Go Get It

"You are not in solidarity with us if your behavior during this time in addressing Lizzo can be read as problematic [and] offensive," [Black disabled activist Vilissa] Thompson said.
As Lizzo was called out for ableism, many Black disabled people felt overlooked

I call BS. Basically because Ms. Thompson's statement, like those of a lot of people, really, makes an assumption that isn't likely as true as it seems. Namely, that there is some sort of behavior that cannot be read as problematic and offensive. While it may be true that the only way that offense travels from one person to another is by being taken, offense can be taken at pretty much any time for any thing; loading up on it, even when the other person has no intention of giving it, is not a form of theft (but, come to think of it, perhaps it should be).

Ms. Thompson's statement doesn't square with that reality, even leaving people who want to "problematize" things aside. Try as one might, it's pretty much impossible to offend a newborn; they simply don't have the social understanding required, because it's learned. And what people are taught is problematic and offensive is not subject to any sort of external critique or approval at the time it's being taught. There is simply a general social sense that kicks in when someone is in the presence of others. If one's peers agree that taking offense is reasonable, the response is lauded, otherwise it's shut down. It's a lot like trying to make "fetch" happen. And what people decide can, or cannot, be read as disrespectful, dismissive, racist or what have you, doesn't have the be written down anywhere.

It just has to be bothersome to some unknown number of people, whom the person who had given offense doesn't even need to have heard of. It's all subjective. And, so, for that matter, is who is allowed to be injured enough to be offended by something.

The suggestion seems to be that women, and in particular white women, are numerous and powerful enough to absorb a comedian’s casual hostility, while gay and, especially, trans people are not. But if there was a meeting where this was decided, no one invited me.
Helen Lewis “Dave Chappelle’s Rorschach Test” The Atlantic. Wednesday, 13 September, 2021

The upshot of all this is the common idea in Left-leaning, non-White and/or queer circles that problematic and/or offensive behavior is always an unforced error; one that can always be avoided simply by being caring, sensitive and deferential enough.

But there is no objectivity here. Sure some things are broadly known to be troublesome to fairly large groups of people (even if the exact rules are still unclear) such that being called out is more or less a given. If the only people that one can conceive of as terrorists are Moslems, there's going to be a problem when word, or the tweet, gets out. But a lot of other things are less clear-cut; is holding a door for a woman simply a form of polite behavior one would offer to anyone? A way of showing respect and deference to "the fairer sex?" Or a way of publicly displaying that one believes women to be incapable of helping themselves in day-to-day life? Is "Happy Holidays" a recognition that there's more than just Christmas in the last part of December? Or part of a hateful plot to move people way from The One True God? What possible way of engaging with those situations cannot be read as problematic and offensive?

If there is a category of unjust behavior that it little more than conveying to someone that you see them (or not) other than how they prefer (or demand) to be seen, then problematic and offensive behavior, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. It's an aesthetic judgment, not anything that reflects reality.

Activists, and other forms of would-be social engineers, can try to cast offensive behavior into something that has a reality outside of whatever people are involved (or involve themselves) in an interaction. But like fetch, it isn't going to happen.