(Looks like Forum traffic has completely frozen up. Participants are fearful of advancing any comments in case they are never returned. It seems the only solution is for the administration to pump massive volumes of comments into the system, in the hope of restoring confidence and kick-starting the resumption of normal exchanges. This is a first installment.)As you all know, an
option was recently introduced to create puzzles that are free of certain words that some might find offensive. In reviewing lists of taboo words other people had already created for similar purposes, I found plenty of highly debatable cases. I didn't waste a lot of time pondering specific words, but pretty much banned everything that anyone else had banned. However, it might be of interest to look at some of the issues raised.
As I mentioned in other posts, a lot of the taboo words are not "dirty" words, in the usual sense, but terms of abuse related to race, ethnicity, religion, physical or mental disability, etc. An intriguing inclusion in this category was a handful of words related to people's political views.
Words removed from the Scrabble dictionary include
comsymp and
libber.
Comsymp means "communist sympathizer", and
libber is presumably from "women's libber". Another list of taboo words picked on
commie and
commy, as well as
conchie and
conchy. Presumably the latter two words are regarded as disparaging terms for conscientious objectors.
In considering these words, one thing that strikes me straight away is how dated they all are. Don't we have any current terms of political vilification?
In any case, I find it hard to imagine that anyone would consider any of these to be offensive words. Of course someone who was called a commie might be offended if they were not in fact a communist, but they would be just as offended to be called a "communist". The idea behind banning such words is that they are inherently offensive, even when - or especially when - applied to the class of people they were designed for. So would an avowed communist (if such a person exists these days) be offended by being called a commie? I doubt it. (Incidentally,
commie was never used here in Australia. The preferred terms were
com and, especially,
commo.)
But even if someone does take offense at a disparaging word for their political beliefs, it seems to me to be a totally different situation from the use of ethnic slurs, etc. Condemning someone's politics in colourful terms should be regarded as a normal part of public debate.
(Another problem with proscribing
conchie is that, in Australia at any rate, the word is normally used to mean simply "conscientious", or an excessively conscientious person. "You're a bit conchie, aren't you?" we will say disapprovingly to a workmate who seems to be devoting too much effort to their job. Maybe hard-working Australians feel vilified by this word.)
The Scrabble dictionary also expurgated the words
jesuit,
jesuitic and
jesuitry. Presumably this relates to the meaning for
jesuitic of "practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing." (Random House) This is an example of the pattern where a word is
not offensive when used (with a capital letter) of a person to whom it literally applies - that is, a member of the Jesuit order. But when used with a lower case initial letter to indicate some undesirable type of behaviour, it can be offensive to the group to whom the word originally applied. Another example of this pattern is
jew, used with the meaning "to cheat, to drive a hard bargain".
However, while I agree that
jewed should be considered offensive if any words are offensive, I don't feel that way about
jesuit and related words. The slur implied by these terms is not aimed at a whole religion, but at a particular organisation within the Catholic Church, and the way that organisation has been accused of conducting itself. It seems to me to be analogous to using disparaging language about a political party or business corporation. The disparagement may be valid or invalid, but it should be accepted as a normal part of robust public discourse.
Another issue with
jesuit and related words is that the secondary meanings have been around for so long that awareness of the insult has probably faded. (Does a Welsh person feel offended when
welsh, or
welch is used to mean "renege on an agreement"? I don't know, but these words do appear on one list of offensive words.)
As evidence that the secondary senses of the
jesuit-related words have lost much of their sting, consider this sentence from
a speech given to the Law Institute of Victoria last year:
Let me now upset some from the Left by drawing not altogether Jesuitical distinctions between Nauru and Christmas Island when it comes to border protection and boat people.
The speaker was apparently using
Jesuitical to mean "using subtle or oversubtle reasoning". Would this cause offense to Jesuits nowadays? Probably not, as the speaker was Father Frank Brennan SJ, a Jesuit priest and lawyer.
