Once upon a time, I had a guest speaker in one of my classes who made the following point. He told us he worked with interns who would say things like, “I know what I want to write, but I just don’t know how to put it into words.” His response was, “Then you really don’t know what you want to write.” I agree. Thinking and writing are inseparable sides of the same coin. I write to think and I think to write. I try to choose my words carefully, to say what I mean, and to be as tactful as possible. However, sometimes it’s not possible to be tactful. And I’m sure no matter how carefully I choose my words someone will be offended.
One of the key problems of fair debate is word choices. There are generally neutral words that can keep the argument rational. There are also “loaded” or emotionally charged terms that can be used against the other side, but these also undermine the discussion. For example, terms like radical, malicious, hateful, enemies of the state, treasonous, poisonous, vermin, evil, savages, targeted, and bloodbath tend to evoke strong negative emotions, while Make America Great Again is a glittering generality that evokes strong positive emotions. Who wouldn’t want their country to be great? Note that the timeframe of again is not defined, nor the word great, nor the concept of exactly who will be made great. While words like these are typically used for propaganda, it seems to me more neutral terms make for clearer thinking.
Characterizing (or mischaracterizing) a thing is not the same as winning the argument. Further, word choices can be the first step to personal attacks, sweeping generalizations, faulty composition or division claims, false equivalences, false dichotomies, cherry-picking data, and other logical fallacies. As crooked as these techniques can be, they are usually very persuasive to those who are not prepared for them. One example. 98% of mass murderers are men. To claim that gay or trans people are the problem would be disingenuous at best. Remember, “some” does not mean “all,” and a small minority does not constitute the whole. It would be better to discuss how to help troubled young men rather than attack this or that group.
Historically, wars of words have had a way of morphing into physical wars. Words, and often differing interpretations of words, have led to armed conflicts. Words have provided rationalizations and philosophical justifications for all kinds of atrocities. Words have meant the difference between reformation and revolution. And words meant to start a moral discussion resulted in religious wars, despite Martin Luther’s intentions.
We live in a time of micro-aggression, hate speech, and outrage-stoking provocateurs. It seems to me many of the words chosen these days are intended to “own” the other side or otherwise gain political advantage rather than foster better understanding. We have “free speech” advocates who would deny that right to those who disagree with them. This behavior is not new. In 1992, Nat Hentoff wrote a brilliant analysis called, “Free Speech for Me – but Not for Thee.” It’s worth reading. Even so, for 30 years the problem has intensified.
The internet era has allowed all kinds of crackpots, cranks, conmen, attention-seekers, and virtue-signalers, as well as misinformed, but well-intentioned participants to compete with the few who know what they are talking about. Isaac Azimov said it much better than I can: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” All I can add is that possibly 90% of the opinions shared on social media amount to noise. Sorry I can’t be more tactful.
We must avoid being so polarized that we can’t see what matters. Some take major offense at a micro-aggression when they should be calling out macro problems. Some are so outraged that this or that group might get a certain privilege that they are blind to the privileges they have enjoyed for a long time. We have been algorithmically coached to divide and use certain words to push us even farther apart. One side uses words like woke, diversity, inclusion, and social justice to attack the opposition. Meanwhile, the other side returns fire with words like bigotry, fascism, exploitation, and white supremacy. It’s a “War of the Words” that everyone stands to lose in the long run.
There must be a rational way to debate our future without resorting to words that lead to open war. A good place to start would be to reject calls for retribution, revenge, or violence in any form. Next, we could do our best to use thoughtful, neutral, non-inflammatory words and to avoid joining factions that believe some human beings are better than others. Let’s not try so hard to win the day-to-day battles that we end up losing the war.
MurrayWorks 