My Brother on Emotionally Sensitive Topics

My brother should have become a lawyer. I have never met anybody who debates as well as he does. He easily spots logical fallacies and argues with great clarity and never gets emotional. And yes, if he’s wrong, he will see it if it’s presented to him in a clear, logical, and convincing manner. It’s impossible not to question your own positions after debating with him. If only he were on Twitter when some of these shitstorms (you know what I’m talking about!) break out!

In the wake of some bloggers and Tweeters referring to celebrity photo leaks as sexual assault, my brother had this to say on his Facebook page:

I was going to write a post about some of the terminology that has been used to describe the recent celebrity photo leaks, but this article says much of what I would have. For the record, I have neither viewed nor attempted to view any of the photos.

I’m sure this will generate a lot of hate, but this is a subject I have particularly strong feelings on and have thought about a great deal over the past couple of years. I certainly welcome comments and am open to having my mind changed.

There’s something that happens when we discuss emotionally sensitive topics: a linguistic sleight of hand, a kind of insidious verbal acrobatics, a possibly unconscious abuse of language that seeks to equate substantively different things by applying the same broad label to them and then judging the specific by the general. A type of reasoning where as soon as you can slap a broad label on something, as soon as you can categorize it, further thought, further discussion is killed, because the label comes with its own judgment, its own axiom, even if it ends up equating an ostrich and a sparrow because they’re both called birds.

To be clear, although the article makes this clear enough: what the hackers did and what the people affected suffered is awful, but by calling it “assault” we’re smearing the definition of the word to absurd near-meaninglessness and in the process trivializing the seriousness of physical assault. If you want to call this incident something, fine, come up with a word for it, but choose your words responsibly and thoughtfully.

One of my brother’s friends went on to say that you don’t have to even be touched to feel victimized and violated, and that therefore “assault” is a proper way to describe this. My brother then said:

Why stop at “assault”? Clearly there was a sexual aspect to this, and it happened without the victims’ consent, so why don’t we call it rape and treat it as such?

Or perhaps “forced prostitution”? These people involuntarily had sexual aspects of themselves appropriated and shared, which were presumably used by others in a sexual way, so why don’t we call it that?

My brother’s same friend then talked about the etymology of the word “assault” and why it therefore is an accurate term to describe celebrity photo leaks. My brother the should-be lawyer, never missing a trick, said this:

Language is malleable and words change, but not overnight. We’re not talking about the word “assault” as it was used half a century ago as compared to today.

Dictionary definitions aside, the world “assault” is nearly always used in both legal and everyday situations to refer to something physical. A physical attack is the sine qua non of an assault as any English-speaking individual typically understands it as it relates to human beings.

So what is happening here, is that you and the posters of these tweets are expanding the definition of the word by fiat, in order to encapsulate something that is essentially, substantively different from what the word signifies in current usage.

I want to point out that more than one of the tweeters suggests that even the act of LOOKING at these pictures constitutes assault.

This is where the “sleight of hand” comes in.

Let’s see where we’re at: before these tweets, we knew what “assault” was, and the definition was at least limited enough that we could find something in common between different instances of the crime, namely, that they involve a physical attack. We have centuries of human history to look at to realize the nature and extent of harm a physical attack can do, both mentally and physically, and to have formed a certain moral judgment against someone who perpetrates one.

With these tweets, people have arbitrarily expanded the definition of the word, by fiat. So now it suddenly has a much broader meaning. The essential characteristic of an assault, the physicality of it, is no longer defining or even central to the word. It’s become a much vaguer word. However, despite the fact that these tweeters have redefined the word, they seem to be judging it based on the moral and ethical implications of the older, more specific definition.

Relatedly, when you say that you or I would feel “assaulted” if this were to happen to us, you’re speaking metaphorically. Do you honestly believe that the subjective experience of being physically attacked is of the same nature as what the victims of the photo leak experienced?

Would you claim that a musical artist experiences the same thing if someone leaks mp3s of their album online as he would if someone broke into his home and stole hundreds or thousands of dollars in cash from him?

And once again, I am NOT saying what happened wasn’t horrible, and I am NOT saying it wasn’t a violation of privacy. But I’m saying use a word that reflects what actually happened. It was theft, it was a violation of privacy, and perhaps you can say it’s worse because it was a violation of sexual privacy. But it’s not “assault” by any definition of the word.

Language shapes thought, and thought shapes language, and we impoverish both when we blithely throw things into broad, easy categories that we have preformed judgements about, rather than examining their specifics.

The same friend then told my brother he should be debating with a feminist lawyer. My brother responded:

Why a feminist lawyer? I’m not talking about the law, I’m making a point about language and thought. As for the feminist part, if the victims were men, would it make leaking and sharing their pictures any more or any less of an “assault”?

The friend argued that my brother’s definition was confined to the legal definition of “assault”, and that this is why he should debate with a feminist lawyer. My brother said:

No, it’s tied to the commonly-used common sense definition of “assault” as it is nearly always used in the 21st century in English-speaking countries.

Again, the friend kept urging my brother to research the etymology of the word “assault”:

Etymology has no relevance here, historical usage has no relevance here – the people tweeting the accusations of assault and writing blog posts about it were not talking about the roots of the word or the historical usage of it (if they were even aware of it), they were — obviously, excruciatingly obviously — using it in the modern, English sense. Etymology is fascinating, but it’s not germane to this topic.

The expressive power of words and language comes not only from what words signify, but from what they do NOT signify.

Like, if we call this “assault” and the people who did it “assailants”, what meaning do those words even have? What ISN’T an assault? Is every transgression by one human against another an “assault”? It seems to be that we’re stretching the meaning so widely that it becomes useless. You may as well use it as a synonym for “crime against another person”. But what use does that serve?

Why not just call things “doubleplus ungood” and be done with it?

Another friend of my brother’s (a woman this time) said that etymology was important in this debate. And she went on to say that because there is lack of consent, the transgression of celebrity photo leaks is therefore assault. My brother’s response:

Nobody is disagreeing about anything having to do with consent, in any way. And explain how etymology is of supreme importance.

My brother’s male friend then challenged my brother with the term “assault on the senses”. My brother said:

It’s a metaphor, obviously. If I say I feel “crushed” by something emotionally, it has exactly zero to do with the sensation of having a piano dropped on my head.

Then my brother’s woman friend said that she felt that my brother was telling women how they should define sexual assault and of dismissing their disagreements with him by using terms such as “emotional” and “sensitive” to define the topic being debated. My brother responded (to both people, I think):

I can’t really argue with you any more than I could argue about evolution with someone who took the Bible as the literal word of God. The very basis of your thought, the lens, the axis that you view things along seems to undermine the very principles of debate. If, as you have said before “objectivity” is a construct of male privilege, if attempting to have a philosophical or moral discussion divorced of gut feelings is sexist and invalid, how is it possible to have a meaningful discussion or come to a conclusion about anything?

The woman felt that my brother was discussing topics that disproportionately affect women, marginalizing her feelings as “gut” or “emotional”, and using his male privilege to tell women how they should speak about themselves. My brother then said:

If this photo leak had happened with male actors and people had labeled it as “assault”, my reaction would have been the same.

Again, again, and a thousand times again, if you think the original post’s point was specifically about the photo leak, you are missing the point. I am talking about the careless use of language to twist one thing into another and kill critical thought.

We could likely have a similar discussion regarding the way people talk about any charged (not “sensitive” or “emotional” if I need to use a different word) subject. I think we would see similar broad categorizations, judgments that brook no argument, that kill thought and discussion, if we were on a subject like the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima, racism, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 9/11.

The woman argued that the Tweeters were using their Tweets to make people think more about the issue of consent. My brother then said:

These tweets were not isolated though. Before I even came across this particular article I had read another where the author equated it to assault.

I feel like there is this logical fallacy inherent in a lot of thought about things like this. A therefore B does not imply B therefore A. While a lack of consent may be a necessary component of “assault” that does not mean that anything where consent is lacking constitutes “assault”, unless you want to argue that I am assaulting artists if I download their music without consent.

The man kept coming back and telling my brother he was falling back on the use of “assault” as defined by the law. My brother said:

At no point have I focused on the law. In fact, I have explicitly said I’m NOT talking about the legal definition. I am saying that the word “assault”, as it is commonly used in English in the 21st century Western world, essentially entails physical violence. I’m saying that is the way 99% of the English speaking world understands the word “assault”.

And you never answered my question, [male friend’s name]  why can’t we go so far as to call this “forced prostitution” or something similar? This is not a rhetorical question.

I don’t know, I’m exhausted by this and I don’t know if I have the words to make my perspective any clearer. Look up Ignoratio Elenchi, Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning, Equivocation, Etymological fallacy, Thought-terminating cliché.

The guy said that, no, he doesn’t think of the links as forced prostitution. He then told my brother he was being dismissive of how harmful celebrity photo leaks can be to the women in question. My brother said:

If after all this, you think that I don’t think this is harmful, and don’t view it as “reality”, then I have utterly, utterly failed to make myself understood.

Misogynists, Islamophobes, and Self-Hating Jews: Name-Calling and Tribalism

“Just kill all the Arabs.”

That was the status that popped up in my Facebook newsfeed earlier this week, just days after three Israeli teens had been kidnapped and murdered by Palestinian radicals. My Orthodox Jewish ex-neighbor of nine years, Naomi (not her real name), was the author of the post. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed she was just shooting her mouth off because of her understandable frustration over the situation in Israel. I felt I should nudge her, so to speak, and gently remind her not to say things like that. So I wrote, “That isn’t even mildly funny.” But it turned out that Naomi wasn’t trying to be funny and wasn’t even shooting her mouth off. She assured me that she meant every word of it.

I was shocked that Naomi would say this. Although she had been raised Orthodox, she barely practiced her religion in adulthood. She didn’t even keep shabbat. She had questioned over the years and changed her views on certain issues. For example, once she saw that gay people were not the perverts she’d been raised to think they were, she was okay with them and even supported same-sex marriage. In fact, the only aspects of Judaism that she adhered to/believed were that she kept kosher and thought that the universe was 6,000 years old. She was even okay with my being an (Jewish) atheist and was willing to listen when I talked to her about the books about evolution that I was reading. She didn’t accept evolution, but she was not completely closed to the idea either.

The “Just kill all the Arabs” thread devolved into a tense conversation in which Naomi said that a Jew would never behave the way these extremists did. I told her that Israel has done wrong, every group has its nuts, and that Judaism (or any religion) does not deter violence. She dared me to name one instance where a Jew did something so awful. I reminded her that a few years ago there was a boy in Brooklyn who was raped, murdered, and dismembered by a Jewish man. Naomi dismissed it because it wasn’t political in nature. A few days later, an article emerged about how some Israeli extremists murdered a Palestinian boy. Maybe I should have just let it lie, but I didn’t. On my Facebook page I posted a link to the article, wrote “It goes both ways”, and tagged Naomi in the post. Immediately, Naomi dismissed the article as propaganda (it was written by Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper!). My only point was that both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have done wrong and that every group has its nuts. She told me that I needed to accept that we were “the chosen people.” I told her that I rejected the idea of any group of people being “chosen”. But the conversation culminated in Naomi accusing me of spreading hate, insulting her friends (who she had pulled into the conversation), calling me a self-hating Jew, and then unfriending me. We continued the conversation on IM, and Naomi told me that she’d sooner save my cat from drowning than an Arab, even a child. I said, “So you would condemn a child to death for the beliefs of his parents.” Her justification? “He will grow up and stab a baby Jew.” I played the Richard Dawkins card and told her there was no such thing as a baby Jew or a baby anti-Semite. Both are too young to have religious and sociopolitical beliefs.

I had never known Naomi well. But we were neighbors in an apartment complex in Brooklyn in which I lived for nine years (2004-2013). We had had some nice discussions and helped each other out when needed. One week when I was gone, Naomi fed my cat. When I returned, I thanked her by treating her to lunch at one of the many Kosher restaurants in the area. I guess she forgot that. She probably also forgot that although I’m an atheist, I still value my Jewish roots and aspects of the culture. I have an Israeli flag. I’ve said that some of the best years of my life were spent at my (secular) Jewish summer camp. I would like to visit Israel again someday (I went on a teen tour affiliated with the camp in the ’90s). Naomi had been okay with my being an atheist, but she wrote me off the moment I told her that not all Arabs are “bad”, Israel has done wrong, and that there are some Jews who do bad things. She put me into a box with the label “Self-hating Jew.” Simple. Out of sight, out of mind.

I would like to think this kind of name-calling and oversimplified accusations, the “either you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality only happens when arguing with conservative and religious people. But it happens everywhere, including on the far left. In fact, in some ways the far left and the far right are two sides of the same coin. While it’s offensive to religious (and some moderate) Jews to criticize some of Israel’s actions, it’s considered politically incorrect on the left to defend Israel. In fact, sometimes one of the worst names you can be called is a Zionist. To many people, Zionism is an imperialistic, nationalistic, racist party that wants to kill Arabs. That is not true at all. While there are some scary forms of Zionism– the religious “God gave this land to us and the messiah will come once we have Israel” and “Jesus will come when the Jews have Israel” types of ZIonism are scary and dangerous (and obviously there are some “kill the Arabs” Zionists)– there are some more left-wing forms of Zionism that, while advocating a homeland for the Jews, also advocate a two-state solution and strong support of the peace process. This type of Zionism, in and of itself, I would say I’m neutral to. I really am not sure how I feel about this. One has to understand that European history has been like this: “There’s a problem? Kill all the Jews!” So of course wanting a Jewish state is understandable. However, a case could also be made that Zionism is dangerous, that even its most left-wing forms are slippery slopes to extreme Zionism, in the same way that Richard Dawkins argues that moderate religion is a slippery slope to extreme religion. But that is a discussion beyond the scope of this blog post. Let’s talk more about name-calling.

I have noticed that people often call one another names and hurl loaded accusations to guilt-trip them into buying into their point of view. The above anecdote is just the beginning; there are many other instances of this. For example, if someone criticizes radical Islam, they get called a racist or an Islamophobe. If someone criticizes a certain brand of feminism, they get called a misogynist. If someone says that “rape-culture” is too simplistic of a term for a society that has a rape problem, then they are told they themselves are part of the problem. Richard Dawkins has these names hurled at him on Twitter all the time. People also read deeply into everything he says. Although pro-choice, Dawkins once expressed concern about the fetus feeling pain during the abortion procedure. The result? People labeled him as sexist (never mind that many women hold the same view). Another time, he listed three white men as his intellectual heroes. Bad move. He was called sexist and racist.  And yet another time, he said that he had been “grabbed” by one of his housemasters at boarding school. He said it didn’t do him lasting harm and that such “grabbing” isn’t nearly as inherently harmful as other forms of sexual abuse. Suddenly, he was accused of defending child molesters. 

“I don’t know how he continues to put up with this shit,” said my father when I told him about some of the things that people have Tweeted at Richard Dawkins. Well, Dawkins isn’t the only one who has to deal with things like this on the Internet. Flame wars erupt all the time all over the blogosphere, and especially on YouTube. Accusations of racism, sexism, rape culture-enabler, professional victim, Zionist, self-hating Jew, anti-Semite, and more abound, and nobody is immune from these accusations. I’d like to think that this sort of thing is limited to the Internet where one can hide behind a computer, but it has happened to me in real life. In 2002, while working at a left-leaning summer camp, I was accused of animal cruelty. What did I do? I taped a sign to a cat. That’s right– I TAPED A SIGN TO A CAT. And no, the sign didn’t say “kill me” or even “kick me”. We had an activity called Secret Friends in which we would be assigned a random person to give gifts to. I thought it would be cute to “give” one of the camp cats to my Secret Friend, a 10-year-old girl. I made a sign that read “To Gloria, from your Secret Friend” and taped it to the cat. A counselor told me to remove it. I can’t remember what she thought was wrong with the sign being there. But I removed it. In the process, the tape pulled out some of the cat’s hairs. Startled, the cat ran under a porch. In front of the kids, the counselor said, “That was cruel. I don’t think the cat liked that.” and that I had probably hurt the cat while removing the sign, since it pulled some of the cat’s fur. It was absolutely humiliating to be reprimanded like that, especially in front of the kids. It was especially humiliating because I don’t think there are many people who love animals– especially dogs and cats– as much as I do. I also think it’s ironic that she had no qualms about humiliating me (albeit not intentionally) in the name of social justice. 

Another time, at the same camp, I had the kids make a card to send to the then-developing memorial at Ground Zero in New York. Addressing the firefighters who had run into the World Trade Center to rescue people, I wrote on the card, “You’re the real heroes.” It turned out that this card wasn’t acceptable, either, as it suggested to some of the counselors that I was defending America’s foreign policy and being nationalistic. Needless to say, I never sent the card to New York. In frustration, I tore it up and threw it away.

Also at the same camp (in a different year) I wrote, “I love New York” on the sidewalk in chalk. In front of the kids, a different counselor told me that it was an offensive and nationalistic thing to write and that I should get rid of it.

What is happening here? Why do so many people– particularly on the far right and on the far left– like to oversimplify things and make accusations? Why was Richard Dawkins accused of apologizing for child molesters when he said that being “grabbed” didn’t cause him any lasting harm? Why was I accused of animal cruelty for taping a sign to a cat? Why is it that if you are Jewish and criticize something Israel has done that you are a self-hating Jew? Why is it that if you don’t think the Palestinian side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is entirely innocent that you are labeled as a racist and Islamophobic? Why is it that if you don’t buy into a particular brand of feminism that you’re suddenly a misogynist? Why do people call each other guilt inducing names– such as misogynist, racist, etc.– to try to force another person to their point of view?

I think the answer lies in evolutionary psychology. It’s an in-group/out-group mentality, I believe: You’re either with us or you’re against us. This mentality helped our tribal ancestors survive. Human tribes consisted of about 150 people, and certain dress and customs helped them to recognize who was in their tribe and thus NOT a threat to them. Jews have been horrendously persecuted for centuries (although in the last 50 years or so, particularly in the Northeastern United States, their situation has dramatically improved), so it’s easy to see why some very religious ones might be suspicious of a fellow Jew who doesn’t see Israel as flawless. It is a matter of survival. Maybe it’s harder for me to empathize with that mentality because my father’s family (his side is the Jewish lineage) got to the United States long before the Holocaust and thus the Holocaust isn’t in my family’s history.

But what about the other name-calling: the misogynist, pedophile-defender, cruel-to-animals, racist, etc.? Well, it’s pretty ironic, isn’t it? People have seen the injustices in human history– racism, sexism, child sexual abuse, animal cruelty– and want to put an end to it and not alienate people. The ironic thing is that in the process they ARE alienating people and continuing in the in-group out-group mentality, but just in a different way. If you identify as being on the sociopolitical left, you know damn well there are certain views that you’d better have to be accepted. Unless you think that the Palestinians are 100% innocent in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then you’re a racist. If you say that some child sexual abuse is worse than others, then you’re defending child molesters. If you don’t make sure your list of heroes includes a certain quota of blacks, women, black women, black transwomen, and people with disabilities other than Stephen Hawking, then you’re a racist, sexist, misogynist ablest asshole. You’re not left-wing enough and are part of the problem. You also need to use words like “white male privilege” on a regular basis. Okay, that was a joke. I have used that expression on occasion, but I think some people on the left use it to the point that it’s a meaningless cliche. 

Don’t get me wrong– I’m well aware that there are still problems with racism, sexism, and ableism. I’m also aware that there are minorities who haven’t been given enough opportunities, let alone credit, in many intellectual fields. Most of my intellectual “heroes” (in quotes because they’re people, not literal heroes!) are white men. Is it possible that UNCONSCIOUSLY I’m rejecting other great voices because they’re not white men? I doubt it, but it’s possible. Checking in with friends and family– and oneself– once in a while and asking, “Hey, are you sure you don’t like what she has to say because she’s a woman?” or “Do you think you would listen to that guy more if he were white instead of black?” is a very important, positive and constructive activity and helps us to become more aware of our unconscious biases– which EVERYBODY has, whether or not they would like to admit it. However, when it reaches a point that people are called names for not having enough minorities on their “hero” list, reject the term “rape culture” as too simplistic of a label for a society that has a rape problem, or are labeled in other ways, then what could be a very constructive conversation turns into a flame war– online and in real life. 

That’s my little rant. Thank you for your time. Now start thinking. Please.

 

Addendum: I have no doubt that some people are going to want to make a list of some of the things that Richard Dawkins has said that were not prudent and use that as evidence of him being a racist, misogynist, [insert accusation here], person. So I’ll save you the trouble and address the issue myself: I have news for you. People say things all the time that get misunderstood. Sometimes it’s a genuine miscommunication, and other times it’s just a stupid thing to say. That’s life. Get over it. Everyone is guilty of it. My father said something really stupid recently. He said that people who cut themselves do it to get attention. Um, wow. That was a pretty stupid and ignorant thing to say, but that doesn’t make him mental-illness-o-phobic. It means he just doesn’t get it. He told me that he had read this “fact” in a textbook in college. I reminded Dad that he went to college in the late ’60s/early ’70s and psychologists didn’t know much about anything then. So I had to educate Dad and explain to him that people who cut (I haven’t done it but have known people who have) are in a lot of mental pain and are taking out their rage in a very unfortunate way. While SOME might do it to get attention, they are the exception, not the rule.

Good thing Dad isn’t famous. They would have called the incident Cuttergate.