If sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never harm you, how can the pen be mightier than the sword?
Being offended is a personal choice
A comment I made to a contributor on a Frank Zappa group debate on whether Zappa was intentionally homophobic or sexist in his work.
(By the way, the term “homophobic” is so ridiculous as it literally means “an irrational fear of homosexuals” where in almost every case, its implied intent is: deliberately disparaging of homosexuals. Transphobic - same thing. People don’t “fear” trans people generally - they are critical. Entirely different thing.)
It was, however, really encouraging to see a discourse happening in an entirely respectful manner. I was with the author of the piece on most points.
Zappa could be starkly boorish in his lyrical observations on contemporary society and I think he oftentimes placed “opinions“ from the standpoint of the 3rd party observer rather necessarily than imparting his own beliefs.
As a writer I understand and do this myself. Simply because a narrative exhibits an overt themic bias doesn’t necessarily imply this is the stance of the author - it’s simply exemplifying a context for the purpose of the story.
In most cases, as far as Zappa was concerned, I’d say his satirical, polemical parody spoke more to societal biases than it did to his own worldview, which, given his relationships in life and his chosen profession, seemed pretty open and inclusive.
The bottom line today is, of course, anything that’s said, regardless of context as described above, you can be sure that a) someone or a group is going to choose to be offended by it and b) the author will be personally vilified and ghosted or de-platformed or censored - cast aside by the (claimed to be prevailing) consensus as if consensus has an exclusive claim to factuality and rectitude and thus by extension, truth. It doesn’t and when the ruling majority are imposing opinion ahead of empirical testable statistical information and loading the narrative with judgement and coercive strategies linked to punishment for dissent rather than openly following where the evidence actually leads, then you know this has nothing to do with moral certainty, a broader perspective or collaborative inclusivity - it is premised entirely on imposition, control, guilt and punishment regardless of facts and evidence-based information. In that subjective morass, the identity and rights of the individual is, like the baby, thrown out with the bath water. You will obey, you will own nothing (not even the right to a dissenting opinion) and you will be happy.
And to that I say, Fuck you! Fuck right off!
We can never claim to know the intimate thoughts or beliefs of anyone on the planet other than what they choose to share with us and even then, there’s the hidden narrative they never share or the fact that they may be presenting another viewpoint that isn’t necessarily their own.
Then, like with Jesus, we should be examining and measuring the message rather than the messenger, right? Yeah, see where that got him…. It did conclude with the ultimate moral lesson but at quite some personal cost, wouldn’t you say.
But to Zappa and his lyrical output - that’s the way I see it.
Then again, maybe I simply forgive him his trespasses because he’s brought so much fucking joy to my life over the decades…
And who am I to judge another man, any man?