Even I get sick of repeating myself, and there is not a lot new to say since the last individual was punished for saying the word nigger in order to discuss the ethical problem with the word nigger. Still, this episode deserves special attention, because the utterer herself, Galileo-style, capitulated to this lunacy,
Mary Beth Maxwell, the head of the Human Rights Campaign’s educational arm, has resigned after a colleague revealed that she spoke the word nigger twice, in both cases not to refer to an African-American, but to describe a situation in which the denigrating term was used by others. And yet she resigned anyway. Read the story here, but to summarize from an ethics perspective:
- Maxwell is an idiot and a coward to allow herself to be forced out like this. She has had her brain washed to believe that there are such things as magic taboo words that do tangible and real harm no matter how or where they are used.
- Apparently this is one more growing malady in Crazy Left World. It needs to be eradicated by the concerted efforts of all free speech embracing citizens regardless of party or belief.
- HRC President Chad Griffin’s official statement said in part,
“As an organization devoted to achieving equality and stamping out bigotry, we are confronted with hate speech on a daily basis,” Griffin wrote in the memo. “But it’s our job to respond to these incidents in ways that are appropriate and don’t compound the harms done. This situation has crystallized the need for a formal policy on our expectations and requirements of staff in responding to or discussing hate speech.”
What to do? How does one discuss “hate speech” without using “hate speech”? It’s the Jehovah Paradox!!!
The Jehovah Paradox:When one must clearly or graphically reference something offensive in order to explain why it is offensive (or not), thereby risking being accused of the same offense that one is trying to analyze.
Gee, I wonder if the new policy will allow using the word “hate” to discuss hate speech? Griffin is also an idiot. That is not an ad hominem attack, but a fair diagnosis based on his words and conduct. I wonder how he got this way? Whose anti-speech, thought-control propaganda rotted his brains?
WHAT “harms,” you censorious cretin? The individuals who heard Maxwell use the taboo word understood the context of her comments. There was no “hate,” no intent to harm, and that deadly word—ARGGHHH! A WORD!!! RUUUUUUUUN!!!—- could not possibly have inflicted any “harms” except imaginary, politically contrived “harms,” Like the “harms” suffered by Native Americans in Washington State who know that there is an NFL team in Washington, D.C. called “The Redskins.” Knowing that you do not control the words and thoughts of others is not a “harm.” Trying to control the words and thoughts of others, however, does do tangible harm.
- Worst of all is the Soviet-like vicious colleague who reported Maxwell. That awful person now works at the Human Rights Campaign, while Maxwell was deemed unworthy. This is signature significance for an organization with warped values and priorities.