The holier than thou want to cancel Scrabble words. Credit: Godong/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sam-100x100.jpg)
First they came for the statues of slave traders and confederate generals, and many of us applauded. Then they came for the name of the Dixie Chicks — and most of us were pretty relaxed about that too. But now the cultural moment is coming for, of all things, Scrabble.
The North American Scrabble Players’ Association has called for 238 “slurs” to be banned from the game on the grounds of their offensiveness — including not only the obvious racial epithets but terms such as “wrinklies” (offensive to old people), “papist” (Catholics) and “Jesuit” (apparently offensive to followers of St Ignatius of Loyola, though this seems to me highly questionable). “When we play a slur,” says John Chew, the association’s Chief Executive Officer, “we are declaring that our desire to score points in a word game is of more value to us than the slur’s broader function as a way to oppress a group of people.”
There’s no certainty yet that this daft idea is going to catch hold. The international standard of tournament play remains Collins’s Official Scrabble Words (which is what we used to call SOWPODS), and Collins haven’t indicated that they’ll start expunging words from that. (There already exists a bowdlerised version, the Official Scrabble Players’ Dictionary, which up till now was reserved for children.)
But it’s not a sensible direction of travel. Ebi Sosseh, described in a news report I read as “a BAME player from Bournemouth”, was quoted as calling the move a “trivial gesture”. I’m with him. I’m not much for the N-word in Scrabble — not out of political correctness but because who ever has two Gs at once? And besides, it’s low-scoring and hard to play. But “wop” and “wog” are both pretty tasty in a tight corner (by which I mean the corner containing a triple-word tile) and Scrabble players would be the poorer without them.
More to the point, the meanings of the words used has never had the faintest bearing on a game of Scrabble. TI, KA, KI, TE, UT, MI, XU, NA, OE. Do you know what any of those words mean? I don’t — and I have played all of them many thousands of times in Scrabble games over the years. I have a dim sense that a GI is some bit of judo paraphernalia, but I may be quite wrong and it has never even crossed my mind to check.
Indeed, it’s perhaps not so much the fact that I don’t know what those words mean that matters, as the fact that when I’m playing Scrabble the meanings of the words I do know barely impinge. Looking over the list of allowable two-letter words, it requires a conscious effort to recall that “EH” is an expression of surprised curiosity. When you’re playing, it’s just one of a handful of two-letter words that you know will often let you get an H on a triple-letter going in two directions at once — which is a creditable 24 points right out of the gate. Scrabble players are more familiar with QI than any new age mystic, and get through more ZA than a teenage mutant ninja turtle.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf you applauded those events, because you didn’t realise at the time that these things never, ever stop where you’re comfortable, then you need to urgently and significantly reassess your outlook on life. The hardest-earned insight of human history is that freedom of expression has to be universal, even for those we hate and despise the most, or it quickly becomes meaningless.
Tolerate everything except acts of intolerance.
K Popper’s insight is relevant here.
Even this is wrong. Who gets to decide what counts as an act of “intolerance”? If you start announcing that the world is flat, and I try to stop you from teaching flat-earthism to children in schools, am I being intolerant? I don’t think so, but others would. The difference between speech/expression and “acts” is also very important.
My sympathy for those finding their cherished habits & history under assault after applauding the razing of other’s history & habits is de minimis.
I read that differently – i think it’s a sardonic reference to Niemöller using the collective “we/us”, so not necessarily the author’s view.
The fact that he’s referencing it shows a self awareness at the very least.
Oh I agree. My comment was aimed more generally than just the author.
She’s making play with the quotation about the unchecked rise of the Nazis, and is actually using irony to promote the very point you imply she has culpably failed to appreciate. (Oops !)
My comment was aimed broadly at those who applauded. You won’t, I hope, pretend that no one applauded those acts of vandalism. You failed to recognise that I wasn’t personally addressing the author. (Oops !)
I’ve just made a brief, polite comment on yours. It has been – as mine always are – sequestered, isolated, quarantined and put into lockdown for an incalculable period probably coeval with the infinite span of time that measures the existence of the universe, by a mysterious and unaccountable algorithm. I could easily be persuaded that some kind of malign magic rules in the blackness – sorry! darkness – of the now virtual, digital universe we inhabit.
I think many people’s are, Philip. All of mine go straight into auto-mod too. It’s not just you.
I suggest practising a discreet and seemly patience in the face of this adversity, rather than the eyebrow-raising avalanche of replies you have submitted on this subject.
So anything more than two comments on a subject is ‘eyebrow-raising’ in your opinion! For the record, I made precisely 2 here, on the subject at issue. Nor do I apologise for my little comedy rant about the irritating and proliferating online tendency to randomly submit one’s carefully-considered views to some mindless algorithm, presiding over such discussions in lieu of an editor.
I do apologise for misinterpreting your original comment, however. I think I may have been having a bad day, and just wanted to pick a fight. Sorry.
(Are you going to disapprove of this as well?)
I wanted to reply, but all my innocent comments are now going to dis-approval Limbo – this one too, no doubt.
Man was on a plane . He noticed the Pope was in a nearby seat .- “Your Holiness. What are you doing here?”
“Actually , I am doing a cross-word puzzle “
” I like cross-words too, Your Holiness.”
“This clue made me laugh, four letters, ends in u n t , and is female “
” That’s easy , Your Holiness, the solution is aunt “
” Oh , hell, that’s another one I got wrong”
Regrettable we are in a “one issue” timezone and when a single issue takes control rational thought tends to fade. Right now the single issue is “racism” and it clouds everything. The issues raised in this article fall under the “silence is violence” doctrine.
Under this doctrine a simple game is no longer a game, it is a multi layered argument in which every movement, no matter how small, must be scrutinised, dissected and put back together for it’s racist undertones. The players intention does not enter the equation.
Sam Leith is himself ‘woke’ insasfar as it stands for repudiation of national identity and demographic displacement of the indigenous who are already a minority in London and will be nationally by 2066 according to Oxford demographer David Coleman. Yet as the scapegoating of native Europeans intensifies, which is bound to be the case as people become conscious of their numerical advantage, he consistently sides with the globalists or ‘anywhereS’. But that’s practically a condition of employment for a journalist.
Listening to the Pogues and Gilbert and Sullivan this week and reading some PG Wodehouse for a little light relief from the endlessly grim news of global crisis. They are all unacceptable to the woke stasi, and will have to go on the bonfire.
What an utterly bleak and humourless future these philistines are trying to forge.
Oh dear, I’ve got some David Starkey DVDs too…
This surely must be a spoof. What kind of idiot imagines that one can remove humanity’s desire to insult and offend by removing all words which might cause insult and offend? The sheer asininity of it reflects how totally possessed some people are by wokish righteousness -quite beyond all sense and reality.
Nicely written article; thank you. I damn well hope it doesn’t catch on – that way madness lies.
Should any of you want to rebel, I can recommend a version friends and I cooked up to play on a very drunken New Year’s Eve once. ONLY rude words allowed. Spell them how you want (so long as you can justify it, which in English is pretty much carte blanche), and you have the perfect right to lie if you can get everyone else to believe that what you put down was a rude word (works best with teachers, who just c**k an eyebrow and suggest you aren’t down with the kids if you challenge them). I can’t remember if anyone has ever won a game, as we’re usually three sheets to the wind before we even start, but it’s great fun.
I cannot resist the temptation. From now on I shall refer to anybody adhering to the woke correctness of not using “slur”words as a “scrabble brainer”.
The attacks on tiny and harmless activities only point to the reality that most of the big battles have been won. Those still remaining are too hard, hence the need to signal virtue rather than fix anything. The failure of such interventions to make any meaningful difference is so painfully obvious it does bring into disrepute the description of the typical woke campaigner as an ‘educated elite’. It was obvious to me that scoper (I actually imagined scopey) would replace spastic as soon as the name change was announced and I was only about 12 at the time. Hardly degree level thinking. Although maybe it is, these days.
It seems the Twitterrati dont Realise Controlling peoples language Is dangerous to democracy, 1984 WAS a Warning NOT a template..wokes are Asleep
It’s so much easier to weaponise other people’s speech and use it to bully people online than actually do something about it though.
I have always said that it is the tone in which the word is used and not the word itself which is offensive. I can call you a total ankle and you will understand that the word ankle is derogatory!
Two minor quibbles, one of which may be with the sub editor not author.
1) whenever you use the argument that “X is wrong and anyway there are more important things to focus on” you incentivise your opponent simply upping how serious they consider a problem to be. Argue on its merit, not its relative worth.
2) Naomi Klein is massively wrong (as usual) about her generations efforts on language. Nick Timothy wrote a great piece in the Telegraph outlining the policies and primary legislation which so much of the modern left have claimed their influence over institutions in the U.K. and it harks back decades. Kleins generation won the war By taking out the defences before the real battles were being fought.
<<when we=”” play=”” a=”” slur,=”” we=”” are=”” declaring=”” that=”” our=”” desire=”” to=”” score=”” points=”” in=”” a=”” word=”” game=”” is=”” of=”” more=”” value=”” to=”” us=”” than=”” the=”” slur’s=”” broader=”” function=”” as=”” a=”” way=”” to=”” oppress=”” a=”” group=”” of=”” people.=””>>
Hyperbole much? If I play the word “swastika,” does it mean I don’t care about the Holocaust? If I play “slave,” does it mean I support slavery? The woke clearly have too much time on their hands.
Duplicate by mistake — kindly remove
I didn’t even know people still played board games like Scabble.