What’s the end game?
When I first introduced this website, a few friends asked me what was my goal? Specifically, what did I want to accomplish and why did I think this forum was the right way to do it? Those are reasonable questions. One goal is transparency. I know some will disagree, but I’ll share the thought process leading me here.
On the About page, I describe my belief that we have lost the both the willingness and skills to talk with each other and that a big part of that loss is the result of putting far too many topics off limits and far too many constraints on our language to be able to speak plainly without fear of others taking offense.
As a child of the 60’s, growing up in a middle class, racially and religiously integrated neighborhood it was common to tell people to “call a spade a spade” if they were failing to speak plainly. The phrase was used by people regardless of their race. When I learned of the negative association of “spade” with black people, I understood the need to be more precise thereby making clear we’re referencing garden implements, not people, to make the point. NPR did a nice history of the phrase but ends with this:
"Rather than taking the chance of unintentionally offending someone or of being misunderstood, it is best to relinquish the old innocuous proverbial expression all together.”
Language evolves. That can often be a good thing. Our language, for instance, is richer when we add words from other cultures. We’re happy to borrow “rendezvous” from the French and there’s no better word than “schadenfreude” from German to describe the perverse pleasure we might feel at the misfortune of another (even though we would do well to avoid relishing it too much). Conversely, I recoil at the unforgivable affront to clarity that is the AP style book elimination of the Oxford comma. Worse still are the attempts to redefine words in ways that bear no relation to their true meaning. For example, when people cite “The Science” or “settled science” they are using it in ways that have nothing whatsoever in common with actual science.
Words aren’t violence, and it does great harm to language and to its ability to facilitate effective communication when we diminish its clarity or relinquish an ever growing — and fundamentally unknowable — list of “innocuous” words and phrases for fear of “unintentionally offending someone”. I’m not going to lose any sleep over a particular type of shovel but I’ve lost plenty over the loss of productive dialog.
It’s well past time to regain our willingness to speak clearly. We should, as a society be able to say what is and what isn’t. We should be able to admit what we know or don’t know. We should be able to agree to disagree, rather than seeking ways to cancel each other when we hold different opinions. Those are some of my goals for this endeavor. We simply cannot solve our problems if we’re kept dancing around, fearful of using or not using the latest ill-defined (or redefined) buzzword in ways someone has deemed offensive.
Healthy personal relationships are often the product of applying the maxim to “don’t sweat the small stuff” while recognizing most disagreements are indeed small stuff. Other times our failure to acknowledge conflicts doesn’t make them go away; it instead often allows them to fester until they’re truly harmful. I’ll try to focus on the latter. Our collective unwillingness to speak plainly while elevating marginal disagreements to existential threats is a recipe for exactly the sorts of unhealthy civic relationships we’re mired in.
My second goal is to build on my commitment to civility. Yes its true that I can both be committed to its practice and, unfortunately, experienced in falling short of the ideal. Because I’m willing to take a public stand, I’ve made myself a lightning rod when I fall short. It doesn’t change my commitment - and shouldn’t change yours. I try to learn from every experience. In addition to working on civility, I’m reminded of a concept I have found to be universal across cultures: it is only from hardship and failure that one fully appreciates joy and success. My mistake wasn’t being angry and speaking out at what I believed the evidence showed to be profound harm being done during the pandemic in the name of “safety”, especially to kids. My mistake was letting my anger get the best of me in response to those who disagreed. I apologized and was censured by my colleagues. The evidence in support of my views has only strengthened since, and I still refuse to be shouted down; but I strive every day to be more transparent and nuanced in how I present those views and - yes - more civil.
Those who know me well know I don’t hate anyone. I’m eager to read, listen to, and consider other points of view. I’m happy (to the eye-rolling of my family and friends) to engage in hours and hours of debate. If the result of that process is that I change my views, I’m happy about that too as it means I learned something. I suffer no phobias of any sort — certainly not toward other people — other than of scary movies, apparently called phobiaphobia. Thankfully it’s just a minor case. I accept and respect each of my friends, family, neighbors, and fellow humans as the unique and worthy individuals they are. I assume good intent and avoid making judgement about others without getting to know them first. Even then, and even if I fundamentally disagree with their views, I refuse to allow myself to fall into the trap of hate. Though my views in this regard are partly the result of my Jewish heritage and upbringing, I think those of other faiths and beliefs will find commonality with them.
Combining these two goals leads to one: To promote the rekindling of vigorous and productive civil discourse and debate to allow us to make better governance and policy choices. To that end, my family and I will continue to support programming to that effect at the local, regional, and eventually national level and I will continue to write and speak on topics I believe to be relevant to that effort. I will say what I believe the evidence supports even when — if not especially when — that differs from the prevailing narrative. My oldest brother (a physician) used to say that when faced with a complex problem, if everyone is repeating the same simple solutions, particularly from supposed experts or those in power, that is the most important time to ask far more questions and demand far more proof to find the truth as best we can.
Consensus built on falsehoods is a victory for no one. Policies thus created often don’t solve the problems for which they were intended, are slow to be reversed, and can cause more harm than the initial problem. Examples of this are unfortunately far too common and I’ll be exploring some of them in the weeks and months ahead.
It is likely better evidence will prove me to be wrong in some of my views. That’s okay. I’ll try to acknowledge when that’s the case and I accept that I don’t get to force my worldview on everyone else. I ask only that my readers and critics do the same. I’m going to charge ahead regardless because I believe it is the right thing to do. I will borrow a line from a long-time coach who said that while confrontation is often perceived as inherently negative, its historical usage was far more productive to "bring face-to-face" (with another, the evidence, etc.). We need to be willing to confront the facts and evidence even if it forces us to admit we were wrong. I will seek to avoid deliberate offensiveness but I will speak directly to the problems as I see them and will not tread on eggshells to do so. In the end, because I respect the inherent agency of each person, offense can only be taken, it can never be given. The choice is yours.