2024-07-12

Beyond Reasonable: The Tyranny of Modern Communication

In today's world, communication is already fraught with risks of offending or "triggering" others. We're constantly walking on eggshells, trying to be politically correct in countless contexts. When it comes to gender, for example, if someone prefers certain pronouns, I generally don't mind using them. It's a personal choice to accommodate their preferences. But this should never be an obligation.

The Nuance of Respect vs. Obligation

Respecting others' preferences is a matter of personal choice, not compulsion. It's about recognizing how someone sees themselves and wants to be seen. However, you cannot force others to see you the same way you do. That would be tyranny.

"I support anyone's right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?" - Dave Chappelle

A Personal Encounter

I've always been reasonable and accommodating. However, when calling a friend by their legal name triggered them, it was too much. If using someone's legal name can cause offense, how can we communicate effectively? This friend could have simply told me they didn't like that name, and I could have chosen to oblige or not. Instead, they got angry and offended. This is not how free speech and a free-thinking society of independent individuals should operate.

Free Speech and Independent Thinking

Free speech involves the ability to express oneself without fear of censorship or retaliation. If me being reasonable and accommodating made them see me as unreasonable, imagine how they perceive the rest of the world! Forcing people to use specific terms, despite how it makes them feel, is akin to Orwellian tyranny. You cannot compel others to see you the way you see yourself, and you should not antagonize people over such issues.

The Line Between Politeness and Oppression

I am open to adjusting my speech to accommodate others, but when it becomes an obligation rather than a matter of politeness, I draw the line. Imposing such obligations destroys individual liberty and stifles free communication. This is censorship, and I say no more to this kind of oppressive imposition.

Conclusion

We must strike a balance between respect and freedom of speech. While it's important to accommodate others' preferences, it should never become an enforced obligation. True freedom lies in allowing individuals to communicate openly and without fear of retribution for not conforming to mandated norms. Let's foster a society where respect is given freely, not coerced.

Once we reach equality, any further push will lead us down the path of inequality. Equilibrium is delicate; push too far in one direction, and you'll lean too far in the opposite direction. Movements often have momentum, and sometimes we need to slow down to achieve a true state of equality.

By Amos Nimos