Poisoned words are words that are over used and often void of vital context that would empower them with meaning. Poisoned words are all around us being used in the media, in politics, and when used they limit dialog, alienate listeners, and inhibit intellectually honest thoughts and expression which could be meaningful if participants actually considered more deeply what is being communicated.
A few examples of these words are: Tolerance, Diversity, and Racist. There are more of these words but these examples will be enough to illustrate the point. The word Racist is tossed around commonly in modern political dialog. It is used so often in so many different contexts that the real meaning of the word has been diluted and obscured. We hear the term used in cases where people are trying to exterminate others based on race, clearly racism! But we also hear the term tossed about when political opponents have mild differences of opinion with one another. Is that racism too? There seems to be a large disparity between the two scenarios but if they are both racism then how do we make a distinction. Is one an extreme case of racism and the other a mild case of racism? If so, where does the distinction change between the mild form and the extreme form? No one would know the answer to that. The word racism and the accusation of racist was a powerful inditement and packed with serious meaning. The term racist has been used frequently in describing the Tea Party movement in America. According to a recent poll 41% of Americans have “Favorable Views” of the Tea Party and 70% of Republicans have favorable views of the Tea Party. Does that mean 41% of Americas are racist or at a minimum have “Favorable Views” of racism? Thinking that is absurd (although I am sure some people do.) Besides, what race are we talking about? It’s often assumed we are talking about Blacks, but it is also commonly used in reference to Hispanics. When we use the term are we always clear about what race we are referring to? Can Whites be victims of racism?
Let’s look at Tolerance. It seems today that we all like to bow down and worship at the alter of Tolerance because it seems like a nice thing to do. But wait, who has to do the bowing down, and who gets to be the alter? Do Democrats have to tolerate Republican ideas about lower taxes, or do Republicans have to tolerate Democrats ideas of more government programs? Do Liberals have to tolerate SUVs, or do Conservatives have to tolerate environmentalists laws to stop global warming? Do Socialists have to tolerate Libertarians desires for Limited Government, or do Libertarians have to tolerate Socialists views of a large Nanny State? Do religious people have to tolerate the redefinition of marriage or do homosexuals have to tolerate the centuries long tradition of male-female marriage? And where is the fine line between tolerance and acceptance? Because I tolerate it does that mean I have to be accepting of it as well? What if acceptance violates my values, or my religious views? Does the state have the power to force acceptance in those cases too, and if they do, how do they determine who has to accept whom? Does the majority get to decide, or is that mob rule? Are we a Republic that believes in the Democratic process? It is inescapable that when the demand for tolerance is invoked the one making the demand is being intolerant.
Our last example is Diversity. Many like to praise the virtues of Diversity without any limits, or qualifiers. Diversity means difference – it could be a difference in opinion, values, morals, height, weight, hair color, language, sexual orientation, or a myriad of others. Common sense would suggest that having variety of input and choices can lead to better outcomes. But that’s only if eventually a consensus can be reached, and consensus is not diversity. Are all these differences good all the time in any circumstance? Common sense suggests not. What about harmony? The opposite of diversity. Is there virtue in that as well? Surely there is. Diversity is a means to an end, and not all ends. Diversity for diversity’s sake is meaningless. Take 20 people and put 10 of them in room A and the other 10 in room B. In room A, everyone has the same job, same age, same race, same experiences, same background, etc. In room B, everyone has different jobs, a variety of experiences, difference races, etc. Give each room a set of problems to solve. Common sense suggests that room B would have greater creativity and a richer set of experiences from which to draw solutions. Room A sill might solve the problems (and maybe faster) but only if the challenges are within their realm of narrow experiences. At this point we might place our money on room B to solve the problems better because their diversity could give them an advantage over a wide array of problems. However, let's add a little more diversity to room B – lets say everyone in room B speaks a different language. More diversity is a good thing right? Not true. Now room B has differences so large that they cannot be bridged (at least not with a larger skillset of bilingual people) and the ability for the group to solve problems degrades. Therefore, all diversity is not equal, and in some situations it can turn from virtue to hindrance.
The key is to slow down and think more clearly about these words, use them when they retain their power and their context and implications are clear. Using them carelessly and with flippant frequency rapes them of meaning and as a result wisdom is abducted by foolishness.
