The issue of alleged offensiveness is recurring in my writings, but I lacked a fuller individual treatment and a place to link in order to avoid redundant discussion. (For an example of an older text, consider one on distortions of literary works ([1]). A full listing would be cumbersome and not necessarily very helpful.)
This page originated as an attempt more to provide that place to link than the fuller individual treatment, but grew surprisingly long even in a first version. Even so, I put in a preparatory effort more suitable for the former than the latter, and this might well show in the below in various regards, e.g. in deficits in quality, structure, and completeness, including that some side-notes might be better off as separate and expanded sections/sub-topics in their own right. (Future improvements are likely.)
In particular, the very long portion dealing with “that Jane Goodall tramp” was originally intended as a shorter inline discussion, but grew very much longer when I got around to filling it out, and seemed relevant to quite a few other parts of the overall text than where I originally referenced it. For convenience, I moved it to an excursion, without any additional attempts to integrate it, to reference it elsewhere or have it reference other parts of the text, etc. However, that incident is so illustrative of some core problems with “Offensive!!!” that it might, by accident, be the most valuable part of this text.
In reverse, “the water buffalo incident” is mentioned much more cursorily and I rely on a Grokipedia entry to give readers more information. (At the time of my writing, the Wikipedia entry was much thinner.) It too, however, has great illustrative value and, except for the time consumption, should have been discussed at greater length. (I might or, likelier, might not improve this at a later date.)
Note that while most of this page is written on some assumption of “good faith” in those claiming that something is offensive, I strongly suspect that “bad faith” is very common—something addressed separately below. (This choice is partly motivated by Hanlon’s Razor and the high likelihood that motivations vary greatly among the complainers, partly by how different types of arguments and different points apply depending on whether good or bad faith is present.)
Among issues that might need more explicit and/or deeper addressing in the future is to what degree invocations of “Offensive!!!” are a Leftist tactic, to what degree the Left simply latches on to those who raise such cries, to what degree (and why) a Leftist persuasion and being easily offended correlate, and to what degree they occur entirely independently of the Left. (Such addressing maybe in a separate text with a greater context of similar issues and/or Leftist pushing of oppressor–oppressed relationships.) As the text stands, it should be clear that I see the matter as mostly a Leftist one (and my motivations for writing this text are Leftist uses and abuses); however, I stress that I do not claim that even “Offensive!!!”, let alone calmer objections about being offended, would be limited to the Left.
This, then, brings me to the difference between strong/emotional/propagandistic/whatnot cries of “Offensive!!!” and mere claims of “I find that offensive”. (In both cases with less focus on details of formulation and more on general sentiment. For instance, I view the editorial letter quoted below, in the “that Jane Goodall tramp” issue, to be more of the former than the latter, while someone looking strictly at the form might see it differently. Also note that while accusations are often raised using a variation of the word “offensive”, such use is not a strict requirement.) Much of this text applies to both cases; much is specific to “Offensive!!!”; some might be specific to “I find that offensive”; and I suspect that I have not kept the discussion sufficiently clear on such points.
Much of this text, as I discovered during proof-reading, deals with topics like slurs and insults. For the better part, this is warranted and relevant to the topic at hand, but both the amount of text and the remaining “worse part” point to benefits in splitting the text in two, one more focused of slurs and insults in their own right, and one (this one) mostly referencing the other when non-trivial words on slurs and insults are necessary. In the other direction, some more material on what might be, or be claimed to be, offensive without involving words could be beneficial. (Consider e.g. the not uncommon, but highly unreasonable, position that any and all stereotype, even in humor, would be offensive—something potentially relevant when it comes to “that Jane Goodall tramp”.)
The main problem with allegations of offense is the subjectivity involved, where what is offensive to the one need not be so to another, where the alleged offense is often based on misunderstanding or faulty reasoning, whatnot. Indeed, there are issues where different parties can have “conflicting offenses”: For instance, many of the Feminist persuasion seem to consider a generic third-person singular “he” offensive, while I do consider “they” in the same role offensive—and the more so when “they” is over-extended to absurd cases, e.g. by following a “one” with a “they” instead of a second “one” (“if one wants peace, they must prepare for war”; see [2] for more on such abuses). Now, why should the offense taken by these Feminists trump my offense? The more so, when they try to force a change in language upon others and I try to preserve an established and well-functioning use?
The answer, of course, is that there is no reason why offense taken by Feminists (Leftists, more generally) should trump offense taken by others. There is an important difference between many groups on the Left and many groups outside the Left, however—the likelihood that the group will bang on drums and shout through megaphones, be it literally or figuratively, vs. grind its teeth and be annoyed in silence.
Comparing the Left and the non-Left more generally, it is very often the case that the Left prefers noise-making to arguments, emotional reactions to reason, whatnot—and that it is unaware of or ignores points like those discussed in this text. (Also note the difference between a cry of “Offensive!!!” and a reasoned suggestion that “inclusive” language would be better. The latter, in my eyes, is naive, but usually falls in a different category. Exceptions include when a “not inclusive; ergo, offensive” argument is proposed and when the issue of inclusiveness, or lack thereof, is not brought in a reasoned manner, but e.g. shouted through a megaphone.)
The non-Left is tendentially the other way around. (But with great reservations for the specifics of the non-Left group or individual at hand.) Indeed, if I discuss cases that offend me, it is almost always (as in this text) to put Leftist clamors about “Offensive!!!” in perspective, to give a contrast to them, or similar.
(With an eye at good vs. bad faith, note that such noise-making makes the case for bad faith stronger, but that the noise-making certainly is possible even with good faith, e.g. through a destructive and immature attitude of “when I am dissatisfied, I scream to get attention”.)
This example also illustrates how e.g. Feminists often base their claims of being offended on poor reasoning and ignorance, here of the difference between biological sex and grammatical gender. (Possibly, aided by claims of wanting “inclusive writing”, which are dubious, often nonsensical, in their own right, but which cannot reasonably be used to justify offense.)
I, in turn, am offended by the (likely) often willful destruction of language, manipulation of language for political purposes, implied de-individualization (for my part, I would rather be mistakenly referred to as “she” than “they”), etc. See e.g. [2] for more on this. Throwing a wider net, to allow e.g. “annoyed” or “depressed” instead of “offended”, we also have to consider issues like the deplorable ignorance and inability to think shown by so many authors (by no means limited to “they” either), as well as pragmatic problems like an increased risk of ambiguity and misunderstandings (see e.g. [2], again).
Such poor reasoning and/or ignorance is very frequent (but not omnipresent), and is often combined with a jumping to conclusions, as with my go-to example of “calling a spade a spade” (with varying use of commata and quotation marks): This has sometimes been deemed offensive on the presumption that “spade” would be a slang term for someone Black—as if someone had said “calling a nigger a nigger” (see excursion—especially, before throwing a fit). In reality, it refers to the digging implement and has been traced back at least to ancient Greece. The infamous water buffalo incidente likewise went back to ignorance and a jumping to conclusions—and illustrates a great number of other problems around offense, grievance industries, whatnot, including that the reactions of the offended would have been disproportionate even had a racial slur been used, considering the circumstances, and the objective damage that they were doing to the alleged offender (also see below).
A particularly illustrative case is that of a certain “Jane Goodall tramp”—an event of similar fame but a happier outcome. (For reasons of length and drift moved to an excursion.)
The problem of subjectivity is worsened by how one side is given (or, at least, demands) complete Tolkningsföreträde—I am offended by this statement; ergo, it is offensive. Neither the intension of the alleged offender, nor the interpretation of a “reasonable person” counts—and these would very often come to very different conclusions.
Such an attitude is often manifested in a variation of “You do not get to decide what is offensive!!!” directed at e.g. an alleged offender who tries to defend himself, or at a “reasonable person” who tries to discuss the matter as a third party—while the user of this phrase is often, herself, a third party (and likely always a woman, in the cases that I have observed and where a sex was clear).
This claim of “You do not get to decide [...]” is usually better directed at its invoker (as with many other Leftist accusations and claims of various kinds). In particular, it is true that the alleged offender does not have the right (or possibility...) to decide what makes others feel offended, but that someone feels offended does not necessarily make the statement offensive. By analogy, if the one physically injures the other, the injury is there regardless of whether it resulted from an offensive act (e.g. a deliberate punch to the nose) or from an accident. By further analogy, while there are both offensive acts that do not result in injury and offensive statements that do not cause offense (e.g. because a child’s attack is shrugged off by an adult), many claims about offense seem to presume a damage that has not actually been done or is only there through the poor judgment or over-sensitivity of the allegedly offended party (cf. the previous section).
As can be seen from these formulations and other uses involving variations of “offen[d/se]”, e.g. “a good offense is the best defense”, the intent is important—to the point that even phrasings like “I am offended!” might be argued as unfortunate, misleading, and better replaced with e.g. “I am hurt!”, “I am annoyed!”, “I am angry!”, or whatever might apply. (The more so, as such a switch increases the precision of the claim and makes it easier for a “reasonable person” to make a judgment on whether the reaction is warranted.) In the aforementioned “water buffalo incident”, e.g., it is very possible for the one party to have felt offended (even if out of ignorance) without offense of that nature being intended.
The use of “water buffalo” was presumably intended as an insult, just not a racial insult. That racial (ethnic, whatnot; I will stick with “racial” for brevity) insults (slurs, whatnot; ditto) are treated as worse than other insults, however, might be a sign of a larger underlying problem, e.g. in the grievance-industry family (also see some below discussion). This the more so, if someone fails to draw the border between a racial insult, which is often just intended to express a negative feeling about an individual member of the race at hand in a convenient or specific manner, and a racist one, which truly is steeped in negative feelings about a race—and, strictly speaking, need not involve anything specific to a race in terms of formulation.
(Also note that even a deliberate insult need not be of an offensive nature, in the sense typically implied by e.g. the Left, or a legitimate cause to feel offended. If, as with the “water buffalo incident”, someone prevents others from studying or sleeping in the middle of the night, certain reactions are only to be expected and must be accepted.)
For instance, “Your lot are all morons!” might well be spoken with a racist motivation and a racist intent, but does not refer to any specific race and it is not clear, without further context, that the “lot” is a race and not e.g. a profession or a sorority. This while a racial insult is often characterized by a fungibility of insult, in that a specific word would be changed to match the racial belonging of the insulted if that belonging was changed, but that the individual sentiment would remain the same. (I leave very much unstated whether there is any particular benefit to using something racial over e.g. “moron”, but that question is of little relevance to the larger points.)
Particularly interesting cases can arise when the racial nature has partially faded from awareness or is complemented by a negative aspect of another kind. For instance, I recall one Will Smith movie or other where someone referred to his character as “shyster”, prompting him to explain that, while he was a lawyer, he was not Jewish and, therefore, not a shyster.
Such objections notwithstanding, I use formulations like “I am offended” in a manner that matches reasonably common use in this text: partly, to make a point about the idea of being offended in a terminology consistent with those claiming offense; partly, because I see the point about ignoring intent when judging what is offensive as more important than semantic or etymological debates around being offended; partly, because I have only spotted some problems during writing, including some oddities in my own and others’ use of “offense” (I might or might not alter my future use).
From another angle, claims like “You do not get to decide how I speak!” are often much more relevant and better directed at the complaining party. This includes variations like “[...] what pronouns I use!” directed at those who force others to use their “preferred pronouns”, in what constitutes forced speech, results in poor grammar, is a source of confusion and misunderstandings about who or what is referenced when, and puts an unconscionable burden on others to keep track of who “prefers” what pronouns. (And does not “prefer[...]” imply a voluntary use?)
Here and elsewhere, it can be important to keep the different nature of e.g. imposed “preferred pronouns” and Leftist language dictates, on the one hand, and declarations of what is and is not correct language in prescriptive grammar books and style-guides, on the other. Immediately relevant to the above is that the former typically come with a strong “or else” (e.g. “or you will be cancelled”, “or I will demand that you be fired”), while the latter do not—or one of a far less harmful and coercive nature, e.g. “or I will disapprove of your choice”.
An exception, where a coercive effect is sometimes found with the latter, is in specific cases of professional writing, e.g. in that a newspaper might require its journalists to adhere to a certain style-guide (but not e.g. advertisers and writers of letters-to-the-editor). However, these differ in that there is a strong aspect of hired and (usually) highly fungible work to a certain specification, which gives the coercion something of a justification that does not apply in more general settings. Moreover, in as far as this justification is too weak, the correct solution is not to endorse coercion in such more general settings, using a newspaper as precedence, but to remove it in the newspaper. (To go into details of this is beyond the scope of this text, but I note that some rules are more easily justified than others, as with a “must use U.S. English” for a U.S. paper vs. a word-specific hyphenation rule, e.g. whether “style guide”, “style-guide”, or “styleguide” is correct.)
A difference of more tangential relevance, but one that can be important when we look at details, is that “preferred pronouns” and Leftist language dictates often aim at a major and incompatible-with-prior-use change to language, while e.g. a style-guide tends to pick one variation where there is more than one in somewhat common use, where uncertainty might exist, whatnot. Another, more relevant for prescriptive grammars, is that any suggested novelty/revision relative current use tends to be founded in reasoning about language. What the Left pushes has political or ideological motivations, which makes it far less palatable and conscionable.
As shown by the example of “that Jane Goodall tramp” (cf. excursion), offense is often claimed by others than the alleged victim(s). This is particularly unfortunate in politics and with “grievance movements”, where various activists and agenda pushers claim to speak for a greater group without necessarily having the support of even the majority (let alone entirety) of the group—and without necessarily being members, themselves.
Certainly, if some Leftie tries to turn Aspies and the like (of which I am one) into yet another grievance movement, yet another “proof” that White men (I am one of those, too, incidentally) would bee evil, that we would need more Leftist rule, whatnot, I find that deeply, deeply offensive. Such a Leftie most certainly does not speak for me, chances are that we disagree on almost any point of political importance, and it would take a fool indeed to doubt that I want less Leftist rule. On a more detailed level, I certainly also find “people first language” offensive, while I have no objections whatever to e.g. “Aspie”.
And, certainly, the problems that Aspies and the like have are largely outside politics and ideology, and better solved by others means. The details of that are off-topic (and I do not make a claim of having a ready-made solution), but a good example of how Leftist ideology can be outright unhelpful follows from a personal anecdote:
I am of a generation for which the school system had no awareness of or accommodation for Aspies (and Sweden generally has or had a strongly one-size-for-all-regardless-of-fit system). As an adult, I tried to look into what help my modern day counterparts might be given and what I might be able to use from that in terms of figuring out interactions with “neurotypicals” (I have come far on my own, but even in my 50s I cannot claim mastery). I made a few searches on the Internet and found nothing of value—every single hit returned to me was some variation on themes like “X is evil and a crime against autists!” and “No-one should ever bother with X—be true to yourself instead!” (where X could be e.g. ABA). Moreover, some of these pages showed a fanaticism that, by analogy, would have required an immigrant (e.g. a Swede in Germany—I am, of course, one of those too) to refuse to learn the local language. For the better part, next to nothing was said about what might or might not be beneficial, what had or lacked scientific support, etc., but a whole lot pushed an ideological or quasi-ideological agenda of never-ever-adapt-to-the-rest-of-society, some variation of Leftist oppressor–oppressed dichotomies, whatnot.
Oh, and is it not offensive to assume that the members of some group would be unable to fend for themselves without the intervention of Leftist activists, who jump in to assume a modern variation of the “White man’s burden” (and while the same activists would likely see their predecessors as evil-colonial-racists-who-must-be-condemned-in-every-way-possible)?
It is not enough that offense is largely subjective, but the goal posts are often shifting, imposed by a one-sided and arbitrary dictate by some Leftist group, or otherwise hard to follow—even for those who try. It is even common for someone who used to be considered an enlightened Leftie (e.g. J. K. Rowling: “Feminist; ergo, has enlightened ideas about men and women”) to be condemned at a later date for not being sufficiently Leftist, enlightened, whatnot (e.g. J. K. Rowling: “Feminist; ergo, has antiquated ideas about men and women—and, especially, about men and women with regard to sports and bathrooms”). Worse, victims of offensiveness accusations are not even limited to being hanged for what they say today, which might well match today’s PC standards, but for what they said decades ago—which might well have matched the PC standards of the day. (This also disregards the considerable possibility that someone has genuinely changed his mind in the interim.)
A well-known example is the euphemism treadmill, where the accepted term of today has grown “offensive” by tomorrow (e.g. because too many children use it as an insult in the school yard); tomorrow sees a new term as a euphemism for the same thing, to be used by dictate; this euphemism has grown “offensive” yet another day later; lather-rinse-repeat.
This is also a good illustration of how, for the better part, it is not the word used that truly matters but the sentiment behind it—something all too often forgotten, both in general and with regard to allegations of offense. Exceptions include when language is changed for political (or other non-rational) reasons, which is typically the case with any new iteration of the treadmill, making the respective new euphemism the worse choice, more often than not.
Above, I have largely written on the basis of “good faith” accusations. However, my impression over many years has been that a very significant portion (possibly, an outright majority) of these accusations are in “bad faith”, that they are raised to achieve a particular purpose, e.g. to discredit a particular political opponent, a particular group, a particular opinion, whatnot. The modern “cancellation era” likely goes back to exactly such efforts (in conjuncture with deliberate efforts to create a “chilling effect” on others than the immediately cancelled).
Here, however, a differentiation might be needed between those who deliberately fake being offended and those who have been indoctrinated into being offended by the right triggers (in yet another variation of the “useful idiot” theme that is so common with the Left). The former have truly faked offense; the latter do so by proxy (for want of a better formulation). The consequences in both cases, however, are very similar, both are similarly driven by an underlying dishonesty, and both might be subsumed under a label like “manufactured offense”. Indeed, “trigger warnings” might do more to increase the frequency of perceived offense, by telling the dumb masses what should offend them, than to mitigate that perceived offense.
Indeed, I would not entirely rule out that trigger warnings originally arose for such a “bad faith” purpose—and this is virtually certainly the case with the idiocy of “micro-aggressions”, as something created for the purpose of making it easier to find offense contrary to a “reasonable person” standard (and/or related purposes, e.g. to push angles of “systemic racism” or to cancel the unwanted). Also note the next paragraph and how handy “micro-aggressions” can be for such purposes, e.g. by turning a genuine compliment into an alleged offense.
In another variation, it seems that some groups deliberately look for reasons to be offended, which is likely usually explained by exactly bad faith (in evil-doers) or indoctrination to be easily offended (in useful idiots). Why e.g. should “bitch” (also see excursion) be “offensive” while “son of a bitch” is merely rude—and why should it be offensive-to-women when used about a female dog? (And will we see a euphemism treadmill, should some other term be used for female dogs? Including “female dog[s]”, of course, although my own use here is for disambiguation.)
Such faking is far more offensive, by any reasonable standard, than almost anything actually labeled as offensive by the Left.
The word “nigger” might involve the single greatest example of manufactured and exaggerated offense—especially, when combined with international efforts like (cf. [1]) around the Swedish “neger”.
It might well be that the word is truly offensive when used as a slur, and I raise no objections to someone taking offense at such a slur. (Whether greater such offense is justified than for other racial slurs, or other slurs in general, I leave very much unstated. That it is often so considered is much more likely to be another effect of agenda pushing than of something rooted in reason.) However, going by current Leftist/whatnot claims and behaviors, there is something quasi-magical that makes the very letters or the very sounds of the word unspeakably evil, and in a manner that matches Terry Pratchett’s “you must never say the number between seven and nine, or you might get ate”.
I quote from memory and might be off in detail. The claim arose in the fictional context of an evil god/demon/whatnot who might descend upon someone who said the word “eight”.
Here, the joke is that “eight” and “ate” are homophones (so why would it be dangerous to say “eight” but not to say “ate”?), but the condemners of “nigger” seem to take matters in the other direction, as with condemnations of “niggardly” (etymologically entirely unrelated) or the aforementioned Swedish “neger” (etymological and, pre-“manufactured offense”, non-offensive equivalent of “negro”, of which “nigger”, presumably, is a distortion; “negro” in turn has an odd status, at least partly through a euphemism treadmill).
Also note ideas like noa names.
This manifests in problems like even a discussion of the word, it self, as in this text, risking condemnation, and even somewhat academic or journalistic sources, who all should know better, using phrases like “n-word” rather than “nigger”. Such condemnation I consider far, far more offensive than use of “nigger”—and/or proof that the condemner is an idiot.
Likewise, a repeated problem is censorship of at least children’s books based on appearance of the word “nigger”, even when historically accurate and non-malicious—to the point that a book and/or its author seems to be considered evil (often literally evil, not merely inappropriate or offensive) just for using the word, regardless of the circumstances, including when it was written. (Such censorship in two forms, namely, attempts to keep the books unavailable to at least children, and, as in [1], selective editing. [1] mentions at least two examples related to “nigger’, “Huckleberry Finn” and “To Kill a Mocking-Bird”, but without mentioning the cause.)
To make matters more complicated there are issues with inconsistent application of rules, e.g. in that someone Black or belonging to some hip-hop sub-culture might be considered “allowed” to use the word. By implication, the self-appointed arbiter would forbid others from doing so in a highly presumptuous manner. (To re-iterate an earlier point: “You do not get to decide how I speak!”)
I had a few further points to make on the topic of “nigger” but will postpone them for now, maybe, awaiting a dedicated text.
The issue of “bitch” (also cf. above) has some similarity in often disproportionate reactions, as when the use of “bitch” for “female dog” is disallowed because it would be “offensive to women”, and inconsistent application of rules (notably, in that a woman might be considered “allowed” to use the word). An interesting overlap is that both “nigger” and “bitch” are unusually frequent in hip-hop lyrics.
Something quite interesting with “bitch”, however, is that Feminist rhetoric seems to paint it as an anti-woman slur used by men. However, from what I have seen so far, slurs that have a female aspect to them (including “bitch”, but also e.g. “tramp”, “slut”, “cunt”; and, in my native Swedish, e.g. “slampa”, “luder”—English examples come with the disclaimer that my exposure to use outside fiction is very limited) tend to be used much more often by women. (This even when limiting cases to genuine insults, as with “You fucking bitch!” and as opposed to e.g. “Yo! My bitches! Paaaaaaartyyyyyy!”, where it might border on a term of endearment.) This casts strong doubts on any alleged sexism of such slurs, and points more to a sex-specific slur (paralleling above comments around racial insults, ethnic slurs, whatnot). Also note how such slurs often focus on sexual promiscuity or some other considered-negative-by-women aspect—if a particular woman is open to low-hurdle sex with men, negative reactions from other women appear much more likely than from men, while many men will, unsurprisingly, have a positive reaction.
I would even speculate that a man might be more likely to use “bitch” towards another man than towards a woman, e.g. to indicate that he considers the other man a coward or otherwise unmanly, although I am uncertain whether this “bitch” would compare him to a female human or a female dog. Also note that the typical implication of “bitch” towards a man is different than towards a woman.
(A similar issue with “pussy” might point to female human, but would also raise the question why the use of “pussy” for a cat, in my impression, raises fewer objections than “bitch” for a female dog. One potential explanation is that “pussy” is rarely used for a woman as a whole, unlike “cunt”, but that could point to “pussy”-as-a-slur being a reference to a cat. Here research would be needed. Also note that “pussy”-for-a-cat is not limited to female cats.)
Moreover, why would “cunt” be a worse insult than “dick”? Or, as above, “bitch” than “son of a bitch”? Or consider “tomboy” in [1]. The point, in the end, is likely not who uses the slur or the nature of the slur—but what group is at the receiving end of the slur. Chances are that women are more sensitive to slurs, that Feminist agenda-pushing has increased sensitivity further, and that Feminists might use allegations of offense as a weapon, causing “cunt” to receive a stronger and more negative reaction than “dick”, with no root in objective criteria (also note similar comments around subjectivity at the beginning of this text). There is little reason to suspect U.S. Blacks of being more naturally sensitive than Whites, but they have certainly been exposed to a propaganda machine comparable to the Feminist one, and further credence to a similar issue is lent by the repeated switches of terms (to some degree, like a euphemism treadmill; to some degree, something else), where we have at least “negro”, “African American”, and “[b/B]lack” being fashionable and then (excluding “Black”) unfashionable, with additional complications around e.g. “colored” and “people of color” (which include, but are usually not limited to, Blacks).
Jane Goodall was mentioned by name in a “Far Side” strip, which caused a storm in a tea cup when one of her associates flew off the handle, and which well illustrates some problems with cries of “Offensive!!!” (and the extended mentality around them).
Consider the below letter-to-the-editor (re-quoted, in part, from [3]e; the usual disclaimers about formatting apply):
As the issue of bestiality does not find mention in the letter, with reservations for the very end, I will ignore any negatives from a human–chimpanzee fornication in the main treatment and address that sub-topic separately, at the end. In fact, to some part, I will write as if all involved parties were human (or otherwise of the same species), ignoring any human–chimpanzee difference. However, note the oddity that Engel, the author of the letter, has a very strong reaction to the word “tramp” but does not mention explicitly the more reasonably objectionable potential implication that Goodall would have had sex with a chimpanzee.
As an aside, Engel makes repeated use of “female”—a word that many women and/or Feminists condemn as offensive. This might in part be explained by the mixed discussion of humans and chimpanzees, and I raise not the slightest own objection, but it is interesting in a bigger context and is yet another example of how arbitrary and subjective offense can be.
I was appalled when I saw Gary Larson’s “The Far Side” cartoon in the Star Aug. 26. This was of two Larson animals - presumably chimpanzees - in a tree. One, which was evidently supposed to be the female, was picking a long hair from the other’s shoulder. The caption read: “Well, well - another blond hair...Conducting a little more ‘research’ with that Jane Goodall tramp?”
To refer to Dr. Goodall as a tramp is inexcusable - even by a self-described “loony” as Larson. The cartoon was incredibly offensive and in such poor taste that readers might well question the editorial judgment of running such an atrocity in a newspaper that reputes to be supplying the news to persons with a better than average intelligence. The cartoon and its message were absolutely stupid.
[Laudatory words about Goodall.]
The irresponsibility of the Star in choosing to run such an obscenity is disgusting. In fact, any woman should be insulted by the reference that the female - in this case, a typical Larson eyeglass-wearing animal - would be unaware of what Dr. Goodall’s research really is, its seriousness and the assumption that a female only would have the mentality to look for sexual implications.
Sue Engel
Executive Director
The Jane Goodall Institute
Here there are a number of issues, beginning with the fact that Goodall, herself, found the joke funny and was thrilled to be mentioned in a “Far Side” strip... Cf. her extensive foreword to “The Far Side Gallery 5”, which also features the original strip, as well as parts of [3].
(The first paragraph is mostly descriptive and is included to save myself the effort of writing approximately the same description.)
The second paragraph seems to imply that Larson refers to Goodall as “tramp”, but he does not—one of his characters does, and there is no indication that this reference would reflect Larson’s own opinions on the matter. This not only from the strip it self, but also considering the fact that Larson and Goodall did not yet know each other and that it can be presumed that Larson, at least to some approximation, was aware of the very same good points that Engel makes about Goodall. Moreover, having a character express a particular opinion, even one offensive “in real life”, can only be offensive by a “reasonable person” standard under sufficient circumstances, none that seem to be present here.
Somewhat off the top of my head, I see two cases of such circumstances. The one is when the speaker is a clear author surrogate, the other when the author puts words in the mouth of a real-world human (especially, when dead), of a character who is someone else’s creation, or similar. The former is very unlikely in this case (would Larson make himself a female chimpanzee?); the latter can likely be ruled out entirely—and the offense arises less because of words used and more because of the presumption and the consequences that the presumption can have on the perception by others. (To boot, some exceptions might be needed for words that are sufficiently trivial or sufficiently close to the known actual opinions of the speaker, for cases of satire or obvious artistic license, for cases where prior permission has been granted, whatnot.)
Note that, by this standard, another angling of the strip could have been offensive on a “put words in Jane Goodall’s mouth” basis. As is, cf. below, she is not actually featured in the strip and Larson is in the clear.
Indeed, use of potentially offensive/whatnot phrasings can often be used to push the opposite message and/or for legitimate humorous purposes. For instance, “Gangs of New York” contains a scene in which one of the antagonists spots a Black man in the church that is the current setting, forgets all about the immediate conflict, and says approximately and repeatedly “Did you know that there is a nigger in your church?”—until, likely, the local priest hits him over the head from behind. (I re-tell from memory and with reservations for details. Also note that the actual screen version is much funnier than the re-telling.) Now, what if the use of “nigger” was completely banned, as some would have it? What if someone were to condemn the movie as racist based on this scene and contrary to a reasonable interpretation? (Also see below remarks on “nigger” more generally.)
Likewise, what e.g. if Bill the Butcher was not allowed to speak ill of the Irish on screen and how would that have affected the overall dynamics of the movie, various conflicts, the viewers understanding of the moods and settings, whatnot?
From another angle, “tramp” can have different meanings, as with Chaplin’s “tramp” and other wanderers and whatnots (notwithstanding that the real-life Chaplin appears to have been quite promiscuous). In the context of the above joke, it seems clear that the slutty meaning is intended, so I leave this to a side-note. In a less specific context, however, such issues could be very important—e.g. if someone says of a woman that “the lady is a tramp”, referencing a song with a, in my reading, more independent and/or wandering tramp than a slutty tramp.
(And note, in contrast to some complaints around “nigger” and “bitch”, cf. above, that Engel does not condemn “tramp” wholesale—only the application of the word to Goodall.)
From yet another, what if the strip had not used “tramp”, in favor of, say, “that Jane Goodall woman”? While the joke would have remained essentially the same, and while no better picture of Goodall would have been painted, half of Engel’s argument would have collapsed. (The change likely tells us nothing about Goodall, but, maybe, something about the speaker, e.g. that she, if using “woman”, was less prone to to condemn other women. The joke, in turn, is changed only in as far as the jealous-woman-insulting-a-presumed-rival stereotype is weakened.) In a next step, this raises questions (for which I have no answers) like whether Engel’s business was truly with “tramp” or whether “tramp” was just a seemingly good point of attack, whether she would have pushed on without the “tramp”. what other point(s) of attack she might have chosen, etc.
A key observation is that the strip is not truly about Goodall, who does not appear “on-screen” and has no true part in events—it just uses her as convenient reference: Much of Larson’s work centered on absurd scenarios, often achieved by putting animals in “human” situations or taking something familiar and giving it an unfamiliar or absurd spin. (For instance, the cover of the aforementioned gallery volume depicts a movie salon with flies as the movie-goers and a movie of a fly drowning in soup and/or in the process of being scooped up and eaten. This puts flies in a human setting, references the “fly in the soup” joke family, might be a further reference to “Jaws” or some similar movie, and shows how a situation can look very different depending on perspective, e.g. that of a human and that of a fly.) Here we simply have a very human situation of a wife (likely; I will use “wife”) spotting a hair on her husband (likely; I will use “husband”) and being jealous. While I do not know what the “creative process” was, I might speculate that Larson picked Goodall because a blond human hair would be more obviously suspect than a chimpanzee hair and because the “research” angle gives an additional twist of absurdity. (While Dian Fossey was already dead and, in life, likely had darker hair, making the same joke featuring two gorillas and that “Dian Fossey tramp” a poor option.) As a counterpoint, I cannot rule out that the “creative process” began with thoughts of Goodall and how to make a joke about her, but the end result is still not truly about her and, with reservations for who was how famous and who was still alive, some level of fungibility is present. (Consider Fossey and those gorillas, E. O. Wilson and ants, Attenborough and take-your-pick; although having a female human might make the joke work better, which could limit the options.)
The third (quoted) paragraph is similarly odd, e.g. with the use of “obscenity”—referring to someone as “tramp” is hardly obscene (even if used in an otherwise derogatory and/or unfair manner). In the continuation two points are claimed, both of which, in non sequiturs, should be insulting to women:
Firstly, that the wife would be unaware of the true nature of Goodall’s research—but what does that have to do with the matter? That someone performs serious and valuable research in the main does by no means preclude some unprofessional “escapade”, and the wife might have had some previous (in universe) knowledge of such escapades, making her statements compatible with a sound knowledge of Goodall. This the more so, if the husband was not actually one of Goodall’s research subjects, beyond I-need-an-excuse-for-my-wife. (Nothing in the above should be taken to imply that specifically Goodall did do so, even be it with a human, e.g a research assistant—I have no knowledge whatever on such points.) Moreover, why should “any woman” be insulted by any ignorance actually implied (here, none were) about Goodall’s work from another female? A female who is not even human? Certainly, even the real-life chimpanzees that had contact with Goodall would have had a very sketchy idea about her work; certainly, there is likely to have been many educated and/or intelligent human women who did not, if not necessarily in the Anglosphere. (To give exact examples would be tricky without deeper and hard-to-perform research, but I might imagine many intelligent women in poorer parts of the world, including Africa where the strip is presumably set, and many educated women in, say, China who had other things to do than to track the exploits of Western chimpanzee researchers.)
Secondly, that a female only would have the mentality to look for sexual implications. However, it is not a given even that this specific female did (it might e.g. have been a matter of something more romantic or a make-out session; for that matter, she might have considered several scenarios, including an innocent transfer of hair during actual research, and happened to have settled on a sexual one as the most likely); it does not follow that any given other female would have; and had it followed for female chimpanzees it would not necessarily have followed for female humans. Why should a woman be insulted by a single instance of a female chimpanzee having such limits? (Even assuming that she did have such limits.) This the more so in a joke in a medium that is known to draw on and exaggerate stereotypes and archetypes (e.g. the jealous wife and the cheating or unfairly-suspected-of-cheating husband; e.g. the jealous husband and the cheating or unfairly-suspected-of-cheating wife). Maybe most damning: Engel, herself, does appear to have jumped to a sexual conclusion, at least, in part, as she assumes that the wife did do so without considering that the wife (cf. above) might have had a different take.
Here we also see a potential example of a common problem with e.g. Feminists—that something negative said [implied/whatnot] about one individual woman would be extended to women in general, and often with a rider that this something would then be offensive (sexist, whatnot). Worse, there is sometimes a complete reversal, e.g. through a line of pseudo-reasoning like “he said X about woman Y; ergo, he believes that X applies to all women; ergo, he only believes that X applies to Y because he believes that it applies to all women; ergo, X does not apply to Y”.
The matter of sex then gives a natural segue to bestiality (cf. above side-note and note again that Engel does not raise any objections on this point):
Firstly, it is notable that the general shape of the joke, minus Larson’s absurdism, could have been kept in a strictly human setting, if with some modifications.
Considering some options, I landed at a nice pun in the shape of that “Horney tramp”. (Referencing psychoanalyst Karen Horney. Whether she was unusually horny for a woman, I do not know, but she did have a professional interest in sexual matters and might have had a man on her couch from time to time.)
Secondly, depending on details, including level of anthropomorphization, maybe, inter-species sex would be acceptable in a fictional setting. (Larson’s drawings of chimpanzees are not exactly appetizing, but the same applies to his drawings of humans.) Some certainly seem to have few objections, as with “Mating Season”; and, outside animals, human–elf and similar relationships, ranging from sex to marriage, are a staple of fiction.
“Mating Season” is a comparatively unfunny animated series focused on the sexual and romantic lives of animals (a “Sex in the Forest”, as it were) of which I recently watched the first few episodes. While I recall no human–animal coupling, there seemed to be more inter- than intraspecific sex. (I will not watch on, but not because I would be offended—because there is too little of value, humor included.)
Thirdly, however, if we take a scenario of a real-life human having sex with a chimpanzee, well, I do find that yucky—very yucky. If someone had raised an actual, real-life, accusation of “that Goodall tramp has sex with a chimpanzee” I would have found that much worse than e.g. “that Goodall tramp sleeps around [with humans]”, and certainly more so than just throwing a “tramp” onto her name.
What risks cries of “Offensive!!!” does not vary just with time, as discussed above, but there can also be issues with geography and different language conventions, false friends between languages, different social groups, and similar.
This especially with words of a sexual or “anatomical” character. Consider “cock” which has several different meanings and might, without further context, see a different default interpretation in the U.K. (“rooster”) than in the U.S. (“penis”). Likewise, it is possible that a U.K. poultry farmer has a different default interpretation than a teen girl from the same town, while a plumber might see yet another interpretation, while a member of some other profession might see a fourth interpretation, ... The U.K. and the U.S. “fannies” are anatomically close, but very different things. Not every U.S. “ass” is a U.K. one—some are “arses”. Etc.
Words for masturbation often began somewhere else, as with the Swedish “att runka”, which was once understood to imply “to shake”, with parallels in the English “to wank” and the German “zu wichsen” (originally, “to wax”; still occasionally used for e.g. “to polish”—which raises questions of what might happen to the English “to polish” at a later date). This demonstrates another type of change over time than moving goal posts and (partially) euphemism treadmills.
Words like “faggot” and “fag” are other notable problem cases, especially, in the expression “to bum a fag”, which refers to the borrowing of a cigarette, not some homosexual act.
Non-sexual examples might be particularly likely where moving goal posts are involved. Consider e.g. “Oriental”, which is a perfectly everyday U.K. word for someone of the sufficiently “far East”—while already “offensive” to many in the U.S. (with no particular reason given; and once unproblematic there too). I have indeed encountered at least one case of a Brit using “Oriental” on the Internet and being met with “Offensive!!!” by some U.S. wokesters.
“Asian” is often understood as approximately “Indian” in the U.K., making a term like “East Asian” prone to misunderstandings. (In more detail, I am uncertain where exact borders are drawn, To some approximation, there might be a division into “Orientals” as belonging to the extended Mongolic families, while “Asians” might refer to Caucasian-but-non-European Asians.)
I suspect that the days of “Oriental” are counted in the U.K. too, with the simultaneous U.S. influence on language/terminology and Leftist agenda pushing, however.
A very sad case is “master”, which has a very long history before and after the U.S. slavery era, in various meanings, and certainly with no particularly U.S. connection. Nevertheless, recent years has seen some U.S. nutcases claim that “master” would be offensive, because it would imply a master of slaves and/or risk trauma to Blacks through that connection. Something similar applies to “chief”, if for different reasons and often with an angle of “cultural appropriation”—as if any and all modern use of “chief” is taken to refer to an “Indian chief”.
“Indian” (feather) is of course another issue, where the word was entirely uncontroversial for a very long time even in the U.S., an ambiguity with the originally rarer cases of “Indian” (dot) notwithstanding. (Note the difference between e.g. “unfortunate because ambiguous, so we should find something different” and “Offensive!!!”.) Here, I have seen a case where someone referred to someone from India (!) as “Indian” and was deemed to have been out of line. (Similarly, but off topic, there are cases of U.S. sportscasters unthinkingly referring to Blacks born, raised, and living in Africa or Europe as “African Americans”.)
(Etc. There is material for an entire page on such topics.)
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.