I’ve had this unformed post in my head for a while, and I’m tired of it racing around the ol’ skull-track like a squirrel with a lit firecracker up its ass. So, here’s the post in all its unformed, uncertain glory.
Last week, I wrote a thing about Tomb Raider and Lara Croft. And I saw some comments around the Internet — not so much in reference to anything I wrote, but rather to the overall negative reaction to Lara Croft being used, abused, and downgraded — that chalked up the outrage to “political correctness.”
In a totally different thing, sometimes people send me things — via email, tweet, Facebook, psychic transmission — written by other people, and they’ll say things like, “This sounds like Chuck Wendig wrote it!” And what they send often has a certain whiskey-and-rage-sodden vibe to it, but also often uses pejoratives like “retarded” or “gay” or “fag” in the process. Which, to my mind, doesn’t sound like me at all.
And again, you might be thinking, “Well, sure. Political correctness.”
Let me stop you. Hand planted on your chest, me clucking my tongue.
Political correctness is a desire to minimize or eradicate offense.
I care very little about minimizing or eradicating offense.
I’m okay with offending. I don’t find that traipsing too gingerly about a subject does that subject any good. I’d rather expose something for what I feel that it is rather than swaddle it in gauzy, soft-focus layers.
Clearly, this blog is part of that. I’m happy to use sexual imagery or profanity — not as a means to an end but because it’s just part of the way I like to say things.
And yet, I no longer use words like “retarded” or “gay” or “fag” in my posts or my daily parlance (though once upon a time I, quite lazily, did in fact use those terms as clumsy and inept shorthand).
The reason I don’t use those words, however, has nothing to do with political correctness. It has nothing to do with me hoping to not offend you. Strike that from your mind. I’m not trying to “not get caught” saying those words. Some parents teach their kids not to say those things because of what people will think when they hear them — as if, were it more politically acceptable, the kid could say “faggy” all he wanted.
Rather, what it has to do with is that I don’t want to hurt anybody. That’s the thing. Offending people? Happy to do it. With a shit-eating grin, as a matter of fact (and there is a turn of phrase that deserves reexamination — why am I smiling if I’m eating shit? What’s wrong with me? Is the shit mysteriously delicious?). But I don’t want to be mean. Or cruel. Or conjure up words that ding a person’s armor. I care little about minimizing offense, but I care quite a lot about minimizing people.
That’s why I don’t think the Tomb Raider thing is about political correctness — because I think it’s about minimizing women and, in a way, minimizing the men who play those games. That’s also why I don’t think that profane “in-your-face” blog posts that use words like the ones I noted are in what you might call “terribleminds-style” — sure, I’ll mock things within the industry or the bad habits of writers, but I won’t call those “retarded.” First, because it’s lazy. Second, because while that word may not seem to mean what it says, it still says what it means — and it’s short-code for being mentally handicapped no matter how you slice it. Third, and most importantly, because I don’t want to hurt people.
These words may still live in my fiction. Characters, after all, needn’t be so enlightened — my characters will say and do things I’d never do. They’re not models of civility. Nor would we want them to be.
But me, well, you’ll find I try to catch myself from falling into those patterns of ugly word-use.
You, of course, may do as you like.
I stop myself not because I don’t want to offend you.
Not because I care one rat pube about political correctness.
I stop myself because I don’t want to hurt anybody. Because it’s mean.
And because the world has enough of all that.
That’s what I’ll tell my son, too. Plenty of meanness out there without adding to it.
Just wanted to put that out there. Do with it as you will.
Melanie says:
Well said.
June 20, 2012 — 5:06 AM
James says:
“I care little about minimizing offense, but I care quite a lot about minimizing people.”
Wow, that’s so deep my ears just popped.
June 20, 2012 — 5:28 AM
Kiaras says:
On the subject of shit-eating (because I have a theory, of course), I always assumed said “grin” would occur on the same level as the “donkey eating briars”. In other words, if you were for some reason *required* to eat shit, then of course one would want to pull the lips and tongue back as far as possible to minimize, uh… tasting. Thus, it would look like a very wide grin, I suppose. At least, that’s my theory. I’ve never seen anyone actually TRY it – and I’m certainly not interested in trying to prove it myself.
June 20, 2012 — 6:33 AM
Christopher Gronlund says:
Months ago, my wife and I were chatting about blogs we like. Terribleminds came up on my list. My wife asked what I liked about it, and I told her that while you have an edge, you seem like a nice guy. Sure, you swear and come up with twisted analogies, but the things you write have heart. It’s always been clear to me that hurting people is one of the last things you’d do.
I buy the stuff you write for the same reason: it has an edge and its voice, but there’s also heart in the things you write. Most people who do in-your-face blog posts and stories really come off as assholes. They’re grating and I move on because they are in love with crossing lines just for the sake of offending and being out there. It’s an easy out.
When I was chatting with my wife about blogs we like, I told her that I like how you’re a bit of an in-your-face writer without being in one’s face. That edge, sure, but there’s also respect and sympathy. You may be loud at times, but you’re not a douche.
For all I know, you have bodies stacked on your land like cordwood, but I follow your blog and your writing because you’re a damn nice guy from what I can tell, and it comes through in the things you share.
June 20, 2012 — 6:56 AM
terribleminds says:
OH I’VE GOT BODIES DON’T YOU WORRY.
In fact, my home is built from those bodies. Quite warm! Excellent insulation. If, erm, a bit reeky.
Anyway, thanks, Chris — to be clear, I didn’t write this post to be self-congratulatory (“See how nice I am?”), but I just wanted it out there that “not causing offense/political correctness” is not a thing here, but “do no harm” most certainly is.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 7:03 AM
Mark says:
You’re definition of political correctness seems to be missing the bit about it minimising offence in gender, racial, religious, blah, blah, blah contexts. Which is pretty much what you are advocating? Which isn’t a bad thing.
I agree with most of the criticism of the Tomb Raider thing, because it just seems they’ve been lazy, swapped one cliché/stereotype sort of thing for another (and they couldn’t even get her hair to hang the right way in the trailer, so very lazy).
But anyway, I think you’re being politically correct but it’s the good kind, not the anal monkey felcher kind.
June 20, 2012 — 8:05 AM
terribleminds says:
@Mark:
I don’t consider that to be my definition of political correctness. Political correctness is about cleaving to a bullshit political ideal — it assumes certain elements of language and certain actions are to be deemed naughty. I don’t find that political correctness, however, tackles the problem: it assumes we don’t say things because we don’t want to rock the boat, not because we wish to do no harm. Political correctness is the reason you hear legislators offended at the word “vagina” — except, that word isn’t hurting anybody. (And in fact, they’re using that level of political correctness to do harm, instead.)
So, for me, choosing the motive of “DO NO HARM” over “DO NOT OFFEND” is really the key difference. It might end up the same way in certain instances, but the former to me feels like it leads to better outcomes. I dunno.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 9:11 AM
Gary Pettigrew says:
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. Although I would also like to point out that I advised my girlfriend to be a fountain not a drain the other day, turns out timing is important too.
June 20, 2012 — 8:09 AM
Lisa says:
Thank you. I have two developmentally disabled children and I have tried to express this very thing with little success. (I get screechy and emotional) The thing is, I don’t care if anyone uses the “R word”. It’s up to you, I’m not the morality police. I just want people to know if they choose to use it, I will not buy their books, music, movie or read their blog. If I hear it in real life I know that the person saying it is an asshole*. If people choose to use the word then they are putting out to the world that they don’t care that they are hurting a faction of society that is innocent and pure and cannot defend themselves. It has nothing to do with being PC or the other argument that makes my blood boil, “It’s my constitutional right to use whatever words I want”. Oh fuck you. Freedom of Speech allows the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of dead soldiers. That doesn’t make it right. If someone says that using a phrase hurts them, then be decent and don’t use it. Asshole*.
*I mean no offense to actual assholes and acknowledge the usefulness and epic struggle of being the much maligned anatomical orifice*.
June 20, 2012 — 8:34 AM
Rowan Cota says:
Once again you nail it. I’d like to print this out and tape it on my wall (and in fact I’m going to do that when I move to my new apartment) as a concise explanation of why I work to avoid using those words in my life too. (Though yes, sometimes in my writing it’s a different story.)
June 20, 2012 — 8:48 AM
Todd Moody says:
Those same words are frowned upon in my home as well and for the same reasons. We are trying to grow humans that are empathetic, not ignorant or hateful. I’ll second what Chris said. If I lived nearby you would be someone I would want to hang out with, assuming I did such things.
June 20, 2012 — 8:59 AM
Patty Blount says:
This, right here, this is how we will stop bullying… when all parents teach their kids NOT TO BE MEAN.
June 20, 2012 — 9:06 AM
Zack Walters says:
A finely-written distinction, Chuck. If anyone can thread the needle between “bluntly honest” and “asshole,” it’s you.
June 20, 2012 — 9:17 AM
Paul Elwork says:
Around the time I discovered this blog, you had a post about making notes as a writer and organizing thoughts. In suggesting that the exact method of note making didn’t matter, you included “in your own ropy jizz” as an option. I remember thinking, “There’s a guy who isn’t worried about offending anyone.” Oh, and on your post–ditto.
June 20, 2012 — 9:21 AM
matt says:
You’ve explained well the fallacy of the “all words have equal weight” argument I hear sometimes. Especially when I work with young people who are encountering challenging ideas in Huck Finn or Ellison’s Invisible Man, a lot of the response to racist language seems to be “it’s just a word” or “I hear this all the time” when the real issue is degradation and humiliation of other people and peoples.
June 20, 2012 — 9:24 AM
Phiala says:
For me, it’s the distinction between offending a specific person because they deserve it, and offending an entire group of people who have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Precision of language, combined with not being a dick.
June 20, 2012 — 9:25 AM
Albert Berg says:
This is a bit of a nitpick, but in regards to the “retard” thing, can you name a word for someone of low intelligence that did not at some point in the linguistic timeline mean “mentally handicapped”? I mean, sure, you’ve got “dumb”, but that was originally just a way of making fun of deaf people. Even our mildest insults have linguistic roots in far harsher insults. Given that no one in the medical profession uses the word “retarded” to refer to persons of low mental ability, it makes very little sense to label the word as offensive.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you’re splitting hairs here. “Offensive” MEANS “attacking or insulting” (according to my dictionary at least). So when you say you’re fine with being offensive, are you saying you’re fine with attacking or insulting others? I don’t think you are. But the issue you’re attacking here is far murkier than you’re letting on. If someone told you that they were personally and genuinely hurt by your use of profanity, I’m guessing you wouldn’t stop. Maybe you’d stop around THEM, but when it came to your writing you’d say, “Hey you don’t like it, don’t read it.” Which is kind of a cop out, because you could just as easily write something horribly racist and apply the same advice to those who would be offended by that.
The thing (I think) you’re really reaching for here is consensus. You know that profanity won’t bother the vast majority of your reader base but that being insensitive to mentally handicapped people might, so you embrace one and eschew the other.
These are just my thoughts. And to be clear I’m not saying the DECISION you’re outlining here is wrong, but that the REASONING you give is less than straightforward. Do with this as you will.
June 20, 2012 — 9:31 AM
terribleminds says:
@Albert:
You’re doing a little more than nit-picking. I’d actually suggest you’re making some fairly bold assumptions about how I’d act/react.
For instance: someone a few weeks ago emailed me and told me that something I’d said in a blog post hurt them. They were quite polite about it but also clear that it stung. It was something I hadn’t thought about, hadn’t even considered it as a hurtful thing but suddenly I understood.
I did not tell this person to stop reading the blog. I apologized and changed the post.
The online definition of offense is:
verb /əˈfend/
offended, past participle; offended, past tense; offending, present participle; offends, 3rd person singular present
Cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful
– viewers said they had been offended by bad language
Be displeasing to
– he didn’t smoke and the smell of ash offended him
– they must redesign the offending section of road
Commit an illegal act
– a small hard core of young criminals who offend again and again
Break a commonly accepted rule or principle
– those activities which offend against public order and decency
Now, all of those are not particularly useful (illegal?), but for the most part it gives a good picture of what I’m talking about. I get people all the time telling me they don’t like my use of profanity, but my use of profanity does not hurt them or minimize them in anyway. That’s not what offense does.
Offense is on them.
Hurting is on me.
I don’t care about offending.
I care about hurting.
Now — to tackle the issue with words meaning low intelligence (by which you probably mean “moron,” or “idiot” or whatever). I don’t control the history of language and can’t control how those words meant one thing and now mean another. That doesn’t excuse trying to force “retard” into the same bracket, however, and doesn’t have a great deal of bearing on the subject at hand.
The point isn’t that I don’t want to “bother” my base by saying mean things about mentally handicapped people. You seem to be suggesting that I don’t say those things because I’m afraid to violate consensus, which, frankly, is a giant load of shit. I’m choosing not to say those things because they’re hateful. Because I don’t want to invoke — as Matt put it — degradation and humiliation.
I don’t know how to make that any more clear for you.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 9:43 AM
Kristina says:
Oh, Chuck, thank you so much for this. This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I may not give a fuck about being rude, mostly because my value of being rude and other people’s value of being rude are such different things, but I would never wish to be hurtful, cruel, or belittling.
June 20, 2012 — 9:33 AM
r.a.thrift says:
You ape, Chuck. I find your writings a theological treatise, a philosophical dissertation on the primal human nature that has been repressed through mores imposed by society. You’re like Freud, deflowering our societal pretense, and we stand naked, exposed for what we truly are: animals on the quest of survival and procreation, like Walmart on Black Friday. Neaty cool.
June 20, 2012 — 9:34 AM
Jessa says:
I once wrote a paper for a philosophy class theorizing that political correctness arose as an answer to the failure of the golden rule in world relations. An American businessman could treat another American as he’d like to be treated — a hearty handshake, a smile, a firm nod, a get-down-to-brass-tacks attitude — but when the world shrank we had to learn to treat people as they wanted to be treated. That helped give rise to political correctness, or rules for a) identifying sub-groups of people and b) treating them politely. The problem is, of course, you can’t treat individuals like groups.
Anyway, got an A. As Calvin says, it had a great title and I put it in a clear plastic binder, and those are the touches that get you good grades.
June 20, 2012 — 9:35 AM
Daniel Swensen (@surlymuse) says:
I wish more people understood this distinction and embraced it. Thank you, Chuck.
June 20, 2012 — 9:37 AM
Dawn Napier says:
NAILED IT.
There’s a very clear distinction between offending people and being mean. It looks like a fine line, but it’s like razor wire. You can’t be a writer without offending people; someone out there somewhere is going to take issue with whatever you say. But being mean is different; it’s hurting people for no reason, out of either malice or laziness. Being honest and articulate means you’re probably going to offend someone, but using lazy, ignorant language out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness (“I can say whatever I want, it’s a free country!” — wahh wahh wahh) is just mean. I think most mean behavior is caused by ignorance rather than malice.
And btw (shameless fangirl alert) your short stories rock my world.
June 20, 2012 — 9:40 AM
Renee Miller says:
You explained this very well. I recently had a discussion with my daughters about why certain words are unacceptable. I don’t get too upset if they curse now and then (because those in glass houses…), but they know I’ll lose my shit if they use words, profane or not, that are hurtful someone else. But you said it better than I did, so I’ll make them read this.
June 20, 2012 — 10:19 AM
Beverly Diehl says:
What it is (IMO) is that while your style uses words that are rude and crude and considered vulgar, there is never that “Mean Girls” feel to your posts. They’re not generally AIMED at anyone.
I do use the word retarded, occasionally, as a way of describing myself or my own actions. Maybe that’s offensive, but if so, nobody has yet complained. Mostly I stay away from profanity, but sometimes, nothing but mother-fucker really FILLS the need.
And vagina. Vagina is appropriate for every occasion.
June 20, 2012 — 10:32 AM
mythago says:
Political correctness is the reason you hear legislators offended at the word “vagina”
Jesus fuck. No, the reason that certain doucheloaf Michigan legislators freaked out at one of their own using the word “vagina” was not political correctness. It was plain ol’ prudishness about discussing Those Things in public, along with a healthy dash of wanting to shut up the legislator who dared to point out that you can’t really talk about abortion without talking about the fact that it involves ladyparts.
I am both cranky and showing my age here, but “politically correct” as to language used to mean terms that were so silly, absurd and overblown that only somebody utterly terrified of saying the Wrong Thing, or trying desperately to be More Evolved Than Thou, would use them. (For example, there was a thing in the LGBT community for a while where some people would argue, when giving directions, one should not say ‘Go straight here’ but should say ‘Go gaily forward’. I mean, really.)
Now it’s an epithet hurled by assholes when they’re called out on being assholes, alongside the old “FREE SPEECH!!!!1111” nonsense. Or it’s used to describe any attempt to use language that in a way that is not hurtful and thoughtless.
June 20, 2012 — 10:40 AM
terribleminds says:
@Mythago:
I’ve always associated political correctness with a prudishness — and also, with a control of language, specifically how it relates to politics and the social sphere. The “vagina” thing falls into the political realm (er, literally, I guess), and is less about prudishness and more about control of the language. I mean, you’re right about what political correctness can do and where it can go, and it is something championed first by the left and later by the right (though in different ways) — but to me it’s all the same unformed hazy lump of “we dare not offend, and so we enforce control over language to do so.”
Though, again, this post isn’t exactly about that as much as it attempts to be a refutation of that.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 10:45 AM
Mike says:
It’s this blogular slacklining that I admire, Chuck. On one side, you’ve got the calloused knuckles that come with being a rock ’em sock ’em, writer and on the other, this wisdom that comes from knowing what you believe in — and from having a beard. You appear to jump right down the middle, taking that slackline in the nads (in a good way, of course) that pays pink bit-tingling dividends for your readers.
One day, I want to be you…and wear your face skin as a mask.
June 20, 2012 — 10:43 AM
Thomas Pluck says:
I used to use the word ‘retard’ but now I do not. Why? Because it doesn’t hurt the target, it hurts innocent people who don’t deserve it.
Unless you’re a complete scumbag, you most likely call someone the R-word when they are not actually mentally handicapped or developmentally disabled, but because they are stubborn or disagreeable, have views divergent from your own, or some other peccadillo (or peckerdildo). But the jackass in question will not be deterred by you calling him a retard. Instead, anyone in the area who is mentally handicapped or has a learning disability, or anyone who has family or friends who are, will feel a pang of hurt. You’re not harming your target one bit, and you’re hurting someone else. It makes little sense.
And it is very hard to explain to some people, like the generation that began using “gay” as an insult. “That’s so gay!” People try to defend it. I tell them, okay, your name is Bobby Dingus. What if everyone in school said “That’s so Bobby Dingus!” to describe things they despised, disliked, etc. Oh, I’m sure you’d deal with it. It wouldn’t bother you, you’d say. You’d internalize it, and then one day your dog would crap on the rug and YOU’D say “dammit you dropped a Bobby Dingus on the floor!” and then you’d shoot yourself, and you’d understand why you don’t just get over being marginalized on such a level.
June 20, 2012 — 10:44 AM
terribleminds says:
And @Tommy Pluck for the win.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 10:45 AM
Peggy Ireland says:
From the Font of Useless Information:
shit eating grin (def): that big, tongue lolling smile that your dog gives you when he is caught in flagrante delicto eating a nice steamy pile of horse manure.
June 20, 2012 — 10:51 AM
R Thomas Allwin says:
Well explained, Mr. Wendig!
I totally respect your position, and I think what you write here is stronger for the lack of such incorrect language-use.
June 20, 2012 — 11:00 AM
mythago says:
@Chuck – I probably should have been clearer that I actually agree with 99.9% of what you said, and that there is a difference between giving offense (“I think your political candidate is dumber than a banana slug!”) and being hurtful (“I think your political candidate is a ‘tard!”) That specific example, though, was not so much “Don’t say that! you will offend Vagino-Americans with your hurtful and antiquated phrasing!” (political correctness) as “We don’t talk about those awful disgusting lady sex parts in public where children might hear!” (prudishness, sexism, also bullshit).
I also get a little techy at the ‘control of language’ issue – like ‘political correctness’, it assumes that being offensive or hurtful is some kind of magical No Tagback Free Speech, where telling somebody that they are being offensive or hurtful or bigoted or should use different language isn’t free speech, and that baffles me. That reaction of WHARRRGARBL POLITICALLY CORRECT is about the same thing as “can’t you take a joke?!” or “geez, it’s only words”.
June 20, 2012 — 11:03 AM
tambo says:
You’re absolutely right again. Startle, perplex, aggravate, and offend, but there’s no reason to be mean about it.
June 20, 2012 — 11:06 AM
John the Great says:
I remember once when you accidentally offended someone by using a word that someone found extremely offensive and as I recall not only were you incredibly polite about it but you were willing to apologize and be a decent human being. That’s one of the many reasons why you rock!
The thing that I find really disheartening about the recent arguments that have been coming up is that people want to blame Gaming in general for the problem and not focus blame on people. I see people say “The hobby itself is a problem” but ignoring the fact that people are the problem. I know we live in the 21st century but we still in many ways have the ideals of our ancestors. You can change the names slightly (Gaming becomes the Tech industry, gamers become football fans, etc) and it’s still the same problem. Gaming has come a long way from how it was in the 80s but still has miles to go.
June 20, 2012 — 11:19 AM
gary weller says:
Noble.
June 20, 2012 — 11:36 AM
Katelyn Lea says:
I’m always, always, always telling people to choose their words. My ex husband likes to shoot off at the mouth about all manner of petty things from the past and then blame his outburst on some external problem. My boyfriend has this agitating habit of trying to force the resolution of an argument by talking about the problem as soon as there’s been a ten minute lapse in heated words. My mother is a gossip queen, and often targets my pill-addicted cousin who’s really just a human goddamn being in need of love. One of my dearest friends is constantly in pissing matches with her boyfriend’s mother. I tell them all, choose your words.
Maybe it’s a little trite to say so, but you can’t take words back. It’s worth a little extra consideration to make sure what you say is what you mean, and what you mean is something you won’t regret.
It’s about being self aware. You let go of that self awareness and suddenly you’re in the heat of the moment saying whatever pops into your head to say. And your brain, being wired as it is, back tracks the situation and justifies what was said after the fact. If you’re not self aware, if you’re not in the moment, you end up turning into some self righteous, hurtful, quick tempered twat nobody wants to be around. That, my friends, is a fact.
I really enjoyed this post. It articulated perfectly a belief that I’ve held for some time now, but never really took the time to closely examine. We, as human beings, all have a unique world view held within our left brain. The right brain takes in new information and alters the old if the new information is deemed more useful. Hopefully you’ve put some right hemispheres to work, the world would certainly be the better for it.
June 20, 2012 — 11:56 AM
Mark says:
Ah, ok. I see where you’re coming from (Right in my eye. Arf. Arf). I’d never really thought of it like that. I like the idea of addressing the underlying problems rather than just saying, ‘You can’t say that, it’s naughty.’
The vagina thing was ridiculous. I assume in a couple of weeks they’ll be demanding it is referred to as the ‘Naughty Satan Pit’? If I was thinking politically correctly (as I see it in my small strange world) I’d be calling the vagina a vagina rather than cunt, twat, minge, angry badger, axe wound, naughty satan pit…etc which are all to varying degrees derogatory.
Cheers,
Mark
June 20, 2012 — 12:19 PM
Albert Berg says:
I wanted to clarify: I didn’t mean to say you looked at your blog posts and said, “I’m not going to say things that the consensus isn’t going to like.” I’m saying your point of view is PART of the consensus. You’ve grown and matured in an era where certain things are seen as more acceptable than others, and you have gravitated toward and attracted a community that has certain norms and morays.
You claim not to be able to influence the history of language, but this is patently and utterly untrue. Every time you sit down and compose a blog post, or write a book, you are entrenching yourself as a part of that history for FUTURE generations. Every time you have a conversation, every time you write a tweet, you’re sending out tiny ripples into the fabric of the linguistic continuum. Now probably you won’t do much to change the course of language all by yourself, but the choices you make will become a tiny part of the collective.
When some idiot uses “penultimate” in the place of “ultimate” and his likewise idiot friends pick up on it and spread it on forward, EVENTUALLY the original meaning won’t matter because the consensus will have shifted. Likewise the word “retard” will almost certainly drift further and further away from its original meaning, until in a hundred years you’ll have to look in an etymology dictionary to figure out what it originally meant.
It seems to me that you’re assigning an absolute moral value to some words, while objecting to making that same assignment for other words. It’s no more or less hurtful to call someone a “retard” than it is to call them a “motherfucker”, when chances are good that they are neither mentally challenged, nor predisposed to sexual relations with their mother.
Words DON’T have absolute moral value. CONSENSUS is the only reason anything means anything. MY point was that the sea you choose to swim in is not the same as everyone else’s, and the RELATIVE moral value of the words you choose will be different from person to person, place to place and time to time. Some people will be hurt by things that others will find perfectly fine, and trying to say that you can draw a sharp dividing line between “hurtful” and “offensive” runs completely counter to what I know about language. Because in the end what are “hurtful” and “offensive” but words of their own?
June 20, 2012 — 12:23 PM
terribleminds says:
@Albert:
Some words are part of a continuing legacy of hurt, where others are not.
I’m choosing to use the words that are not, and explaining why I won’t use the words that are.
And I’ll continue to assert my inability to change history. History is what happened in the past, after all.
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 12:29 PM
Rebecca says:
I always liked your posts, but now you’ve caused stars to form in my eyes!
June 20, 2012 — 1:02 PM
RGD says:
Mr. Wendig, I think you’re wrong about there being a difference between “offending” someone and “hurting” someone — my experience shows someone who is offended is ALWAYS going to claim they are hurt by the offense.
Example: say something that offends about Christianity and you’re a terrible person who is being deliberately hurtful towards millions of believers. And this isn’t just a political ploy, either.
I have a Catholic friend whose wife chastised me for being hurtful to her husband when I complained about the Pope helping hide and defend pedophile priests, and how godawful the Church was. And she’s right! It was hurtful to him. My criticism struck at his core identity as a devout Catholic — criticizing the Pope, attacking the institution of the Church itself, calling it corrupt, was indeed an emotionally painful thing for him to deal with because his identity is lynch-pinned by being Catholic.
But should I simply avoid the subject, which hurts his feelings, when kids are being molested? Like hell.
This plays out in many other forms across our culture. Sean Mills, president of The Onion, has stated they regularly receive angry letters from offended readers, and that they all bear a striking resemblance to each other, “It’s whatever affects that person. So it’s like, ‘I love it when you make a joke about murder or rape, but if you talk about cancer, well my brother has cancer and that’s not funny to me.’ Or someone else can say, ‘Cancer’s hilarious, but don’t talk about rape because my cousin got raped.’ Those are rather extreme examples, but if it affects somebody personally, they tend to be more sensitive about it.”
A friend was recently telling me about an on-line group they used to be a member of a few years ago. One day, someone posted a picture of their dog, and in response another group member demanded “trigger warnings” about dogs on all posts because they had almost been bitten by a dog that looked like that once…after debate, the group simply banned any posting of pictures of or stories about dogs.
My friend left the group once this sort of subject-ban incident became a pattern.
I have always said there’s a big difference between being offensive and being offended. People will get offended over what they’re looking to be offended about, that is whatever hurts them the most (or whatever gains them a social/political advantage — which you term here ‘political correctness’, I think — and often those are the same thing). So I don’t think there’s a difference between “being offensive” and “being hurtful”, and whatever the line is you are using to decide that on your blog, you haven’t really described it well.
I do have one final story I’d like to share: I have a friend from Australia who has told me one of the differences between here and there is that Americans go to great lengths to avoid giving offense, whereas Australians go to great lengths to avoid taking offense. I don’t know whether or not that’s true, but I do know which society I’d prefer to live in.
June 20, 2012 — 1:14 PM
coprophage says:
As a coprophage, i am hurt that you would imply there is something ‘wrong’ with you if you like eating shit.
June 20, 2012 — 1:15 PM
John the Great says:
Unless you’re a Time Lord you could!
June 20, 2012 — 1:29 PM
Danzier says:
I have an awesome day job in radio. Before the FCC raised the Offensive Language Fine to higher than many stations’ operating costs, the idea was “You never know who’s listening.” Offending may fragment your listener base; being mean to them would drive them away entirely– and having listeners is integral to station operations. Radio personalities should be worthy of their position, and the only way to prove it was to speak words that neither hurt not offended.
People get offended over very small things, and so there are precise rules in radio about what you can and cannot say. But the gist of it is still to be decent. They teach you, in radio school, to treat all mics as live and to develop phrases that offend no one to say when, say, you stub your toe in the studio. (Mine is “Monkies!” which gave me laughing hiccups when I started reading this blog 😀 ) Through habit and conscious thought I’ve become careful if my words. I’m occasionally offensive, but never thoughtlessly so (as much as humanly possible, anyway) and I work at not being mean.
The post and comments do a great job of pointing out both the power of language, and the reasons for developing skill in its use. Well said.
June 20, 2012 — 1:42 PM
David Z says:
You’ve always seemed to possess a remarkable balance between offensiveness and respectful kindness. It’s admirable.
Now on to the important point: Doesn’t the phrase “shit-eating grin” refer to the special smile people flash you when you’re eating shit they’ve fed you and you have no idea? That’s what I’ve always thought. Could be wrong, though.
June 20, 2012 — 1:44 PM
Casz Brewster says:
Hey Herr Wendig, I know I “tag” you and spotlight things for you. If at any point those things offend you, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
However, I’m fairly sure I’ve not hit on hurtful things (e.g. retarded, gay, fag, et al prejoratives).
I admire your balance between raw crack wit and full-of-deep-kindness heart. You make me know that my crassness can be balanced with compassion. Also, you motivate me like crazy and you’re fucking brilliance is inspirational.
What can I say, you’re not a cock waffle. I think that comes through for those of us paying attention.
BTFO!
June 20, 2012 — 2:44 PM
EA Campbell says:
It’s so nice to hear the distinction between “offend” and “hurt” discussed so thoroughly. I have that argument with an old professor of mine on a regular basis. His mission in life is clearly never to offend anyone. I just try never ever to be cruel – though I’m pretty fucking blunt otherwise. He thinks I’ll “grow out of it”. He says “you remind me of how I was at your age”.
I’m 30. Not 19. And I hope I DON’T grow out of it.
I may send him this blog entry.
Because of course this topic is bigger than just writing. This is about how we process and engage the world around us. I hate political correctness (or the science of the non-offensive) because it seeks to “clean up” a world that is pretty goddamn messy. Life is complicated, colorful and dynamic. And the great thing is… SO IS LANGUAGE! So we can talk about life and we can write about life like we’re really living it.
Politcal correctness only narrows the discourse.
It’s inefficient and sometimes even harmful. It means important issues don’t get talked about.
It means good ideas don’t make it to the public forum.
It’s a load of crap.
And not the kind of crap that would justify a shit-eatin-grin, either.
Sometimes being offended can wake us up. Can jump start the ol’ journey of self-discovery. Being hurt just makes us smaller. I never doubted that you understood the distinction Chuck.
Also. Seriously, Mr. Pluck. You win.
June 20, 2012 — 4:15 PM
Sparky says:
Chuck,
I think this may be the best explanation of offense vs. harm I have seen in a long while, particularly in reference to language and word choice.
I feel the need to share a link to this post as soon as I’m back on an unmoderated network.
June 20, 2012 — 5:07 PM
Samuel says:
This might be more congruent if you were as interested in not insulting conservatives as you are in not insulting gay people or the handicapped. Frankly, your approach seems more agenda-based than generally altruistic.
Having an agenda is fine, but let’s not act like it’s something other than that.
Don’t get me wrong, I love ya, man. I love your stuff. I ain’t butt-hurt. It’s just that you might want to take stock on how your principle of not hurting people or not being mean could be more effectively and consistently carried out.
Right now it appears selective and inconsistent, from where I sit.
June 20, 2012 — 5:28 PM
terribleminds says:
@Samuel:
C’mon, dude, you sure sound butt-hurt.
Show me on the doll where one of my blog posts touched you. More to the point, show me where I *hurt* you.
See, what you mean is, somewhere down the line, I *offended* you. I said something about — what? Republicans? Conservatives? And that bothers you? Offends you? It sure doesn’t hurt you. You don’t feel a sting in your heart because I’m choosing to attack a political position, do you?
Here’s a key difference between being, say, Republican or Democrat and, say, black or gay or mentally handicapped or physically handicapped or whatever. Your political affiliation is a choice. That other stuff most certainly is not.
Further: gay and handicapped have nothing to do with your moral or ethical choices. Or financial choices. Or cultural choices. Being conservative — or liberal, ’cause I got problems with them, too — does.
Do I have an agenda?
I have an agenda, sure. It’s called, “do no harm.”
— c.
June 20, 2012 — 6:16 PM
John Twitter:awesome_john says:
Wait, Chuck is actually nice? I thought that was something he just did for me.
I thought I was special.
Are we done drawing lines in the sand now? Can we go back to hanging out?
Why does there have to be “an agenda”, why go to the effort of labeling things — JUST DO WHAT BILL AND TED TAUGHT US — BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER, AND PARTY ON DUDES*.
(*dudes of course includes ladies, not-ladies, pets, carbon-based life, plant matter and anything else around in all of time and space, obviously)
June 20, 2012 — 6:27 PM
MsAsh says:
One of the things I love about you is that you use ALL your words. There’s hardly any chance of misunderstanding what you mean, and your point is always vivid and micro-fine. As an added bonus, you’re point of view is consistently been one that pushes people to be better – not the Clorox-scrubbed Oprah version of “best self”, but the crawling out of the primordial ooze & standing on one’s own two feet kind of “evolve, dammit – we can be so much more”. Strong, explicit language isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t make it wrong, and it certainly doesn’t make it cruel.
June 20, 2012 — 6:44 PM
Bronson O'Quinn says:
@Lisa:
I really like your comment as a great addendum to this post. You’re absolutely right that what you say says more about you than anything else.
As a side note, the first amendment only protects citizens from the government. Once you are under someone else’s authority (like your workplace, a restaurant, Facebook, etc.), you no longer have “freedom of speech”.
June 20, 2012 — 7:43 PM
Elizabeth L says:
And this is why I have so much respect for you, and love your words so much.
June 20, 2012 — 10:05 PM
Curious says:
There’s something curious about all this to me.
Normally (possibly see above?) curiosity about divisions like this stems from a sense of guilt–or, amusingly, offense at the idea of oneself being hurtful–and thus denial/refusal to accept a measure of responsibility in the face of the complexity of language and hurt.
I’m bound and determined not to be hurtful, myself, but once said “A bunch of people sitting around bitching,” in reference to a very completely mixed group of people, and was told not to use such misogynistic language.
On the one hand, I was stuck because I sincerely didn’t mean or wish to be hurtful, and apologized as that seemed the important thing. On another, I’d never heard, read or used the word to have any misogynistic (or otherwise gender-related) connotations, even if it originates from the word “bitch” which naturally has at least gender/sex-related connotations.
It struck me how this and other contexts or words could have this problem: in etymology, in origin, in usage, in personal experience–how does one determine the point at which a word exits “offense” and becomes “hurt”?
June 20, 2012 — 10:30 PM
steve ward says:
wow, the game forces you to learn to do stuff Lara Croft has to learn the skills to live I like that what i dont like or really understand is why there is rape in the game at all. Is there not enough stuff trying to kill Lara? Which im not ok with yet people told you Chuck that you where using political correctness……….I just dont get it at all
June 21, 2012 — 12:51 AM