Tag: politics

The oppression Olympics – follow the money

Intersectionality has become a woke mantra for the oppression Olympics

As a society we cannot look anywhere without someone or some group claiming some type of victimization. Words like “marginalized”, “oppressor” and “racialized” have become part of the verbal tool-kit of the race and gender hustlers who, make no mistake, aim to profit from weaving, at best an exaggerated story and at worse a largely fabricated narrative.

There are far too many examples of this disingenuous story-telling on which to shine a light so I will just select three to examine. Buckle up, this may get bumpy.

FREE -FREE PALESTINE! (from Hamas?)

Ever since the October 7 attack by a group of Hamas-led terrorists I have had a desire to take in information from both sides to create an informed opinion. Forming an opinion is quite easy. You seek out a diversity of opinions on a subject and determine the credibility of not only the material but the source. What I have found on one side is a subset of that dogmatic toolkit of words I mentioned in the opening.

Me and my friends often played drinking games (shh, don’t tell my kids) where we would be forced to take a drink every time we heard a word. I do not suggest you do any version of this game with the words “genocide” or “occupier” or “settler colonialism” or “apartheid state” as the triggers to take a drink when you watch any interview featuring a pro-Hamas… oops, I mean pro-Palestinian speaker. I promise, should you play this drinking game, you will be face first on the floor after a few sentences from the person speaking in support of the Palestinians.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have sympathy for the innocent Palestinians caught in the literal cross-fire of the current conflict between Hamas and Israel (note, I do take issue with the portrayal by the media and politicians of women and children as “innocents”. The assumption from this is that NO women and NO children have/are participating in terrorist activities. That is just patently not true and is designed to play on the emotions of the public.). However, unlike the group of students at Harvard who signed a letter, before the bodies of Israelis (many of whom were civilians) slaughtered on October 7 had even been counted, laying FULL responsibility on Israel – I have critical thought on my side. Turning Israel into the demon in the October 7 massacre, while seemingly justifying the actions of the attackers is in a word… absurd. There is absolutely no justification for the barbarism that occurred on October 7 in Israel. Full stop.

Further to the discussion of the oppression of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who really is oppressing them? Since 2005 when the Israeli government unilaterally exited from Gaza the real oppression of the citizens of that tiny strip of land truly began. You see, Hamas who were elected to govern Gaza in a free election in 2006 have done nothing to improve the life of Gazans. Unless you believe that somehow building a network of terror tunnels beneath Gaza or launching rockets into Israel somehow has improved the life of the average person living in Gaza.

Hamas, which ironically was founded not as a  radical Islamic terrorist group but as a humanitarian aid organization, has done nothing but make life unbearable for the people who put them in power. International aid and support poured into the region after 2006 and most of that has been used not to build infrastructure to support the possibility and hope of a new Palestinian state but rather to fund a truly genocidal goal – the eradication of Israel.

There has been much discussion of Israel’s “blockade” (take a drink) of Gaza by those on the pro-Palestinian side, especially but not exclusively on university campuses. Do some of these useful idiots who masquerade as intelligent students not realize that prior to October 7 thousands of Gazans travelled freely to Israel for work? Do they also not know that one of the border entry points into Gaza, the one at the southern city of Rafah, is controlled by Egypt and NOT Israel? Have none of these people heard of Google?

The leaders of Hamas have profited immensely from the oppression narrative. Many of these individuals are not in the devastated Gaza strip wondering when the fighting will stop but rather they are living in the lap of luxury in Qatar. Remember, follow the money.

I do believe that Palestinians living in Gaza have been oppressed. The question is who is the oppressor? For me (and many rational people) the answer is obvious… Hamas.

D.E.I. (Division – Exclusion – Indoctrination)

OK, I cannot take credit for coming up with the acronym above but it sure does accurately capture the true meaning of the DEI movement that has swept through our society. Nowhere is DEI actually about “diversity”, nor “equity” nor “inclusion”- no matter what the claims in support of this belief from the race hustlers.

What is “diversity”? To the aforementioned race hustlers of the world diversity can be judged by one shallow characteristic – skin colour. OK, yes disabled or LGBT (I refuse to add the rest of the alphabet to the acronym. Consider it my silent hetero protest against the identity politics madness) are also included as a nod to how they have allegedly been oppressed. Now, if you are a trans/disabled/black woman you are at the top of the oppression spectrum known by progressives as intersectionality and thus are coveted by employers, politicians, media and advertisers.

Here is the problem. None of these traits which make up each person operate in a vacuum. Would Lebron James’ or Barack Obama’s family be more disadvantaged than a poor white family from Appalachia? Would the gay black woman who grew up in an upper middle class family in the Forest Hill  area of Toronto be more oppressed than a poor white straight man living in Winnipeg? According to the logic of the race hustlers the answer is a resounding… yes.

The idea that we cannot look beyond immutable characteristics of individuals such as race and sex to help form a real understanding of how that person is or is not oppressed, seems counter-intuitive. Some of the poorest municipalities in the United States are majority white areas. Also, academics such as Thomas Sowell have pointed out that married black couples have far greater household income on average than single parent white households. These two facts support the truth that disadvantage is not necessarily connected to the colour of a person’s skin. Cultural factors such as an absence of fathers in the household or a generational reliance on welfare are just two factors which should be part of the discussion.

The dogmatic doctrine of DEI has led to companies making it a central factor in hiring. Many employees are required to participate in “anti-racism” training (brainwashing?) which at the core is designed to identify the oppressed class and the oppressor class. Simply put, if you are a white straight male you are by default, a member of the latter group. Those in the group need to “recognize their whiteness” and “check their privilege”.

The so-called oppressed group has been told that they are victims. Everything is always about race. According to leading anti-racism academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo racism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Absolutely everything that happens in our society can be traced back to race. Any rational person can see how divisive this ideology can be. Labelling anyone as part of the privileged or disadvantaged group before knowing their stories, which have played a part in shaping their lives, removes any nuance to the debate.

Behind this movement is the almighty dollar. I have pointed out before how many billions of dollars are now dedicated to DEI initiatives. Companies have added entire departments dedicated to promoting this divisive doctrine. Post-secondary institutions now have disciplines and departments fully dedicated to pushing this agenda. Courses like Gender Analytics: Gender Equity through Inclusive Design or Human-Centred Design for Inclusive Design offered at the University of Toronto are just some of the now common cult-like DEI offerings at so-called institutions of higher learning.

There is some hope that the identity politics which has taken hold is being challenged and the pendulum will swing back to a place of sanity. Chris Rufo, a conservative pundit, has coined another acronym – EMC (Equality: Merit: Colour-blindness) which is beginning to receive widespread support. This is the concept that these three pillars should be the over-arching consideration for companies and universities when the hire/promote/admit individuals. What a novel concept – the most qualified candidates will get the job/promotion/spot in a program REGARDLESS of their group identity – equality instead of equity.

The US Supreme Court also cast a vote for the EMC side of the debate by striking down the common use of affirmative action admissions at post-secondary institutions. (The irony of affirmative action admission standards is that it disproportionately negatively impacted Asians more than any other group. So much for white privilege) Hopefully, the Supreme Court ruling will help turn off the DEI money faucet.

BLM (Buy -Luxury-Mansions)

Looking back at the events of 2020 I believe that a fire was ignited. Some will say that it was a purposeful fire – like a controlled burn. I maintain that the fire was more like wildfire – devouring everything in its path, an out of control conflagration, one which society is collectively still fighting to get under control.

Some may argue that this actually began in 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained momentum with a some high profile cases. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and Matt Lauer were just three celebrities who were exposed as abusers. These A-list celebrities made it easier for women (and in a few cases, men) to come forward with their stories of abuse.

However, if MeToo was the kindling, George Floyd was the gasoline which caused the societal blaze we are still dealing with today. The problem is that, as it is with many causes, there are those who seek to sow false narratives and profit from these narratives. In the case of the tragic events surrounding the death of George Floyd those people have become known in many circles as “race hustlers”.

These race hustlers are comprised of both individuals and groups. At the top of the food chain of these profiteers is one group that was founded over ten years ago but only gained widespread acceptance in the wake of the George Floyd incident. That group is of course Black Lives Matter or BLM for short.

I mentioned these leeches in the previous section on DEI but I did not provide a definition. Let me step back for a moment and explain the meaning “race hustlers”. When you think of a hustler you get an image of a con artist who has one real goal – to separate a “mark” from their money. So a race hustler is simply someone who uses race to profit in an unsavory way.

I remember all the black squares appearing on social media in the wake of George Floyd’s death. I also remember anyone like me who said let’s wait to hear the whole story before we make a conclusion being publicly shamed and ridiculed for not getting in line with the narrative that white police officers were “hunting” young black men on the streets of the United States, and yes even here in Canada. Rationality and critical thinking made me conclude that this narrative was not only false, it was dangerous and divisive.

The black squares on social media paved the way for the race hustlers (the black square and the response to those who resisted to post it reminded me of this scene from a Seinfeld episode). They had been given the legitimacy to push their narrative which led to the majority of the population in many western countries to feel a collective guilt for the death of George Floyd. Guilt often is wielded by some to get the public to open their wallets.

For those of you who go grocery shopping or to the LCBO to grab a bottle of wine, think how often you are greeted by a request for a donation to a variety of charities. It doesn’t stop with the more formal requests inside the store but it often continues with you being greeted by a request from presumably homeless individuals for money as you exit the building. I have learned to numb myself to the feeling of guilt when asked for money regardless if the request comes from a legitimate charity or a less fortunate person because if I didn’t say “no” I might soon become the person looking for help.

The death of George Floyd led to the type of guilt gouging mentioned above multiplied many times over. The difference this time was that the guilt was coupled with judgement for those who didn’t feel right about what was going on around them. The emotion of the events had led people to just throw away their ability to question the legitimate nature of those who seemed to be sowing the seeds of guilt and division. The proverbial fox was in the hen house.

BLM collected, by some calculations, almost $100 million USD in less then one year. Wallets were not just opened, they were emptied. And it wasn’t just guilty individuals, it was corporate guilt as well. Companies, big and small, were falling over each other to give to BLM or other similar charitable organizations.

So what happened to all that money? It went to help at-risk black communities or fund programs designed to improve the lives of those experiencing “systemic racism”, right? Guess again. The money donated has essentially evaporated and the only real beneficiaries seem to be individuals connected with BLM. Don’t believe me, read it for yourself .

I could write multiple posts about the shadiness and outright fraudulent activities of BLM but I don’t want to get mired in the muck of this (Marxist) organization. Let me just say I am glad that I was one of those that kept his wallet firmly closed to this corrupt organization.

All three of the cases briefly outlined above have one cynical thread in common – cash. Remember these sage words of wisdom before you support any initiative – and definitely the three discussed in this piece – “a fool and his money are soon parted”.

One Dad With a Blog

When did expressing an opinion become an offence? – Sanity takes a holiday

So, I have been following the Harrison Butker controversy and frankly, I don’t understand the outrage. People are losing their shit over what Butker said. Don’t believe me? Well, just check out the online petition demanding the Kansas City Chiefs “dismiss” Butker for “discriminatory remarks”.

Harrison Butker petition

First, let’s understand, that the petition characterizing what the Kansas Chiefs kicker said as “remarks” is just a little misleading. This wasn’t some post-game interview or even an appearance on one of the many podcasts out there (not, that this matters one iota to me). Butker had been invited by Benedictine College, a Catholic post-secondary institution located in Atchison, Kansas City, to deliver the graduation address. It is important to note that this is a CATHOLIC institution, promoting CATHOLIC values. Anyone can disagree with these values but remember… context matters. The audience was… CATHOLIC. Butker wasn’t speaking to anyone else.

The fact that the speech went viral does not change the audience. Just because some people viewed the speech (or in many cases, just excerpts) and were outraged speaks more about those individuals than Butker. To be clear, anyone can be offended but it’s what individuals do after they are offended which interests me.

Any reasonable person would conclude that Butker – a devout Christian – is walking the walk of the faith in which he believes. I wonder if this school were, say a Muslim school promoting Islamic values if the outrage would be as pronounced? My guess is that with terms such as “Islamophobia” being used pretty liberally by media, politicians and the public the response would be muted.

How did we get here? When did our society become so polarized that we cannot just disagree with another’s opinion? Now, the collective feels the need to silence opposing voices and deplatform the speakers. Harrison Butker is just another in a long list of targets of these attempts at censorship.

This is just an opinion but the cancel police appear far more prevalent on the left of the political spectrum than on the right. Don’t mistake me saying this with any possible support I may have for opinions on the far right or far left. I find both equally problematic. It just appears that the silencing of opinions calls are coming predominantly from the left.

Now, on the Butker brouhaha, I have heard the same old arguments like “free speech doesn’t mean speech free from consequences.” While this is true what exactly does that look like? What are the “consequences”? Who is the arbiter of “acceptable” speech?

Increasingly, the answer to the second question is that taking away someone’s professional career is the required “consequence”. To the latter question, the only answer appears to be… the left. And not just the sane/reasonable left formerly known as liberals, but rather the radical left.

For anyone who believes I am over-reacting I give you the case of Nobel laureate scientist Tim Hunt. The esteemed UK scientist had his decades-long career ended so swiftly that it defies logic. The 39 words he said at a conference have “haunted” him. He apologized for saying them but that was not enough for the cancel mob. He had to be “ended”, from a career perspective. That happened effectively during his flight from the conference to his next destination. When his plane landed he was already cancelled.

Keep in mind, this is a 2001 Nobel Prize winner and his crime was saying something that, although offensive, was nothing more than a clumsy mis-step at a speaking engagement of fellow professionals in his industry.

Here are those 39 words.

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry,”.

Offensive?  Yes. Worthy of the vitriol Hunt (and his wife, a fellow respected scientist) received as a result?  Worthy of him losing his job and his career? You can decide but in my opinion if there is ever a punishment that didn’t fit the crime in the crazy world of social media/online cancel culture, this may be the best example.

Despite the fact that Hunt and Butker  are involved in professions which probably could not be more different they share three things in common which make them an easy target for cancellation. They are both male, they are both white and they are both straight. The leftist mob loves to cancel those from this so-called “privileged”  group. With Butker, throw in the fact that he is a Christian and the cancel feeding frenzy on the left becomes fever-pitched.

There is no consistency to the rules the left applies to cancel an individual. The goalposts are constantly moving and in some cases they have been removed altogether.  The only rules which apply are that you are more or less of a target based solely on your group identity. As mentioned above, the left cancel mob delights most in figurative trophies of white/straight/males. Give them an opportunity to cancel a POC/LGBT person and the mob loses their taste for blood. According to the unwritten rules of cancellation for the radical left, certain individuals fall under the oppressed category due to their group identity and cancelling them is seen as a leftist sin.

One thing that is heartening is the number of people with a platform who are jumping to the defence of Harrison Butker. Many of those have pointed out that, like me, they don’t agree with everything that Butker said in his speech. However, like 18th century french writer Voltaire pointed out, you can disagree with someone while still defending their right to say it.

There is one thing all of us should remember (well, maybe some more than others based on whether the radical left views you as oppressed or oppressor based on your group identity) that should you tolerate the type of cancellations we see with more and more regularity what happens when the cancel mob comes for you?

One Dad With a Blog

What happened to “united we stand”? – the dangers of identity politics

When did we become so divided? Every politician seems to be falling over each other to engage in support for one group or another. Colour me skeptical but I find myself saying “follow the money” when trying to sort out the reason why our group identity has taken precedence over our individual identity.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (MLK “I have a dream” speech text). Today, I think we are moving further away from the dream MLK once had for his nation and I believe by extension, the entire free world.

Canada often mimics its neighbour to the south when it comes to many social discussions and even laws. Yes, I know there are many differences, like gun and abortion laws but the fundamental beliefs of a democratic society – equality, freedom and liberty – are mirrored in both nations. It has become apparent that Canada has taken a troubling turn at not upholding these core tenets.

Often, the narrative being put forward by media and politicians in Canada is that it is the USA and its government which is a threat to democracy with some of their actions and policies. Quite the contrary to this narrative, I believe that there are countless examples of why Canadians should be alarmed at how quickly we have moved in the wrong direction and there has been a slow erosion of those three principles of a social democratic system.

The individual or the collective

I am a big believer that what makes every individual unique is their own story and experiences. The colour of our skin, our gender, our religious beliefs – even our physical characteristics – are not usually unique. For example, there are approximately two billion Muslims on the planet and a slightly higher number of Christians. Being either Muslim or Christian does not make us unique in any sense. Find me a religion which has one member and I will give in on the uniqueness factor. The same can be said of gender (just two genders people, don’t care what the criminal Dr. John Money said back in the 1960s) or race.

Despite the irrefutable fact that our uniqueness is not dictated by things like race, religion or gender we are using those very traits to divide all of us into pseudo-tribes. Fancy academic terms like “intersectionality” are used to determine the level of victim-hood which should be assigned to each person. Should you be a black/trans/handicapped person you have hit the jackpot in the oppression Olympics. Conversely, if you an able-bodied white/male/heterosexual you are a member of the highest order of oppressors.

Think about the illogical way in which academics like Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have framed the debate on a person’s so-called “privilege”. Using the theory of intersectionality employed by “progressives” to determine a person’s societal privilege as an example, Lebron James and his children are less privileged than a dirt poor white family from the Appalachia region in the United States.

This way of thinking has polluted our political discourse so that absolutely everything must be looked at through a lens of gender, race, religion, etc. etc. The problem with this thinking is that more and more categories seem to be added to the mix every day. How many groups are we going to consider as part of the discussion before it distorts the discussion on most issues so much that we never really address the core problems?

Canada’s descent

So earlier I took the position that Canada has numerous relatively recent examples of why we are headed down a dark road as it relates to basic fundamental rights. Now, rather than looking at the individual we look at the collective. Does this sound like it has any similarities with an existing political system (hint, it’s the one responsible for close to 100 million deaths of citizens under that system in various countries during the 20th century)?

The collective has trumped the individual in almost every political discussion. Think I am exaggerating? All one needs to do is look at some of the measures taken by our federal government during the COVID “crisis”. Phrases like “we are in this together” hid the fact that mandates and rules impacted some individuals far more than others. For example, government workers and restaurant workers clearly were not in “this” together. Most (if not all) government workers kept getting a pay cheque (with full benefits) whether they were working or not. The hospitality workers were sent home given a paltry $2,000 a month from the government and told they should be grateful. Really?

Think of our education system. It essentially became a shell of what it was before COVID. We shut down schools and our children were forced into government mandated isolation. This was all done under the same banner of “we’re all in this together”. The problem is that we weren’t, and it is not even a debate. Children, who were shown to be the least vulnerable group to be impacted by COVID were cut off from their peer group and were impacted from a mental health standpoint in more ways than they ever would have been from COVID. (watch this exchange on The View between Dr. Phil and the hosts who seem to have bought into this nonsense Dr. Phil spitting facts on The View)

There are far more examples of the politics by identity politics approach. I could go on all day how what I say as a dangerous trend has permeated our political system. The question is why is this happening?

I believe this is all about money and also playing on the ignorance of the typical voter. Call me skeptical but I believe generally a politician values the desire to be re-elected rather than the importance of doing what is in the best interest of citizens. Politicians achieve the former by appealing to specific groups or identities. You hear all the time about how well a politician is polling among groups like women, ethnic voters, gays, etc. The same politicians will sacrifice what is truly right to curry favour with a voting block that can get them re-elected.

How is this about money you may ask? Well, simply put, federal politicians can collect a pension after two terms in office. The federal Liberals actually quietly moved the 2025 fall election date later so that MPs would be eligible to collect their pension. Had the original date remained, defeated MPs who had not reached the date to be eligible to collect a pension would have left office with nothing if they were defeated. The Liberals framed this as being respectful of the Indian community as the original date fell withing the celebration of Diwali. How gracious of the Trudeau government to do this for the Indian community, right? Well, not really. The government could have moved the date for the election prior to Diwali. However, that would mean that a Liberal government which is on the verge of being decimated would have more than a handful of members who would not reach eligibility for a federal pension.

The other part of the money equation is the industry which has developed around identity politics. How many universities now have departments that are either directly or indirectly tied to Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI)? How many companies have officers or sometimes whole departments devoted to DEI? Who hasn’t encountered mandatory corporate training for all employees in the area of DEI? By some estimates DEI is a $9 billion industry in the USA and will grow to about $15 billion by 2026. I won’t get into a lengthy debate but there is sufficient evidence to show this is not money well spent (of course, unless you are collecting a pay cheque as part of a DEI initiative or department).

I also mentioned the ignorance of the voter as part of this equation. I know in Australia there is a system in place to increase voter turnout. Eligible voters who do not cast a ballot in an election can be fined. Sounds great in principle, right? However, given the lack of awareness and an unwillingness to seek out information by what I would argue is the majority of voters I would say this only compounds the problem. Politicians pander to the lowest common denominator among voters, I know it will never become law but I almost would like to see a basic civics test as part of the voting process. This would weed out the low hanging fruit among voters who are continually preyed upon by politicians.

I guess this is my way of saying that people did actually die for our right to vote. Immigrants often come to Canada from countries where selecting your government through a democratic process is a pipe dream. The least we can do is treat the process with the respect it deserves. Stay informed, be a political free agent and please don’t throw your vote away.

One Dad With a Blog

Common sense does not seem so common these days

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