This post is going to tread into Jeff Goldstein's favorite area - intentionalism.

I was reading TBT, a mini-newspaper similar to The Daily Planet or whatnot from the St. Pete Times. Specifically, a short in the dead-tree edition points to this story:

CRYSTAL RIVER -- Rich and Chantal Dolata try to decorate their Softails Tavern bigger and better each Halloween.

This year, the dim orange and black watering hole in Crystal River is full of body parts, corpses and even a coffin.

But a new decoration has raised the ire of a handful of passers-by.

From a tree out front, the Dolatas used a thick rope noose to hang a life-sized dummy, barefoot and dripping fake blood.

The dead-tree print has the following statement

...it looks like they're probably guilty of being gross rather than racist, but c'mon: In the Deep South, do you really think it's a good idea to have decorations of men hanging by a noose?

That little snippet right there is one of the most dangerous things we face as a society today - namely the inability to speak without others attaching their intent to your words. Some people might call it "taking offense when none was offered".

Let's use an example. You and I are camping in Wyoming. Being that I'm married and straight, we stay in different tents (that should cover both genders) in a fairly crowded camping area. It's a wee bit chilly this evening and since it's crowded, there isn't a lot of firewood left. I ask to borrow some of your logs for my fire and you tell me "No, go get your own".

Miffed at your inconsiderateness (hell, I drove us here beeyotch!) I retort with "Stop being so niggardly with your faggots!"

All around us, heads peep out of their tents. Little did we know that this weekend was the Log Cabin Republican's Minority Retreat Extravaganza.

Now, was my statement insulting? There are only two answers to this. Yes and No. Either you conclude that I used the words niggardly and faggots to mean blacks and gays or you think that I used them to refer to being stingy and logs of wood.

What you absolutely cannot do is say "No, you were not being insulting BUT..."

The instant you declare that you understand my intent, you must stop. Otherwise, you attach your meaning to my words, effectively rendering what I said moot. This is a large part of the whole PC movement and a very dangerous precedent to follow or allow to happen.

Now, there is nothing saying that you cannot make the statement that I was intending to offend the black, gay men around the campsite. While that may or may not be true, it is logical. One can choose specific words with the intent to insult. You could also say "oh, you were calling someone stingy for not sharing their wood" and leave it at that.

But the instant you claim to understand my intent and then disregard it, you've leaped into a bizzaro world where up is down, black is white, and Ben is Jerry (shamefully stolen from Jeff).

Let's take a less "offensive" tact and use an example a little more abstract. Say you go to an art gallery where an aspiring artist is showcasing his latest work. One canvas is bare, save for a little green dot at the bottom. The artist tells the audience that the green dot represents loneliness in a large world.

A gentleman stands up and say "Yes, we all know that you say the dot means loneliness, but it really signifies the personal poverty obtained when not concerning oneself with coexistence with Mother Earth. The color green represents what we try to achieve by living in harmony with Gaia, but the small size shows how isolated we are from the rest of the world in our attempts to live that way."

What would you do? While the patron's statement may make sense, would you attach his meaning to what the artist said? Probably not since you already know what the painting means.

The same thing happens with words or ideas.

Let's add a little more "danger" to the mix, OK? Let's say when you and I showed up for our camping trip, we were asked if we were with the Log Cabin group. Now, I have knowledge that there are a lot of gay, black men around us. Does that change the nature of my statement?

"Sure," you're probably saying. In your mind, you're probably thinking "If you know there are people who would be offended by your words around, you should have chosen different words!"

Which would be totally PC and incorrect. My intent is my intent. Either I am intending to offend or I'm not. A poor choice of words (neither of which have any relation to the words that are considered insulting) does not negate the fact that I didn't intend to call anyone a faggot or a nigger. Don't fall into the trap of assuming words that may offend people is the same as words meant to offend people.

While those on the left tend to abuse this type of scenario more, the right is not immune. A while back, the memorial for the 9/11 victims caused a stir when it was shaped like a crescent. When the artist informed everyone it was just a shape, the right continued to say it was insulting even though they knew that the intent was not there. This is the danger we can all fall in and why so many people are insulted or offended these days - they don't realize that no offense was offered therefor none can be taken.

Back to the lynching example up top, the picture in the story is clearly of a dead, white dude (personally, I like the guy ripped apart hanging upside down. Waaaay cooler!). Lynching doesn't apply to a specific race. While blacks were lynched, so were whites, Indians, Scottish midgets, and various other peoples. Lynching itself was a mob killing via hanging, nothing more, nothing less.

To assign "Lynching = hate crimes against blacks" is to usurp the original intent and tack on your own. This doesn't lesson the crimes committed against blacks, but it doesn't amplify their importance either which many people take as 'denial'.

When your two year old is learning to talk and goes through the babbling stage, do you punish him or her for saying the word "Fuck"? No, because you know that the child didn't mean anything by it. Even though the word "Fuck" is insulting to many people, you understand that the intent behind the word wasn't there in the random sounds your child made.

When you give up the right to hold the meaning of your own words, you lose the ability to defend yourself against false accusations. If I allow others to assign their own meanings to my words (e.g. I feel the need to apologize to the other campers for what I said rather than informing them that I didn't mean it as an insult) then Free Speech becomes impossible.

I hope I'm clear on what I'm trying to say. I'm writing this during lunch time in between bites of BBQ sandwiches, so if I'm confusing, please let me know.

And especially, if you disagree with any of this, let's discuss it.