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.
