February 17, 2021
Facebook Shouldn’t Ban Attacks on “Zionists”
Sure, the word is sometimes used as a pejorative term for “Jew.” But does anyone really think that banning it, as is reportedly being discussed, will prevent other terms from taking its place?
“Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me” was a rhyme that every child knew and resorted to often when I was growing up in New York long ago. Whatever taunt came your way, that was your answer. It wasn’t just meant for the taunter; it also comforted the answerer. “Call me what you want,” it said. “I know inside of me who I am—and that’s somewhere you can’t get to.”
Of course, that wasn’t entirely true—names could and often did hurt you—but you learned not to give them too much importance. There was a difference between being insulted and having your nose punched. And you also learned that if someone could say what they wanted about you, you could say what you wanted about them, which was the upside.
Today, Americans live in a culture of “Names will always hurt me,” which is why they obsess so much about “hate speech” and about what it does or doesn’t consist of and what laws or regulations should exist to curb it. The debate now taking place over whether social media such as Facebook and Twitter should ban attacks on “Zionists” because the word “Zionist” is sometimes used as a pejorative term for “Jew” is a good example of the absurd lengths to which an obsession with such speech can lead.