The problem with ‘unacceptable’

American government officials and political players regularly declare something to be “unacceptable.” 

Russia’s attack on Ukraine is unacceptable. Hamas’ attack on Israel is unacceptable. Israel’s killing of 38,000 Gaza residents is unacceptable. China’s threats against Taiwan are unacceptable. Mass killings in the United States are unacceptable. Attacks on American political leaders are unacceptable.

The use of the word “unacceptable” plays the same role as the phrase “thoughts and prayers.” All it does is to take the place of doing something constructive.

Once in a while, declaring something to be unacceptable is followed by an actual action. But not very often.

Using the term “unacceptable” is also akin to saber-rattling. Its use carries an implied threat: if something is unacceptable to me, then I’m declaring that I might do something about it. The term’s use is supposed to warn a perpetrator that he, she, or it had better stop doing whatever it is that I find unacceptable, or face the consequences.

But usually no consequences of any magnitude actually come to pass. I use the term in the hope that by doing so, the evildoer will fear me and stop doing whatever it is that I find unacceptable.

As with other threats, the problem with repeated use of the “unacceptable” warning is that the more frequently someone says it, the less likely the violator is to take it seriously.

I doubt that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu puts much stock anymore in President Biden’s repeated claims of unacceptability about Israel’s killing of Gaza residents. Except for a brief interlude when the U.S. delayed delivery of a shipment of 2,000 pound bombs to Israel, the weapons pipeline from America to Israel has continued, even though Israel’s destruction of Gaza is “unacceptable” to Biden.

How many mass shootings in American schools have been deemed “unacceptable” by government officials and political spokespersons? And then the next one? And then the next one? And then the next one?

Saying something is unacceptable once or twice, without taking immediate action, might be OK. But if that’s all that happens, it seems pretty lame. If you’re not going to do something about it, it would be better instead to say “that shouldn’t have happened,” or “that was the wrong thing to do,” or simply “I don’t like it.”

Those are all weaker responses than “it’s unacceptable.” But they’re more accurate, and they don’t raise victims’ hopes only to have them erased.

To say something is unacceptable, and then do nothing, is simply another way of accepting it.

Rick Morain is a reporter and columnist with the Jefferson Herald.