On January 28th, 2015 the United States Army published an article and did what most of do nowadays to promote our work…they tweeted it out.
Is this an offensive tweet?
It didn’t take long for people to voice their disappointment about the tweet and take to twitter to do so, including some members of the US Armed Forces…
This person thinks it’s offensive.
And so does this person
I don’t find the original tweet offensive. I look at it in the context that it was meant for. The term in question?
Chinks…in the armor
The use of a 15th century term from England didn’t offend me and it still doesn’t offend me, BUT, I can understand and see why some people may be offended. The term, nor the article that it was associated to had nothing to do with the slang term that is used to describe people of Chinese or east Asian decent.
Contextually it was the perfect term to describe the story but in reality you also must look at the perception that it can be viewed as. It is an offensive term to some people and means nothing to others. Intention doesn’t pay into the perception whatsoever.
I’ve often said Twitter needs to be thought of as a Chess game at times and this is one of those times.
Photo Credit: Salvatore Vuono
In chess, you try to play moves on the board in your mind first to decide your best course of action and determine how your move may be interpreted by your opponent. If you’re going to make a move that anyone should have been able to recognize as having a secondary meaning that could offend not just a person, but a people, then there should have been some consideration to the ramifications of doing it.
We live in a very soft skinned time where you can be quickly chastised for saying anything that can be taken out of context or taken to be offensive when there was never any intent to be offensive. The demands are simple when this happens…fix it, fix it fast and own it.
Lt. Col. Alayne Conway, an Army public affairs officer, said the service was surprised by the reaction “since there is nothing even remotely racial” in the expression.
“The phrase and word have been in use for more than 600 years; it is a proper noun, meaning a “crack” or “fissure,” as defined by Webster’s,” she said in an email, referring to the dictionary maker. “Nevertheless, based on feedback from some followers who expressed offense, we deleted it. It was certainly not our intention to offend anyone.”
Does this mean that every complaint that people have should be answered with apologies and deletions? Absolutely not. You have to factor in what the complaint is about and if it is a real issue or not. You will more than likely find someone who is offended by almost anything nowadays and that’s just the world we live in now where everyone can be a publisher and a media outlet and have instantaneous impact.
You need to measure your words carefully sometimes and just chose not to make some choices from time to time, just to be on the safe side. If you offend some people based on race, culture, ethnicity, etc, you might as well consider it offensive to everyone and avoid the strife.
The Army says there was no intention to offend anyone. The perception is that the tweet and article title could have been offensive. The reality is some people were offended.
One point remains unanswered here…some people were demanding that the Army apologize about the tweet in addition to the deletion of it. Do you think they should?
My thanks to SC of @NEMRTLibrary for the heads up on the Tweet/story with this question that would be great to see answered here in the comments:
#CopChat How should a PD respond? ►Army Deletes Tweet About ‘Chinks In Armor' After People Cry Racism http://t.co/hf8EfMTdoS via @NRO— NEMRT MTU3 Library (@NEMRTLibrary) January 30, 2015
This post interests me not just from a social media perspective but from a language perspective as well. I appreciate the intent was not to offend but of all the words that could have been used to get the point across in this tweet, the word chosen was not the right one. Language is so incredibly important and, like many issues around diversity and human rights, it’s not the intention of the word/phrase that matters but rather how it is perceived by one or many. Language is also very fluid in the sense that what was once considered to be ‘politically correct’ may not be accepted any longer. Those of us in communications need to be sensitive to these ever-changing issues and provide the best guidance and advice when language is not being used in the most effective way. I think the US Army did the right thing by removing the post.
Great way to put it Meaghan.
Thanks for the comment
Speakers and we in social media, often get hooked on phrases, without listening to what we are saying. People who use cliché like “the pot calling the kettle black” or “getting down to the short strokes” often don’t understand the meaning of what they are saying, and offend without intent or notice.
Great examples of tried and true terms that are in no way ever meant to insult or be taken out of context but can become easy fodder for people who want to make an example of you.
Thanks for the comment Rich.
Pingback: When does political correctness go to far? #CopChat | Walking the Social Media Beat