Challenge #02225-F035: That They May See
Words cut deeper than any weapon ever could. Thankfully, they also heal better than any medication. -- Anon Guest
Everyone has words they hate having flung at them. Slurs, for instance. For the linguists among us, it may be fascinating to analyse how the words we choose to hurt others with show how those who arm evaluate those they see as less. However, those words still hurt. Others may choose to glide past them. Having never had such words used against them, they fail to believe how they can be harmful.
Hag stones are made by the steady and repetitious dripping of water on a single stone. One drop alone doesn't make a hole, but rather thousands. A marching brigade of soldiers can make a bridge collapse where one soldier marching alone would never have caused harm. A single grain of arsenic may be a tonic, but a certain amount can kill. The devil is in the dosage...
Individually, analytically, a single word has no weight. It has no sharpness. It cannot possibly hurt. Yet they do. Flung endlessly like grains of sand against the stone of one's soul, they can wear a being down and cause cracks or even collapse. Should you doubt, pick a word you personally find insulting to you and devise a means to have it flung at you for days. Weeks. Years. See how much it hurts after experiencing the constant abrasions of its passing. Or, you could take another path.
Choose words of kindness. Choose the meaning instead of the epithet. Choose to say kinder things about the people beneath. Recognise that, in many cases, it is not ill choice on their behalf but rather a lack of obvious or accessible options. In many others, it is simply an overall lack. One may deride the poor for not playing the share market, but they cannot do so without the money to spare for shares. One may deride certain ethnic groups for being under-educated, but they cannot gain education when the establishments bar them for being on the premises. The choice, here, is in the actions of those in control, or those brave enough to act as intermediary and argue on their behalf.
Such change is always resisted. Decried as unnecessary. Protested. Logically deconstructed and presented as unimportant when compared to grander, grosser crimes in other countries. All the fallacies in a nice little parade. Always presented by those without skin in the game, as reasons why the allegedly opposing side is being greedy, irrational, obstinate, or in possession of other non-redeeming qualities and therefore easily dismissed.
Then there are those who would make themselves bricks in the walls of understanding. Placing the burden of proof on those without the constant resources to provide it. Those always willing to dismiss that proof and demand mountains more. Ready to scoff and dismiss the underling for not being polite, for not having enough evidence, for being unreasonable.
In all these ways, allegedly civil debate becomes entirely uncivil. Yet they all have a common core. A rigid unwillingness to see, explore, or investigate the "opposite side". Those who turn words into war unfailingly refuse to acknowledge that a problem exists, simply because they willingly remain ignorant of the evidence. Either because the problem has not reached them, personally, or because they refuse to look.
We must all be aware in the constant war of words. Or, at the very least, acknowledge where the blind spots are. Perhaps, then, others can help us see.
[Image (c) Can Stock Photo / Leaf]
If you like my stories, please Check out my blog and Follow me. Or share them with your friends!
Send me a prompt [64 remaining prompts!]
This reminds me of how anti-vaxxers / anti-modern medicine individuals will scoff, mock, and get downright nasty claiming there is "no proof" that a certain medicine will save lives, or that vaccines have been tested, or that such medicines or vaccines are safe, ect. And yet when presented with mountains of proof their claims are incorrect, they not only refuse to LOOK at the proof presented, but do nothing more than yelp about how they think the one showing showing them is corrupt or, their favorite insult "a shill". Then when you laugh at them for it and ask them to present their own evidence that their claims are are not, in fact, simply paranoia and conspiracy, they scream further, or they put you on ignore becuase they know they have no evidence to refute you. Then they try to claim "they win" because they have you on ignore and no longer can see the evidence you present.