Language Sensitivity and Shmirat Halashon

(א) בְּאַהֲבַת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחָפֵץ מְאֹד בְּטוֹבָתָם עַד שֶׁקְּרָאָם בְּשֵׁם בָּנִים, וְחֵלֶק ה' וְנַחֲלָה, וְכַמָּה שֵׁמוֹת חֲבִיבִים הַמּוֹרִים עַל גֹּדֶל אַהֲבָתוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (מלאכי א, ב): "אָהַבְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אָמַר ה' ", וְגוֹ', לְפִיכָךְ הִרְחִיקָּם מִּכָּל הַמִּדּוֹת רָעוֹת וּבִפְרָט מִלָשׁוֹן הָרָע וּרְכִילוּת, כִּי הוּא מֵּבִיא אֶת בְּנִי אָדָם לִידֵי רִיב וּמַצָּה, וְכַמָּה פְּעָמִים יוּכַל לָבוֹא מִזֶּה לִידֵי שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זַ"ל בְּהִלְכוֹת דֵּעוֹת (פרק ז' הלכה א'): אַךְ עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו זֶה, עָוֹן גָּדוֹל הוּא וְגוֹרֵם לַהֲרֹג נְפָשׁוֹת רַבּוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָךְ נִסְמַךְ לוֹ (ויקרא יט, טז): "לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ", צֵּא וּלְמַד מָה אֵרַע לְדוֹאֵג הָאְדוֹמִי וּלְנוֹב עִיר הַכֹּהֲנִים.

(1) In the Blessed One's love for His people Israel and His great desire for their good — to the point of calling them "sons," and "the portion of the Lrd," and "inheritance," along with many other terms of affection which show His great love for Israel, viz. (Malachi 1:2): "I have loved You, said the Lrd, etc.," He distanced them from all forms of evil, especially from lashon hara and rechiluth. For it is these which bring men to quarrels and contention and which very often can lead to the spilling of blood, as the Rambam wrote (Hilchoth Deoth 4:1): "Even though there are no malkoth [stripes] for transgression of this negative commandment, it is a great sin, which leads to the killing of many souls in Israel, for which reason it [i.e., 'Do not go tale bearing among your people' (Vayikra 19:16) is followed by: 'Do not stand (idly) by the blood of your brother' — as evidenced by [the episode of] Doeg Ha'adomi and Nov, the city of priests (viz. I Samuel 22:9)."

What are contemporary ways that we see speech lead to violence? What about speech itself as a form of violence? (Hate speech. Dehumanizing others with derogatory terms. Misgendering.)

(ח) מִן־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ הַטְּהוֹרָ֔ה וּמִן־הַ֨בְּהֵמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֖נָּה טְהֹרָ֑ה וּמִ֨ן־הָע֔וֹף וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־רֹמֵ֖שׂ עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ (ט) שְׁנַ֨יִם שְׁנַ֜יִם בָּ֧אוּ אֶל־נֹ֛חַ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־נֹֽחַ׃

(8) Of the clean animals, of the animals that are not clean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, (9) two of each, male and female, came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא קתני לילי לישנא מעליא הוא דנקט וכדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לעולם אל יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו שהרי עקם הכתוב שמונה אותיות ולא הוציא דבר מגונה מפיו שנאמר (בראשית ז, ח) מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he didn’t explicitly teach: The night of the fourteenth, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel? The Gemara answers: He employed a euphemism. Since the tanna of our mishna did not want to mention darkness, he preferred the term or to refer to the night of the fourteenth. And this is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A person should never express a crude matter, as the formulation of a verse was distorted by the addition of eight letters rather than have it express a crude matter, as it is stated: “From the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure [asher einena tehora]” (Genesis 7:8). To avoid using the Hebrew term for impure [teme’a], which is four letters: Tet, mem, alef, heh, the verse replaced the term with the euphemism meaning “that are not pure,” which is spelled with twelve letters: Alef, shin, reish; alef, yod, nun, nun, heh; tet, heh, reish, heh.

What are some contemporary examples of euphemisms or ways to avoid expressing a "crude matter"? (When talking about mental health, put person before the illness. "Shprintze has schizophrenia" instead of "Shprintze is a schizophrenic." When talking about levels of ability, "person with a disability" or "disabled person" instead of "suffers from a disability.")

(א) אִסוּר סִפּוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא אֲפִלּוּ אִם אֵינוֹ (ג) מְבָאֵר בְּעֵת הַסִפּוּר אֶת הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוּא מְּדַבֵּר עָלָיו, רַק הוּא מְסַפֵּר סְתָם, וּמִתּוֹךְ עִנְיַן הַסִפּוּר נִשְׁמָע לְהַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל אֵיזֶה אִישׁ כִּוֵּן המְסַפֵּר הזֶּה, בִּכְלַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא. וְיוֹתֵר מִזֶּה, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אִם בְּדִבְרֵי סִפּוּרוֹ לֹא הָיָה (ד) שׁוּם עִנְיַן גְּנַאי כְּלָל, רַק שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דְּבָרָיו נִסְבַּב רָעָה אוֹ גְּנוּת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהַמְסַפֵּר הַזֶּה נִתְכַּוֵּן לָזֶה בְּרַמָּאוּתוֹ, גַּם זֶה בִּכְלַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא, וְדָבָר זֶה נִקְרָא בְּפִי חֲזַ"ל בְּשֵׁם לָשׁוֹן הָרָע בְּצִּנְעָא.

(1) The issur of speaking lashon hara obtains even if he does not identify, in speaking, the man that he is speaking about, but he just speaks in general terms, and from what he says the listener can understand which man he is referring to, this is in the category of lashon hara. More that this — even if there were nothing demeaning in his words themselves, but his words could cause harm or ascription of taint to his friend, which the teller intended by his deceit, this, too, is in the category of lashon hara, and is called by Chazal "lashon hara in private."

"Subtweeting" is tweeting about an individual without naming them or mentioning their Twitter handle. It's a way to publicly talk about someone behind their back. Why has this gained popularity? Why might one do this?

(א) אִסוּר זֶה שֶׁל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא בֵּין אִם הוּא מְסַפֵּר עָלָיו בְּפִיו מַמָּשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁהוּא (יב) כּוֹתֵב עָלָיו דָּבָר זֶה בְּמִכְתָּבוֹ, וְגַם אֵין בּוֹ חִלּוּק בֵּין אִם הוּא מְּסַפֵּר עָלָיו הלָשׁוֹן הָרָע שֶׁלּוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ וּבֵין אִם הוּא מְסַפֵּר עָלָיו הלָשׁוֹן הָרָע (יג) בְּדֶרֶךְ רֶמֶּז, בְּכָל גַּוְנֵי {בכל האפנים} (יד) בִּכְלַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא.

(1) This issur of lashon hara obtains whether it is actually spoken by mouth or stated in a letter. There is also no difference whether he speaks it explicitly or by sign. In all modes, it is in the category of lashon hara.

Do you agree that speaking is just as bad as writing? How might the internet play into this?

False Facts and True Rumors: Lashon HaRa in Contemporary Culture, page 198-200

A major environmental shift engendered by the Internet is what has been labeled by psychologists as the online disinhibition effect. This refers to the reality that one who is operating behind the protection of a computer screen often discards proper inhibitions such as moral standards, sensitivity, and empathy towards others, and becomes capable of egregious interpersonal behaviors that they would otherwise abhor ... Of course, disinhibition has an impact on a wide range of transgressions, not only that of lashon hara.

What other transgressions could the disinhibition affect and the anonymity of the internet lead to? How can one combat this mindset?

(א) (א) יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֲסוּרִין מִטַּעַם אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאוֹמֵר, מִי הָיָה אוֹמֵר עַל פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא עַתָּה אוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר, שִׁתְקוּ מִפְּלוֹנִי, (ב) אֵינִי רוֹצֶּה לְהוֹדִיעַ מָה אֵרַע וּמַה יִּהְיֶה, וְכַיּוֹצֵּא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. וְכֵן הַמְסַפֵּר (ג) בְּשִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנִי שׂוֹנְאָיו, גַּם כֵּן בִּכְלַל אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרָע הוּא, דְּזֶה גּוֹרֵם לָהֶם, שֶׁיְּסַפְּרוּ בִּגְנוּתוֹ* . וְאִם (ה) הוּא מַרְבֶּה לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי שׂוֹנְאָיו אָסוּר, כִּי עַל יְדֵי זֶה רָגִיל בְּעַצְמוֹ לְגַנּוֹתוֹ לְבַסוֹף לוֹמַר: חוּץ מִמִּדָּה רָעָה זוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהַשּׁוֹמְעִין יְשִׁיבוּהוּ: לָמָּה אַתָּה מַרְבֶּה בְּשִׁבְחוֹ וַהֲלֹא מִדַּת כָּךְ וְכָךְ בְּיָדוֹ?

(1) There are things which are forbidden because of the "dust" of lashon hara. As when one says about another: "Who would have said about Ploni that he would be the way he is now!" or "Don't talk about Ploni. I don't want to talk about what happened or what will happen," and the like. Also in the category of the "dust" of lashon hara is speaking in one's praise before his enemies; for this will cause them to speak demeaningly of him. And it is forbidden to be profuse in praise of him, even if not before his enemies; for through this he will come to demean him in the end, saying: "except for this one bad trait that he has." Or the listeners will say: "Why do you speak so much in his praise? Does he not have this and this trait?"

How do you interpret "dust" of lashon hara? There's a concern that positive speech can actually end up having negative results even if nothing negative is said. To me this reminded me of microaggressive compliments like "You're so __for a __!" Not an exact parallel but a similar idea of being so careful about not just the words, but the implication of the words.