My wife and I have had long discussions about the difference between dumb and stupid. I argued that in my own sloppy slang usage, the words were interchangeable; she argued that they each have specific meanings. Since she was an English major I defer to her position. Finally.
As I understand difference, dumb relates to some cognitive deficiency; stupid relates to intellectual laziness. People labeled “dumb” have only limited capacity, organic in nature. People who are stupid are limited by their own willingness to ignore facts and the work it takes to access and accept them. This is a knowing, willful limitation that they proudly display to the rest of us.
My problem is with stupid people.
Given that this is in essence a law blog, let me relate my problem to a couple of pieces I wrote for a statewide news blog. If you’re interested, you can read them here, https://www.golocalprov.com/news/black-lives-matter-on-the-ri-supreme-court-schoos and here,
The first piece related to the desirability, if not necessity, for racially and ethnically diverse judges to serve in our court system. In Rhode Island, we have several openings in our judiciary, with one opening on our Supreme Court. Since I wrote a book, part of which addresses the sameness of judges on our courts, and how that hinders the advancement of the law in service to marginalized people, I thought I had something to say. Law is developed broadly, but is applied on a case-by-case basis. Life experience and exhaustive legal training as applied in specific matters are more likely to arrive at true justice than the one-size-fits-all application of law in all matters, irrespective of the facts of any individual case. In any event, you can read what I wrote if you’re interested.
For my efforts, I had several comments that took issue with me, not necessarily with what I wrote, me. I usually don’t care what people say about me. I’ve been in the public arena most of my life: as an educator, an attorney, as a part time columnist for several years, a member of several community organizations, president of my own legal services organization, and I’ve been politically active - even to the point of running for office. Over that time, I’ve taken my fair share of cheap shots and just shrug them off, as I did with this piece. On the other hand, my grandsons were pretty upset, especially with the comment that I was patronizing. The second piece was a tribute to the memory of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The thrust of my argument was that her life was dedicated to expanding the law to traditionally underserved people, not just to women but to ALL underserved people. Again, the usual sharp knives came out, which again triggered my grandsons, especially the younger one. He asks what’s wrong with being a “liberal?” The older one asked me if he had to be a “communist” too? The three of us pored over one lengthy response which I would describe as word salad, but why insult salad? In no instance did any commentator respond to any substantive issue I raised. I noodled over that as I have too often over the years. Finally I came to the conclusion that people can’t engage on issues but are restricted by their own straitjackets, not of their politics, but of their minds. They are lazy and their hubris surrounding their stupidity is a protective political cocoon that prevents them from having to grapple with the central tenant of their lives - they’re stupid and too lazy to do the work to remedy this fact. Harsh? Yes. Patronizing? No, at least I don’t think so. I write publicly to seek a serious engagement, not pre-canned blather by the howling masses. Ok, that was a teensy bit patronizing, but but unless we begin to engage in a spirit of good will and not label opponents, or threats to others’ blithely comfortable existence, we’ll never get anywhere.
I’ve got a pretty thick skin but I’ve just about had enough of people’s biased, uninformed, willfully ignorant opinions being accepted as
fact, to be regarded equally as...well, verifiable demonstrable fact!
We’re all human, each of us fallible, with shortcomings that result in our making errors. When I was studying to be a teacher I had a professor who imparted this bit of wisdom: everybody is good at something and bad at something, and just because he’s not good at your class doesn’t mean he’s not good at other things. He was right, I’m good a lots of things but I can’t excel at math or draw a recognizable stick figure if my life depended on it. I get that but what I don’t get is the failure to try to understand and improve that which we don’t know, especially in areas that impact our actions as citizens in a democracy. At this point in our history we have very important decisions to make, especially in the next month. Issues of science and health, the economy and our standard of living, our national security, the rule of law, and democracy as a viable concept of governance are all on the line in the coming months and years. It drives me crazy when people only unquestioningly believe that which they’ve told instead of making the effort to find things out for themselves, analyze the information found, and draw their now informed conclusions. We each owe others this effort, and we also owe it to ourselves.
In the coming days I will analyze the writings and judicial decisions of Amy Coney Barrett, the nominee to fill the Court vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg. I will make a considered legal, not political, analysis of her record. I will be doing my job both as a lawyer and as a citizen. I hope those who disagree with what I might write will afford me the same courtesy.
Literally, watch this space....
Comments