Two completely unrelated events are the genesis of this post. First, I am the creator of BigHugeLabs: fd’s Flickr Toys. On July 9th 2007 I launched a re-design of the site that included a prominently displayed motivational poster sample on the home page. That motivational poster was based on the photo to the right which is captioned: “Warning: Bridge Is Out.” The original photo and caption were created in 2005.

Second, on Wednesday (August 1 2007), a bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. The latest report I’ve read says that at least five people are confirmed dead. The Minneapolis bridge collapse is tragic and I have great sympathy for the victims and their families.

Do you see where this is going?

Since Wednesday, I’ve received emails from people saying that the poster on the BigHugeLabs home page is “inappropriate” and “crass” and that it should be changed. My gut reaction to the initial emails was to ignore them. The poster obviously had nothing at all to do with the bridge collapse. I suppose some people might have seen it and drawn the incorrect conclusion that I’m making some kind of joke about Minneapolis (one of the emailers explicitly stated that he knew it was a coincidence). I don’t think that bothers me.

What does bother me—and troubles me deeply—is the apparent expectation that no one should do anything that might potentially offend someone; and if some circumstance arises that gives new, unintended meaning to something previously innocuous then that previously harmless thing is now somehow “bad.”

Now, I don’t think that people, in general, should go around trying to offend others. I’m not intentionally rude to anyone. I don’t cut in line. I hold the door. But I also don’t worry about how every single thing I say and do may offend someone. If I did I wouldn’t be able to function. I own three vehicles, I buy things made in China, I’m half Korean, and my eyes are brown—all things that I’m 100% positive offend lots of people.

The safe thing to do—the fashionable thing—would be to fall all over myself changing the poster to something appropriate and to issue a public apology about not intending to offend anyone. Political correctness is completely out of control in this country. For better or worse, my position is that the poster did not nor does it currently have anything to do with Minneapolis and any offense taken is completely in the mind of the offended. Furthermore, I still think the original poster is funny and the bridge disaster is tragic at the same time.

That said, I’m a pragmatist. I have better things to do than delete emails accusing me of being insensitive over a stupid motivational poster. So I changed the caption to make the emails stop. It now reads “Kids on board.” As safe and bland a caption as I could think of while still being mildly amusing.

Am I wrong/insensitive? Is the lack of intent (to offend) less important than the perception? Did the bridge disaster actually transform the image, making it inappropriate, or is any inappropriateness completely in the eye of the beholder? Does that even matter? How does changing the image protect anyone? How can I be sure that what I changed it to doesn’t offend anyone? If it offends someone in the future, have I actually done any good at all? And can anyone explain rationally why the image is inappropriate now but wasn’t 72 hours ago without simply appealing to an emotional response?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know what you think.

Comments

1. knwd on 2007-08-03 13:43:33 wrote: I think that the term “offensive” should be reserved for occasions when someone makes deliberate effort to offend. If you had posted that picture and title after the Minnesota bridge collapsed, that would qualify as offensive. But you certainly didn’t create the poster with the intention of mocking the people who were affected by the bridge collapsing. As it stands, your poster is nothing more than a coincidence. There’s a quote that says, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes) But it seems like we humans would prefer to disregard our ability to judge intent, so that we can view ourselves as perpetual victims. Personally, I don’t think I would have changed the caption. But since you have changed it, I think it would be inappropriate to change it back. At least for now. Maybe in a month or two you can change it back, barring any further catastrophes.

2. Norby on 2007-08-03 14:19:02 wrote: Should you have had to have changed the caption? I don’t think so. The coincidence was perhaps unfortunate, but not crass nor inappropriate (unless you had decided to choose to put the image up after the incident). I would perhaps have termed it “ironic”. That said, a certain amount of courtesy can go a long way towards placating people and keep down the amount of ire directed your way. People will always decide what they want to feel with or without you. As for the future, you have so many great photos that I think I’d just eventually find something more captivating/moving and move on. -//

3. raymenie on 2007-08-03 16:57:07 wrote: Speaking as someone who has only lived in the States for a year, political correctness in this country has gone overboard. I was recently back in Britain, where I hail from, and was sad to observe that it’s going the same way. I actually saw that poster for the first time after I’d heard the news about the bridge collapse and didn’t make the link between the two since the photograph above the caption is so obviously not related to the events in Minneapolis. Besides where do you draw the line? Someone affected by the bridge collapse may find that a joke about that incident offensive (although I don’t think your poster fits that category really) but find a joke at the expense of a cancer patient funny. While the cancer patient finds the cancer joke offensive but the bridge joke funny. There is always something that’s going to hit too close to home for each of us but unless we bar all jokes we can’t be sure of not offending anyone. Just my opinion….no offensive intended!

4. John Y. on 2007-08-03 18:26:00 wrote: Hey John, I’m not offended at all but maybe thats because I have seen that poster many times before. I can certainly understand how some people would be offended though. You will never make everyone happy no matter what you do. I think it’s fine that you changed it but wouldn’t be offended either if you didn’t. Keep up the great work. :)

5. JGJones on 2007-08-03 18:30:25 wrote: No matter whatever you do, just by existing you’re offending someone somewhere sometime and somehow. Can’t win them all. I wouldn’t have changed the caption at all - sad fact is that say..after 2 weeks when all news about the collapsed bridge have finished, no-one’ll be finding it offensive. They all will have moved onto something else by then. (and probably by saying that, I’m offending someone - but consider this…most people doesn’t think about that tsunami that happened in end of 2004 if at all - they haven’t forgotten, they don’t think about it. Sad but true, but it is human nature to move on)

6. guynameddave on 2007-08-03 22:29:26 wrote: Of course you did nothing wrong. Neither having the picture there in the first place nor changing it in light of the recent news. I like the quote above posted by knwd. Since you asked for feedback, I’d only say this. I think the “meaning” of your picture did change in light of the tragedy. I know you well. And had seen your picture for over a year. But the other day when I checked BHL and saw it, I immediately thought of the tragedy. I didn’t think the picture was wrong. Didn’t think you should pull it down or change the caption. I simply thought of the tragedy because it was fresh on my mind given the news and your picture and caption connected with that. The comments in a blog post is not the place to get into semiotics. Suffice to say language, pictures, and all sorts of things are not static. Meanings change.

7. Allan on 2007-08-03 23:19:51 wrote: You’ve raised an important issue in human relations and politics. Intent is very important and must be judged carefully. My first hand experience is that people are not careful. I think it’s safe to say that people more often than not misjudge intent and infer something that wasn’t implied. That is something that hasn’t changed in millenia. What has changed very recently is that common courtesy, what used to be called being polite, has been replaced by this thing called Political Correctness. And pardon my use of the technical jargon, but I call bullshit on that! I agree that it is important to try not to offend people by making your intentions transparent, but transparency is next to impossible to attain when there is no common courtesy, just individual political agendas. O tempores! O mores!

8. Han on 2007-08-04 04:46:10 wrote: Wow! such sensitivity over a caption!. I dont understand such people. I guess they live in a false state of being. Where, avoiding the use of “offensive” words makes them feel safe. Isn’t life all about the unpredictability of existance? Happiness, tragedy, success, failure, all are part of life and they are all real. Not talking about something does not make it go away, not does it turn wrongs into right.

9. s’mee on 2007-08-04 09:40:59 wrote: I am 1/4 American Indian. Am I offended by the “Tomahawk Chop” -well of course, but only one out of every four games. I am also a “Mormon”. Don’t get me and my 23 sister wives started on the insensitive jokes about poligamy. Being offended is the gateway to litigation nowadays. If one does it correctly there is money to be made (or lost). We have become a self obsorbed society where everything is is strictly about ME! (I heart ME, btw) Your ad predated the event, and I ’think’ maybe those who are offended by the first caption never read it before the bridge going out. Those of us who saw the ad before knew your original intent and knew where you were going with it. For those who view the ad after the event, it was kind of you to change it. Smart, perhaps, because of the damage it could do to your sales or reputation. ( No one wants to use a flickr toy made by people who predict bridges going out) If it were my ad I probably would have changed it as well. This is the rub: Do we change things, labels, graphics, whatever because we fear negative reaction from our _______? Or do we change it because WE feel it is insensitive and should be changed? It’s like telling jokes - Letterman and Leno are allowed to make fun of anything and anyone until ‘real’ tragedy happens. Then there is a undisclosed (about a week after everything settles down) amount of time before they can start dissing bridge inspectors again. Watch, it will happen. Some joke about Hillary and her campaign headed for a bridge….

10. fyngyrz on 2007-08-04 13:30:22 wrote: I only perceive you as being “wrong” in that you changed the caption of the poster for reasons I, at least, would consider unreasonable. It was funny; it is funny; it is in no way connected to the Minneapolis event (or the 1940’s-era Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster, etc.)

11. yah-right on 2007-08-05 11:42:22 wrote: I’m offended that you were forced to change it. I really LIKED “the bridge is out”, the new caption is stupid and meaningless by comparison. The offended parties are utter twits and you should not have bowed to them. Our country is turning into a bunch of wusses unwilling to take a stand for what they supposedly believe in … freedom of speech. I’m sure there are many other instances where there is a gray area; this is NOT one of them.

12. Amy on 2007-08-05 19:05:15 wrote: I agree with all of the above. I have seen that caption many times and never would have connected it to such a awful event in our nation’s history. shakes her head I am really starting to hate people..is that bad?

13. JayMonster on 2007-08-06 08:22:40 wrote: I think you summed it up quite nicely when you pointed out how “out of control” things are in this country. I am generally a “Politically Correct” person, but this isn’t about being “PC.” This is about outrage, and how some (many) people in this country seem to look for things to be outraged over. Whether it be Butterball giving a potholder as swag at BlogHer, or people LOOKING for things about the accident to complain about, these people thrive on their outrage. Long story short (huh? too late?), did you do something wrong? Of course not. But if you don’t want the e-mails from these nutjobs then you did what you had to do for your own sanity. Of course, the downside to that is that it makes them feel more “empowered” that they were able to get you to change. So really in these situations, there really is no way to “win”

14. Anna on 2007-08-06 13:40:16 wrote: I would have been offended by the irritated and rude emails because their PURPOSE was to rile. There’s something to be said about politeness - which is different than political correctness. A kind email might have been, “Hey, LOVE your poster - so funny! But in light of what just happened, you might want to consider switching it out for another. Would hate to think what a victim’s family member would feel looking at that poster just now.” But even that… I would never have suggested that you purposefully put it there or purposefully kept it there because of the bridge accident. I like the dog stumbled over vs. kicked analogy. Yeah, and I ramble. :)

15. JMT on 2007-08-06 14:08:42 wrote: This is why I read this site. Ramble on. Love your words, regardless of the realm they reside in.

16. Sylvia on 2007-08-07 07:07:29 wrote: *

    Well, there was no warning sign for the Minneapolis disaster, and too bad there wasn’t! But connecting that event to your poster is a stretch. For one thing, your poster is a MOTIVATIONAL poster, not a literal warning. Its meaning is figurative and the “bridge is out” warning is a symbol for any unexpected bad thing that could happen at any moment to anybody. Obviously the caption is inspired by the photo. Suppose it had been a photo which was suggestive of some other impending event. Should you be able to anticipate and avoid any and all possibilities of giving offense? It is unfortunate that this latest national tragedy matched too well with your poster, but I feel it was unnecessary to change it. Every minute of every day, someone, somewhere is living through a tragedy. How are we all to avoid ever saying, writing or portraying anything that offends anyone? Not possible. My son was killed in a traffic accident. Weeks later a student club at the school where I worked put on a Halloween skit which included coffins, ghosts, and dead people. Did it hurt? Yes. What should I have done? Nothing. “Life Goes On.” And I’m sure that caption would offend plenty of people too!

    *

17. Laura on 2007-08-07 07:22:23 wrote: Well, I’m offended by folks who don’t bother to check out another’s intent before flaming them. If you hadn’t changed the poster title, I’d have said “Leave it there”. Now that you have, though, I s’pose it should stay as it currently is. Too bad. The “Bridge out” title was cute; he new one ? Not so much.

18. kelli ann on 2007-08-07 07:25:04 wrote: have you offended me? uh, no. and intent and perception: can these concepts even be discussed, with regard to the Internet? cultural relativism? one country’s tragedy often doesn’t even register on another’s media radar. that’s not a good thing, or a bad thing: that’s something we need to consider.

19. Dave Newton on 2007-08-07 09:27:21 wrote: I’m not offended at all. I think political correctness is a tool often used by those without the power to engage in critical thinking and debate. Is it important to be sensitive? Of course. Should people bend over backward to accommodate others who, for whatever reason, can’t stand the lack of attention otherwise? Absolutely not. If something this miniscule in the scheme of things offends another enough to drive them from your site, I’d consider the bandwidth savings a bonus. The phrase “don’t let the door hit you in theass on the way out” springs to mind. I love your blog. You have a fantastic family, a down-to-earth attitude, and a wonderful gift of observation. Keep up the good work. Dave Newton Huntsville, Alabama

20. Brian Taylor on 2007-08-08 13:03:21 wrote: I think you should put back the original caption. If it offends some people then tough. Just because a bridge collapsed doesn’t mean people should have to change/remove any mention of a bridge that may offend. There are so many things going on in the world that really could offend some people/groups, why worry about something as trivial as a poster?

21. Russ Wilkinson on 2007-08-09 09:10:52 wrote: My view is that it is wrong to have changed the caption, because once you have started down this road it will be very difficult to turn around. What would you have done if there had been kids injured on the ship in the Artic this afternoon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6938940.stm) changed it again? Now its been changed leave it but I vote next time, because there will be a next time, It stays.

22. Tanya on 2007-08-12 15:16:23 wrote: I agree with all of the above commenters and I too think that PC-ness has gone too far. I am terribly sorry for those who lost loved ones in that terrible accident, but since your picture was (A) up BEFORE that and (B) NOT a pic of said bridge/accident, you did nothing wrong. Those who are offended need to take a step back and really think about WHY they are offended.

23. Angela on 2007-08-12 22:05:32 wrote: Didn’t offend me–I always thought it was a hoot.

24. John on 2007-08-13 11:44:21 wrote: Thanks, guys. It feels good to confirm there is sanity left in the world.

25. Dean Ayres on 2007-10-23 03:52:29 wrote: I’m reminded that some Americans called for the film adaptation of ‘The Two Towers’ to be retitled for fear that it sounded vaguely like ‘The Twin Towers’. Tolkien was clearly insensitive in his choice of novel title. In 1965.

26. flagrantdisregard » Blog Archive on 2007-11-15 11:07:42 wrote: […] way back in August when I wrote about my brush with the political correctness police in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge […]