By Nicarlyle Hanchard / The Jambar
Though this may ring like a broken clock, a broken clock is right twice a day. With that, I ask that you indulge me for just a moment.
I’ve spoken and written several times about the power of words — the intentionality and the perception, also. So, when I sat down with a researcher last week to discuss political violence, imagine how I felt hearing that the language on social media has become more radical.
You mean to tell me, the social commentators on the various platforms, with active critical thinking skills, weren’t far off when they deduced thought processes and beliefs from people’s language and actions?
Radical is also a word I often see on social media. “What radicalized you?” is often followed by a slew of quoted tweets or comments recounting the instances that did.
To be radicalized, as said by Richard Rogers, criminal justice professor at Youngstown State University, means to express one’s grievances with an issue, be it something they themselves experience or observe. Per Merriam-Webster, to be radical means to favor extreme political change. So, being radicalized isn’t necessarily bad?
Sometimes policies need an overhaul, and that is fine. How one goes about seeking that change though is the problem. Rogers, spoke about the type of radicalization that may lead to violence, not simply the type that seeks change.
But what is harmful language in a legal landscape? There are approximately eight categories of speech that are outrightly not protected by the First Amendment. They do not include harmful words. I would argue that depending on the severity of the harmful language, it may cross over into unprotected speech.
I understand harmful speech to be words and phrases that the average, reasonable person — even without exercising any form of compassion — would know not to use or say because they are offensive.
Some of the language used to refer to and describe people are indicative of certain unproductive and rancid areas of society. When someone uses them and defends their right to use them, they show others “who they really are.”
Back to the radicalization. Even before conducting the interview, I’ve read and overheard many people say that the discourse is too far gone. Far gone in a way that next steps would be to take action — and I would hope it’s not the violent kind.
Those who are too deeply engrossed in social discourse are encouraged to put their phones down and go outside. I get it — the conversations are becoming a bit much for anything productive to be achieved.
But I wonder, did these types of conversations not begin “outside” and were they not brought then to social media to express grievances, gain insight and continue the conversation? Was it then that social media was no longer an escape from reality?
Either way, I agree. Let us all remember how to effectively communicate with the people in our lives. But let us also leave the indecency and disrespect at the keyboards, and take up the manners and respect that oh–so many have forgotten.