So an Orthodox Rabbi was asked how Orthodox Judaism had managed to survive all these years without changing any. The answer came amazingly quickly and was stunningly simple.
“If you don’t want anything to change, you don’t change anything,” he said.
Period.
In our society we have this discussion all the time. You can see it on the news every day. It’s generally a question of where you draw the line. In fact, in today’s world, one of the most dramatic examples of this involves free speech. If it’s okay for a leftist activist to speak at a university, how can it not be okay for a right-wing conservative to speak at the same university? Or, where do you draw the line?
Common sense says either you allow both to speak, or you allow neither one to speak. But if you don’t want the right to free speech to break down in America, you can’t pick a side according to an agenda.
Orthodox Judaism has made some adaptations. With the advent of electricity came non-stop elevators in high rise buildings so an Orthodox Jew can now live on the forty-fifth floor of an apartment building in New York and go out to synagogue on Sabbath since it is not considered riding (like riding in a car) and it isn’t considered work (since one doesn’t have to push a button to pick the floor to stop on). Similarly, slow cookers and crock pots allow food to stay warm all Sabbath long without one actually cooking.
Adaptation is okay. After all, it is how the human race (should we call it hu-people?) has come about and gotten to where we’ve gotten. But… when it starts to go against reasoning that’s a different matter.
English Language Learners (ELLs) have caused a dramatic breakdown in our language. More precisely, allowing multiple languages to be spoken by offering accommodations to people living in America such that they don’t have to learn the language is what has done so. Again, reasonable adaptations to the language are expected, but out and out grammatical breakdowns and misinterpretations are not acceptable.
ELLs are not to blame, of course. But the global nature of things has magnified the effects of multi-languages being spoken in America on dysfluency. So, for example, when you call your credit card company and someone in India answers the phone to handle your customer service issue, you may not only not understand him/her due to his/her accent, but you may also be subjected to a host of incorrect English speaking, misunderstandings, non-understandings and even, perhaps, confusion. Sooner or later, the language breaks down. It breaks down much more rapidly under these conditions.
The internet is another way this happens, again because the person writing the text you are reading may have extremely limited English language skills and, after all, the work is being outsourced since it is less expensive. The company doing the text might be located anywhere in the world, but usually of course they are in countries where the labor rate is much lower than here. There’s no guarantee that the editor, if there is one, will pick up any errors.
The sum effect of this, over time, is a breakdown in the language. With errors occurring being overlooked, sooner or later an error occurs in an area where it actually affects meaning and/or interpretation of the wording.
Bingo! Then it depends upon what the definition of is is.
Once again, what is most germane in this discussion of the breakdown of language and reasoning is who benefits from it. If one can say nonsensical things and not be called out for them and one can put forth wholly illogical arguments without being shot down for them, language and reasoning go into a free-fall, which is kind of like where they are now.
You have to ask: who benefits from this?
