Having recently had the distinct misfortune of catching up on the “news,” I noticed a comment by the president of the National Organization for Women that decried (rightly so) the attempts of some “Hollywood luminaries” to defend Roman Polanski (I will not stoop to describe his aberrancy) as “dangerous talk.” While I can agree with the spirit of her syntax, I nonetheless am puzzled by the diction: what defines “dangerous talk?” Perhaps more appropriately, who defines the phrase?
From a natural law perspective, it seems to me that speech which is utilized to deny an individual a fundamental right could be construed as dangerous, but this loose definition fosters a maelstrom of qualifiers. For example, can speech be used to deprive a person of life? If we take the right of existence as a departure point, it stands to reason that all other enumerated rights logically exist if and only if the fundamental principle that entitles all persons to life is held sacrosanct. As a further reduction, what can be used as a metric to distinguish between the direct and the implied intentions of one’s words?
The previous paragraph hinted at the deep implications of language and the philosophical underpinnings of the role of speech in society. However, we are assaulted on a daily basis by vague caterwauls from social thinkers (a term obviously used rather loosely) that attempt to steer us into their version of “proper behavior.” As a disclaimer, this will not be a discussion of the over-used phrase “politically correct” and its associated canned arguments. Rather, I would like to examine the contemporary trend in speech-modification.
It is readily apparent to even the most casual observer that both ends of the political spectrum are quick to denounce any language judged improper: the Right will jump at anything that appears to not accept Christian values as the ne plus ultra of moral philosophy, while the Left is ever on the lookout for anything that may be construed as offensive to anyone. At times, I find myself pitying those in public life: no matter what they say, someone will be quick to evaluate it as patently offensive at best and outright subversive at worst.
What bothers me the most is the adjudicating panel…
If we can be honest with ourselves, who among us truly believes that Rush Limbaugh is possessed of genius? Who feels that Joy Behar is an intellectual giant? Is there anyone who can claim Ann Coulter as one of the greatest minds of her generation? Is it possible that James Carville will be remembered as the second Einstein?
I tend to doubt it…
The Unrepentant Elitist 
Leave a comment