The WRight Way
By Ron Wright
(Cazenovia, NY – March 2013
) Certain words and terms are sometimes used just for the purpose of intentionally annoying others or provoking outrage. Likewise, those same words and terms in certain other contexts may be of great value for the purpose of discussing, explaining and debating issues of all sorts.
Often a specific and exact but “charged” word or term may be the most precise example one can use to make an important point.
Many or most derogatory terms regarding minorities and various ethnic groups, for example, are well-known and those still in use require or deserve no repeating. There should be opportunities to discuss any subject including race, culture, politics, religion and many others of critical concern.
If someone possesses what they consider factual information and wishes to engage in scholarly discussions about any subject, it is, at the least, uncivilized to shout down the person and refuse to listen to his points or arguments. Do we wish to have civil discourse or not? Do we wish to attempt to educate and convince others or suffocate them?
Is crass political correctness in many quarters so pervasive now that most any controversial idea will provoke a confrontation or brawl? Everybody talks about free speech, but in certain domains it is barely tolerated unless you are in lockstep with whatever dominant group is present.
Case in point would be all-too-many college campus settings where students, faculty and even the administration may pay lip service to considering and tolerating a wide spectrum of thought. But then certain speakers are shouted down or even physically threatened.
If I make statements such as “more Caucasian males in the U.S. are convicted of DWI than any other demographic group,” or “in professional NBA teams, there are more first-string African American males than any other demographic group,” these provable facts could be considered hate speech.
In a number of legislatures in this country, hate speech and hate crimes (pertaining to speech) are hot buttons demanding punishment. Talk about a Constitutional slippery slope. What’s next? A new Inquisition, a reign of terror or maybe updated Salem witch trials? Be careful what you legislate for.
And as another example, word usage extends to the term “gay” marriage, although someone once opined, the word ‘gay’ has been hijacked away from the general populace. Ever hear of the “Gay 90s,’’ as in the 1890s, as they were referred to? Most probably would not assume this was about same-sex union issues 120 years ago.
Why insist on annoying other groups if you don’t have to? Marriage (the word) in a religious sense has tremendous importance and specific meaning for billions of heterosexual people. Same-sex conjugal living is a long-term fact, and so what would be the argument against legal and financial domestic partnerships between (any) two individuals if society is going to accept the arrangement?
Save the single word “marriage” for one man-one woman relations and let other arrangements come up with their own term or name. For man-man it may be a “hommrage” or woman-woman the relationship may be a “lesbrige,” or whatever linguistic creativity various groups may come up with.
Probably any number of specific terms can be considered or desired by the individuals involved. If you claim to have a significant relationship distinction, why would you be afraid to coin your own descriptive terminology? As an analogy, most straight people would not want to be called “gay” in this present era, and one can surmise most openly same-sex couples probably don’t want to be referred to as “straight.”
In the religious sphere, most sects find it extremely offensive to have non-believers apply derogatory terms to revered individuals or sacred deities of importance to them. It certainly is akin to shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre when none exists.
But in civil discourse, what is the problem with someone not sharing your beliefs asking you to explain apparent inconsistencies in your belief system? It would seem to be your responsibility as a believer in your creed or deity to seek out plausible answers for your reply rather than assaulting the person merely making an honest inquiry.
And massed marchers verbalizing slogans and one-word or phrase signs would seem to offer much less than a desirable format for most any discussion for obvious reasons. One-on-one, face-to-face communication generally allows for the most creative discourse possibilities.
That is if someone really wants discourse and not an excuse for inciting an overwhelming mob frenzy situation.
A particularly annoying practice: individuals holding up one-liner signs in courtrooms or halls of congress where formal testimony is being presented. The focus of such formal meetings should be on the testifier, not on uninvited guests and observers performing whatever visual or verbal disruption they can get away with.
A presiding official should insist that the people causing this disruption be removed from the meeting location. Another good reason to hold to the time-honored practice of written transcripts as opposed to taped audio or video records and predictable manipulative and distracting theatrics.
And word usage including swearing, cursing, vulgarities and all that goes along with the worst in what passes for human spoken language. Can’t people make their point or creatively categorize situations or express emotion without going to the bottom of the barrel? Talk that is disgustfully crude or shocking may reveal or confirm the speaker to be some sort of low-life or barbarian but is that their intended goal?
The difference between a G-, a PG- or R-rated movie often is the inclusion of one or several words. If you are offered a delicious entrée, doesn’t finding a dead fly somewhere on the plate spoil the experience? Sophomoric TV shows with toilet-talking celebrities would seem to quickly get old, even if you lead a boring existence.
Ron Wright of Cazenovia is a retiree with keen interest in his family, history, politics and his church. He began putting his thoughts on paper a little over a decade ago to share with family and friends. Ron, whose column appears the third edition each month, may be reached at madnews@m3pmedia.com.