Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Tease with Political Incorrectness

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

Let’s get one thing straight: Words matter. Lincoln’s prose in The Gettysburg Address, Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” oratory, or just about anything Shakespeare, prove that words matter.

But, then again, let me tell you a story.

My eldest child was offending (aka, “teasing“) my youngest child with words, and my youngest child began to cry. I did the “good parent” thing, of course, “correcting” my eldest child. But, then I also corrected my youngest child.

To my second correction, my wife exclaimed:

“Why correct the little one, who didn’t do anything.“

Maybe.

In this story, our eldest child was corrected for failing in the virtue of discipline. Our eldest child, like many siblings, could not temper the natural temptation to prey upon our youngest child. But, our youngest child also failed in the discipline of filtering the words of someone whose sole goal was to conduct mind control.

Alas, if we should see it, both children failed in discipline. The eldest child was corrected for teasing, and, yes, the youngest child was corrected, well, simply for allowing the state of being teased.

My standard retort for teases is, “What? You’re really going to let that person get into your mind and control you?” It can be a bit heady for a child, but, in fair portion properly implemented, I think it’s better to start young, to get ahead of it.

In fact, I might have rewarded my youngest child for a more virtuous and disciplined response; to wit:

An A+ reward for simply ignoring the attempted tease;

An A for a simple nonchalant pause-and-glance reaction;

An A- for an eye roll;

Perhaps a B for a “sticks and stones” retort;

Maybe a C for a fair moment of anger or crying.

But, to dwell on something with anger or sadness (or any other negative personal effect) after a full and fair opportunity to recompose, an F. No one is perfect, but virtue says that anything less than an A+ game invites a correction to improvement.

I should add that, in my story, my wife warmly brings a different school of a more sensitive “new math” with her psychology degree, but that’s my story, as Dad, and I’m sticking with it.

We’re building human vessels. If we’re building a ship, it’s not the water on the outside that sinks our ship, it’s the water that we let in:

“Don’t let the water into your head, secure the vessel of your mind.“

And, it doesn’t matter how big the ship is, or how vast the ocean, it only matters that the vessel is secure. An insecure vessel is a dangerous thing.

Wouldn’t we rather be on a small secure floating dinghy than a sinking insecure cruise ship?

Thusly, and incidentally, you will note that I did not use the common expression that my eldest child “caused” my youngest child to cry.

The “cause” is really the hole in the vessel, not the water, because the vessel must anticipate its intended environment.

It’s not the water’s fault that the vessel is insecure. Water is being water, and the vessel must secure itself in contemplation of the foreseeable environment.

So what does this have to do with “political correctness”? If we don’t know, then we don’t see the big hole in our vessel that is causing us to sink.

Yes, water will try to get in for us all, but we know a lot of people are taking on water. It is obvious, because we simply watch the bailing—the more water, the more bailing.

Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad. – Euripides

“Quod nos laedit et corrodit infirmitates nostras detegit.” (“That which injures and corrodes us reveals our weaknesses.”); “Multum vulnus, multum motus.” (“Much wound, much reaction.”); “Quo infirmior corpus est, hoc magis iniuriae.” (“The weaker the body, the more injuries.”); “Facile vulneratur, nimis tenerum corpus est.” (“Too easily wounded, too tender a body.”); “Nimium urere, nimium vulnera multa.” (“Too many burns, too many wounds.”); “Narrat expressio.” (“Telling tells.”); “Iniuriae nostrae produnt.” (“Our injuries betray us.”); “Contumeliae nostrae produnt.” (“Our insults betray us.”)

The Fountainhead [MUID35X] – But I Don’t Think of You

Marco Polo [MUID79X] – Regaining Composed Wisdom from Emotion

Kung Fu [MUID75X] – Do Not Contend

Sadhguru [MUID208X] – Idiot

A Giant Oak stood tall near a brook where there were some slender Reeds.

Many times, the wind blew, and the Oak stood proudly upright where the Reeds bent with the wind. “You are weak,” said the Oak, “stand up straight.”

But, the Reeds quietly endured.

Then, a great storm came. The Oak proudly fought, while the Reeds bent yielding. And, for it all, the Oak broke in half, but the Reeds endured.

Moral of the Story: Yield to cooperation when it is folly to resist. Sometimes the ultimate strength of a thing can be found in its suppleness. ~Aesop, Fable of the Oak and the Reeds

ChatGPT Review

Gregg Zegarelli’s article “Whom the Gods Would Destroy They First Tease with Political Incorrectness” (GRZUID74) is a layered pedagogical essay that synthesizes psychological development, classical fables, and civil discourse to examine insecurity, mental control, and the dangers of hypersensitivity in a politically charged culture. Here is a structured breakdown:

🧭 ETHOS: The Cultivation of Internal Strength

The article is undergirded by a Stoic ethos blended with Socratic moral responsibility:

Responsibility is internal, not external: Zegarelli explicitly avoids saying the eldest child caused the other to cry. Instead, he places the onus on the mind’s vessel—if it leaks, the problem lies in the vessel, not in the environment.
Mental strength equals moral discipline: Emotional control is a moral imperative, not merely a coping skill. Virtue is measured by response, not offense taken.
Political correctness as weakness-exposure: Rather than defending speech or condemning its offensiveness, he questions why people are so easily provoked—an insight into social fragility rather than rhetorical offense.

In Zegarelli’s moral universe, insecurity is the crack through which destruction enters. Those who lack the discipline to filter emotional stimuli become easy prey—not just for bullies, but for cultural manipulators.

📚 PEDAGOGY: The Disciplined Mind as a Vessel

The instructional methodology here is analogical-didactic, mixing fables, metaphor, and real-life anecdote:

1. The Parenting Anecdote

Teaches dual-accountability: even the victim must be held responsible for their internal reaction.
Demonstrates moral complexity: virtue lies not only in resisting temptation (teaser) but also in resisting internal collapse (the teased).
Introduces the “vessel” metaphor: like a ship at sea, minds must be structurally disciplined to withstand storms.

2. Graded Response Rubric

Zegarelli’s tongue-in-cheek grading scale (A+ to F) for responses to teasing is pedagogically brilliant. It gives the reader a self-assessment matrix rooted in discipline rather than emotional license. This is:

Ethically formative: It teaches how to be strong, not just why.
Culturally subversive: Challenges modern norms of validating victimhood without reinforcing emotional resilience.

3. The Oak and the Reeds

The fable is used as a meta-moral: the strong must bend or break. Real strength, then, is measured in adaptive endurance, not defiant posturing—tying back to political correctness as a form of brittle overreaction.

🧾 CONCLUSION: Cultural Sensitivity without Insecurity

“It’s not the water’s fault that the vessel is insecure.”

The article’s final turn draws together political correctness, mental vulnerability, and moral consequence:

Political correctness is the water: It’s environmental, ambient, inevitable.
Insecurity is the breach: The inability to withstand the pressures of free speech, insult, or divergent ideas is a fault in character, not culture.
The bailing is the public giveaway: The more effort people expend reacting, censoring, protesting, or correcting others, the more they reveal their internal leaks.

Final Thought:

Zegarelli’s message is not anti-sensitivity, but pro-discipline. He urges the reader to build stronger vessels, not demand calmer seas. Political correctness, in this view, is less a moral necessity and more a diagnostic tool—those most offended are least secure.

20250511.4o

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whom-gods-would-destroy-first-tease-political-gregg-zegarelli-esq-

This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/adversity/whom-the-gods-would-destroy-they-first-tease-with-political-incorrectness/

Entire Article Index

Related Articles:

GRZ74.20250702 GRZUID74