Is speech dangerous? Do some words qualify as “violent”? I was raised on the idea that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” On the other hand, we are also taught that Jesus was “the Word,” and that words have power to change lives, for good or evil. Growing up, I liked the idea of “killing words” in the book Dune, that saying a specific word with a specific intention could become a weapon to protect you from those who wish you harm. It seemed a very literal version of “the pen is mightier than the sword.”
“When we dehumanise and demonise our opponents, we abandon the possibility of peacefully resolving our differences, and seek to justify violence against them.” Nelson Mandela
A modern trend is that we have trigger and content warnings when someone shares information or stories that may cause anxiety or trauma to those who have survived scarring experiences. We also try to use more sensitive language to be “politically correct” rather than being offensive toward groups of people who have often been marginalized in the past. I support the idea of political correctness and improving society’s treatment of those who have been marginalized.
“But it is not what I am saying that is hurting you; it is that you have wounds that I touch by what I have said. You are hurting yourself. There is no way I can take this personally.”
― Don Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom
Last week I explored a chapter I found somewhat troubling in The Coddling of the American Mind. This week, I’ll tackle another chapter that has some potentially problematic ideas in it, the idea that the modern trend of politically correct speech and considering some speech dangerous is making the younger generation weaker (less resilient) and more willing to resort to violence when threatened. It is also contributing to less civil discourse, even while drawing attention to the ways in which unintentional incivility occurs.
The authors cite case after case of real world examples from universities in which a professor did or said something a student found objectionable (or used a textbook that contained something a student deemed offensive), and even if that professor did so while explaining to the students that the material was not his or her own perspective, a student complaint to administration led to that professor ultimately losing a job, tenure, or reputation. There were examples of speakers being invited to campus that resulted in violent demonstrations as well. Some of the conclusions from the authors:
- When we consider speech to be “dangerous,” it makes us weaker and more vulnerable when in reality, we are stronger than ideas and speech.
- Calling speech violence makes it psychologically more acceptable to commit physical violence to combat ideas.
- This creates a “call out” culture where reputations are destroyed over a deliberately simplistic understanding of the actions or words of others by vindictive students who are supported and praised for their bravery while really just employing mob mentality.
While the cases shared are somewhat alarming in how over-sensitive they seem, almost like a PC witch hunt at some liberal arts colleges, coming from within Mormondom (and even within the red state of AZ), they feel . . . foreign to my experience. I wish I encountered more people on a regular basis who give a damn about the experiences of marginalized people, but honestly, I find a lot of people who are surprisingly callous.
Generally, I agree with the idea that speech isn’t violence and calling it violence is hyperbole. The book also gives the dictum, prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child. In other words, a resilient adult is able to navigate difficult situations that will eventually arise better than one for whom the road has always been made easy.
In a discussion in another forum someone was bemoaning the authoritative and shaming approach to bishop’s interviews (not specifically abuse), and many were agreeing that they should be done away with. I joked that kids need to learn to lie to bishops on their own terms. I was kidding in substance, but in another manner, I was not. If someone asserts authority over you, and lots of people will throughout your life, you are the one who gives them that authority. They can stamp their foot and say “serve me,” but only your agreement that they hold power over you makes them powerful.
The book points out the flaw with something called Emotional Reasoning. When we take our emotions as “facts” rather than “information,” we are prone to going quickly down a rabbit hole of fear and feeling unsafe. The qualities of this thinking include:
- Catastrophizing. Imagining the worst case possibility as likely or certain to occur.
- Labeling. Using terms like “rape culture” and “microaggression” for accidental or unintentional slights, even if these terms help to bring a societal issue to the forefront.
- Overgeneralizing. Assuming that the idea behind the emotion we are feeling is widespread and powerful.
- Dichotomous thinking. Seeing people as either good or bad, not misinformed or scared or flawed, but actually seeking our demise.
“You can have many great ideas in your head, but what makes the difference is the action. Without action upon an idea, there will be no manifestation, no results, and no reward”
― Don Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom
The book points out that trigger warnings may be counter-productive to victims of PTSD:
“Trigger warnings are counter-therapeutic because they encourage avoidance of reminders of trauma, and avoidance maintains PTSD. Severe emotional reactions triggered by course material are a signal that students need to prioritize their mental health and obtain evidence-based, cognitive-behavioral therapies that will help them overcome PTSD. These therapies involve gradual, systematic exposure to traumatic memories until their capacity to trigger distress diminishes.”
The book talks about the dangers of our current “call out” culture in which individuals are publicly shamed for acts they didn’t intend to be offensive. The New Testament cautions us not to make someone an offender for a word. However, a lot of this calling out is long overdue, in my opinion, and I certainly think that it’s as important to stop being offensive as it is to be thick-skinned and slow to take offense. As we’ve seen in the #metoo movement, there are too many things that it’s been the norm to let go unaddressed, without checking that behavior.
The book asserts: “Many students on the left have become increasingly receptive to the idea that violence is sometimes justified as a response to speech they believe is “hateful.” At the same time, many students on the right have become increasingly eager to invite speakers that are likely to provoke a reaction from the left.”
In this reactive culture, both sides are baiting each other which may feel like winning but is ultimately unproductive. The reality is that neither side is engaging with the other. It’s not solely that we are dealing with two different sets of facts; it’s that we can watch the same set of facts in such different ways that it’s as though we aren’t watching the same thing.[1]
What makes speech dangerous is power to enact or normalize ideas that harm people. For example, was the anti-Semitic speech in pre-Nazi Germany dangerous? Yes! It led to a normalization of radical ideas that resulted in genocide. Is homophobic speech dangerous in the same way? I certainly think it could be. But if we’ve learned anything in Trump’s America, it’s that avoiding these ideas and labeling those people who hold them as “bad” hasn’t stopped them. They just went underground until they could surface again, turning up like the proverbial bad penny.
The book proceeds to call this avoidance of “dangerous” or “trigger-inducing” speech Safetyism. Safetyism is the idea that we have to protect young people, both physically and emotionally, from upsetting ideas (or people who disagree) as well as real world dangers. When people seek “safe spaces” and request “trigger warnings,” the authors assert that we are dealing with “Safetyism,” and that leads to censorship of ideas, and a weakened ability to deal with opposition in a social environment in mature ways.
The book makes the analogy to peanut allergies which were relatively unheard of in my youth, but are now so prevalent–and life-threatening–that many campuses prohibit peanut butter and peanut products from their lunch rooms. What happened in the last few decades? By protecting children from peanut allergies, rather than making them more immune to peanuts, peanuts became deadly. Peanut allergies are now a very real, very common threat, whereas they didn’t used to be nearly so common nor so deadly. It is precisely because we fought them through avoidance that they became a bigger threat. Kids did not build up the antibodies needed to combat milder peanut allergies through routine low-grade exposure.
The book talks about the idea of “emotional safety,” a relatively new concept on college campuses. If a person doesn’t “feel” safe, as he or she (or zhe) defines it, the teacher may be accused of not caring about student safety, and students may become upset.
When my son attended BYU-I during the 2016 election, this idea of safe spaces was at a high point. He, like many others his age (though not many at BYU) wore a safety pin to symbolize alliance with groups targeted by Trump in what many considered hate speech: LGBT, racial minorities, women. He found himself surrounded by those who shared Trump’s views, whose comments he found upsetting. He didn’t want to go back.
While I agree that some environments are toxic, I also pointed out that he could have spoken up. Just wearing a safety pin isn’t the same as telling someone, “Hey, I don’t agree with what you are saying. I’m friends with gay people, and you’re wrong about them.” Assuming that everyone else agreed with these terrible comments doesn’t mean they did. Even the boys who said these homophobic things might have been using them as a cover for their own sexual orientation. Or like my son, the boys who didn’t say anything could have been silently upset and afraid to confront others. He can avoid the problem by avoiding BYU-I, or he can become more comfortable speaking up.
Sam Harris’ book on Lying talks about the danger of lying when confronted with danger. He uses an example of a murderer coming to your door, and lying to protect the person he’s seeking. He pointed out that even if you lie to protect others in the home from a murderer, you only kick the problem down the road. The killer will go to the next house to murder someone. Likewise, when we avoid dealing with ideas we dislike, they don’t go away. They go underground and spread.
There’s a tactic used in lucid dreaming when you are plagued by a danger in a nightmare. If you flee, the danger grows. If you turn to face it, it shrinks and eventually disappears. That’s an idea I can get behind.
- How do we balance protecting kids from real dangers like predators and sexual abusers and giving them the tools to be resilient when they are faced with danger?
- How do we point out previously overlooked offensive behaviors without falling into the traps of emotional reasoning (catastrophising, etc.), particularly when there are still plenty of people who don’t want to acknowledge the concerns of the marginalized?
- Do you see a parallel between this “safetyism” trend and ideas like “obey your leaders” and “not even once”? Are we creating lack of spiritual resilience in this avoidance of risk and thinking?
- What has happened when you’ve either avoided or confronted an objectionable idea?
- Can speech be violence or is that hyperbole?
Discuss.
[1] For a recent example, the Kavanaugh hearing was to me very obviously showing a person who was unfit for the office. Whether or not he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford (I believe he did attempt to do so), he was so partisan and lacking in composure that he did not meet my standards for a judiciary. But to the conservatives watching it, they saw a favored son mistreated, seeing it as unfair to judge anyone based on their adolescent behavior, and seeing it as normal for someone to react the way he did in the face of unfair treatment.
Wheat & Tares 
Yesterday I watched the movie “I Kill Giants” which is relevant to facing danger rather than fleeing from it (good arguments can be made for fleeing from some dangers such as a forest fire). I’m not entirely sure what to make of it; the movie is excellent by the way and provocative. The heroine is a girl who we learn only at the end of the movie (or so it was for me) that her mother is dying and the girl believes that giants exist and are responsible. So she prepares to do battle with giants. She faces bullies at school but what he has most difficulty with is facing her own deepest fear, losing her mother. She is smart and resourceful and this makes it particularly difficult for anyone to get close to the girl, or the girl to get close to anyone.
Modern campus life is an alien thing to me. I am dismayed by the forces of PC, that some sort of invisible authority regulates your thoughts and your speech. The authority is supposed to be visible; scriptures basically, but it has become amorphous, invisible, but very powerful on college campuses and blogs.
The most PC place I go is church. The only thing that is acceptable to say is the conventional understanding. The primary answer.
On the other hand my vision of a celestial being would not include being able to make offensive remarks to or about people with less power, even if there were people with less power there.
I think, as in just abut everything, the middle path between issues is the best way. Yes, we should modify our speech not to offend people, but everyone needs to stop being such wimps. Yes, we should be careful not to deliberately trigger PTSD, but everyone needs to realise that you can’t live wrapped in cotton-wool.
“everyone needs to realise that you can’t live wrapped in cotton-wool.” OTOH, Snuggies were invented.
Thank you for discussing this! This subject is one that has puzzled me about the generally left leaning bloggernoccle. Namely, I will see post after post citing books like “Anti-Fragile” and “In Defense of Troublemakers” as proof that the church needs to be more tolerant of dissenting ideas, and that dissent is a good thing. Unless of course those dissenters are conservatives or libertarians, in which case maybe those dissenting views are problematic.
I don’t have too many thoughts yet as I am still in the “trying to understand” mode. But I hope you keep writing on the subject as I am genuinely curious how Mormon Progressives currently occupy what appears to me to be a very hypocritical space. More dissent when it benefits us, less dissent when it annoys us.
So far, in so far as I am understanding your point it would be this: some groups are marginalized and some groups are powerful. Powerful people (white men) will come up with reasons to maintain their power, which is the status quo. Therefore, although generally speaking dissenting views lead to better ideas for the majority, conservative and libertarian ideas don’t bring much of value to the table because those that hold them are blinded by their privilege. Thus, when progressives dissenters enter conservative spaces the quality of ideas gets better, but when conservatives become dissenters on traditionally progressive spaces, such as college campuses, that same benefit does not exist. In fact, allowing them in may permit dangerous and violent ideologies to spread through what would have otherwise been a peaceful progressive space.
Let me know if I am misunderstanding your basic point. Again, I appreciate you taking the topic head on!
“celestial being would not include being able to make offensive remarks”
Thank you for sharing my doubt about the omnipotence of God or other celestial beings. But rather than being unable to make offensive remarks, only God knows what is likely to offend you specifically and thus avoid those remarks (in case he turns out to be a “respecter of persons” after all).
As for mere mortals, it is impossible to never give offence because whether a person is offended is that person’s decision. I can choose to not consciously offend others but that’s about the limit of my celestial powers. The best strategy, advocated by the bible, is to say only “yes” and “no” (*) and at home that’s pretty much the extent of my communication but even that gives offense.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:37
Isaiah 29:20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
“conservative and libertarian ideas don’t bring much of value to the table because those that hold them are blinded by their privilege.”
Thank you for one of the most succinct descriptions of the phenomenon I’ve seen and that’s likely “it” in a nutshell. If I can suggest a weakness in that theory is that it simplifies the problems; assumes you or I have a privilege that may well not be apparent. I would love to have some privilege! My black bishop had a nice house in Maryland; I lived in an apartment as a sailor on $25k a year. But I didn’t worry about his privilege and he did not worry about mine.
I see things as symmetrical (or not) and try to bring symmetry where it is absent or weak. Where there’s groupthink, individuality needs to be added. Where there’s too much individuality, some group-think needs to be added.
The story of the Waters of Mormon are about group activities; bearing one another’s burdens, but no mention is made they must all think the same thoughts.
The game of Adventure, Dungeons and Dragons, depends on each Quest having a mix of talents and thought processes. 6 Geeks would probably not succeed to cross Africa unaided. In fact, 6 anything probably would not; but a team consisting of six different talents could achieve what none by himself can achieve or six of the same talent.
Apologies in advance for writing so much but another thought crossed my mind.
“This subject is one that has puzzled me about the generally left leaning bloggernoccle”
There is no such thing in my opinion as “the right”; but there is a “left”. it’s like a flashdark. There’s no such thing as a flashdark, “dark” is not a thing, it is merely the word for absence of light, which IS a thing.
Humans tend to live in groups. Group is the “thing”. People that don’t want to live in the group have no say in the group. That’s the whole point of excommunication; you lose your voice in the group. But you have notice that Group does not ignore libertarians; the latter are dangerous to Group for reasons too obvious to explain here.
But what is Group? Who speaks for Group? It’s like the Borg Collective; if everyone has the same thoughts, it does not matter who speaks!
But how does Group get ideas? They EVOLVE. Bit by bit, argument by argument, voting up and voting down, Group based ideas are elevated and non-group ideas are suppressed. It is like a flock of birds wheeling in the sky; never still but always moving together as if by invisible but highly coordinated force.
Blogging and journalism are inherently group-based activities and the more leftwing (socialist, group-based) it is the more that voting becomes important as a guide to Correct Thinking versus Incorrect Thinking. It should be obvious that “correct” has no meaning in sociology; like the wheeling of birds what is correct today will likely be more than merely wrong tomorrow, and then right again!
Hawkgrrrl, I love your posts! They always give me things to think about. Many times you put my thoughts that I have into words. Thank you! Can we make requests to you on subjects to tackle next? Haha
“If someone asserts authority over you, and lots of people will throughout your life, you are the one who gives them that authority. They can stamp their foot and say “serve me,” but only your agreement that they hold power over you makes them powerful.”
This quote stopped me in my tracks! You are absolutely right! I wish I had realized this years ago. I am a convert to the Church of about 35 years. So much of the last 20 of that I have felt so trapped, backed into a corner, feeling I had no say, no rights of my own. I just had to obey! It finally occurred to me what was going on and I rebelled. I put my foot down and said, Enough! But until now I did not have words for it. I choose who I obey and has power over me.
To answer your question: Do you see a parallel between this “safetyism” trend and ideas like “obey your leaders” and “not even once”? Are we creating lack of spiritual resilience in this avoidance of risk and thinking?
With our leaders constantly beating it into our heads to be perfectly obedient to all of the “commandments” (and I would argue what are actual commandments of God) and being basically told do your best to never really ever have to use the Atonement, we are setting people up to never really know the Savior. I struggle to love and feel close to Christ when I am told I do not pray to to him or communicate with him at all. I am told that I am only to pray to the Father, who to me, is all about justice, yet Christ intercedes for us. How can I turn to someone I don’t even know because I have never been allowed to talk to him or use the gift he offers? I find it very hard to pray to Heavenly Father. I’m told how much he loves me and I have felt love, but was it from him or from Christ ? …Just my thoughts.
This is a great post. I have a job where I work with young adults and I have to say, I see an unfortunate tendency on behalf of some of them (not all; most young people aren’t the snowflakes many people make them out to be) to feel so (understandably) disenfranchised and crapped on by the system that they can sometimes use whatever aspect of themselves they perceive led to their disadvantaged position in order to try to carve out a space in our culture rather than seeking to overcome their limitations. I deal with a fair amount of introverts, for example, and some of them approach me and tell me they prefer not to talk in groups or in front of other people, but they’re fine one on one. When they tell me this, I do two things: 1. I listen with empathy and compassion, then 2. I ask them what strategies they are employing in order to help them be able to speak to groups or in a group. The point I make is that they will, at some point in their professional lives, likely been in meetings where their opinion will be solicited and they need not only to be able to speak in such a situation, but also articulate clearly their thoughts and their thought processes. Some of them are made uncomfortable by this conversation, but I try to be persistent about reminding them that the world at large doesn’t give a crap about their social anxiety, their trauma or whatever other real and legitimate things they are dealing with, so it’s up to them to figure out how to be the conscious and engaged architects of their own lives. It’s a mistake to tell young people who are struggling with life to just “get tough” and “just do it,” but it’s equally a mistake, I think, to allow them to ask to be exempt from most social situations simply because they’re a bit uncomfortable. The middle path is the best way.
And I second Geoff-Aus about the most PC place is church. I work in higher ed and experiencing versions of political correctness at both church and work reminds me that good intentions about language and sensitivity can often backfire and become simply another moral framework/practice that is co-opted by the self-righteous in order to feel morally superior. I know folks won’t believe me, but the left and the right in this country are astonishingly similar, especially when it comes to their unfortunate tendencies to cultivate a sense of moral superiority at the expense of learning the art of compromise in order to enact real change.
“until now I did not have words for it. I choose who I obey and has power over me.”
That, my friends, is the meaning of “libertarian”. I choose for me and you choose for you. As important; I respect your choices as right for you, just as my choices are right for me.
This does not mean anarchy. I choose to let my wife have power over me in a great many ways. I choose to let my employer tell me what to do on the job and my nation, state and city tell me what I can and cannot do, within some boundaries. I chose my religion, I choose my faith and how I act in response to my faith.
“With our leaders constantly beating it into our heads to be perfectly obedient to all of the commandments”
I work with Boy Scouts. I explain to them the Thousand Commandments. Oh, cannot remember all of them? Well, how about the Ten Commandments. Cannot remember them, either? How about TWO Commandments, which if you understand them, supersede the Ten and the Thousand. Love God, and love your neighbor. But what does God want? You to love your neighbor.
In the end, all of Christianity and all of Boy Scouts distills to one and the same thing — loving your neighbor. Scouting provides some practical skills on how to actually do some of that and church provides some reasoning and resources on doing that.
“I find it very hard to pray to Heavenly Father. I’m told how much he loves me and I have felt love, but was it from him or from Christ?”
Either, both, neither — the actual feeling is the power of the Holy Ghost who moderates all contact. The Light of Christ is a type of power, whether emanating from Christ or God (the Father) isn’t said and doesn’t matter. It’s like you walk into a room that is well-lit by many lamps, and asking which of these lamps is illuminating the room. Well, they all are.
ALL Celestial/Godly beings will love you, just as we love each other as we develop that skill and practice it. To ask who it is that loves you in heaven is a delightfully silly question. Some that love you are your ancestors. Some that love you haven’t been born yet. When I asked about marrying my wife-to-be, I saw a vision of a large throng of people, like a congregation, for whom this choice was important. This vision was smoky, barely visible, over the Shenandoah mountains where I’d gone to find my own sacred grove of some rocks and bushes overlooking Shenandoah Valley.
I find it very easy to pray for in my mind he’s a person, a friend, and while it might not actually be the One True God at the other end of the telephone (figuratively speaking) it is all done by the power of God. And like a telephone, well, old style telephone that millenials won’t remember, there’s a DIAL TONE. I know before I start praying whether anyone is listening.
“The book makes the analogy to peanut allergies which were relatively unheard of in my youth, but are now so prevalent–and life-threatening–that many campuses prohibit peanut butter and peanut products from their lunch rooms. ”
I know this is a side issue, but here the book chooses a faulty and wrong analogy.
As the mother of a 33 yr old who was diagnosed with a peanut allergy at the age of 1 yr old, I have lots of experience with this issue. I was not a “helicopter ” mom on this issue. I continued to serve peanut butter to his siblings, but I do remember him being upset when he was sitting with his brother in the backseat of the car while his brother was eating a peanut butter sandwich. I do not know how my son developed his peanut allergy, because I had not fed him peanut butter before the age of 1, (though, it is possible a babysitter gave him peanut butter) as recommended by pediatricians at the time. But, I consumed a lot of peanut butter and peanuts and breastfed him until the age of 1. So either he was sensitized through breastmilk or at the babysitter’s. His allergy was identified through skin testing and allergic reactions.
I remember a close friend (deliberately) giving him something with peanuts, but then regretting it as he proceeded to vomit it back up on their carpet. There were half a dozen trips to the ER as he was growing up when he accidentally came into contact with peanuts. Symptoms included vomiting, asthma attacks, swelling of the throat, lips, ears–anaphylaxis. He remains severely allergic to peanuts to this day. Back then I had to scan ingredient labels for peanuts. Peanut oil was rarely specified or identified. There were no “cover our butt” warning labels.
Peanut allergies can indeed be deadly. Some people can have allergic reactions when it touches their skin, without ingesting the peanut butter. I can understand schools taking measures to limit the risk. Rather than a peanut-free cafeteria, what about a peanut-free section or table?
And, the desensitization process is not for everybody. Even some allergic individuals who’ve seemingly responded to desensitization treatments can subsequently have severe allergic reactions. (On the other hand, some people self-diagnose food allergies, without appropriate medical testing which may lead to false beliefs).
I think what is sometimes referred to as “political correctness” is just plain good manners and sensitivity. We shouldn’t be labeling people and making broad generalizations/categorizations about individuals. As science advances and we become more knowledgeable that ought to lead us to become more understanding. For example, we ought not talk in derogatory ways or fear-monger about people who are LGBT, ethnic minorities etc. IMHO, while there may be an increasing sensitivity in some ways there is also an increasing insensitivity and offensiveness.
Bro. Sky, I often appreciate your comments. But here I may offer some caution. Introversion is a basic personality trait someone is born with. Introverts have skills and abilities that extroverts may lack, just as extroverts have skills and abilities introverts lack. We need both in society, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that introverts need become comfortable at public speaking. The best teacher helps individuals discover and develop their talents. I know of a young man–introvert–who also suffered at some level from unrecognized social anxiety. He succumbed to pressure to serve a mission. After eight months in the mission field he became suicidal and returned early. After struggling for a few years with depression and as time passed, he was called to leadership positions in the church. But it was never comfortable for him.
We need to resist and be careful about applying a “cookie-cutter” to every member of the church and society as a whole.
Lois, I understand your point on introverts, and that of Brother Sky. Introverts have to learn how to cope with life , meaning people and mainly groups of people. It probably will not ever become comfortable for most of them, and those who shy away strongly are limiting their own lives. That may not be seen as fair, but reality does not care about fair or foul.
As one poster noted, I do also believe that most of us are in the middle, although we may define ourselves by where we draw our own lines. But we do need to strive for a more civil discourse using logic and facts buttressed by our love of God and our fellow man. I dislike labels such a “right” and “left.” What I see are people that have differing ideas, but there are some, way too many, where disagreement means that you are not allowed to speak you mind and will be shouted down.
Words are not violent in and of themselves, but rhetoric can be hateful and can be used to incite violence. And this is where we all have to be careful. We have to draw lines, but not absurd lines. I do believe that people are becoming overly sensitive about some things, maybe too many things. And I feel that is where good judgement is often left wanting in the rush of emotions.
And just like introverts, everyone is going to have to deal with the reality of everyday life. Making a living is tough enough on its own. Corporations have (mostly) come along ways in dealing with actual harassment, discrimination, racism, but the U.S. is composed of people from all walks of life and with varied life experiences. In order to have any kind of success, a person must learn to deal with speech that can be crude and even rude. Staying home from work because of hurt feelings gets one fired more often than not.
Hawkgrrrl, I don’t really know where to start on the Kavanaugh thing. I would ask you why you believe that he probably assaulted Dr. Ford? That seems to be perspective from which you gained your opinion of Judge Kavanaugh and his fitness as a Supreme Court Associate Judge. Is it possible for you to look at his side of the picture a bit? To assume that he is totally innocent of the accusations? Here is a person who has thirty some years working in the judiciary. He has an impeccable reputation in his dealings with women and in fact has one of the best records for promoting women in the judiciary. Then a woman who he barely knew comes forward with a stunning accusation. Can you put yourself in that situation? Can you imagine yourself being accused of something that you know that you did not do. Something that has the ability to derail your life and career? How would you feel, how would you react? Especially when the story is presented in such a way that there is no way that you can defend yourself, to prove that you did not do the thing you are accused of. But that is the standard to which some were saying that he should have been held. That he should have to prove that he did not do that which he was accused of, after thirty some years.
I was looking for something to be produced. Some kind of evidence. Some type of corroboration at the very least. But it was not forthcoming.
Glenn
Glenn: I found her story credible because it is all too familiar. I know many girls who were treated in a similar manner, and I grew up in the 80s as well. Movies like Sixteen Candles joked about assaulting girls at parties. Being a girl who was in that age group, the terror she expressed rings true. You don’t forget something like that as a victim. You are certainly prone to forget such an incident as a perpetrator, esp a drunk, attractive, favored son like Kavanaugh who can get away with all sorts of misbehavior. The fact that he’s against Roe v. Wade tells me his record on women is suspect. He came across (IMO) like an entitled frat boy with no sorrow or remorse for actions he doesn’t remember, just petty revenge for the wrongs being done to him. It just doesn’t sound right to me. He made a very angry, partisan attack at his “liberal” accusers. He didn’t rise above the fray. That doesn’t sound judicial to me. He has to plausibly sound impartial. The fact that the vote was split exactly on party lines is damning in and of itself. I don’t know that he did it, but I believe that he did. So, to me, his credibility is more shot because I’m a woman with women friends who’ve told me too many similar stories. His behavior didn’t in any way seem like an innocent man who is an ally to women. But I understand that not everyone saw it that way.
Angel C. Thanks for your honest and forthright answer. It does bother me a bit that people though are responding that it sounds like a all too familiar story. Dr. Ford was probably assaulted by somebody during he teenage years, but I really do not believe that Judge Kavanaugh was that person. The heavy drinker and partying person that he has been made out to be is not in keeping with the memories of the women who knew him and dated him in high school. He did not make himself out to be a choir boy either. One of the major problems I found with the tableau was that not even her close friend could come close to corroborating her story. She does not even remember Judge Kavanaugh, although Dr. Ford said that she and her friend had attended several parties where Kavanaugh was also in attendance.
Hope I am not derailing the intent of the post.
Glenn
Glenn: Yes, we are probably getting a bit afield. While some of Kavanaugh’s friends supported his image, there were others who confirmed he partied hard and was an aggressive drunk. Renata actually reversed her position when she heard about him calling himself a Renata Alumnus because she knew what he was saying at her expense. So there is contradictory information. I found his yearbook page to indicate that he was the type of young man who would do something like that at a party for his own and his friend’s amusement, even if he meant it as a joke at the time (which is possible). He bragged about partying, he cared only for his reputation among his male friends. Look, if I had been in high school, I would have stayed miles away from him, and warned my friends to do likewise. We knew guys like that. They aren’t boyfriend material or even friend material. They only care about drinking and working out and playing pranks and bragging about drinking, working out and pranking. I didn’t think he seemed like a womanizer. He just seemed like a d-bag.
Angela C. You said “I didn’t think he seemed like a womanizer. He just seemed like a d-bag.” Your descriptions of him do not coincide with that of 65 women who knew him in high school. When Renate heard about the “Renata Alumni” page in the yearbook, she thought she knew what it meant. That story along with so many others are murky at best after 36 years. What is the prevailing sentiment among the women that signed the letter was not of a d-bag. And, unless there was something substantial that were to come forth, I would expect that the prevailing narrative is the most correct one. But none of that really says anything as to the actual accusations against him. And, if the issue were not so emotionally charged, people would look at the utter lack of corroborating evidence say “let it go.”
Glenn
Glenn–I think if Kavanaugh was innocent he would have said,” This really isn’t about me it’s about Dr. Ford because I didn’t do it but someone did something to her. Let’s have an investigation and find out what we can to insure this person isn’t still doing this.” He’s a judge. It’s a judge’s job to listen to people. He refused to listen to Dr. Ford’s testimony. That’s odd. If I were a judge being accused by anyone of something, yes, I would want to hear her words. No, his attitude is like the rich , entitled, privileged prep school boys I knew. And he never grew up because He lied under oath about what those terms meant and expected to get away with it –and did.He’s always gotten away with things and just expects it.
Neil Gorsuch had no issues and he went to the same school. No one came forward with stories about him.
“While some of Kavanaugh’s friends supported his image, there were others who confirmed he partied hard and was an aggressive drunk. “
Like his dorm mates in college. Kavanaugh (calendar/yearbook) and his friend Jay’s writings indicated drinking and partying were frequent activities, yet Kavanaugh couldn’t even admit that, beyond “I like beer.” When asked if he ever blacked out he resorted to attacking the accuser rather than answering the question.
Kavanaugh was not at all credible in defending himself. I have no doubt Ford was being truthful about the attack and in identifying Kavanaugh as the one who attacked her.
Mez and Lois thank you for chiming in. It still seems as though you and most others I have read are relying upon your emotional reaction to the situation rather than any facts or evidence that has been produced, which is actually zero. I do not know if Kavanaugh downplayed his drinking, but he certainly did not present himself as choirboy and did say that he sometimes drank too many beers. Actually Kavanaugh did answer the question about blacking out and it was in the negative. He said that he had never drank to the point of blacking out. There have been some who have surmised that he must have blacked out on occasions and just not remembered it, but that is just speculation. I have been trying to find out who this friend “Jay” is of whom Lois speaks. The only friend that I know of who wrote about the drinking is Mark Judge.
People are making judgments about a person based upon some high school antics from some 36 years ago. But none of those making such judgments are questioning Doctor Ford’s own high school years where such shenanigans were also prevalent. It is interesting that the high school yearbooks for the Holton Arms school which doctor Ford attended were removed from the internet when the situation exploded. Holton Arms did not seem to have been cloistered school.
And there are reasons to doubt that Doctor Ford was entirely honest in some of the things she said if the information provided by a person claiming to be a former boyfriend is accurate. He specifically refuted that Doctor Ford had a fear of flying and that she was not afraid of closed spaces as he helped her find an apartment in California that only had one entrance and was only about five hundred square feet in area.
The fact that she never mentioned Kavanaugh’s name until 2012 while in therapy is also cause for a pause to think. The judiciary committee was not allowed to see the therapist notes to determine how Kavanaugh’s name came up.
One final comment about Kavanaugh. He has been through seven FBI background investigations now. I myself have been through one and I know several other people that have been through them. They are thorough. Investigators will go talk with friends, neighbors, former teachers, police records, and any other people that they can turn up that may have relevant information. Excessive drinking is one of the things that investigators look for. The first investigation was closest to home in time and probably would have been the most thorough. If there was any hint of excess drinking I suspect that it would have been uncovered and noted in the report. There was nothing ever brought up in any of his previous hearings, especially by those who voted against him, to indicate a concern with possible excessive drinking.
As for corroborating witnesses, Doctor Ford has zero. If Leland Keyser had said that she at least knew Kavanaugh and remembered attending some parties with Doctor Ford where Kavanaugh was present, that would give me pause to doubt Kavanaugh’s innocence. But Leland does not remember a small party with a very drunk Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. She does not remember her close friend and the only other girl at the party suddenly departing that party. And Doctor Ford herself said that Leland had not called her the next day to see why Doctor Ford had left her alone with a very drunk and aggressive Kavanaugh.
Glenn
What has happened when you’ve either avoided or confronted an objectionable idea?
I don’t know if this qualifies but when sharing my thoughts, questions regarding church issues with another member (“friend””) who response was a rant suggesting I needed therapy and needed to humble myself etc etc. sometimes it can seem like an assault. Now I’ve resigned myself to keeping my thoughts to myself.
Glenn,
” I have been trying to find out who this friend “Jay” is of whom Lois speaks. ”
Correction, Mark Judge, not Jay.
It would not at all be unusual for any of the other attendees at the party to not remember that specific party since nothing of significance happened to them. I’m pretty sure if you asked classmates if they could recall every single gathering they attended they would answer no.
But, when one is the victim of attempted sexual assault that momentarily caused you to feel like you might die, of course you would remember that incident, and not necessarily all the details of that night outside of that trauma.
Frankly, I was expecting Kavanaugh to simply say, I can’t remember ever doing anything of that sort to any woman, including Ford such as yes, I did my share of partying and drinking but do not recall that situation. That would’ve been believable because his memory of that night might very well be impaired due to excessive drinking that night. But, in defending himself he actually revealed a lack of judicial temperament, lack of control and hyper partisanship that we would expect of someone serving as judge and as a candidate for a lifetime appt to the Supreme Court.
As I’ve shared elsewhere, I was a victim of sexual assault around the age of 5 or 6. I was well into my 20’s before I ever told anyone about it and only in the past 10 yrs (50 yrs later) did I find out my sister was also assaulted that same day by the same person.
As is the problem with many sexual assaults, and one reason they are often not reported is it often boils down to “he said” vs “she said.”
In fact, had Ford reported it that night, very likely there would’ve been a lack of sufficient evidence–except for her report and his drunkeness.
“I think what is sometimes referred to as political correctness is just plain good manners and sensitivity.”
It can be when culture is shared and reasonably stable so that people KNOW what is expected in polite society; things like “please” and “thank you” which were standards for a very long time but not universal.
I remember standing at the information desk in Reykjavik waiting on the information clerk to give me attention so I could ask a question. He was waiting for me to ask a question and while waiting, busied himself. Perhaps I had just chosen to stand there and admire the sign. After about five minutes I interrupted his activity and asked where was the airport terminal? He was very cheerful and promptly gave me directions. All I needed to do was ask!
Politically Correct refers, I think, to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s book “1984”. It implies that things are not necessarily factually correct but instead are politically correct, that which people are to be told rather than bare facts which at times may also be misleading or misused.
Also, as with George Orwell’s 1984, the life span of PC is relatively brief. Negro became black became African American. None of these are all that accurate; I use “black” as it is short and relatively well known. “African American” would tend to include Egyptians and the Dutch of South Africa; yes, my next door neighbor was white as a sheet of paper born and raised in South Africa; he was “African American” and can rightly identify himself on Census as such. I sometimes identify as Native American when that’s a choice since I’m certainly not native to anywhere else! My ancestors came from many places and while there’s certainly some cultural influence that is not what makes me what I am.
“Handicapped” became “differently abled”. Women became womyn. Is the “y” really that important? It is to a PC person.
In my opinion, it is about power and has nothing to do with correctness. You must use my words, not your words and if we have been using the same words, well, I will make some new words and then compel you to use my new words.
it often boils down to “he said” vs “she said.”
And neither of them should have been there, particularly an underage girl.
But I’ll admit I found Kavanaugh’s denials unconvincing. But if I sat on jury I would say that proof beyond reasonable doubt, or even a preponderane of evidence has not been met. I can *believe* Dr Ford but not *act* on that belief if I recognize it is mere belief.
That has religious implications. Believing the Book of Mormon to be the word of God is not, for many, sufficient reason to act; but for others, it is.
Lois, You said “It would not at all be unusual for any of the other attendees at the party to not remember that specific party since nothing of significance happened to them. I’m pretty sure if you asked classmates if they could recall every single gathering they attended they would answer no.
But, when one is the victim of attempted sexual assault that momentarily caused you to feel like you might die, of course you would remember that incident, and not necessarily all the details of that night outside of that trauma.”
Your first comment seems to echo almost verbatim the response that Dr. Ford made as to why no one else but her remembers that episode. But how does she or you or anyone else know that the events would not have been remarkable to anyone else in the room. Remember here was a small party. There was supposedly P.J. Smyth, another boy whose name Doctor Ford does not remember, close friend Leland Ingham Keyser, Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and Doctor Ford. According to Doctor Ford, both Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were already snockered. So Doctor Ford goes upstairs to the bathroom. It is unclear from her testimony whether Kavanaugh and Judge were already upstairs or if they followed her upstairs or if they were already upstairs lying in wait. But the point is that all of a sudden there were two boys and one girl left alone downstairs. According to Doctor Ford there were no television or radios playing downstairs. No noise except possible, probable conversations between those left downstairs. But upstairs there was a door probably slamming, an initial scream then a radio being turned up to play loudly. Then two very drunk boys clattering down the stairs followed by a very distraught girl quickly coming down the stairs and exiting the scene without a word to anyone else. Remember, Doctor Ford said that she had to go by the four to get outside. If you had been that close friend of Doctor Ford, a bit older than her, would you not have noticed something odd when she left so suddenly leaving you alone with four boys, two of them very drunk? Wouldn’t you have followed her out of the house and asked her what was going on? Wouldn’t you have at least called her the next day to see if she was okay, to see if she got home okay?
There just is no way to logically say that the party in question would have been unremarkable to the others at that party. Drunks are remarkable to those who are not accustomed to them. I can still remember several episodes with drunks and people drinking during my childhood years later. I remember a night my mother explained to me that my father was sleeping in the car because he was drunk, among other things, many of which go back more than thirty-five years.
The actual trip to the bathroom bothers me. It is not likely that a two boys drunk as Kavanaugh and Judge supposedly were would have followed her up the stairs without her knowing it. If so, it would make sense that she scamper on up the stairs and get into the bathroom safely before they could bumble and stumble up the stairs to catch her. Now, if they were already upstairs, would she not have been aware of it? After all, it was a really small party and they were very drunk and loud. If you had been in her position, knowing that two drunk boys were upstairs would you not have asked your close friend to go up there with you? A lot of that part does not make sense.
I do not believe that I am biased against women and am just rushing to defend a while male. I believed that Amanda Knox was innocent because there just was no evidence to put here at the scene of the crime. I still believe her and am happy that she was exonerated, at least legally. There are still so many who just will not look at the pertinent facts of the case. I am biased toward the use of evidence and facts to make a case against anyone.
Glenn