Inoffensive. One of the explicit Golang design criteria, as espoused by Rob Pike, was to be usable by "Googlers, fresh out of school, who probably learned some Java/C/C++/Python". The language would presumably look very different if it had been designed for more powerful users.

Rob Pike wasn't talking about how smart the programmers are, though. He was talking about how knowledgeable and/or experienced they are.

They trade off against each other. A language designed for people who can compose primitives, for example, can be used well either by people who have seen all the combinations of primitives before, or by people who can quickly grasp the implications of a new primitive with respect to the others.

Look at it the other way: is Scratch appropriate for adults? Does it only exist because of children? I would say yes.

In a hypothetical world of super-geniuses, existing programming languages would be the new Scratch and adults would use something more advanced.

I don't think it's offensive to consider programming paradigms that would be too difficult for most people to ever wrap their heads around.