Who Decides What's Offensive?

Today, many people reference this day and age as the time where “everyone is offended about everything.” New lingo, such as “snowflake”, has been created to describe people who need “safe spaces” or need to file a “hurt feelings report.” These terms have been used many times politically as the right says it about supporters on the left, and vis versa. But in an age where everyone seems to be keener on what they say or post on the internet, who decides who is offended?

This blog post correlates greatly with the most recent episode of South Park to air focusing on the PC babies (PC standing for politically correct). The PC babies (quintuplets) burst out in tears when seeing or hearing topics that are not politically correct. The cartoon, satirical version of what American society depicts as offended snowflakes.

South Park, Season 23 Episode 7: Board Girls

The most recent episode focuses on transgender participation in competitive sporting events, as well as the side story of the boys’ game club not wanting girls to join because they read the rule book beforehand and it’s simply “not fair”. PC Principle, the babies’ father, ends up confronting the transgender athlete, causing widespread offense, and is subsequently afraid to come home. When he returns home, however, the PC babies greet him with open arms because “they must see the nuances of the situation.”

Ironically enough, there has been a lot of backlash against South Park for this episode: which is nothing new for the series. Many different articles are now floating across the internet declaring the creators of South Park are transphobic and ultimately trying to remove trans people from the planet by discouraging youth and others to transition. Not all agree with these articles, as can be read in the dreaded comment sections, which begs the question: were the creators of South Park being offensive, and are viewers not over-reacting by being offended?

Recently I was in a lecture with, let’s just say, 100 people. Within this 100 people, roughly 15 or so were women. Having been in this lecture multiple times I am used to the speaker and the framework of the discussion: so, when a fellow female addressed the speaker and asked him to stop interrupting only female in the room, I wasn’t shocked. He did, in fact, for multiple week continually talk over the females he would call on to speak and never the males, but I wasn’t “offended” to the level of confrontation as the other female in the class was.

Maybe this is because this behavior is not abnormal to me, that there is still a barrier in male dominated areas of society that unknowingly, or deliberately, men tend to dominate discussions and debates through interruptions. Throughout my adult life I have been engulfed in male-dominated professional settings, to the point when I am in a room with majority, or even almost equal percentages, or women, I take note of the unusual difference. Regardless of whether I was “offended”, I let the other female who spoke up that I also saw what she saw.

This prompted the speaker to email both the other female and I and ask about his performance, and to tell him what exactly he was doing in order to improve himself professionally. I responded to tell him to speak with the other female, as she was the one to have addressed him individually in the first place, then links to multiple studies completed in regards to female inclusiveness in male dominated settings with findings that included examples of what discouraged women to remain in those settings. I was met with a reply “Thanks for the reply. I spoke to a random sample of female students who asked others and the consensus was no. So I wouldn’t bother with this any further.” Was he correct in the assumption that if other females aren’t offended, it doesn’t matter that the one female was?

Now let’s circle back to the South Park example. Most of the articles calling the recent South Park episode offensive are written by those within the LGBT and trans community: i.e. the community that this episode directly impacts. The sample that the speaker sampled was all female, also in the demographic that his actions were deemed to be offensive towards. Does this mean that all of the power in deciding whether or not something is offensive, lies exclusively within the group who the remarks and actions most greatly effect? I’m not sure, because if that was the case wouldn’t the political decisions regarding women’s productive health be cleared with prominent women’s health professionals before going into law?

I jest, but not really.

The members of the Alabama Senate that voted in favor of the controversial heartbeat bill have been noted nationwide as being all white males.

Earlier this year, multiple states introduced bills titled “heartbeat bills” limiting access to abortion procedures and restricting circumstances that legally allow women to access an abortion. Alabama, in particularly, was singled out due to all votes in favor of the bill from the state’s senate were cast by all white-male men. However, among the outcry of those who are abhorrently against the bill not wanting men to make laws about women’s bodies, are the retorts of those in support of the bill pointing out that the governor who signed the bill into law was a woman herself.

Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama signing the controversial heartbeat bill into Alabama law.

The Alabama governor isn’t the only woman in politics who doesn’t support abortion practices, and she is definitely not the only one in the population who does, but does that mean that the decision of women’s health should still be completed by predominantly male politicians? After all, one female agrees with them, and is at least in the room.

Is it a majority rules determines whether an action is offensive (i.e. the lecture example) or a representative from that group saying it is or is not offensive and therefore it is so (i.e. South Park and Alabama examples)? Can a vote be held to officially declare something as offensive/non-offensive? Of course not. Can a demographic be boiled down to a few representatives that decide for the whole? Unless you want that group to consist of the likes of Stacey Dash or Rachel Dolezal and the country to descend into anarchy, the answer is no.

Rachel Dolezal (left) and Stacey Dash (right) are both known for racially controversial views and personalities.

Before making your opinions known on divisive topics on the internet, how do you make sure you are not offending anybody, or more realistically, how do you make sure you are not offending those who have a position of power in your life (your boss, spouse, etc.)? This second question is what leads to the decision of whether something is “politically correct” not necessarily determined by politicians, but the opinion of those in the most power, financially and demographically. Leading disenfranchised groups who try and bring awareness to topics of oppression that they directly deal with being labeled as snowflakes and wanting a safe space that is “unrealistic” in our current society.

Anybody today can become a blogger (even me!) and anybody can post their opinion in a piece under a website domain that seems legitimate, to have others read their articles and then spread the opinions across social media and increase the number of people who then read and share the article, and this cycle continues until we have dangerous misinformed movements of anti-vaccines, flat-earth conspiracies, and Russian influencers. When articles can back up someone’s point of view, does that then make them correct to be offended not offended? How about if it is in a public forum and one person screams loudly, does that make them correct?

Blogger who spreads information on relevant subjects or blogger who advertises misinformation that are harmful to society? We may never know.

My hope from this article is for you to think about who you consider a “snowflake” or what in society you deem offensive and try seeing the argument from the other side’s point of view. Also, recognize demographically who is agreeing with you, is the group inter-sectional and spreads across different socioeconomic and racial barriers, or is in analogous with everyone agreeing being within your inner circle? Use your observations to change your mind, which is completely allowed, event if you have made multiple Instagram live videos! Or, use your observations to solidify your stance and help educate others around you through coherent discussion and scientific findings.