This is an opinion column.

“The French” has fallen out of style. As a columnist, I spent a moment contemplating the Associated Press’ latest style suggestion. Had I drafted the guidance, I probably wouldn’t have sandwiched “the French” between “the mentally ill” and “the disabled.” Our cultural hypersensitivity isn’t based in empathy; it’s performative. We should understand the difference.

In a now-deleted tweet, the Associated Press offered sensitivity guidance to writers around the world. “We recommend avoiding general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college-educated. Instead use wording such as people with illnesses. And use these descriptions only when clearly relevant.”

Other Columns by Cameron Smith:

If that was the shot, the chaser was even better.

“The use of ‘the French’ in this tweet was inappropriate and has caused unintended offense.” wrote @APStylebook. “An updated tweet is upcoming.”

I’ve never been so excited for a writing style clarification in my life.

“We deleted an earlier tweet because of an inappropriate reference to French people. We did not intend to offend,” the AP wrote. “Writing French people, French citizens, etc., is good. But “the” terms for any people can sound dehumanizing and imply a monolith rather than diverse individuals.”

The AP’s attempt at clarification is almost as tragically benighted as the initial missive.

To be clear, “the” followed by any group of people can be highly offensive. So can listing a demographic followed by “people.” By the AP’s own hypersensitive standard, the guidance makes little sense. “The poor” is inappropriate but “poor people” is somehow preferable? If the problem is painting people with a broad brush designed to reflect negative characteristics of the group, the suggested alternative doesn’t cut it either.

Fellow writer Molly Secours attempted to explain the issue to me in a way I might be able to understand. “Like if I said ‘the republicans’ without specifying the ones who aren’t ‘crazy’ as you have identified yourself.”

The sentiment puzzled me. I don’t take offense if someone calls me one of “the Republicans,” “the Christians,” or even “the Smiths.” The only reason I would have to be upset is if I believe that all the negative associations with those labels somehow applied to me individually.

That’s bizarre.

Not all generalizations are offensive. Knowing the difference is part of understanding language itself. “The Americans” has long described people from the United States. Typically it’s the clause that follows that brings the agreement or offense. When I hear “The Smiths,” my ears perk up. I reserve judgment until I hear what follows. Even then, we don’t all perceive words the same way. At least five of the six members of my family think being called “savage” is a compliment. Addressing Christmas cards to “Smith People” instead of “The Smiths” just to be on the safe side is completely unnecessary.

Our culture must escape the “magic words” games currently playing out with language. All of our words beg for context, relationships, and intent. Words can cut like a knife when directed at college-educated people and show genuine care and concern for the poor.

We shouldn’t be mad or outraged that the AP fails to articulate the real issue even if it is a little humorous. Linguistic sensitivity is a wholly inadequate substitute for human connection. All of us should use common sense consistent with high personal integrity as we engage the digital space. Where possible, we should follow up on those digital engagements with real world conversations and maybe a cup of coffee.

When we offend, we should apologize. When we’re offended, we should forgive.

Our technology enables a way of life that thoroughly engages our individuality. We too easily curate a garden of self-affirmation by blocking and censoring anything that offends us. I feel the social paralysis creeping into my mind from time to time. Block, censor, and marginalize is so much easier than engaging and learning.

I can’t imagine a more hellish existence than one where everyone thinks, acts, and believes what I do. In that world, liberty is dead, and I am deeply alone. What do relationships mean if they are nothing more than our own echo?

In that spirit, I’ll tip my hat to the French for developing some of the most critical ideas on self-governance we Americans seem to have forgotten.

Hopefully, Associated Press people will understand.

Smith is a recovering political attorney with four boys, two dogs, a bearded dragon, and an extremely patient wife. He engages media, business, and policy through the Triptych Foundation and Triptych Media. Please direct outrage or agreement to [email protected] or @DCameronSmith on Twitter.