Free speech means that you get to say whatever you want.
Even hate speech. Even the use of words that the people who invented the word refuse to invoke.
I want to be very clear here. I will, in the next few lines, post words that were developed in a medical setting in order to differentiate specific diagnoses. These terms have been completely removed from medical use because of their offensive, inappropriate and completely inaccurate portrayal of conditions they previously described. These words have been stricken from use by the ones who created them.
Moron: A noun. Meaning an individual whose mental age, in adulthood, is between 7 and 12 years old based on the Binet scale. Approximation of IQ testing score for this designation is 51-70. First used in 1910.
Idiot: A noun. Meaning a person who exhibits the lowest form of measurable intelligence on the Binet scale. Mental age, in adulthood, is age 3 or below. Most often used to refer to individuals whose IQ is below 25 (as high as 30 in some literature). Usage predates "moron" in lexicon, as uses vary. Codified along with "moron" in 1910.
Retard: A verb. Meaning to slow up, especially due to prevention or hindrance of accomplishment. A synonym of IMPEDE. Also, to delay academic achievement by failure to promote.
Retarded: A descriptor, or adjective. Meaning slowed or limited achievement or progress.
Imbecile: A noun. Meaning an individual whose mental age, in adulthood, is between 3 and 7 years old on the Binet scale. Approximation of IQ score for this designation is 26-50 (the low end of the score may begin as high as 31, depending on literature consulted). Codified along with "moron" and "idiot." Also developed as a criminal designation, which allowed its use in the justification of eugenics.
Eugenics: A noun. Meaning first a theory, then codified law practiced in the United States as lately as the 1970s, predicated on the belief that people of low-functioning mental ability as outlined by law (not medicine), should be sterilized in order to remove ability to reproduce. Designed to limit the number of individuals placed in categories like "moron," "idiot," "imbecile," and "retarded," who were legally recognized as undesirably by society.
I know that the reason we have freedom of speech is because our way of life demands it. The people of the United States should never fear reprisals for expression truly held ideas and beliefs. As a pluralistic society, we are defined by our ability to exist side-by-side with people who disagree with our ideas, but who regard us with an equal amount of respect and tolerance.
I find it fascinating that mere days after A Famous Individual (female) uses outdated and outmoded terms in a strictly vicious and offensive manner upon a Presidential Candidate, others are using similar terms to discuss Another Famous Individual (male) doing all he can to derail a Presidential Candidate he dislikes.
I do not believe these people should be held accountable by law in any more substantive way than I believe the Former Senator who actively promotes the subjugation and creation of an inferior class of American Citizen should be punishable by law.
My personal, profoundly devout belief is that these people should be held accountable by their peers, not their government. I do not believe now, nor have I ever, that the legislation of morality should be permissible. There should be no law that censors what I am allowed to say - my own morals and knowledge of what I speak should do these things for me.
I believe that the people who have been so inflammatory lately do so with calculated precision. These individuals are con artists, whose primary (if not sole) aim is to create controversy, division and anger. Anger is a secondary emotion: most anger reactions are a product of fear and panic. These Fear Promoting People have decided to drive their own self-worth by offensive, tactless, transparent manipulation attempts that do not reflect their own personal values.
Ask the Former Senator if he values all human life: he will say yes. He will also continue to push an agenda that devalues and restricts a segment of the population for no reason other than his own perceptions.
Ask The Famous Celebrity if she wants to harm people she has never met. She will tell you no, but she will continue to use language she does not understand because it creates the reaction she desires.
Ask the Other Famous Celebrity if he would surrender his dignity, his reputation, the respect of his peers in order to personally hurt someone else to the point of ending his adversary's career, reputation and personal pride. He would never agree to such a thing, but he will be as divisive as possible if it removes the opportunity for his imagined opponent to advance.
I will defend to the death (with my own, if the need arises) the rights of the aforementioned people in order that they may speak their minds. Views that are different, even opposing, are where the best parts of our nation thrive. We deserve and demand a Republic where these opportunities remain intact, and oft availed upon by intelligent and learned people.
I will never, in this life, support or congratulate the use of law, our rights, or manipulative verbal violence to gain favor. I find it disappointing in the extreme that readily available are people who are paid to give opinions that include such baseless tactics. Does it come back to, "Didn't your mother raise you better than that?"
Simply, honestly: No. It should ever and always come back to: We are not, nor have we ever been, a society who will weaken others to raise ourselves. By reaching out our hands and raising our neighbors with us, we are a nation who stand together as equals. Whatever may be different amongst us as individuals, our connectivity is voiced by our Constitution and our resolve is shown by the greatness of our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment