I'm certain, dear reader, that while you lead an upstanding life and feed your cat daily, there are times you have been guilty (in spades) of "inappropriate'' behaviour.
And #MeToo. Most days I've probably achieved something inappropriate by lunch, but it's hard to be certain. Because while the "inappropriate'' word has great import among the virtuous, its meanings and applications are now so inexact, the word is no longer fit for purpose.
A "good'' word is one that offers a precise meaning to all who hear it. A ``bad'' word is the opposite. And in terms of lack of precision, I'm afraid "inappropriate'' is off-the-scale dubious.
Inappropriate behaviour now covers a field that stretches from the borders of sexual assault, to failing to use the correct word from the PC handbook. On top of that, interpretation depends on point of view. What causes no offence to the movers and shakers at the Roxburgh Bowling Club, will provoke frothing outrage at the Young Socialist's League
"Deception'' is a word used within another category of dodgy behaviour. However English offers us more than one hundred words for various deceptions, all giving scale and context to the offence. From deception's whiter sins like blarney, pretence, and beguilement, up to the harmful evils of fraud, betrayal, and treachery. There are few such choices for "inappropriate''.
The Oxford Dictionary puts "inappropriate'' in a context of good taste and manners, with: "not suitable or proper in the circumstances''.
The Urban Dictionary's jokey definition gets closer to today's truth. "Inappropriate - the word people use when you've done something that isn't technically 'bad' or 'wrong' but they don't like it anyway, and expect you to conform to their personal tastes.''
The word's usual context is set within the grand obsessions of the modern Left - race, gender and sex.
It often implies sexual misconduct, and a suggestion of inappropriateness can be deadly. Chris Bishop, the National MP for Hutt South, knows all about this. He recently became a victim of the word's elasticity, in circumstances that were disgraceful.
You may know Bishop decided he'd get trendy by speaking his politics to the young via social media - Snapchat, to be specific. All well and good, until a political foe spotted opportunity. This enemy contacted the media, telling them some anonymous parent had complained that Bishop made ``inappropriate'' contact with their unnamed 15-year-old daughter.
We can't be sure either parent or girl existed. Nor do we know what the said parent meant by "inappropriate''. Possibly it was just Bishop's choice of Snapchat for communication?
Whatever - the gist of the resulting story was: "Male MP in 'inappropriate' social media contact with 15-year-old girl''.
This set the hares running. Change.org, the online gripe aggregator, soon had a petition for a Bishop inquiry. It's organiser, one Jacqui Smith, wrote: "Mums, dads, grandparents, friends of our young and vulnerable, please join me in asking for an investigation into this behaviour. When would it ever be OK for a middle-aged man, let alone an MP, to be contacting your daughter on social media, snap chat.'' (Quite. Middle-aged men should be confined to tapping out Morse code, and count themselves lucky.)
A Cheryl Johnston joined the petition saying: "I call that using power to GROOM young girls.''
It all ended up as a very nasty hatchet job. "Inappropriate'' - this twisted, vague, multipurpose word had been used to begin a mission to make Bishop seem a sleaze.
Actor Benedict Cumberbatch was made to wear the inappropriate badge - after doing an interview supporting more jobs for "coloured'' actors. He was speedily reminded his ancestor had owned slaves in Barbados. Cumberbatch made a grovelling apology, saying he'd inappropriately used "outmoded terminology'' and should really have said "people of colour'', instead of "coloured'', which offended. Is this just a teensy bit precious?
Qantas recently asked an outfit called the Diversity Council of Australia to give it advice on "gender-inappropriate'' words to be shunned. The list they got back from the Diversity luvvies included minority-threatening terms like mum, dad, parents, husband and wife. (Go figure - we don't have the space to explain.)
Qantas male stewards should avoid making "manteruptions''. What's more (the Diversity Council hasn't heard of mission creep, and it clearly had the bit between its teeth) if the subject of "European settlement'' of Australia comes up - the appropriate terms are occupation, or invasion.
"Inappropriate'' is a bummer of a word, and its accusatory use is creating a whole new category of victimhood. Inappropriate is inappropriate, and its banning should be advocated by our moral guardians.
Fat chance?
- John Lapsley is an Arrowtown writer.
