To the Word Police and the Habitual Offenders...
You know who you are. Listen up. I'm going to lecture to you.
George Carlin famously recited the seven words you cannot say on television. In that act, he observed that there are no “bad” words. There are bad thoughts and bad intentions. And then there are words.
One of the words among the seven is the “C” word (I think its #4 if I am recalling it correctly). But George clearly did not utter that word as a misogynist. He clearly did NOT INTEND to demean women in any way when he included that word on the list. His commentary was about censorship on the airways, and that word was one of the seven not allowed. Being a fan of Mr. Carlin’s work, I suspect his use of the word in that context may even have been an intentional example of the very point he was making. Words are merely words, and in almost every instance they do not matter nearly as much as the thoughts and intentions behind them.
Similarly, Don Henley used the caricature of the “bubble headed bleached blonde” in his lyrics to the song Dirty Laundry. He wasn't attacking women – or even blonde women. His point was clearly a condemnation of the news channels that were packaging the so-called news in a titillating and sensational form without much concern for content or substance. They want us – expect us - to just look at the on-air talent, and not really care whether or not what they say is actually something we need to know.
Most words have multiple meanings, and most meanings can be expressed with different words. For example: If I get pissed off at someone, I might refer to them as a “fucking asshole”. When my daughter was a few years younger, and became pissed off at her little brother, she might have called him a “poopy head”. Very different words, but based on the look on my daughter’s face and the tone she used, they would seem to carry the exact same meaning. Now, she’s a little older. She sometimes affectionately calls our family dog a “poopy head” while she scratches him behind the ear. Exact same words, but very different intentions and thoughts behind them. Sometimes context really IS everything.
On the other hand, you would have to be an abject moron not to realize and appreciate that some phrases and words have evolved in our culture to have a highly offensive subtext. The less than exemplary history of the human race has naturally become a part of our lexicon, sometimes directly, and sometimes in an insidious, creeping way. We have done some horrible things, and then we talked about it. And if the conduct was bad enough, we may have even talked about it in code. Even if we have stopped doing the horrible things, or have curtailed doing them, or have done them differently, often the language references, sayings and phrases persist. A very rational and logical case can be made that the continued use of such words or phrases acts to continue the oppression or abuse at issue, or at least acts to subtly normalize it and condition acceptance or resignation to it. And this can occur even if you’re not aware of the history. If you are genuinely a progressive, you should not want any part of that, right? We should respect those we know are here – wherever “here” might be – enough to use some common sense and courtesy.
And sometimes, a word itself evolves into a new meaning, and becomes loaded with offensive character as a result. The new meaning is capable of surpassing or overshadowing the original meaning so much so that even using it in the context of the original meaning can be unwise. I’m trying not to use examples here, but in this instance the “B” word fits too perfectly to omit. Sure, you can use it to refer to a female canine. That’s a proper use of the word, no one should be offended by its use in that context, and - damn it - you have a RIGHT (maybe it’s in the Constitution somewhere?) to use it!!! But why do that when you can just say “my dog is a female”? While it’s not your fault that our society has seen fit to attach a vulgar meaning to that word – one that is genuinely despised by women almost universally - society has nevertheless done so, and we all know it. So, if you use that word to describe your female dog, you shouldn't be surprised if it elicits an unfriendly reaction. And you shouldn't be surprised if people assume you’re baiting that reaction. Because you probably are.
While Carlin was generally correct, and intentions and thoughts almost always matter more than actual words, words do still matter some. There ARE some that are simply offensive in almost any context, and you have to be very careful how you use them. Most of us are not skilled enough as wordsmiths to pull it off, so we shouldn't even try.
So, to the WORD POLICE: the next time someone uses a word or phrase in one of their posts that, on its face, could be taken as offensive – before you alert, before you fire up the flame thrower and drop a thread-bomb on it – look at the post again. Read it again carefully. Then re-read it yet again. And try to determine if the thoughts and intentions behind the words are bad. You might want to say to yourself “Wow. That phrase could be offensive in the right context – so maybe I should try to discern the context before I respond”. If you satisfy yourself – as objectively as possible - that the post WAS the product of bad thoughts or bad intentions, then by all means have at ‘em. I suspect most DUers will support you.
But if it seems clear the phrase used is NOT in the context that might make it offensive, or if it looks like the poster used it thoughtlessly without consideration of its potentially offensive character, back off. You do little to garner support, and even less to raise awareness, when you pile on another poster merely for paraphrasing William Congreve’s 17th century prose in The Mourning Bride. I think you might have much more success if you politely point out how the words could be viewed as offensive. Give some history. Share your opinion. You may even educate someone or help shape a point of view to a more progressive mindset. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to see a reply that says “Damn. I never thought of it that way. Thanks. I've learned something today and I will never use the phrase ‘monkey porn’ again”? Isn't that preferable to the inevitable descent into a “squabble-off” that serves no purpose other than to be a platform to show off your clever wit and brilliant, biting sarcasm? (Do I need the sarcasm thingy after I just used the word sarcasm in the sarcastic comment?).
If, on the other hand, you’re the alleged HABITUAL OFFENDER, you’re going to need to recognize that it is entirely possible that you may have used a phrase or word in a post that you didn't think was offensive, or at least that you didn't think was offensive in the context in which you used it or intended to use it. But then someone politely – POLITELY - points out that it could be taken the wrong way. Take a minute to reflect on it before you begin typing a reply. Don’t reflexively start pounding out “Here we go again…” or “I was wondering how long it would take…” – shit, where is that “eye roll” emoticon again…
Instead, look at your post. Read it again carefully. Re-read it a third time. Try to understand why someone might have taken offense. You might actually learn something about how to be a better progressive. That has happened to me a number of times, and while part of me is sometimes embarrassed and tempted to respond in a defensive way – I try to remember that becoming a better progressive is why most of us are here, and that the varying viewpoints from the many perspectives of our society is really the beauty of the Democratic Party. Big tent, and all.
And remember that if you have said something that appears to have offended someone, it really doesn't matter whether or not YOU would have been offended by it, or whether YOU think THEY should have been offended by it. Its not so mush about you at that point. Person-up and apologize, and explain that you weren't trying to be an asshole, maybe even edit if appropriate. Then leave it alone. You might be genuinely surprised at how people customarily respond to a sincere apology. If they keep at you, however, then you’re probably dealing with a Troll, and they’ll stay around only as long as you feed them.
Of course, if you WERE trying to be an asshole, and you actually are a habitual offender, then you deserve what you get. And if you were trying to be an asshole, AND the poster giving you grief is also a Troll, please take it to PM. The rest of us are tired of the AvT Wars, especially when we already know that, in the end, everyone will be dead except for Sigourney Weaver and Danny Glover.
NOTE 1: If you think this post is condescending (i.e., its speaking to you as if you’re a child), you’re absolutely right. I got these guidelines about how to have an adult exchange of ideas from my 7 year old, and he’s condescending as Hell!
NOTE 2: This post is in no way intended to condone the production and distribution of monkey porn. It is a heinous practice, and should be banned in all countries.
NOTE 3: All references to “Trolls” are to the horrid little creature more commonly known as the Internet Troll. If you are an actual Troll, or if you have friends or family who are actual Trolls, no offense is intended. And thanks for looking out for our bridges.
NOTE 4: I apologize to any canine rights activists for the reckless conduct of my daughter. She does not intend to damage the self esteem of the family dog by suggesting that he has fecal matter between his ears (although I have seen him roll around in it, so it may actually be a factual characterization). I have advised her to stop, and we are getting him counseling.
= new reply since forum marked as read
The word fuck is needed, and appropriate?, at times.
Good lecture, Whiskeytide! 
Words...
...
