It seems to me that liberals are fracturing into smaller and smaller tribes in a time where we can’t afford to be doing so. The most obvious problem we face is that we have a problem with words in our public discourse—in that we don’t seem to know what they mean anymore. We’ve become far too comfortable throwing around accusations like ‘racist,’‘bigot,’‘sexist…’ when they may not actually apply. Reading comments around the Intertubes, I’m seeing that many have abandoned reasoned discussion in favor of emotion and hyperbole.
Racism, bigotry, sexism are serious problems and we need to avoid turning them into weapons when our goal is to do away with them. So what IS bigotry, homophobia/transphobia, sexism, bullying? Do we really understand what these words mean, and do we comprehend the concepts they represent? And further, are we aware of the roles that irony and paradox are going to play in our back-and-forth? Are we able to use these terms judiciously?
I consider myself liberal—a FLAMING liberal. Progressive even. I’m so liberal I’m completely unfazed when called a socialist. I’m so liberal I own a library card. I’m so liberal I’ll only ride the left side of the teeter-totter or sit on the left side of the airplane. I’m so liberal I’ll make three lefts to avoid making one right turn. And despite that, I’ve been unfriended and blocked from more liberal Facebook “friends” than my uncle Scooter, the right-wing loon who thinks Donald Trump will make America great again and that Hillary is a secret witch putting spells on him. And it’s all over words that nobody seems to understand or take seriously.
In one discussion with a liberal friend (who would go on to block me), I was called racist. So I copied the dictionary definition of racism. He responded, “we can’t trust the dictionary.” In other words, “I will only go by what my emotions tell me.” Now to be fair, that sounded true to him, but that’s because he didn’t understand that the dictionary is the “map” not the territory. The dictionary definition let’s us know whether or not we’re in the area and guides us to prevent getting horribly lost.
How did my friend KNOW that I was racist (or a bigot)? Well, that was also is part of the problem. He knew based on his emotions. He FELT angry that I disagreed with him, and therefore I was being racist. He, like so many, have decided that having our feelings hurt somehow means discrimination, racism, bigotry, sexism… and the best way to hurt someone’s feelings is not only to disagree with them, but to throw these words at them.
As a writer, I understand there’s a fine line between how we use words and the images the invoke. This is why I take the accusations seriously, and I think we all should. I have rightly been called a bully a time or two because I got too emotional and started using words in the way I’m currently advocating against. I’ve also been accused of bullying because I used words like pseudoscience and conspiracy theory when debating a response I knew could not be backed up scientifically.
It’s so easy to be misunderstood, since we all read these articles and comments through a series of filters that we don’t even know are active in any given moment. I may read a particular article with my father’s voice: judgmental and angry, and suddenly I’m offended… only it’s the voice I chose which made me so angry… the article would have been fine if I had put on my aunt Teri’s sarcastic voice. I even could have learned a lot.
A few years ago, when I read non-comedian (and total freakin’ downer) Anthony Berteaux’s open letter to Jerry Seinfeld on how comedy works, I found myself confused. What the hell was he so upset about. And it was at this point that I began to really think about the discussion I’m having now. Do we really know what we’re debating? Seriously? Do we understand the words we use over and over?
This is where paradox comes in (or is it irony?). Our ideas, opinions, even our morality can only be filtered through our own filtration system: our upbringing, our culture, our race, our relatives, our location… to that end, we have no choice but to hang our own stuff on the words of other people. I’m often asked, “How do you know you’re not a bigot?” And my response is, “because I know that I am…” The fact that I might use this particular word means that I have a relationship with it and therefore I pay attention to it.
The easiest examples of this can be seen on Fox “news.” Remember Bill O’Reilly? Everybody he hated, he called haters. As someone who actually matches the very definition of racist, he called anyone who sought redress from racism, racists. We all know about his exploitation of women, and yet for him, it’s the woman who was sexist. We also see this with Donald Trump. Every accusation he makes toward others is truer of him than the other person. If you want to know what Trump is truly guilty of, just watch his tweets. He’ll make an accusation, and then we know what’s he’s doing.
And this is where scientific method MUST come into play in our conversations. The purpose of scientific method is to take as much human error out of the equation as we can so that our conclusions are more reality based. After all, that’s what it means to be “liberal…” Of course it’s going to look a little different here than in a lab, but the idea is basically the same.
First, know what these terms mean. If we’re going to use them, if we’re going to accuse others, then we should know what they mean—beyond emotion into actual definition, which also addresses step two:
Do some research. If we’re the type who goes around unfriending and blocking people all the time because they disagree with us then it’s even more important to have done this research. This also means understanding our own emotional interactions with the words we’re using and being willing to make sure it’s not also true of us.
An accusation of bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic etc… means we’ve already moved to step three: which is to construct a hypothesis. In this case, an accusation. This makes this step very important. It involves doing some experimentation. Listening, rather than trying to prove our opponent wrong. Hear what they’re saying and matching it against the map so we’re not making false accusations. We might find that we’re not that far apart—but our emotions are getting in the way.
And finally, if it’s true, can we have a reasoned conversation about how to address it? If it’s not true, are we willing to address our own emotions and why we’re so prickly in this particular area? This might require us to step back, relax, step away from the comment box. Listen to some classical music to calm down and pick up the conversation later when we’ve had the chance to remove ourselves from the emotion that has taken over.
Again, this all goes back to the foundation. Do we understand these concepts? Do we understand them enough to communicate them? Can we specifically point out where our accusation is true? Hint: if we have to copy and paste links to articles, then we’re not ready for this step. Using Google is necessary, but just dropping a link into a comment is not a response.
Racism, bigotry, sexism… are serious issues, and it’s imperative that we not bastardize them by throwing the words around when they don’t apply. Addressing them is and should be a top priority, but just as science must constantly test itself to make sure it’s still true, so must we. Ultimately, we’ll be able to keep more of our friends, and we’ll enjoy less conflict and maybe make some actual progress on the real issues we’re speaking to in the first place.