"No Bummers" Is a Bummer of a Policy

Since my last post, a short followup to my post before that about potentially problematic vocabulary in crossword puzzles, I received a longish post in my comments section (second link) from fellow constructor Evan K. It prompted me to write this followup to the followup, which will probably be my last post on this topic for a while, although -- who knows? -- maybe something else will arise.

Evan's entire comment is worth reading, but I want to focus specifically on something called the "no bummers" principle. Here's the relevant quote:

Many pushing for restrictions on crossword entries espouse some version of a principle they call "no bummers," which in its applied form infantalizes while patronizing the emotional capabilities of the solving audience.

The way I interpret "no bummers" is that it is basically a woke breakfast test. I've not seen an editor reference it as a guideline exactly, but Universal Crossword comes fairly close, asking constructors to not included entries that "could make solvers of any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and/or ability level feel uncomfortable." They also list a handful of "commonly-seen" words they are "phasing out," LEER, OGLE, OD, etc., with no specific reason why.

I don't like the "no bummers" policy for reasons stated below. Before I get into that, however, I want to state explicitly that I don't expect nor desire all editors and constructors to adopt my preferred guidelines. (I'm a big tent guy.) There are two distinct dynamics in play, and I don't want to blur them together: 

1. There has recently been an influx of new voices to Crossworld. Constructors and solvers from previously underrepresented groups are getting involved in crossword puzzles through a variety of venues -- individual constructor sites (e.g., Rosswords), pop-up indies (e.g., The Inkubator), mainstream venues under new leadership (e.g., Universal and USA Today), and the evolution of old-guard crosswords to be more inclusive (e.g., New York Times).
   
   
2. There has recently been a decentralized push among some in Crossworld to drastically limit acceptable grid vocabulary and impose censorial rules to crossword puzzles as a whole. This mirrors what is going on in other areas of culture. In Crossworld, it includes calling out or otherwise being highly critical of constructors/editors who don't wish to adhere to these new rule or don't even know them (Evan gives some examples in his comments; I've seen it and experienced it myself); propagating word lists (which every constructor now needs and aren't always freely available) that have "no bummers" entries effectively deleted (given a zero score); evaluating puzzles based largely on how much the fill aligns (or doesn't align) with the ideology of the evaluator; calling for Will Shortz to be replaced by an editor with more censorial guidelines (admittedly, this last point was prompted almost completely by one post; I have seen this sentiment express by other folks, however).

I am wholeheartedly in favor of movement 1. I am wholeheartedly not in favor of movement 2. I think "no bummers" is a bummer of a policy for the reasons given below. 

It can be patronizing to a broad solving audience

I agree with Evan's comments above for reasons I lay out in my original post. People understand context and it can be condescending to behave as if they don't.

It can be exclusionary

One seemingly weird thing is how many people fall into both camps 1 and 2 above, when these two things are kinda antithetical by nature. Solver comfort can be used as a reason to be exclusionary. Consider the entry WHITE PRIVILEGE, which was in a New York Times crossword by Natan Last in 2017. In his commentary of the puzzle, Jeff Chen at XWordInfo said of the entry:

... although I think it's an important concept more people ought to learn about, I wonder if some solvers will feel like the puzzle is trying to shame them. I wonder how I'd feel if I were white.

I'm white and have no problem with the entry (nor the concept), but surely there are a lot of white people who do. It makes them feel uncomfortable, which, I assume, is part of the point of putting it in the grid in the first place. It's a great entry. But if we apply, say, the Universal Crossword criterion of not making people of a certain racial group feel uncomfortable, it should be excluded.

It's unevenly applied, politically/ideologically

But I don't think that that's the spirit in which such guidelines are meant to be interpreted. It would probably be deemed okay to make white people feel uncomfortable (at least the type of white person who would balk at seeing WHITE PRIVILEGE in a crossword) because they are not an underprivileged group or something to that effect.

But then what to make of Ilhan OMAR? She's appeared in puzzles dozens of times (including Universal, multiple times) since making her second round of controversial comments, despite there being plenty of other OMARs out there. Regardless of how you feel about the Minnesota congresswoman, I don't think there is any doubt she has made a whole lot of Jews feel uncomfortable. Shouldn't this disqualify her from grids or outrage the "no bummers" crowd? I mean, what's more likely to offend members of an historically oppressed ethnic group, allusions to antisemitic tropes or the word OGLE?

One thing that drives me crazy is when people, usually people on the left, frame things in terms of identity when it is clearly more about ideology. In the case of OMAR, it's apparently okay to make some Jews feel uncomfortable -- presumably just not those who are on the "correct side" of things ideologically speaking.

And, to be clear, I think Ilhan OMAR should be in crossword grids. Retweets are not endorsements. She's a prominent member of the zeitgeist, which, in my opinion, is a better heuristic to apply than trying to assess whether or not she might offend the wrong subgroup of a subgroup of solvers of a certain identity.

It's too arbitrary

All decisions are necessarily arbitrary to some degree. You frequently have to draw a line somewhere even when there is no obvious spot to do so. But if you look at the newer entries that constructors and editors are now avoiding, there doesn't appear to be any line at all. It's seemingly a hodgepodge of terms I've seen people complain about online. I mean, the Universal spec sheet cites "OGLE, LEER, TASE, OD, gun references, and bra sizes" as objectionable -- what do those things even have in common?

And why are bra sizes bad? If you asked me beforehand, I would have thought the progressively evolved take is that bra sizes specifically should be included. Once, a female constructor complained to me that editors always change her clue for PMS from one referencing premenstrual syndrome to one referencing prime ministers. Her point was that PMS is a normal part of the lives of many women, and so it's a pro-woman position to see it reflected in crossword puzzles as such. It makes sense to me, and I would have thought bra sizes would follow similar logic. I still don't get why they don't.

It's anti freedom of expression

As a constructor, I'm always looking for opportunities to put entries in my grids that reflect my personality or push the envelop in someway. The point is not always to make people feel comfortable. I've heard people argue that crossword puzzles are art. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they are a form of expression, and I think they are better when constructors have more freedom to fill them as they see fit.

Until next time... 

[Note: Universal Crossword has changed its submission guidelines since I originally posted this entry. For example, they no longer mention bra sizes among the fill they are phasing out.] 

What Words Belong: Brief Followup

I got some interesting and surprising feedback from my last post. Several other constructors reached out to me anonymously or privately to say they mostly agree with what I wrote but were too apprehensive to publicly say so out of fear of getting on the wrong side of the crossword puzzle commentariat or the more ideological editors. One pointed me to a few submission spec sheets, like that of Universal Crossword, that specifically ask to avoid using some of the words I mention in my last post, such as OGLE and ODS. I've actually published a puzzle at Universal, so they either changed the guidelines or I didn't completely read them -- either is possible. I might do a future post centered around some of the bullets on their spec sheet. But I don't have the time or energy to do it right, at the moment. (Hey, I made a sentence that changes in meaning if you remove the comma, and I didn't even mean to -- cool!) 

I really wasn't expecting the type of outreach I received. I didn't think I was saying anything that "controversial." I figured I was just stating my very reasonable, well thought out, beautifully elucidated opinions. Certainly some people will disagree with my post (that's kinda the point), but I don't expect anybody to hold it against me. Maybe I'm being Pollyannaish, though -- and if I am... well, not everybody has to like everybody else, I suppose. (Although, to be honest, I pretty much do like everybody else.)

Whatever the case, I'm going to keep thinking what I think and occasionally write it up on this little podunk word blog of mine. It's something of a calling: I have the perfect blend of no self-esteem and really high self-esteem that makes it easy to just say what I really believe. On the one hand, I feel it's safe to speak my mind with full candor because nobody gives a shit what I have to say, anyway; on the other hand, if I do offend somebody, I figure I'm so damn charming, they will come back around on me eventually. I'm not batting 1.000 on this latter proposition, but I have a pretty good career average.

More to come... at some point.

What Words Belong

My 42nd New York Times puzzle dropped this evening online and it will appear in tomorrow's print edition. It's a nice easy-peasy puzzle, in my opinion, but I do not have too much to say about it.

Instead I want to post some thoughts that had been in the back of my mind for some time, before being brought to the forefront by an article in the Washington Post by Tracy Jan about offensive words in word games. It mainly discusses a game called "Typeshift," about which I know nothing (aside from what's in the article), but it also hits on other word games near-and-dear to me like crossword puzzles. The impossible question the article suggests, but does not answer (in part because it's impossible), is What words belong and don't belong in word games?

The following are some of my ramblings on the matter, centered around two words some in the crossword puzzle community have found objectionable.

 NIP 

In addition to its many unoffensive definitions (a small sip, a quality of chilly air, a little pinch, etc.), NIP is a pejorative term for a Japanese person. For this reason, some in Crossworld have called for its banishment (or at least strongly implied as much, as Rex Parker does in this post and this post). I am not one of these people.

When I'm making puzzles, I apply the following standard for a word that is not a slur, but could be a slur in a different context: If the first thing a significant portion of the solving population will think when they see the word is "that's a slur," then it is unacceptable; otherwise it is okay.

This is a slightly different (more subjective) criterion than Will Shortz has traditionally applied to puzzles he edits for the New York Times. Will has long stated that any word with an unoffensive meaning is fair game. However, he more recently added the qualifier: "Perhaps I need to rethink this opinion, if enough solvers are bothered."

I think he should rethink it, and I think he should adopt my standard or something close to it. It should be less about what's in the dictionary and more about what's in solvers' everyday lexicons. If enough people react to something as if it's a slur, then it should be deemed a slur, even if we all know it has another benign definition. I mean, when you see the word BITCH, you do not think "a female dog" even if (for some reason) it's in a puzzle and the clue is "A female dog."

As to NIP, I don't think it qualifies as a slur under my definition. My sense is that most people do not strongly associate this word with its derogatory meaning; it's not the first thing that comes to people's minds when they hear it. (Personally, I think of the verb to NIP -- to prominently display the shape and outline of one's nipples under one's shirt -- because I have a dirty, but not racist, mind.) It's possible a sizeable portion of the crossword-puzzle-solving community does not even know NIP has an offensive definition. In my informal sampling of mostly highly educated adults it's about fifty-fifty. And, for what it's worth, I have had a decent number of Japanese friends and family throughout my life (I grew up in the Seattle area), and I've never heard any of them express any consternation over the usage of NIP in its many innocuous forms.

A common retort I've seen from online commenters to the above paragraph goes something like: Yeah, but maybe you're wrong and a lot of people really do find it offensive. Why not err on the side of kindness and just not use it? It's no big deal if NIP never again appears in a crossword puzzle. It's a decent retort, and one I've taken to heart but ultimately rejected for three main reasons.

1. If you apply that standard to every word that could be used as a slur, you are going to eliminate a massive number of words, to the point of pure absurdity. Unfortunately, human beings are quite prolific when it comes to inventing identity-based putdowns. This list has hundreds of them, and it's only ethnic epithets; you could probably double the size if you include gay and transgender slurs. So, you have to take a stand somewhere or the whole thing becomes ridiculous and untenable. I mean, OREO, in a certain context, is a legitimate racial insult. And if constructors are forced to remove OREO from their word lists, the entire industry of crossword puzzles might collapse.  

2. There's an element of "letting the racists win" when you eliminate a perfectly cromulent word like NIP from usage, and we shouldn't let the racists win. A more pronounced example of this comes from a different Rex Parker post in which he casts a side-eye at the word HAJJI -- a respectful title for a Muslim who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca -- because bigots have used it disparagingly. "I wouldn't let it anywhere near my puzzles if I were constructing," Parker says. This is very much the wrong conclusion to draw, in my opinion. The word HAJJI should not be treated as toxic; the assholes who use it pejoratively should be.

3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surely some people appreciate the thoughtfulness in avoiding potential slurs; just as surely, others find it patronizing and annoying -- and this includes people in the groups targeted by such slurs. This was elucidated nicely by Slate's Stefan Fatsis in an article about the debate over offensive words in competitive Scrabble. What he reports is that many, perhaps even most, players, regardless of identity, are against banning slurs. You have Black players unbothered by the "anagram of GINGER"; Jews standing up for their name being used as a verb; a player with cerebral palsy not offended by seeing SPAZ on the board. One quote that really resonates with me is from a gay player: "It doesn’t matter when an opponent plays FAG or FAGGOT. It does irk me that people are telling me you should be mad when people do this." (Italics are mine.)

Admittedly, Scrabble is different from crossword puzzles in that the meaning of the words are completely irrelevant, but I have to imagine the larger point holds: People understand context, and it can be condescending to behave as if they don't. Erring on the side of kindness is not the kind thing to do for all people.

ODS

Aside from slurs, there is another type of entry I'm seeing crossword solvers object to more and more: words that can be depressing or triggering or otherwise unpleasant. ODS -- the abbreviation for overdoses -- in its various forms (ODS, ODED, OD ON, etc.), is an example of such an entry. I bring it up because I once read a Twitter thread in which some solvers and constructors were calling for its ouster from Crossworld.* OGLE is another one I've seen multiple commenters express discomfort over, although I'm not sure if anybody has ever said it should be outright banned.

*I considered trying to find this thread to link to it, but decided against it, because it might take me a while, and I kinda hate Twitter, and I'm much happier when I'm not looking at it. In fact, I've almost entirely quit social media altogether. I miss parts of it, but it's been a huge boon to my mood and mental health. If you're thinking of quitting, I recommend it.  

My standard for exclusion for these types of words is much higher than it is for potential slurs -- basically, I don't think they should be excluded at all* -- because the feelings they evoke are more personal and don't necessarily commute to a broader population. I mean, undoubtedly, overdoses are a terrible thing to think about, especially in the midst of an opioid crisis, and ogling people (usually women, by men) on the street is a form of low-grade sexual harassment, also not a pleasant thought. But I suspect most solvers compartmentalize these things, and move on, the same way you do if you listen to a super heavy podcast about the situation in Afghanistan right before attending a soccer match with friends (which is what I did last weekend). If we weren't able to do this as humans, we would spend all day in bed with the covers over our heads. Also, it's worth pointing out, both OD ON and OGLE have totally benign usages: After I OGLE the dessert tray, I'm going to OD ON chocolate cake.

*There are a few exceptions to this. For example, I wouldn't put RAPE in a puzzle -- not even as a reference to Rappers Against Phony Entertainers, the group MC Serch of 3rd Bass says he should've started in the 1991 hip-hop hit "Pop Goes the Weasel". 

I think most of us have words that can evoke pain or otherwise bother us, for whatever reason. Not too long ago I was making a puzzle and opted not to put NUNES is the grid because the most prominent NUNES is Devin NUNES, and I didn't want that clown in my puzzle. Similarly, I've passed on putting IVANA in a grid because I'm genuinely disturbed by the rise of Trumpism in the US and don't want to think of anybody associated with it if I don't have to. But these are my personal, kinda petty, choices. I don't think they need to be adopted by other crossword constructors or editors. And I am worried that that's the direction things are headed in word puzzles -- like, it's not enough to find something personally distasteful; rather, you now have a moral imperative to try to stricken it from the record for everybody. (Do I dare get into how this mentality has already infected so many other parts of society like art and business and even science? No, because I want to wrap this up soon.)

Another thing is that the standards of comfort are often applied asymmetrically. There is a quote in the Washington Post article linked at the top of this post from a developer of "Typeshift": "Nobody playing ‘Typeshift’ should be experiencing a word that is traumatic for them." In addition to being so unrealistic it's little more than a platitude*, I suspect this quote also isn't totally true. Maybe it is, I don't know the person who said it and don't want to disparage them, but in general when people say something like this, I find what they mean is something closer to: Nobody should be experiencing a word that is traumatic for them, provided they are aligned with me ideologically on major social issues.

*There is no way to put something out in the world and achieve this goal, since almost anything could be traumatic to somebody somewhere. I mean, GUN, WAR, DIVORCE, DEATH, SICKNESS, SEX, RIOT, KIDNAP, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, ADDICTION, BOMB, SLAVE, MASTER, CRAZY, OBESE are all words that a person might reasonably find triggering -- and you can keep on adding item after item to this list, seemingly endlessly. 

I think it's safe to say word games, especially crossword puzzles, are dominated by left-leaning folks like myself. They are largely the realm of the highly educated, and education level has become a very pronounced dividing line between between the right and the left in the U.S. Being as such, most constructors, while probably being sensitive to how an entry like NRA might turn off solvers, are not, I suspect, particularly concerned if their entries offend people on the right. If BLM was in a puzzle and a right-wing solver complained that it's a riotous hate group, would people call for an apology by the editor and the elimination of this entry from future crosswords? If a hardcore pro-life activist said they were traumatized by seeing ABORT in a grid, would this complaint gain any traction? What if it was a bathroom-bill zealot who found TRANSGENDER objectionable?

I think we all know the answer to these questions is "no." And I'm okay with that -- that's how it should be. But I think we should at least be honest about it and not pretend like banishing words is a matter of making everybody feel welcome and included and comfortable, because that's not really accurate. And there is no way to achieve this goal, anyway. Constructors and editors are obviously going to cater somewhat to the preferences of their solvers on the whole, but it's impossible to do this at the niche level, and we shouldn't be expected to try.

The way I look at it -- if I may conclude à la a mediocre philosophy student -- in crossword puzzles, as in life, there are no correct answers, just least worst tradeoffs, gray area, and ever changing arbitrarily drawn lines. It's all just the sorites paradox, repeated ad nauseum.