Free of Free Speech
Okay, I've had enough of this so-called debate about free speech, especially as it applies to so-called hate speech. A prime example of that is that yesterday Republicans moved an amendment through the United States House of Representatives that opposes antisemitism. It passed 424 to 0. At first blush, one may think that this is a wonderful thing, this attempt to quell people bad-mouthing or openly hating Jews. And I'm sure that's what each of those representatives had in mind when they voted on this self censorship. But let's look at this intellectually, without the nonsensical emotional political baggage.
First, what exactly is a Semite? Ask anyone and they will probably answer, "a Jew". Nope, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, dating back several hundred years, a Semite is anyone who speaks a derivative of the Semitic language which evolved around 2500 BC, and is named for Shem, the eldest son of Noah. These peoples include Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain speakers of ancient
languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main
subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
But modern political hacks have bastardized the term to apply only to Jews. Here's how Urban Dictionary propagandizes the definition:
I call BS. Clearly we see that the Urban Dictionary not only has it all wrong, it's the modern version that has been propagandized. But UD even goes a step further to politicize it, going out of its way to smear Germans. But unfortunately that re-definition is now in the vernacular, and as such has to be reckoned with. But like most of the bastardization of the English language, it's utter crap.
But aside from the etymology of the term "anti-Semite," let's ask why speaking about Jews - or Arabs, or redneck crackers or anyone else - is such a big deal. Consider:
I'm not anti-Jew any more than I'm anti-homo, or anti-Negro, or anti-French or whatever. But if I were, why should anyone go to any trouble to stifle whatever opinions or utterances I may have about a race, or a peoples, or a choice, or a cult or whatever? They may have similar dim attitudes about me as I have about them. So what? Because they may be offended at my assessment of them? Because in the ancient past someone of this description may have been a slave? Go back far enough and every race was at one time a slaver or slave or both. That argument is nullified.
But we don't have intellectual analysis anymore. We worship at the alter of emotionism, of victimism, of offendedism. If one is offended, another must be silenced. It's the intellectual equivalent of putting blinders on a horse; what we can't hear can't hurt us.
Nonsense.
So while I don't advocate calling people names, I can't see the reasoning behind criminalizing them if people do. Grow a thicker skin. Don't waste precious energy being offended. And let the better part of valor be your guide. Be discreet and circumspect. Be kind and polite. Shakespeare, through Hamlet, said, "Assume a virtue if you have it not." Sage advice. These traits are all admirable, but must be acquired and exercised voluntarily.
A wise man once observed that one cannot legislate a moral code of behavior. Neither can one legislate ethics nor gentility. But perhaps we can, by choice of our individual actions, endeavor to be more genteel and noble in our behavior. As an alternative to passing more resolutions, amendments, laws, and edicts, perhaps it's time to return to a code of behavior once known as chivalry.
And doing so doesn't infringe upon our God-given right to speak freely.
But modern political hacks have bastardized the term to apply only to Jews. Here's how Urban Dictionary propagandizes the definition:
I call BS. Clearly we see that the Urban Dictionary not only has it all wrong, it's the modern version that has been propagandized. But UD even goes a step further to politicize it, going out of its way to smear Germans. But unfortunately that re-definition is now in the vernacular, and as such has to be reckoned with. But like most of the bastardization of the English language, it's utter crap.
But aside from the etymology of the term "anti-Semite," let's ask why speaking about Jews - or Arabs, or redneck crackers or anyone else - is such a big deal. Consider:
I'm not anti-Jew any more than I'm anti-homo, or anti-Negro, or anti-French or whatever. But if I were, why should anyone go to any trouble to stifle whatever opinions or utterances I may have about a race, or a peoples, or a choice, or a cult or whatever? They may have similar dim attitudes about me as I have about them. So what? Because they may be offended at my assessment of them? Because in the ancient past someone of this description may have been a slave? Go back far enough and every race was at one time a slaver or slave or both. That argument is nullified.
But we don't have intellectual analysis anymore. We worship at the alter of emotionism, of victimism, of offendedism. If one is offended, another must be silenced. It's the intellectual equivalent of putting blinders on a horse; what we can't hear can't hurt us.
Nonsense.
So while I don't advocate calling people names, I can't see the reasoning behind criminalizing them if people do. Grow a thicker skin. Don't waste precious energy being offended. And let the better part of valor be your guide. Be discreet and circumspect. Be kind and polite. Shakespeare, through Hamlet, said, "Assume a virtue if you have it not." Sage advice. These traits are all admirable, but must be acquired and exercised voluntarily.
A wise man once observed that one cannot legislate a moral code of behavior. Neither can one legislate ethics nor gentility. But perhaps we can, by choice of our individual actions, endeavor to be more genteel and noble in our behavior. As an alternative to passing more resolutions, amendments, laws, and edicts, perhaps it's time to return to a code of behavior once known as chivalry.
And doing so doesn't infringe upon our God-given right to speak freely.
No comments:
Post a Comment