Calling someone a “villain” is a city-ist insult. The word originally means “base or low-born rustic,” clearly an insult by the urban higher classes aimed at farmers, serfs, and others from the villages. By the censorious standards we run into so often, we should stop using the word and denounce anyone who does. This is, of course, silly, but no sillier than many actual attacks on words.

In some circles, you can’t have a “master” switch or password anymore. The word has a range of meanings, generally in the categories of someone in authority or someone with extensive knowledge and skill (or at least a degree saying so). One of these meanings is “a person in authority over slaves,” so the use of the word is deemed an endorsement of slavery, and it has to go. There are even people trying to rename the Maine coon cat. The origin of the name is obscure, but the most likely explanation is that the tail somewhat resembles a raccoon’s. However, the term “coon” has been used as a racial insult, so the name has to go. Probably raccoons need to be renamed as well.

There’s no limit on how ridiculous these complaints can get. Some of them use invented etymologies. There’s a persistent but unfounded claim that “squaw” comes from a North American word meaning “female genitalia.” It actually comes from a word meaning “woman.” There’s no good reason for having a separate word for female indigenous Americans, but that’s a different issue.

Supposedly the reason for attacking these words is to avoid offense. Actually, it’s to create offense, to make people feel insulted where no insult was intended or imagined. The goal is to gain power over the alleged victims by pretending to defend them and to have a way to attack anyone when it becomes convenient.

SFWA’s unwarranted attack on Mercedes Lackey illustrates the technique. The organization falsely accused her of using a “racial slur” and removed her from the Nebula Conference. I don’t know whose grudge this satisfied; what’s important is the method. (Some readers may know I have a grudge of my own against her, but it’s decades old and not relevant here.)

It’s worth looking at the details of this method. When a group is marginalized and despised, any name for it becomes an insult. Words like “colored” and “Negro” are examples. They were never slurs as such, but a lot of people used the names as insults. The problem isn’t with the words; any word for them would have suffered the same fate. But it’s convenient to attack anyone who utters those words, even in a passing slip of the tongue (which seems to have been the case with Lackey) as engaging in “slurs.” Just don’t ask why the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) escapes from the charge.

Many words are still used in spite of a similar history. An obvious example is “Jew.” It’s been used in many insults, and its German cousin, “Jude,” has had far viler uses. I’ve never heard anyone demand that Jews be called “Hebrews” or any other substitute.

The only pattern is someone’s desire to target someone. Even using a word in one language that sounds a little like an insult in another language can lead to official punishment. You can even get fired for talking about a racist slur.

The technique doesn’t help marginalized people. It distracts attention from actual, intentional insults as well as innocently intended but ill-considered words. The goal of these attacks isn’t justice, social or otherwise. It’s power. The best answer to them is contempt.