this day?

If we know that, among other slights, there were quotas and other methods for keeping Jews from getting the education for which they were fit, should we have an Affirmative Action program for them? Or for other minorities against whom there was prejudice? Do we only feel guilt and responsibility, and do we only recognize those traits, when it is politically correct?

Whatever the virtues of the Harvard study, it is hard not to believe that the investigators hadn't reached their conclusion before starting, and that their “conclusions” won them much praise in the academic world.

December 8, 2017

Safe Spaces And Dangerous Places

I've come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous places around is home. Not physically, but from the perspective of free speech. I arrived at that determination after learning that one of the reasons that academic institutions were establishing “safe spaces” was that students wanted a place to express their own opinions, and didn't want to hear someone offering anything that was in conflict with it. It's likely that in their own homes they were expected to be seen but not heard. So what they couldn't say at home was what they sought to have a place to say in the university.

It's a noble idea to want to exercise your right of free speech, although I think that the students, and more regrettably the universities, are missing the point. It was my (naïve) belief that one of the main purpose of higher education was to expose the students to ideas that differed from the ones with which they were familiar. It was all part of the learning process, and the goal was to prepare students for the “real” world where they would have to hear such ideas and analyze them so they could make their own decisions.

Perhaps I was mistaken, and I am confused about the role of the university. If those in academia consider their obligation to be to make students comfortable, the approach is reasonable. As would more parties be, except that some of their charges may take such revelry as a form of “microaggression,” and they might be offended and protest.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding both the university's goal and the way that it is satisfying student needs during the time that it is broadening their perspectives. Unlikely as it may be, the path to the toleration, and, indeed, the celebration, of real free speech and education may be viewed as requiring students to be led there slowly. And universities bay be subtly trying to bring their novices to that path.

Trying to imagine how that might be done, I wonder if what these in loco parentis institutions do is to assign every new student to a single room where there is no one to disagree with him (or her). Any visitor to that room will be expected to agree with all the opinions he expresses. And that means that when he visits a friend in another room – and college freshmen (and women) are a gregarious lot – it is incumbent on him to listen to, and to agree with, the views expressed by the room's occupant. Whether or not he agrees with what he hears, if he wants friends he'll have to tolerate their views. Maybe he'll even pay attention to what they think, and the thinking behind it. Sometimes the views of others make sense.

Having said it, however, I don't believe it. From what I've seen in the media, I am of the opinion that the universities are among the most dangerous places for learning that exist. Blame it on society itself if you choose, but there is an increasing focus on the spoken word and its implications. Fearing offending others and the “slippery slope” of faulting those who fault our society, students slide, instead on the slippery slope of intolerance of opinions that they think may not be popular or in keeping with their own. They don't want to hear them, and they don't want others to hear them. Instead of free speech, which they claim to support, they favor limiting speech to fashionable opinions – opinions in which they've been indoctrinated.

And the universities are supportive. Many of the faculty came of age at a time when rebellion and opposition to “the establishment” were de rigueur and they applaud, and encourage, such an approach on the part of those under their tutelage. It is their mission to inculcate distrust in them – distrust of the culture in which they live and distrust of any who support it or who disagree with them. People like that are wrong and have no right to be heard. They're Nazis, or supporters of apartheid, and their views are invalid and disruptive. Disrupting them is perfectly right and necessary.

And university administrations all too often cower before such forces. “Cower” may be the wrong word because it implies an unwilling surrender to superior forces. (Superior in strength, not wisdom.) All-too-often, unfortunately, the administrations agree with the actions of the masses. It's easy to attribute to inexperience and fearfulness, to the apprehension that faculty, students, and, most importantly, the press will view them as supporting unfashionable causes if they take a stand against mob censorship, so they either take no action against protesters or support them. The university is not a safe place for those who don't agree with majority opinion, even if that opinion is uninformed.

Home may be seen as dangerous, but the places to which many of our youth – and the teachers of the future – “escape” are far worse. Indeed, they are not safe spaces but the most dangerous to which they can go.

January 2, 2017

Say What I Say Or Shut Up

If I've said it once … – no, they wouldn't let me say it. They shouted me down.

That's the current status in academia and, for that matter, much of the non-academic community. Too much of our society has come to a point of intolerance, and demands agreement with the “accepted” point of view. Most in the news is the approach of our universities to differences of opinion among students and, more important, the role of faculty. Students must be bearers of a socially acceptable political philosophy – they probably are anyway – and faculty don't hesitate to indoctrinate them in their own opinions resulting in students' fear of being penalized if they should hold otherwise. And, in addition to the incitements of bellicose students, faculty sometimes provoke student protests against speakers with whom they disagree. Those they oppose are wrong, and students shouldn't (have the opportunity to) hear their views. No one wants to be thought of as violating societal norms and opposing his “friends.” So there is conformity with the beliefs and wishes of others.

Those in charge, fearing negative reaction, set up “safe spaces” where only the opinions students want to hear (or are told that they do) are permitted. Opposition is silenced – forbidden, despite the fact that one of the most important functions of an academic institution is to expose students to different points of view. It is better to reinforce popular positions than to risk questioning them.

Freedom of speech is simply an extension of freedom of thought. And everyone is entitled to express his thoughts. Anyone may argue with them but may not silence them. While the courts have permitted limited restrictions based on safety, the suppression of opinions is not acceptable. There have been alien and sedition laws from time to time. While they were defended as safety measures, their imposition was wrong and they have been withdrawn. And the courts find a Constitutional right for what many would consider pornography (and I am one of them) and a threat to the safety of our society, especially the young, in view of the fact that it is rampant graphically and orally. Expletives are rarely omitted in our society, except by those trying to make a point.

In short, censorship of almost any kind is proscribed. At least by law. But more and more we are experiencing the loud expressions of the politically correct, and the silencing of views that differ with their ideas. Protests and intimidation provide the censorship that is prohibited by law. But isn't the insulting of those with whom you disagree politically as much hate speech as the expression of negative views of those whose ethnicity or sexual preferences differ from yours? And isn't attacking them a hate crime? Yet these acts are rarely prosecuted as hate related.

Free speech has a long history in our country. It's a basic right as defined by the First Amendment to our Constitution. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled on numerous cases dealing with it. (There have also been cases involving freedom of religion – another First Amendment right – but I'll deal with them another time.) For the most part they have confirmed our rights, even though there have been many who would like to still those whose views differ from theirs. And they have included groups (Citizens United and other organizations wishing to express a view). We have long accepted the right of the media to do so and if a rich newspaper can express opinions, it's not clear why other organizations should not have the same right. Free speech may not be free, but it should apply equally to all.

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. (Thomas Jefferson)

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. (Louis D. Brandeis)

We'd be better off if those who promote “Truth” would listen respectfully to others who may subscribe to a contrary “Truth.” And even more so if they talked to each other and worked out their differences of opinion.

At Least They Tried

About a week ago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed or injured thirty-five people during a rampage in San Bernadino, California. They had several pipe bombs with them and additional weapons, ammunition, and bombs at home. It took less than two days for the F.B.I. to conclude that this might be a terrorist act. Quoting his father, the Daily Mail said of Farook that he “was a 'momma's boy' who supported ISIS [and] wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.” His wife had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook. The President, however, warned Americans not to blame Islam because we should be free of prejudice. It's not the American way.

The President showed admirable restraint and concern about the possibility of Islamophobia, as he had often done in the past. This was consistent with past practices. He opposes the categorization of terrorists, and all other forms of hate speech. When terrorists in Paris had murdered Jews in a kosher supermarket, he properly asserted "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." He carefully avoided any hint of bias by calling the Muslim terrorists “vicious zealots.” And to avoid any suggestion that anti-semitism might be involved, he said that those assassinated were shot “randomly.” They were just “a bunch of folks.” It's legitimate to be “concerned.” As long as we go no further. What a relief.

But that doesn't mean that the leader of the free world didn't have potent proposals about the actions we must take. Although he may not have made any suggestions, or announced any policies (nor even the consideration of them) concerning increased security at public sites, better monitoring of potential terrorists, supervision of threats on the social media, visa procedures, or enhanced review of contacts and of travel patterns of those who might be involved in terrorist incidents, the President was emphatic in his demand for stronger actions in gun control. We all know that guns kill people and we needn't be concerned about terrorists. Our greater fear should be of members of the other party who oppose what we propose.

The New York Times concurs. Noting that some countries have strict gun control laws but have killers who “obtained weapons illegally,” the American newspaper of record reminds us that “at least those countries are trying.” The terrorists in those countries had violated the law when they obtained their guns but fortunately those whom they faced, law-abiding citizens, were unarmed. That is certainly reassuring to the families of those killed. And there is no question that strong gun-control measures are obligatory for backward nations (like ours) in which regulations are either absent or not muscular enough.

But gun control is not a universal solution to violence. In some countries violence has different expressions. For example, Sayed Farook “wanted to see Israel wiped off the map” but there the preference is for stones, scissors, knives, bottle bombs, and automobiles, so different laws would be required. Let me suggest the following:

1. Stone control, making it illegal to use stones without a background check. The check would require a minimum age of four, and a determination that the applicant have no history of mental disease. All stones and sling-shots would be photographed and registered.

2. The user of scissors would have to participate in safety training, including the caution against running with scissors. All scissors would have to have rounded tips and safety catches to keep them closed.

3. The purchase of knives would require a license – whether the instrument is intended for kitchen or outdoor use. Background checks on chefs and all women would be instituted. Knives could not be concealed. The individual implements would have to be stored between murders in child-proof closets. If used for kitchen work as well as murder, washing with an anti-bacterial solution between uses is recommended.

4. Bottle-bombs are complex combinations of glass bottles, inflammable substance such as kerosene, and flame. All require controls. The bottles themselves must be approved by organizations supporting BDS to ensure their origin in an acceptable location; the kerosene would be required to have certification by OPEC; it would be necessary to register the flame. While this may be difficult, law-enforcement agencies must be supplied with tools to detect flames and they must be authorized to confiscate illegal combustion. An exception would be made for cigarettes. The banning of matches would require further study.

5. It is noteworthy that automobiles are frequently used in order to kill Jews. While existing motor vehicle regulations are extensive, it may be necessary to outlaw all motorized vehicles since they are potential killers. Camel travel should be explored.

No change would be made in current regulations involving other weapons since that would limit military training and use and, more important, would impose an unfair burden on smugglers.

In the United States, however, the answer to all violence is gun control. It will certainly be comforting to anyone who has been shot to know that his attacker, by carrying a weapon, was doing something illegal and that no one was so unpatriotic as to try to categorize, or use an illegal weapon in opposition to the attacker.

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

My intent is not to denigrate the importance of reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available, but to suggest that the willing disregard of important parts of the problem in order to remain politically correct and to promote a political message ensures only the opportunity to blame someone else for your failures, rather than policies that deal with all of the causes of a problem will be likely to solve at least some of them. The desire to assign responsibility is probably the case. But the goal has to be to solve problems rather than fault someone else.

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.

All Men (And Women)

“[A]ll men are created equal ...” That's what it says. That's what the Declaration of Independence says. Very few people really believe it, but that's what it says. Nonetheless, many assume this means that all their ideas are equal – and equally valid – though apart from its expressions of equality, all the other writings of the Founding Fathers are out of date. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

The bases for their disenchantment with the founding documents (apart from those aspects that are politically correct) are that times change and also that traditions vary in different places and among different people.

Chalk it up to moral relativism.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

There was a time in our history and there were places in our own country when slavery was considered acceptable and, among some, virtuous. While a significant degree of prejudice remains, slavery is gone – at least in the United States and in most other countries. By such a definition as the one above, however, slavery was no less “privileged” then than freedom. In fact, it was probably more appropriate.

Similarly appropriate by such standards were child sacrifice among the Aztecs (and other civilizations), the burning of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands, cannibalism, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, Nazi eugenics and experimentation on prisoners, and a host of similar horrors. I shouldn't have said “horrors” since this suggests a rejection of the traditions of others. It suggests an acceptance of the heresy of “absolutes.” (True as that may be, admitting it is viewed nowadays as jingoism and bias, so don't quote me.) But all these acts were in keeping with the societies in which they existed.

For the last half century, therefore, we have taught our children – and we have convinced ourselves – that there is no such thing as absolutism. Our mantra has been “Live and let live.” Viewing the practices of others in the light of our own morality is judgmental and unethical. Indeed, we have made a point of exposing our children to the practices of others and sometimes espousing them. Ethnocentrism merits condemnation. So we have sacrificed history in favor of equal representation. Or greater representation of the unfamiliar – even if by doing so we create a new mythology. It is the affirmative action of pedagogy. Our own culture and traditions are of less consequence. There is more “truth” to the views of those uninvolved in world history than there is in the relating of what actually happened.

We have been brainwashed into believing that what happened as a result of “colonialism” should be minimized and that the stories of the “oppressed” are more important for us to learn. Thus our children are educated to be embarrassed by our own story (when they are actually exposed to it), and both texts and tests emphasize the virtue of other cultures, while subtly condemning our own. And all of this is taught at a level that will be understandable to everyone. We do not seek the highest truth, but the lowest common denominator. We serve the pablum of “feel-good” exposition rather the pabulum of honest evaluation. And we are left with a generation (and probably more to follow) of our youth and academic communities tainted by the guilt of their forebears.

We have become a nation in which sense is of less consequence than “sensitivity,” and everyone gets a certificate of achievement. Everyone is equal. All ideas are valid. We are all winners. There are no losers.

Except for truth, our society, and our future. They are the big losers.

Next episode: “Condemned” – Those were the days, my friend.

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.