The cringe test

I'l admit that I'm more than a little amazed at the hullabaloo that surrounded Juan Williams' remarks about being afraid of Muslims in "Muslim garb" (whatever that is...) on planes, and his subsequent firing. Actually, what really amazed me was how little was said about his remarks before NPR decided to fire him for them. The outrage, it seems, is less about his seriously troubling remark and more about NPR's "intolerance".  Yes, the world 'intolerance' has been tossed about quite a bit these past couple of days, and most of it with reference to NPR.  Check out these headlines: "NPR's Taxpayer-Funded Intolerance" [WSJ, Oct 22]; "NPRs Intolerant Funding of Juan Williams" [The Examiner, Washington, Oct 21]; "a Brief History of NPR's Intolerance" [foxmews.com, Oct 21]. 

And of course, the whole "free-speech" argument is made.  And this is what makes it all so tricky. Should Williams have been fired for exercising his freedom of speech?  Now, there are a couple of points I want to make in this regard. One, is that while we all are awarded the freedom of speech here, I do think that as with most freedoms, this one too comes with certain responsibilities.  And if we occupy a position where our opinion is heard, considered and given more value than that of the average schmoe, it is doubly incumbent upon us to exercise this freedom with some thought and restraint.  Two, we may be free to say what we want, but we are not guaranteed freedom from every consequence of what we say.  So, really, we ought to think more before we speak. Free speech is so much more valuable when it is thought-provoking, rather than being merely provocative. In this world of tweets and sound-bites, considered speech seems to have taken a back seat to merely free speech.  And our lives are not the better for it. 

But if still in doubt, then I strongly recommend putting the rhetoric in question through the "Cringe Test".  Here's how it works:  replace the word 'Muslim' (or whatever other ethnic, religious, political category is currently under scrutiny) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black man/woman'.  If the resulting statement makes you cringe, then it's probably not as acceptable as folks would have you believe.  Try it.

On a side note, the best response I have encountered to this whole fracas has been the site, "Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things." 

Why does it matter?

I read recently that the apparel retailer 'Gap' had come out with a new logo, but then ended up reinstating the old one because of a huge outcry.  To quote from the BBC article: 


"US clothes retailer Gap has scrapped a new logo just one week after its introduction following an "outpouring of comments" online...The new logo on the website had "Gap" written in black against a light background with a small blue square behind the top of the letter "p". But critics attacked the rebranding on social networks and online forums.

More than 2,000 comments were posted on the company's Facebook page on the issue, with many demanding the return of the traditional logo." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11520930) 

And reading this, I wondered, "Who are these people?!"  Personally, I don't think I could get myself worked up enough about the logo of a company unless they threatened to paint it on my front-door.  If the company is making the same clothes as before, their stores are not moving en-mass to the other end of town, and their stance on wages, sweatshops, out-sourcing, resourcing or what have you has not changed in any substantial way, why in the world does it matter if their logo looks different?  

Are people's lives so insipid that something as pointless as this could get them all riled up?  There are other more pressing issues that could do with some of that consumer anger and angst.  Facebook's removal of their lovely round-edged thumbnails, for instance... It makes me so angry...