We are living in some strange times indeed. Safe spaces, words being considered as violence, trigger warnings, collective guilt based on your ethnic origins and/or the colour of your skin. These are just a handful of recent manifestations of collectivist thinking which has led to an increasing absence of critical thought or what was once just referred to as common sense. Simply put, common sense is becoming less and less common in the modern world and that is not something we should applaud as a society.
A Brief History of Common Sense
The history of the term “common sense” can be traced back to the 14th century but truly took hold during the American Revolution during the 18th century. Thomas Paine authored the revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense which had a profound influence on the desire for American independence from Great Britain. The 50-page pamphlet sold over 500,000 copies in a few short months at the beginning of 1776 and paved the way for the ratification of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 of that same year.
Fast forward just over a couple of centuries. I believe the phrase “common sense” began to receive negative reaction from the public and media back in the 1990s. Like many words/phrases which take a negative turn with the average person, politics usually creates that negativity. This stigma, which now seems attached to the term “common sense”, can be traced (at least in Canada) back to the Common Sense Revolution which was a slogan of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario when they ran the province from 1995 – 2002. Other countries, such as Australia, adopted similar slogans to combat a growing social democratic movement in western democracies.
Now in the wake of the negative blowback to some of that Mike Harris led PC government’s deep cuts to program funding, it appears that the term “common sense” is now under attack from the extreme left.
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” Jordan B. Peterson
Think about the meaning of this quote carefully. What it means to me is at the very root of a free society that we should all have the right to express ourselves no matter how offended some people may be by what someone says. The idealogues will counter that free speech does not mean mean speech free from consequences. The problem is that exactly who determines what will be the consequences of speech deemed to be offensive? Even further, who is the arbiter of what makes certain speech offensive? After all, what is offensive to one person or group is not offensive to other individuals or groups.
We have learned from historical events that the litmus test for acceptable speech should never be what is supported by the majority of society. Should the standard of “majority rules” have been the case throughout history we would still believe the world is flat, slavery would still be acceptable and women would not be allowed to participate freely in the workforce let alone vote in elections. In all those cases it was a determined and motivated minority who were able to change the status quo. (side note, I find it a troubling occurrence in today’s world that we as a society often judge individuals from 50, 100 or even 200 years ago through today’s moral lens. Maybe this will be a topic for another day).
The best way to counter “bad” or “offensive” speech is always by taking it head-on and engaging with those who speak in a way that is deemed offensive. Said more simply, the best way to counter this type of speech is with more speech – not less. Free speech should not be afforded just to those who share the same opinions and ideals as the majority of society. Should that become the case we will live in a dystopian world similar to the fictional one from George Orwell’s novel 1984 where the thought police tell us what to think and say at all times. Protecting free speech is about protecting all speech not just the speech we support.
There is a further point I often make when speaking with my children as it relates to so-called offensive language. I believe this is even a more important discussion in today’s world of social media which allows people to say things they would never say in-person. Should anyone find themselves in a situation where they are offended by words their first response should not be to silence the alleged perpetrator. Rather, I believe they should look inward to discover why the words are offending them and further, why the person saying them should carry any meaning in their life. Also, assess why the person is using offensive language (for example, in my experience in a debate/argument, ad hominem attacks usually mean the person has no evidence to support their position).
Yes, should the person on the other side of this exchange be a loved one or a close personal friend then the “offensive” words can and often do cause emotional harm. However, should an anonymous person whom we have never met (and likely never will) say something “mean” or “hurtful” we should be teaching our children not to be offended but rather to ask “why does this person’s words matter to me?”. This will help all of us all to compartmentalize personal exchanges and assign the required priority to each exchange. Were we to create a scale from 1-10, with one being insignificant to our life and 10 being extremely important, most exchanges online would likely never rise above a 1 (possibly a 2) on the scale. To be a 10 an exchange would probably be with someone in your direct family and even further with family members who live under the same roof.
Rather than teaching our children absolutely nonsensical things like “words are violence”, I believe we should be teaching them the old adage many of us heard as children – “sticks and stones may break my bones – but words will never hurt me”.
One Dad With a Blog
OneDadWithABlog 