Wittgenstein said that if it is possible to communicate an idea, it should be done in a clear an unambiguous manner, or, if that is not possible, we should shut the fuck up.

It would be interesting to see his reaction to the politically correct newspeak that’s so widespread today. For instance, the word “challenge” frustrates me so much I wish to chain it to a rock in Tartarus where an eagle would eat its liver for all eternity, because of the extent of its sins against intellectual clarity.

Let’s first see where and how it is used.

A mentally impaired person is said to be mentally challenged.

A difficulty is called a challenge.

Opposition to idea or force is called a challenge.

So, what’s common to impairment, difficulty and opposition?

It’s like calling a black guy “a person of color”, although black is the absence of color, or like calling a blind person visually impaired. It tries to be sensitive and manages only to be ridiculous.

I know what the intent is. It’s that stupid positive thinking trend. If you formulate things in a way that implies possibility of positive action, it’s a way of motivational speaking. Like, every difficulty is a challenge, implying that you can overcome it if you have the right attitude.

Except it’s a form of passive aggression and can be probably the most dangerous form of sophistry ever devised. Let me explain.

If you tell a sick person that his sickness is a challenge, that might be useful if the sickness is curable. However, to tell that to someone with an incurable sickness only adds a layer of emotional suffering to his problem, because of the implicit expectation that his condition could be overcome if he were just strong enough. You’re basically telling an old person that old age is a challenge to be overcome, or a terminal cancer patient that cancer is a challenge to be overcome. It’s much less cruel to just call it a deadly illness. That way, the person at least knows it’s not his fault he’s going to die, because it’s inevitable. He can know that he did what he could and can now rest knowing that it’s out of his hands. Placing the burden of expectation on someone who has no way of meeting the expectation isn’t positive thinking or motivational speaking, it’s cruelty and insensitivity.

It’s similar with calling difficulties “challenges”. The implication is that you need to face the challenge and overcome it. However, this form of motivational speaking only makes sense if attacking the problem is the proper way to solve it. Sometimes, you need to accept that the problem cannot be solved and approach it differently, by completely avoiding it. For instance, you can call the speed of light a challenge, or you can call it the maximum speed limit. If you call it by its proper name and not some stupid motivational euphemism, you’ll be more likely to avoid the misguided attempts to go faster, and seek alternative solutions such as folding space. Implying that something is a challenge is to imply that you’re a real man only if you face it head on and overcome it, when that might be the stupidest possible way to approach it. It’s better to call it a problem or a constant or the insurmountable obstacle. Dividing primes isn’t a challenge, it’s mathematical impossibility.

And here we come to the reason why I find some uses of the word literally chilling. For instance, when some American general calls Russian and Chinese military force a “challenge” to America. Again I remember that stupid Batman vs. Superman movie, where Batman says that if there’s 1% probability that Superman could turn bad, it should be treated as certainty.

The danger of “challenge” as a motivational word is that it implies an aggressive approach. It doesn’t acknowledge one’s limits. It inhibits understanding that Russia’s power isn’t a “challenge” to America, it’s a limit of America. It cannot be overcome and it shouldn’t be attempted because a credible attempt at overcoming such a “challenge” will result in full release of nuclear weapons. It’s like seeing the fact that your neighbor has a rifle and a fence around his property as a challenge to you, and you attempt to overcome that challenge, guided by misplaced positive thinking, and get yourself shot. It’s not a challenge, it’s a limit. It’s something you don’t overcome, don’t cross, don’t go beyond, and don’t test. Instead of challenging your armed neighbor, meet him on friendly terms. Acknowledge your limits and respect his power. Don’t see his power as a challenge, see it as a given.

That’s a good example for showing how unmitigated male approach to things can be deadly. The male approach is to meet challenges head on and to overcome. It’s to see difficulties as challenges, it’s the way of thinking of a ram in a rut, trying to head-butt everything that looks like another ram. Not only is it silly, it can be very deadly when you try to head-butt a truck. There’s a good reason why biology developed femaleness; it’s because not all things can be usefully approached as challenges, because it’s much more useful to charm a neighbor than to challenge him. If he sees you as a charming and friendly person, his rifle is not a challenge to you, because he will use it to defend you as much as he will use it to defend himself. That’s the thing: powerful independent beings with guns and nukes are not necessarily challenges and opponents, they can be friends and allies. You just need to use the female approach and smile at them. However, if they try to take advantage of you, you need to apply the male approach and shoot them. That’s what I would call a balanced, realistic approach. A smile is good and a gun is good, you just need to know which to use when.