Sticks and Stones and Bones and Souls

There is an old children’s rhyme: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.“ This rhyme, it turns out, is a lie. The name calling such as that which the Left now engages in against those of different political persuasions cuts to the quick – to the soul. More accurate than the children’s rhyme is this from Ecclesiasticus 28:17-18: “The stroke of the whip makes marks in the flesh, but a stroke of the tongue breaks the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.”

Words can be lethal weapons that injure the spirit and crush the soul. Many on the left have learned how to weaponize words. Words can do damage far worse than a stick or a stone. Bruises heal, they are superficial, the hurt is short lived. Sharply weaponized words attack the very soul of an individual – the inner self that makes the person whom he or she is. It silences what could and probably should be a very vibrant part of whom they are.

Recently (the admittedly Right-wing source) Breitbart printed a list of 632 verified political acts against those not supporting Leftist agenda; many of these were acts of verbal harassment. (see article here) This list does not include the acts of name-calling and shaming that occur daily in simple attempts at conversation between people of differing political views. All are attempts to intimidate and silence.

I along with others I know, have personally been the recipient of nearly every epithet in the Democrat repertoire when daring to state a point of view contrary to theirs. Even though false, these epithets hurt deeply, in the way that it hurts when one is accused falsely of a crime and any attempt to prove innocence is impossible. When the attack has been especially vitriolic, I have afterwards felt a deep sadness, a sort of aloneness that reaches deep into my soul.

Are those who engage in these verbal assaults attempting to wound their perceived opponent’s soul? Maybe (this question of course assumes that they believe in such things as a soul). Do they know that this name calling is a weapon that they are using intending to cause hurt? Most probably. Is it intended to silence diverse views? Most definitely.

This weaponized name-calling is an adult version of the sticks and stones of childhood. When a child on the playground doesn’t know how to deal with something he doesn’t like or understand, he might throw a rock. These Democrat adults seem unable to handle views contrary to their own and so, instead of throwing a rock they throw an epithet. But, the intent is the same – to hurt and silence the one causing them confusion or discomfort; to make them go away.

It is bullying, and bullying is a result of intolerance. Intolerance of those who do not look, think, or behave as the bully would like. It is an attempt to have the victim either go away or change behavior. It results from ignorance and dislike of anything different. It is an attempt to silence that which one does not understand.

Verbal attacks do more than silence the words of opponents; do more than simply stop them from speaking their views. They create an intimidation that reaches one’s soul as they attempt to reform one’s very being into one that the Left find’s acceptable - a clone of their every view. That creates a separation of being as the victims understand that they are seen as some sort of evil worthy only of shaming and exclusion. This sort of intolerance is wrong. Whether it is addressed toward someone’s looks or race or sexual orientation or religious persuasion or political stance, it is bullying, plain and simple. And the wounds often remain, silencing one’s soul for a lifetime.

I suspect many on the Left would condemn words that may have effected the silencing of others in the past: hateful words flung at gays or Blacks or Jews or mentally disabled or anyone else who looks or behaves differently from some “norm” of the attacker. Yet how different is that from berating one with words like racist, supremacist, hater, inhumane (the list goes on and on) or banishing someone from one’s world simply because a person holds a different political view, a view that the Left is unwilling to tolerate or understand?

While they often accuse those on the Right of intolerance, the Left has a blanket intolerance for any and all who do not think like them. This is what those without tolerance seek: silence of those whom they choose not to tolerate. The Left’s use of bullying words is nothing more than evidence of their intolerance and unwillingness to listen to those with whom they disagree; their assaults are intended to shame or intimidate differing views into silence. They break the bones of the victims' souls.

The Left’s use of verbal assaults is cruel and heartless and by its very nature flies in the face of all they claim to stand for; it belies their claims of caring for humanity from all walks of life while proving their real objective of claiming uncontested and ultimate power for themselves.

Yes, sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but the Left's words of intolerance break the soul – the soul of the victim, of free and open discussion, and of America itself.

Ignorance, Stupidity, or Just Simple Brainwashing?

Do people really believe what they spout, post, and repost?  Do they have any comprehension of what they are saying?

CNN asks the Press to speak with “one voice” against Trump.   That is in complete opposition to the role of the Press in a democracy.  It is in a dictatorship, a place where the people receive propaganda rather than information from the media, that the Press speaks with one voice.  How can anyone who understands our democracy and the Press’s role in it really call for or support such action?  Joe Concha of The Hill got it right when he noted that with its “bash Trump day” the Press is acting “like the opposition party. (http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/402095-with-bash-trump-day-press-acts-like-opposition-party).  We already have an opposition party; the role of the Press is, or should be, quite different!

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College has once again reared its ugly head as those who can’t understand why a pure majority vote did not make their candidate win or at least deny the White House to Donald Trump grasp for reasons to claim that he is "not my president."  They dismiss Trump’s election because it was by the electoral college.  Well, under our Constitution that is how we elect the president – sorry that they and their candidate didn’t understand that, but that does not make Trump’s election illegitimate.

Do these same people understand that in a pure majority rule democracy that the majority can easily completely suppress and silence the views and voices of the minority?  While some might think that a good idea now,  believing their views are the majority and they attempt to silence the president and his supporters, one wonders if they have considered how they will feel when their viewpoint is a clear minority.  We have a Democratic Republic for a reason.  In a Democratic Republic, power is held by the people but exercised through their elected representatives, including a president.  A republic will include certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority. Rule purely by majority is very different:  a benevolent majority can give way to a majority that suppresses basic human rights and dignities. (See  this blog dated August 10, 2018, Debating Socialism).  I think that many people either do not understand this or choose to ignore it because it does not fit their narrative and their agenda.

I recently met with someone whom, until that meeting, I had considered to be fairly intelligent.  This person wanted to “understand” a Trump supporter.  While I had hoped for a dialogue, I felt more like a curiosity in a zoo that this individual wanted to examine, not to understand but simply to inform me how ignorant I am, how racist, how uninformed, how cruel, and what an oddity I must be.  This person wanted me to somehow either admit my faults and/or show some remorse for holding the views I do.  Every “question” began “how can you think/say…[ a policy/action/America itself] is good/benefits the country when…[the president or that position is racist/evil/incorrect/etc.] and the positions you support are [evil/racist/etc.]”  There was no dialogue.  Answering the “questions” required me to first argue the asserted statement or judgment about the president/position was incorrect; however, any facts used to support my position were dismissed as untrue or simply not accepted because not within the anti-Trump narrative.  Even if we could have gotten past that part of the question, I then had to defend how I could hold my position with the predetermined judgement that my position was both wrong and racist or evil.  This is not a dialog.  Instead it was an attempt to shame me.  This individual quoted half truths and untruths and, when presented with evidence that these were factually incorrect, nonetheless held to the position they supported. 

In any other area but Trump, I still believe that this individual would be open to hearing other positions, would fully investigate facts, would not just parrot soundbites from CNN, Facebook and Twitter.  So, it is unlikely that this behavior is stupidity.  There is some ignorance involved, but this individual would not allow such ignorance about any other topic of discussion.  I don’t know if it is true brainwashing, but something has caused this individual to completely shut off the input of any thoughts or facts or ideas that might conflict with the narrative and sound bites that were repeated to me throughout the course of the 3 hour “discussion.”

If people have reached the point where they can only blindly hate Trump and anything he does, along with anyone who supports him or any of his actions, then there is really little hope for political dialog in this country.  And that may be the reality that at least some people want.  After all, real dialog is difficult.  One must actually think and think deeply and critically.  That takes energy and effort and it is not easy.  One must question not only the thoughts, facts, and ideas put in front of them, but must also question their own ideas and positions and be willing to alter those positions if their thinking and investigations lead them to do so.

Some people seem to be perfectly content to sit back and be told what to think, whom to like and whom to hate.  It’s easy; they don’t have to think.  It's also easy to paint with a broad brush and once you have determined you dislike someone to characterize absolutely everything they say or do or support as evil. (He's a bad guy, so everything that he touches or that is connected with him must unconditionally be bad).  Then one doesn't have to grapple with complex concepts and issues.  They can live in the moment without thinking about things like long term consequences of their actions or inactions.  They can look at the world as if it is all just entertainment for their pleasure and they can allow themselves to be consumed with hatred of any who do not spout and conform to the narrative that they have memorized and preach.  They have also placed themselves in a position in which they are easy to manipulate and likely to be used to further someone else’s agenda.

Perhaps this is the zombie apocalypse:  these people are not living but are sleepwalking zombies.  I don’t know if it is ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing, or something else that has really stopped so many from thinking, from using their brains.   What I do know is that for the good of our country and the future of our world I want them to wake up!  They may not like the president, but he is not their enemy, he is not the devil, he is not evil personified.  They need to stop believing and parroting every hateful meme and instead educate themselves about this country, what this president is and is not doing, and what previous administrations have and have not done.  They need to give up the hysteria and hyperbole, use their brains, educate themselves about issues so that they can intelligently take a stand for or against positions on those issues rather than simply judging and name calling those with whom they are told to disagree.   They need to open themselves up to dialog.  They need to use their brains and THINK!