Hate breeds hate. If you are going to go and dislike against all Muslims, just because they're Muslim, you're just giving them more causes to dislike against Americans simply because we're American. To discuss Muslims and imply that all Muslims are radicals and terrorists is to subtly degrade them to an inferior condition than yourself, to make them less than human.
I don't have a specific political axe to grind. I've been a registered Republican. My motivation for writing what follows needs to do with the necessity for sound critical thinking in our world, especially on the subject of our conversation of social and political problems.
Last week on The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar left the set after Bill O'Reilly made the comment that building a mosque near Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims killed us there. His argument is that since it is common knowledge that Muslim terrorists were the perpetrators, he didn't need to be more specific. It seems that his point is that given the context of the discussion, he didn't need to add the descriptors "terrorists" or "extremists". But is he right?
With this in mind, O'Reilly seems to be claiming that he's not guilty of overgenerality, because given the context of 9/11, we all know that it was Muslim radicals who attacked the World Trade Center. However, he is mistaken. The context of the discussion in which this all took place was whether or not it is appropriate to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Unless the purposes behind building the mosque are radical, he is guilty of overgenerality because he's lumping together the 9/11 attackers and those who want to build a mosque at the controversial site. Moreover, there are unfortunately many people in our country who equate "Muslim" with "Muslim extremist", and given that context, what O'Reilly said was overgeneral and irresponsible.
This brings us to more recent events concerning now former NPR commentator and current Fox analyst Juan Williams for expressing his fear of being on a plane with persons dressed in Muslim garb. I'm not interested in entering the debate concerning whether or not NPR should have fired Williams, or whether it was right or wrong of him to express this fear. What I want to focus on is the claim I've heard repeated in several places that this is "censorship" and that his freedom of speech is being violated.
These claims are ridiculous. Williams is guest-hosting O'Reilly's show tonight, and now has an expanded role at Fox News. If censorship is defined as "the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body," then the first amendment rights of Williams have not been violated, that is, NPR is not guilty of censorship. In the same book on critical thinking mentioned above, the importance of precise definitions is underscored.
NPR is a media outlet, and part of their reason for firing Williams is that his talking was objectionable, hurtful, and insensitive. On the other hand, NPR has not suppressed his speaking. Rather, they've made the determination that he desecrated their moral policies. I'm neither defending nor attacking their determination.
I believe that political accuracy is obviously a matter that is related to critical thinking. It is about the use of language, and in reality in the text I use there is a part dealing with pc language. In my opinion, NPR was really incorrect to fire him, because we'd all be better served by having an open and truthful talk of the emotions he expressed.
没有评论:
发表评论