When Shane Gillis joked on Saturday Night Live that women wearing tiny shorts to the gym look like whores, I laughed, perhaps because I, indeed, wear shorts at the gym and I, indeed, seem to have retained my sense of humor. My disposition changed when Gillis complained about men not being allowed to look at said women. I understood the suggestion that women invite attention through their clothing and then unfairly object to it, but the way he phrased it felt uglier than the original joke.
When Dan Levy responded by calling the remarks misogynistic, I virtually stood up and applauded. I was laying in bed, mindlessly scrolling through Instagram, which made the gesture somewhat less impressive.
Both reactions were genuine and, impressively some might say, I was able to hold on to two seemingly opposing truths at once: that women wear shorts at the gym and film TikTok videos of themselves more than they used to, say, a decade ago, and that the way Gillis phrased and continued his joke was inappropriate. Apparently, though, that dual position is becoming a difficult one to occupy in America.
Suddenly, our increasingly peculiar relationship with language, particularly our inability to distinguish between degrees of offense and consequence, was made oh-so apparent. We've become remarkably careless with words while simultaneously treating every word as potentially catastrophic.
Consider Donald Trump's description of political opponents as vermin during his 2024 presidential campaign. The term carries an ugly history of dehumanization, yet Trump's defenders have often treated his most inflammatory language as ordinary political exaggeration. A defense I can understand, except for the problem that words spoken by presidents carry consequences beyond their immediate audience. Language helps establish what becomes acceptable in public life, which may help explain why we live in this kind of extra-sensitive America, where everything, from the language to the reaction, is just extra.
And the problem extends beyond Trump or Republicans. Across American politics, opponents are routinely described in terms that suggest moral depravity rather than disagreement. Every controversy becomes an existential struggle, whether it's about politics or, honestly, something as trivial as a celebrity's outfit or an ill-advised joke. Every foolish remark supposedly reveals something monstrous, yet everyone keeps throwing around increasingly inflammatory language as if words cost nothing.
Social media makes everything worse, both fueling the problem and showcasing exactly what it looks like. On social media, a measured observation rarely travels as far as an outrageous accusation. A careful distinction requires explanation, while an insult needs only a screenshot. In this sort of world, can you really blame Gillis for going crude if his goal is attention? And can you blame Levy for raising the alarm when he sees something genuinely troubling? Once again, two truths at once, although perhaps neither man quite got the proportion right.
Perhaps the best illustration of the absurdity of all this came when former SNL cast member Ego Nwodim responded with a gym selfie and what I took to be a sarcastic caption: "whore reporting for duty."
Her response accomplished something that has become rare: it criticized Gillis without requiring an elaborate declaration of moral emergency. It was pointed, funny (sorry, it was) and proportionate to the joke Gillis made. Cleverness in the face of everyone else shouting.
Back to Gillis. He could have made his observation about revealing gym clothes without calling women whores and he could have joked about the absurdity of filming workouts without suggesting men were being unfairly prevented from staring. Perhaps the joke would even have been funnier (it definitely would have been smarter). But I can still laugh at Gillis, agree with Levy and recognize that neither reaction cancels the other. Gillis could have exercised more restraint in his language, Levy more proportion in his response and the rest of us perhaps a little more judgment in deciding how much weight to give either. Because if we can no longer distinguish a comedian's ugly joke from genuine danger, while still recognizing that careless language has consequences, how can we expect to have a sensible conversation about anything? I suppose that is exactly where we are in America right now.