Sensitivity to Language versus Weakness of Character

Sensitivity to Language versus Weakness of Character Did you ever have someone say to you “oh, you shouldn’t say that, you might hurt their feelings?” It seems as though that was all part of good manners – things like avoiding dinner party topics like religion, politics, etc. The idea of being provident and sensitive to others feelings. Let me posit an alternative view that is clearly being churned up by the hypersensitivity – I would say “plaguing” – colleges, universities, etc. For instance, Harvard is changing the use of the term “house master” to “faculty dean” . Why? Because somehow the term “master” has connotations of slavery and certain ‘sensitive’ people with sensitive constitutions – and I would argue a desire to focus on the past and not let it go – feel the potential derogatory connotations of the word might make someone feel insecure, insulted, whatever. As a result, people are trying to insulate others (and since this whole movement of censored speech is apparently spreading, maybe it’s time to take a strident opposing view. We could focus on ‘those’ needing the most protection – take a look around us and see all of the movements trying to achieve hegemony for their viewpoints. Of course American evangelicals and their social constructs including opposition to gay marriage and abortion come to mind. But, gee whiz, I don’t see any loud outcry from recent Republican Presidential candidates like Ted Cruz or Mark Rubio coming out against these points of view. And, let it be briefly said, the idea of slavery and masters are over with. Such there is prejudice, but protections against slavery are enshrined in the law. But what about gay rights and abortion rights? Here we have a major part of one of the two dominant political parties in the US fostering hatemongering and a goal of prescriptive legislation (against gay marriage and abortion rights) all of it ensconced in their religious beliefs. Let’s get rid of all of this verbal hypersensitivity. We used to ban entire books because of some mention of a forbidden topic. Oh yes, coming out of the Victorian era, one just did not talk about sex in polite company or in books. Now it is hard to pick up a novel without very explicit sexual descriptions (some more colorful than others). Let’s focus on respecting an individual’s right to learn about the history of the world and the perfidies of all those movements that want to enshrine prejudice. Let’s all become less sensitized to bending to those whose own self-identity is harmed by their own desire to be lazy and not build a stronger self image. All of the tools are there for people to work to build a good self-image. And, let’s not blame others for not teaching us or letting us learn and become adults. Censorship is horrific because it lets those who censor think better of themselves than those who wish to enjoy free expression and conscious exploration. As the old saying goes, “there’s none so blind as those that will not see”. Anyone who panders to subject restrictions (colleges in the US), word restrictions, etc. is just confirming the right of the small-minded to constraint and hold back self development. Quite a share really. A smattering of other links would include the following: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/banned-words-should-schoo_n_1467265.html http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-the-derogatory-r-word-for-sports-teams-names-in-sports/