Why “Words aren’t violence”? And what does it mean that “Offense can never be given; it can only be taken.”?

I recently had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by two national security leaders, Dr. Mark Esper, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and Dr. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. When asked what they felt was the greatest threat to the U.S., they both said it was from within, not outside of our borders. It was us. We don’t talk with each other. We’re so polarized that we see our ideological opponents as enemies rather than as friends, family, and neighbors worthy of our time to discuss, debate, and either compromise our way to agreement or peacefully agree to disagree. I think they’re right. 

There are many reasons for our civil disfunction and key among them are the rhetorical walls and minefields we’ve built that put far too many topics off limits, lest we are said to cause offense or discomfort, and the conversation is ended, the parties retreating angrily to their side of an ever shifting line. Soon enough, we step on our own mine. It’s a perfect example of the colloquial definition of insanity. 

Of course we should avoid deliberate offensiveness by the use of slurs or rejection of someone’s innate humanity, but there are only a small number of words or phrasings that fit those categories. The rest need to be fair game. Conflating words with violence cheapens both and infantilizes The People. No thanks. 

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis had it right with his Counterspeech doctrine: “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”