"Rape" and Game Culture - Page 26

"There is, in my opinion, nothing inherently wrong, vulgar, violent, or indecent about any language, including profanity. Words are just fucking words. Without doubt, they can be used (in conjunction with raised voices and aggressive body language) to intimidate and verbally abuse others. However, the mere use of these words to communicate is not, per se, violent. So what might a Libertarian say about a hypersensitive Puritan woman who is stuck in the same room with a man who honed his vocabulary in a federal penitentiary? Assume that the man has no intention of being violent but, in speaking naturally, discusses things the Puritan finds acutely objectionable and in a language that makes her want to squeal in disgust.

Let’s make no mistake: the Puritan experiences emotional trauma by the man’s words. In some metaphysical sense, the man’s nonviolent words are causing her pain, but only in conjunction with her hypersensitivity. Who is to blame and what should be done to alleviate the pain?

First, to assign blame here is to assume that someone is acting wrongly. I suggest that neither is wrong. The Puritan woman is merely reacting according to her pre-programming and emotional conditioning, and so is the man. In other words, they are both merely being themselves. Because the man is not being offensively violent to the woman, and also because he is not intending to harm her, the woman has no right to use violence against him in defense. Without an offense, there is no defense. Libertarianism respects the right of every person to be himself and to act, speak, and live freely to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others. The woman’s rights to life, liberty, and property have not been abrogated by the man’s choice of words.

To assert that neither is to blame and that no offensive attack has occurred is not to invalidate the woman’s feelings. Indeed, she does feel pain (of discomfort, at the very least) and she is not to blame for having these feelings. However, she is responsible for them. She must be held accountable for the ease with which she feels pain. A hypersensitive person cannot expect the world’s inhabitants to tiptoe around her in constant fear that she will be disturbed by the sounds of their footfall. People are people. Sometimes they’re loud. Sometimes they’re obnoxious. Sometimes they get in our way. But we share this tiny planet with several billion of them. To require every person to conform to our individual standards of comfort or morality would be chaotic as there are several billion such standards – one for each person. But to let people be themselves, to accept and understand even if we don’t agree – that is the recipe for peace and tranquility.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is the woman’s responsibility to either leave the room or to learn to accept the man for who he is. The woman’s pain – a very real and understandable pain – is nonetheless her problem, not his. To hold otherwise would be to allow the world to be controlled by the most hypersensitive people. I say: let them be sensitive. Let them take offense. Let them be perpetually annoyed, bothered, angry, and judgemental. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to be the free, unhindered, joyful child that I am. In the meanwhile, I’ll continue to live without artificial constraints, respecting the rights of others to live freely, and with little concern as to who may find me offensive, rude, or socially inept.
To require every person to stay in his own space, to tread lightly, to speak softly, to conform to the hypersensitive person’s arbitrary standards and notions of decency is to blame every person for his very existence. Humans are creatures of nature. Neither the Victorian Era nor the Industrial Revolution changed the fact that we are all, fundamentally, children. Children are loud, cantankerous, silly, rude animals and they neither understand nor fully obey societal rules. On the other hand, to set a very high threshold for discomfort – to let the people around you be themselves without your resorting to anger, judgement, or criticism – is one of the kindest gifts you can bestow on the world. You can meaningfully contribute to humanity by accepting others as they are and decreasing your sensitivity to their differing opinions and ways of life.

The Puritan woman need not like the man, nor is she required to engage in conversation with him. But he has not offensively attacked her and, therefore, she has no defensive recourse. She has three options: a) continue to experience pain; b) leave the room; or c) learn to accept the man as he is, reduce her sensitivities, and increase her pain threshold. Of course, option a) seems unwise and option b) will doom the woman to isolation and loneliness. After all, we’ve all known lonely elderly folks stuck in retirement homes whom few will visit for fear of their judgements, hypersensitivity, and manipulation. Arguably, the woman’s best option is c): she has the power to accept the man as he is. She need not feel pain when surrounded by people who look differently, speak differently, and have different priorities than she does.