Doug:
I really hate the term "politically correct"... don't we really mean "using respectful language"? Isn't that something we all should do?
David:
The Bill of Rights begins with the right to "free speech". It doesn't say "using respectful language". I believe the Constitution guarantees that you can say anything you want, about anything, at anytime. (With exceptions that have been handled through the courts, often by the Supreme Court, because speech issues are so very important to our democracy.) The Constitution doesn't care about anyone being offended. In fact, it specifically protects your right to offend.
I believe you have used disrespectful language to describe Donald Trump. (A** Clown) Should you be penalized for that? Should you have to issue a formal apology?
I find it offensive when the President equates Republicans who oppose the Iran deal, with Iranians shouting "Death to America". I'd like to hear you roundly criticize him for being using such disrespectful words.
The problem with the entire idea of politically-correct speech, is that it stifles speech and ideas. I note that in an earlier blog, you describe religious beliefs as "hateful"and "intolerant". And under the guise of "using respectful language", Christians should not be able to express their beliefs. That is just wrong. Isn't expressing your beliefs something we should all be able to do?
Doug:
I think you have confused three different ideas. Idea #1: When I said "we should use respectful language," I did not mean that it should be regulated! I meant that it is just generally a good thing to do in regular conversation, unless you want to purposefully insult people. This is the idea of "political correctness."
Idea #2: Of course, if you mean to insult someone, say Ass-Clown Trump, then by all means do! Being politically correct doesn't mean that you can't insult people; it simply means that you should only insult people when you mean to. Being critical of someone is also fair game. But again, that should be obviously your intention. One can be non-civil, angry, loud, and even obnoxious.
Idea #3: Now, "hate speech" is something very different. To quote Indiana's own Ball State University, hate speech "consists of verbal and nonverbal expression that is used to demean, oppress, or promote violence against someone on the basis of their membership in a social or ethnic group. Hate speech involves more than simply indicating that you dislike someone. It also is different than simply teasing or ridiculing someone, or shouting an ugly word at them in a single moment of anger or frustration." That page goes on, but you get the idea.
Does preventing Idea #1 "stifle speech"? No, because you are free to do whatever you want. Want to unintentionally offend someone (Idea #2)? Sure, go ahead. But be aware that some will dismiss you because of your rudeness.
Does preventing Idea #3 "stifle speech"? Yes, that is the very idea. But surely one could take any message in this category and turn it into something more productive. This stifle seems to be a fair balance in creating a civil society and free speech---there are still lots of ways to speak without having to resort to this level of incivility.
David:
So, just to be clear, if I intend to insult you (Doug's rule #2), I'm free to do that whenever I want. But if I accidentally insult you, then I'm in some kind of trouble, and should be stifled? Well then, whenever I say something that you think is hateful, I am intending to insult you. So, take that.
It seem that #3 does regulate your speech, the one thing you say shouldn't be done. And it regulates your speech based on how someone interprets your speech. You are saying that it is OK to intentionally insult someone with a derogatory comment, but you cannot use a "politically incorrect" derogatory comment. By your reasoning, you have now invited a third party to decide if your speech is hateful or not, based on their views. Does Donald Trump get to be that person?
And, Ball State doesn't trump the Constitution, which has a rich case-load of free speech decisions. The Constitution does not give the government authority to regulate speech for the goal of "civility".
Doug:
Yes, regulating speech type #3 should be done! Ball State is explaining to you (apparently not very well) what hate speech is. There are many cases of hate speech prosecutions.
David:
"Someone" has to decide if your speech crosses a line. But who gets to define the line?
Doug:
The same people that decide if my fence crosses into your yard, or if my car crossed the center line, or if some picture is obscene. We have laws defining all kinds of lines.
David:
But your fence is not protected in the first line of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. I would agree that you can be a more civil society if everyone is civil, but free speech means just that, you have the freedom to express yourself.
Doug:
My fence is protected by the Bill of Rights ("nor shall any person ... be deprived ... of property, without due process of law".) I am not arguing for civility! Politically correct speech is an acknowledgment that one should not unintentionally offend people, and being aware of when that can happen. You have the right to be offensive and obnoxious. You have much freedom to express yourself, with only some boundaries. Yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. And hate speech.
David:
OK, Big Brother.
The problem with your argument is you are putting disagreeable, offensive speech in the same category as speech that endangers lives. Outrage, and being offended, won't kill you, no matter what the politically-correct lefties say. And outrageous speech is protected by law. I would hope you are teaching your students to be a little more thick-skinned than what you are proposing. Instead, it seems you are indoctrinating them that offensive speech, or disagreeable speech, is dangerous.
Doug:
It is true that I am your Big Brother (by about 21 months). I encourage my students to use respectful language to others that they do not mean to alienate. I do believe that language matters. If everyone in a society uses language to denigrate a race, gender, or other group, then those ideas will become ingrained in that society. I believe that hate speech could endanger lives, and that is no doubt why there are laws attempting to diminish it.
I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm stating how the law works. You have to make a distinction between "hate" and other speech. Being "thicked skinned" doesn't have anything to do with this.
David:
The other problem with your entire argument is the word "unintentional". If what I say might "unintentionally" offend someone, then all of my speech would be regulated based on the interpretation of the listener, not by what I intend. Intention is the key, but you have claimed I'm OK if I intentionally want to offend or insult you (Doug's rules of etiquette #2). Your argument, and political correctness, is completely backwards.
If I find your speech to be offensive, then you should not be allowed to say it. This opens the door to stifling just about anything. If you feel my words have demeaned you, or oppressed you, you can scream "Hater", and I'm supposed to apologize. And shut up. Perhaps our speech should be free (which is the law), and you can just walk away when you don't agree with someone, instead of trying to silence what they say. You can even call them a jerk while you're walking.
Doug:
I think you forgot about the three types of speech outlined above. I think it is nuanced, but clear. So you either mean: "The problem with using respectful language is..." or you mean "The problem with hate speech is..." You keep blurring the line between these two ideas.
David:
It is clear. You just refuse to believe it.
Hillary called Republicans "terrorists" if they are pro-life. That clearly appears to meet all of your own criteria for hate speech, as well as Ball State's, wouldn't you agree?
Doug:
No. Just because you want to ignore the nuance doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see a clear distinction.
David:
Looking over your argument, the only "nuance" I see is that if you agree and condone what someone says, it's OK. But if you disagree, then it should be regulated. That kind of thinking resulted in the Tea Party being targeted by the IRS.
Freedom of speech equals freedom of ideas. It equals freedom of expression. Unless it clearly endangers actual lives, no speech should be regulated. None. Ever.
Doug:
Yes, in your world of black and white, there is no nuance. However, that is not the law, and many people attempt to use language that doesn't offend people unnecessarily. That is called "being politically correct." There is no law (and never will be) that says that you can't offend people.
There is another category of speech that intentionally attempts to denigrate or be hostile to a group of people. That is called "hate speech." Are you arguing that talking about burning a cross in someone's yard should be protected speech? Or talking about blowing up a church should be protected speech? Are you suggesting that these people should just have "thicker skins"? Note that no lives were threatened in my examples.
If your opinion is that you should be allowed to demean or be hostile to a class of people because of "Freedom", then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that words are just that powerful.
David:
Talking about doing something falls into the category of free speech. Trying to hurt someone's feelings intentionally is free and protected speech. Planning to bomb a building is a crime. Burning a cross in someone's yard is a crime.
We can choose to be polite and politically correct, and I would argue one can get his point across better by discoursing in a respectful manner, but your arguments here suggest the government should enforce polite and respectful speech. That is the point where you cross the Constitutional line. Freedom means that you can love or hate anyone you choose, and you can let them know it. To have a free society means that you have to allow the freedom to be educated, and also freedom to be bigoted. Freedom to write poetry, but also freedom to write hateful diatribes. To regulate one, means you are open to regulate the other, depending on who's opinion creates the regulations. It's better for the government to butt out, and leave the public to decide on their own what they want to listen to, and what they want to walk away from.
Words are powerful, which is why they are so closely guarded as the ultimate freedom for the individual.
Doug:
Interesting that in your examples, you are never the one on the receiving end of hateful speech---you are free to "write hateful diatribes" but you didn't mention that you are also free to receive them. Every day. I suspect because you rarely find yourself on the receiving end. We are in the privileged position, white, male, and doctors (PhD. and DO.) That makes it harder to understand and empathize with.
David:
As a founder of the tea party, I have had my share of ridiculous, hateful speech directed at me personally. Running for a political office also influences folks to make rather irrational, very hateful assumptions about you, and often put them in print. But those are just words. And those people have a right to their opinions, and their right to express them.
We had no special privilege growing up.
Doug:
Whoa, dude! I don't think you understand the idea of privilege. I guess when you don't see the obstacles others have had to deal with, you imagine that they were a lot like you. That is not true.
David:
Everyone has obstacles. Who has a greater obstacle to success, a poor white male, or a rich black female? A white boy with a single parent, or a black man with a two-parent household? What about Asian kids? To say that someone has "privilege", and therefore an easier ride, based solely on their skin color makes a great many assumptions. One could say it is racist, because you are determining your conclusion totally on skin color alone. While historically your conclusion may have carried some weight, it isn't true any more. Life isn't so simple.
Doug:
You're right: you can't tell by looking at someone what privileges they had or have. But that does not mean that there are not a lot of privileges still afforded by skin color. One need only look at the implicit bias that most of our society shares to understand that.
David:
"Implicit bias that most of society shares"? In 2015? Just because the left preaches it, doesn't make it true.
Doug:
I'll agree on that: preaching does not make the message true. But I'm quoting research from places like https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.html or http://bytheirstrangefruit.blogspot.com/2012/08/resetting-scale-of-racism.html It is a fact that our society (whether you are black or white) shares some of the same racist biases.
David:
We came from a two-parent household, but that was because our parents chose to be married, and to stay married. Dad worked very hard to get the job he had, and stayed in it, even at times when he didn't like what he was doing. He did that for us. Not the government, or "the man", or anyone else.
Doug:
Sometimes you can't "choose" your way out of systemic problems. Being wrongfully accused of a crime, being raped, or otherwise injured might be beyond your control. We never went hungry, had a big, safe place to play, and had family support for going to college. Those are huge privileges.
David:
But again, those things you mention are not racial.
One of my best friends growing up was black ( in fact, the only friend I ever had over for a sleep-over), and half of my college roommates were black. Their skin color made no difference in our relationships, nor did I see that their skin color had any bearing on how they lived their lives.
Doug:
Oh, you're kidding me.... do people really say that kind of thing? Do you know how much of a stereotype that is?
David:
All of them accomplished what they set out to do, and are doing just fine today. Of course, none of them were "victims", nor were they somehow oppressed. They just happened to be dark-skinned. The subject never even came up in discussion.
Doug:
Sounds like some deep, meaningful discussions you all had. Just happening to have dark skin can have a pretty big impact on your life. And it never even came up in conversation.
David:
No, it never came up in discussion between me and my American black roommates. It did come up once with Roger, my black roommate from England, but not in the way you would think. That is probably a discussion for another blog, because it was quite interesting and insightful. But too long of a story to tell here.
You knew all of my roommates. You know what I'm saying is true.
Doug:
Yes, you had black roommates in college. But don't assume that they have the same worldview as you simply because they never talked to you about it. You might enjoy a book called "Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do".
David:
Oh, we did talk about our world views at considerable lengths. We all got together every night for bible studies and to talk about all sorts of issues. We talked together for hours on end. We were all on the same page in so many things. Race didn't affect or enter our conversations, and I can say with some degree of authority that it didn't matter to any of us. It didn't matter any more than if you were wearing a red shirt, and I was wearing a blue one.
Doug:
And that is the proverbial hitting the nail on the head. If you think that your race matters about as much as what color shirt you are wearing, then you are speaking from a place of privilege. That is exactly what privilege gives you. You look in the mirror and don't see race. You go to work, and don't see any obstacles. Hard work gives back deserved results. That is privilege.
David:
And you and I are doctors because we worked very hard to get the positions we have. I didn't displace any minorities to get where I am. I doubt you did either....
Doug:
Oh, please, do not bring me into your imagination.
David:
...but somehow, you feel guilty for what you have. I'm grateful and humbled that God has provided me with a wonderful family and career, but that isn't due to some unseen privileged position.
Sounds like another blog topic brewing….
Doug:
Oh, my goodness. Wow. I wish everyone could have had all of the privilege that we had. I wish that you could see what kinds of support we had. I am very thankful, but I am also aware that there are others just like me that didn't have such support, and didn't make it. It takes a certain level of arrogance not to see, let alone appreciate, one's privilege.
David:
That is all true, but you are making the assumption that what we had was based on race, and we would not have had any of that if we had been a different race. Or if you are born black, you can't have any of the things we had. That just isn't true.
Doug:
I never said that "if you are born black you can't have any of the things we had." I said that there are, of course, obvious obstacles for people of color in our country. Now, let's see if I remember what we were talking about... Right, hate speech.
There is "hate speech" and laws against it. Break those laws and you will go to jail. You may not agree with that, but that is the law.
Do you think that you are free to burn a cross in your own yard? Do you not see that that is a symbol, and that words are just symbols? Most people would agree that your freedom should end when it begins to terrify others.
David:
Sometimes your ideological arguments terrify me. But it hasn't stopped you yet.
Some symbols can be protected as speech, but speech is not a symbol. And a burning cross has a universal meaning. Depending upon the circumstances, you can not threaten a person, and a burning cross falls into the category of making a threat. Stalking, or terrorizing someone also falls into a category that is against the law. Calling someone a derogatory name is not against the law. See this example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/judge-rules-favor-man-arrested-profanities-article-1.2361501
That's why a group of black people can march and chant, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon". According to your argument, I guess they should all be arrested and sent to jail, right? In the real world, their speech is disgusting, but allowed. You would probably defend them for speaking out about a perceived injustice. So, hate speech is in the eye of the beholder?
Doug:
It can make a difference who is saying what, and who has the power.
David:
Now, you are arguing that certain words or speech are fine for one person to say, but a crime for a different person to say.
Doug:
I think you are starting to understand!
David:
I understand you're going to quickly run afoul of the 14th Amendment, and equal protection under the law. But equality of ideas doesn't seem to be your goal.
The laws restricting speech are very specific, and speech remains widely unregulated. That's why the left has now taken to mob-mentality group attacks against people to try to force an end to dialogue they disagree with, using the term "hate". Politically correct speech, or at least the definition of it that causes such an uproar, is that it is not about which words you choose, but about your intentions and meaning that are assigned to you, whether you meant them or not. Your opening argument is that we should all be respectful. I agree, but many people would say when they talk about political correctness run amuck, they mean that their thoughts are being censored, not because of what they say, but because the listener disagrees with them.
Doug:
I failed.
I really hate the term "politically correct"... don't we really mean "using respectful language"? Isn't that something we all should do?
David:
The Bill of Rights begins with the right to "free speech". It doesn't say "using respectful language". I believe the Constitution guarantees that you can say anything you want, about anything, at anytime. (With exceptions that have been handled through the courts, often by the Supreme Court, because speech issues are so very important to our democracy.) The Constitution doesn't care about anyone being offended. In fact, it specifically protects your right to offend.
I believe you have used disrespectful language to describe Donald Trump. (A** Clown) Should you be penalized for that? Should you have to issue a formal apology?
I find it offensive when the President equates Republicans who oppose the Iran deal, with Iranians shouting "Death to America". I'd like to hear you roundly criticize him for being using such disrespectful words.
The problem with the entire idea of politically-correct speech, is that it stifles speech and ideas. I note that in an earlier blog, you describe religious beliefs as "hateful"and "intolerant". And under the guise of "using respectful language", Christians should not be able to express their beliefs. That is just wrong. Isn't expressing your beliefs something we should all be able to do?
Doug:
I think you have confused three different ideas. Idea #1: When I said "we should use respectful language," I did not mean that it should be regulated! I meant that it is just generally a good thing to do in regular conversation, unless you want to purposefully insult people. This is the idea of "political correctness."
Idea #2: Of course, if you mean to insult someone, say Ass-Clown Trump, then by all means do! Being politically correct doesn't mean that you can't insult people; it simply means that you should only insult people when you mean to. Being critical of someone is also fair game. But again, that should be obviously your intention. One can be non-civil, angry, loud, and even obnoxious.
Idea #3: Now, "hate speech" is something very different. To quote Indiana's own Ball State University, hate speech "consists of verbal and nonverbal expression that is used to demean, oppress, or promote violence against someone on the basis of their membership in a social or ethnic group. Hate speech involves more than simply indicating that you dislike someone. It also is different than simply teasing or ridiculing someone, or shouting an ugly word at them in a single moment of anger or frustration." That page goes on, but you get the idea.
Does preventing Idea #1 "stifle speech"? No, because you are free to do whatever you want. Want to unintentionally offend someone (Idea #2)? Sure, go ahead. But be aware that some will dismiss you because of your rudeness.
Does preventing Idea #3 "stifle speech"? Yes, that is the very idea. But surely one could take any message in this category and turn it into something more productive. This stifle seems to be a fair balance in creating a civil society and free speech---there are still lots of ways to speak without having to resort to this level of incivility.
David:
So, just to be clear, if I intend to insult you (Doug's rule #2), I'm free to do that whenever I want. But if I accidentally insult you, then I'm in some kind of trouble, and should be stifled? Well then, whenever I say something that you think is hateful, I am intending to insult you. So, take that.
It seem that #3 does regulate your speech, the one thing you say shouldn't be done. And it regulates your speech based on how someone interprets your speech. You are saying that it is OK to intentionally insult someone with a derogatory comment, but you cannot use a "politically incorrect" derogatory comment. By your reasoning, you have now invited a third party to decide if your speech is hateful or not, based on their views. Does Donald Trump get to be that person?
And, Ball State doesn't trump the Constitution, which has a rich case-load of free speech decisions. The Constitution does not give the government authority to regulate speech for the goal of "civility".
Doug:
Yes, regulating speech type #3 should be done! Ball State is explaining to you (apparently not very well) what hate speech is. There are many cases of hate speech prosecutions.
David:
"Someone" has to decide if your speech crosses a line. But who gets to define the line?
Doug:
The same people that decide if my fence crosses into your yard, or if my car crossed the center line, or if some picture is obscene. We have laws defining all kinds of lines.
David:
But your fence is not protected in the first line of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. I would agree that you can be a more civil society if everyone is civil, but free speech means just that, you have the freedom to express yourself.
Doug:
My fence is protected by the Bill of Rights ("nor shall any person ... be deprived ... of property, without due process of law".) I am not arguing for civility! Politically correct speech is an acknowledgment that one should not unintentionally offend people, and being aware of when that can happen. You have the right to be offensive and obnoxious. You have much freedom to express yourself, with only some boundaries. Yelling "fire!" in a movie theater. And hate speech.
David:
OK, Big Brother.
The problem with your argument is you are putting disagreeable, offensive speech in the same category as speech that endangers lives. Outrage, and being offended, won't kill you, no matter what the politically-correct lefties say. And outrageous speech is protected by law. I would hope you are teaching your students to be a little more thick-skinned than what you are proposing. Instead, it seems you are indoctrinating them that offensive speech, or disagreeable speech, is dangerous.
Doug:
It is true that I am your Big Brother (by about 21 months). I encourage my students to use respectful language to others that they do not mean to alienate. I do believe that language matters. If everyone in a society uses language to denigrate a race, gender, or other group, then those ideas will become ingrained in that society. I believe that hate speech could endanger lives, and that is no doubt why there are laws attempting to diminish it.
I'm not "proposing" anything. I'm stating how the law works. You have to make a distinction between "hate" and other speech. Being "thicked skinned" doesn't have anything to do with this.
David:
The other problem with your entire argument is the word "unintentional". If what I say might "unintentionally" offend someone, then all of my speech would be regulated based on the interpretation of the listener, not by what I intend. Intention is the key, but you have claimed I'm OK if I intentionally want to offend or insult you (Doug's rules of etiquette #2). Your argument, and political correctness, is completely backwards.
If I find your speech to be offensive, then you should not be allowed to say it. This opens the door to stifling just about anything. If you feel my words have demeaned you, or oppressed you, you can scream "Hater", and I'm supposed to apologize. And shut up. Perhaps our speech should be free (which is the law), and you can just walk away when you don't agree with someone, instead of trying to silence what they say. You can even call them a jerk while you're walking.
Doug:
I think you forgot about the three types of speech outlined above. I think it is nuanced, but clear. So you either mean: "The problem with using respectful language is..." or you mean "The problem with hate speech is..." You keep blurring the line between these two ideas.
David:
It is clear. You just refuse to believe it.
Hillary called Republicans "terrorists" if they are pro-life. That clearly appears to meet all of your own criteria for hate speech, as well as Ball State's, wouldn't you agree?
Doug:
No. Just because you want to ignore the nuance doesn't mean that the rest of us can't see a clear distinction.
David:
Looking over your argument, the only "nuance" I see is that if you agree and condone what someone says, it's OK. But if you disagree, then it should be regulated. That kind of thinking resulted in the Tea Party being targeted by the IRS.
Freedom of speech equals freedom of ideas. It equals freedom of expression. Unless it clearly endangers actual lives, no speech should be regulated. None. Ever.
Doug:
Yes, in your world of black and white, there is no nuance. However, that is not the law, and many people attempt to use language that doesn't offend people unnecessarily. That is called "being politically correct." There is no law (and never will be) that says that you can't offend people.
There is another category of speech that intentionally attempts to denigrate or be hostile to a group of people. That is called "hate speech." Are you arguing that talking about burning a cross in someone's yard should be protected speech? Or talking about blowing up a church should be protected speech? Are you suggesting that these people should just have "thicker skins"? Note that no lives were threatened in my examples.
If your opinion is that you should be allowed to demean or be hostile to a class of people because of "Freedom", then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that words are just that powerful.
David:
Talking about doing something falls into the category of free speech. Trying to hurt someone's feelings intentionally is free and protected speech. Planning to bomb a building is a crime. Burning a cross in someone's yard is a crime.
We can choose to be polite and politically correct, and I would argue one can get his point across better by discoursing in a respectful manner, but your arguments here suggest the government should enforce polite and respectful speech. That is the point where you cross the Constitutional line. Freedom means that you can love or hate anyone you choose, and you can let them know it. To have a free society means that you have to allow the freedom to be educated, and also freedom to be bigoted. Freedom to write poetry, but also freedom to write hateful diatribes. To regulate one, means you are open to regulate the other, depending on who's opinion creates the regulations. It's better for the government to butt out, and leave the public to decide on their own what they want to listen to, and what they want to walk away from.
Words are powerful, which is why they are so closely guarded as the ultimate freedom for the individual.
Doug:
Interesting that in your examples, you are never the one on the receiving end of hateful speech---you are free to "write hateful diatribes" but you didn't mention that you are also free to receive them. Every day. I suspect because you rarely find yourself on the receiving end. We are in the privileged position, white, male, and doctors (PhD. and DO.) That makes it harder to understand and empathize with.
David:
As a founder of the tea party, I have had my share of ridiculous, hateful speech directed at me personally. Running for a political office also influences folks to make rather irrational, very hateful assumptions about you, and often put them in print. But those are just words. And those people have a right to their opinions, and their right to express them.
We had no special privilege growing up.
Doug:
Whoa, dude! I don't think you understand the idea of privilege. I guess when you don't see the obstacles others have had to deal with, you imagine that they were a lot like you. That is not true.
David:
Everyone has obstacles. Who has a greater obstacle to success, a poor white male, or a rich black female? A white boy with a single parent, or a black man with a two-parent household? What about Asian kids? To say that someone has "privilege", and therefore an easier ride, based solely on their skin color makes a great many assumptions. One could say it is racist, because you are determining your conclusion totally on skin color alone. While historically your conclusion may have carried some weight, it isn't true any more. Life isn't so simple.
Doug:
You're right: you can't tell by looking at someone what privileges they had or have. But that does not mean that there are not a lot of privileges still afforded by skin color. One need only look at the implicit bias that most of our society shares to understand that.
David:
"Implicit bias that most of society shares"? In 2015? Just because the left preaches it, doesn't make it true.
Doug:
I'll agree on that: preaching does not make the message true. But I'm quoting research from places like https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.html or http://bytheirstrangefruit.blogspot.com/2012/08/resetting-scale-of-racism.html It is a fact that our society (whether you are black or white) shares some of the same racist biases.
David:
We came from a two-parent household, but that was because our parents chose to be married, and to stay married. Dad worked very hard to get the job he had, and stayed in it, even at times when he didn't like what he was doing. He did that for us. Not the government, or "the man", or anyone else.
Doug:
Sometimes you can't "choose" your way out of systemic problems. Being wrongfully accused of a crime, being raped, or otherwise injured might be beyond your control. We never went hungry, had a big, safe place to play, and had family support for going to college. Those are huge privileges.
David:
But again, those things you mention are not racial.
One of my best friends growing up was black ( in fact, the only friend I ever had over for a sleep-over), and half of my college roommates were black. Their skin color made no difference in our relationships, nor did I see that their skin color had any bearing on how they lived their lives.
Doug:
Oh, you're kidding me.... do people really say that kind of thing? Do you know how much of a stereotype that is?
David:
All of them accomplished what they set out to do, and are doing just fine today. Of course, none of them were "victims", nor were they somehow oppressed. They just happened to be dark-skinned. The subject never even came up in discussion.
Doug:
Sounds like some deep, meaningful discussions you all had. Just happening to have dark skin can have a pretty big impact on your life. And it never even came up in conversation.
David:
No, it never came up in discussion between me and my American black roommates. It did come up once with Roger, my black roommate from England, but not in the way you would think. That is probably a discussion for another blog, because it was quite interesting and insightful. But too long of a story to tell here.
You knew all of my roommates. You know what I'm saying is true.
Doug:
Yes, you had black roommates in college. But don't assume that they have the same worldview as you simply because they never talked to you about it. You might enjoy a book called "Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do".
David:
Oh, we did talk about our world views at considerable lengths. We all got together every night for bible studies and to talk about all sorts of issues. We talked together for hours on end. We were all on the same page in so many things. Race didn't affect or enter our conversations, and I can say with some degree of authority that it didn't matter to any of us. It didn't matter any more than if you were wearing a red shirt, and I was wearing a blue one.
Doug:
And that is the proverbial hitting the nail on the head. If you think that your race matters about as much as what color shirt you are wearing, then you are speaking from a place of privilege. That is exactly what privilege gives you. You look in the mirror and don't see race. You go to work, and don't see any obstacles. Hard work gives back deserved results. That is privilege.
David:
And you and I are doctors because we worked very hard to get the positions we have. I didn't displace any minorities to get where I am. I doubt you did either....
Doug:
Oh, please, do not bring me into your imagination.
David:
...but somehow, you feel guilty for what you have. I'm grateful and humbled that God has provided me with a wonderful family and career, but that isn't due to some unseen privileged position.
Sounds like another blog topic brewing….
Doug:
Oh, my goodness. Wow. I wish everyone could have had all of the privilege that we had. I wish that you could see what kinds of support we had. I am very thankful, but I am also aware that there are others just like me that didn't have such support, and didn't make it. It takes a certain level of arrogance not to see, let alone appreciate, one's privilege.
David:
That is all true, but you are making the assumption that what we had was based on race, and we would not have had any of that if we had been a different race. Or if you are born black, you can't have any of the things we had. That just isn't true.
Doug:
I never said that "if you are born black you can't have any of the things we had." I said that there are, of course, obvious obstacles for people of color in our country. Now, let's see if I remember what we were talking about... Right, hate speech.
There is "hate speech" and laws against it. Break those laws and you will go to jail. You may not agree with that, but that is the law.
Do you think that you are free to burn a cross in your own yard? Do you not see that that is a symbol, and that words are just symbols? Most people would agree that your freedom should end when it begins to terrify others.
David:
Sometimes your ideological arguments terrify me. But it hasn't stopped you yet.
Some symbols can be protected as speech, but speech is not a symbol. And a burning cross has a universal meaning. Depending upon the circumstances, you can not threaten a person, and a burning cross falls into the category of making a threat. Stalking, or terrorizing someone also falls into a category that is against the law. Calling someone a derogatory name is not against the law. See this example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/judge-rules-favor-man-arrested-profanities-article-1.2361501
That's why a group of black people can march and chant, "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon". According to your argument, I guess they should all be arrested and sent to jail, right? In the real world, their speech is disgusting, but allowed. You would probably defend them for speaking out about a perceived injustice. So, hate speech is in the eye of the beholder?
Doug:
It can make a difference who is saying what, and who has the power.
David:
Now, you are arguing that certain words or speech are fine for one person to say, but a crime for a different person to say.
Doug:
I think you are starting to understand!
David:
I understand you're going to quickly run afoul of the 14th Amendment, and equal protection under the law. But equality of ideas doesn't seem to be your goal.
The laws restricting speech are very specific, and speech remains widely unregulated. That's why the left has now taken to mob-mentality group attacks against people to try to force an end to dialogue they disagree with, using the term "hate". Politically correct speech, or at least the definition of it that causes such an uproar, is that it is not about which words you choose, but about your intentions and meaning that are assigned to you, whether you meant them or not. Your opening argument is that we should all be respectful. I agree, but many people would say when they talk about political correctness run amuck, they mean that their thoughts are being censored, not because of what they say, but because the listener disagrees with them.
Doug:
I failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!