The Power of What We Say

There exists a simple guiding principle to being ‘good:’ When we do harm to others we make ourselves a little bit darker, meaner, cheaper, weaker. The principle is embedded in other golden oldies like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “the devil you send returns in kind.” But at their heart they depend on a basic understanding that harming others should be avoided.

Does it work as a philosophy?  It certainly applies to our loved ones, families, friends and whomever else you most closely identify with. It underpins most of religion, morality and is instinctually embedded in us at some tribal level.  So yeah, it seems pretty successful. However there is a way around this instinctual predisposition towards friendliness. It depends heavily on whether the aggressor views the victim as a person “like them.” We show loyalty to our tribe members first.  The further away you can push that person from you, the easier it is to be casually cruel.

When an individual or a society makes decisions about how to treat others it is usually based on the degree to which we feel a personal or cultural affinity. One could argue that the closeness comes from length of relationship or proximity but it is undeniable that racial profile, language and ideological similarity counts even more.  Using a derogatory name is an easy way to generate distance between the target and speaker and when that separation becomes normalized it becomes a problem.

It is almost trivial to provide examples of how names for literally every minority in history have been used to justify exclusionary behavior at one time or another.  What is more difficult is defining when a cultural nickname is just familiarity or shorthand vs. when it becomes something darker.  At one time “Yankee” was meant to be an offensive jibe by British officers at the colonials, and some religious orders’ names (Quakers, Jesuits, Methodists, eg) were actually originally meant to be pejorative.  Likewise, it is not uncommon for minority groups to adopt their own derogatory nicknames( ‘N….r’, ‘Chicano’, ‘Wog’) as badges of identification amongst themselves.

It’s kind of funny because despite all the sound and fury over political correctness and gender identity it is actually pretty easy to at least define how the speaker meant the term to be received.  

“How happy would you be if you were referred to the same way?”

I myself am perfectly ok with being called a “Honkey, “Yinzer”(Pittsburgher) “Old dude” or “X-Gen Cynic”—but I would not want to be called a “Retard.” 

Unfortunately the obvious breakdown occurs when one counterparty feels differently than the other.  I myself have never understood the resistance to the descriptor “Oriental” since it quite literally means “from the eastern hemisphere.”  But for the generation(s) and their descendents that endured immigration controls, imprisonment or exploitation under laws that defined the “Oriental races,” that term has a much weightier meaning.  

Further, it is difficult to differentiate when the speaker meant to be cruel or was ignorant of the offense. We should understand that derogatory names harm us primarily by normalizing a greater separation between people which encourages others to be indifferent or even cruel. So perhaps a better definition might be whether the term used is meant to make that person seem closer or further away from the speaker.  

That’s why racial nicknames are more acceptable inside a community than between outsiders.  Inside the community, the moniker has become a badge of sameness or brotherhood. When an outsider uses it—that implies difference or separation. Which returns us back to the intent of the speaker, not the perception of the recipient. I’m a sucker for personal responsibility.

So may I create a more generalized rule of behavior that basically works for ANY nickname:  

“From a moral or cruelty standpoint it ONLY matters how the speaker meant it BUT speaking out of turn in a way that is not well received shows a gross level of ignorance and rudeness akin to purposefully belching at a dinner table.”

Basically if you use a name that the target finds offensive, either you are outright trying to generate a response or you are just an ignorant idiot. Heck, in many ways I’m a dummy all the time; that’s ok, but I try to be better.  As a rule we should not be rude because that would get loud and messy very quickly but we aren’t held up as moral failures in the event we violate those rules.  So if you are one of the fans who were upset they changed the Redskins to the Commanders: No you are not a racist for wanting to celebrate tradition, but you may be rude.  Hopefully you don’t answer your phone in a theater, or needlessly block traffic. Consider exerting the same sort of civility in your speech.

By the way, this also defangs the occasional rude violation of the rule to allow a proper social shaming without devolving into hyperbole.  Let a thing be a thing—they farted in the elevator and should be chastised accordingly. Move on.  But we do want to call it out as being rude since repeated casual cruelty is a problem precisely because it is “casual” and unthinking, it causes harm with neither intent nor payoff—just misery.

There is some nuance here as well: Casual cruelty comes in different forms—stressed and oblivious. I worked on Wall Street for 20 years. I saw a lot of poor and boorish behavior while there and arguably participated in some of it. But I also saw a lot of brutality, aggression and addiction in other aspects of our careers. Poor behavior wasn’t limited to political incorrectness; it can happen and provided it is limited and not often repeated it is also forgiven.  I mean, there are certain situations where it’s ok to swear in front of your grandmother—but not many. Likewise there are conditions where inappropriate behavior is to be forgiven provided it is not a pattern of casual abuse. There’s the rub.

Oblivious casual cruelty is the sort we see most often in public and it is the most difficult to define, or police. By definition, the speaker has no idea they are supporting poor behavior because the language means nothing to them as a cast-off comment, but supports like-minded behavior in others whose intent may not be as neutral or oblivious to the consequences as the speaker.  

When Elon Musk calls someone a “retard” online, he may be channeling his 1980’s inner 13-year-old to try and be “clever” or funny, but parents of children with special needs see it differently. It’s not “just a word”  to them because they know their kids are likely to get the same names thrown at them at school or when shopping as a result. Kids are cruel because they are immature and don’t know better. It would be best if we didn’t say the same about our public figures.

So our final rule of thumb: