to be glad that people find more things offensive these days?

[Goldmandra]

This is inspired by a comment on another thread which implied that this is a bad thing.

Isn't it better that jokes about mental health, immigration, rape, etc, are seen as less socially acceptable than they used to be. I think it's a sign that our society is changing in a positive way.

Or is it PC gone mad?

I can articulate perfectly well, when & if required.

My point was more to highlight that this generation of kids are by no means "angels" any more than we were back in the day.

I, like you, can disagree with something without becoming offended. I tend to reserve that for things that I feel matter (and that will vary with each of us)

As somebody said upthread, in a few years time we'll probably be thinking "Oh my God, did we really say that?" about things we're throwing around merrily today.

MaidOfStars is challenging a weakness in the term 'offensive', namely that it doesn't reference any kind of shared understanding of what is generally (universally) seen as objectionable. I absolutely take Hakluyt's point that people may be offended by discriminatory language even when it doesn't impact them directly; after all, objecting to discriminatory language has become part of the general ethical norms of our society. All the more reason, then, that we should be able to challenge discriminatory language without personalising the challenge, but setting it rather in the context of it being generally unacceptable.

Otherwise we are playing along with the notion that there are no general social and moral norms in our society, and that we are all free to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong, in a vacuum. Which is bollocks, even if values do evolve over time, as well as being hugely destructive at a social level because it assumes that we can hold nothing in common with the people around us and therefore that we can all do as we like.

I would develop MaidOfStars' argument to suggest that by using 'offensive' rather than 'generally agreed, in society at large, to be unacceptable for the following reasons' we are colluding with a philosophical stance that allows someone else to argue 'well if you're offended by X then that's just your personal feelings and opinions, why should they take precedence over mine?'. Whereas if you were to say 'X is discriminatory and repugnant and you will be shunned by all decent and civilised people if you say it', where this is in fact true, then they haven't a leg to stand on.

You might say 'most people haven't the brains to take this view and as such will take the shortcut'. Well, fair enough I suppose, but I see that as rather condescending. 'Unacceptable' is just as effective a shortcut as 'offensive' without personalising, and thus weakening, the argument.

Fanjo - I don't see many people arguing for being more offensive. If there's a debate, it looks to me to be more about whether the word 'offensive' is really the best one to use when people are rude, insulting or discriminatory.

Theres always a slightly sneering undercurrent on here against people who are offended I find. From some.

Hopefully this thread is better than that.

However in an ideal world a thread like this would be met with a thousand "Yes of course"s.

I totally agree Fanjo

dawndonna I am a scientist and I too love specifics!
language has evolved and offensive is a useful shorthand for someone who may not have the necessary vocabulary
I think the problem I have with this approach, which I completely acknowledge is used as a shorthand, is that it now, in our oh-so-modern-Stephen-Fry-led discourse, runs the risk of people (including me) being dissatisfied with it and, even worse, going on to ignore anything used as supporting argument. People can switch off when they hear the words "I'm offended".

Freudians I have every sympathy with the struggles your family has faced/still faces and society sickens me sometimes.
to be able to express that they are offended is empowering
I get this and I wouldn't want to take that empowerment away. I guess I just don't feel the premise of "being offended" is a strong enough foundation on which to determine the rules. This mostly covered by....

Manatee Perfectly put.
we are colluding with a philosophical stance that allows someone else to argue 'well if you're offended by X then that's just your personal feelings and opinions, why should they take precedence over mine?

combined with...

Bomchicka It is also a measure of progress that people are not so regularly offended by some things that used to cause offence 50 years ago. Like homosexuality, sex before marriage and working mothers

I feel that if we allow people who claim offence to (attempt to) dictate behaviour, we are sadly, despite Bomchicka's assertion, locked in to a situation where, for example, those who do still claim offence at homosexuality have some kind of equal privilege, and that's not something I want to concede. I feel "safer" arguing against those opinions being counted seriously if I do so from an objective platform. And to reiterate and perhaps extend Manatee's point, it reduces the rules of acceptable behaviour to "what is acceptable at this time", and while society is moving a direction I'm largely happy with, that might not always be the case. I want to be able to object a priori (almost certain I've used that phrase incorrectly...).

You have not answered my point Maid.

I think people shouldn't "switch off" if people use word "offended".

I find people who use it on here usually mean "I am deeply hurt by this deprecating reference to me or a loved one".

To "switch off" therefore seems to me to display an extreme lack of empathy.

It doesn't take an extreme effort of brainpower to analyse the reasons for someone being offended before you dismiss them.

Anyway sorry but I think its a bit self indulgently intellectual to have a huge debate about the concept of offence when really the imoortant thing is people's feelings.

settingsitting Apologies, I thought I had but perhaps I've missed something else.

In regard to the premise that effective articulation of feelings is beyond the scope of your "average Joe", I concur with the previous opinions that this is patronising (Fanjo) and condescending (Manatee).

Again, sorry if I have missed something else. In that case, would you be so kind as to repeat for me?

There are many people on Tumblr who would call out the OP for using the word 'mad' as it is considered offensive and ableist by many.

I don't hear many people actually walking around saying they are offended.

I would rather the person saying the thing in question was told that what they were saying was morally wrong or hateful.

The person whose behaviour and reactions are being judged is the person who said it.

Fanjo
I think people shouldn't "switch off" if people use word "offended"
I agree. But some do, those who don't consider the assertion of a personal feeling as a valid basis for formal debate.

And I'll wager than many more people "switch off" and dismiss outright when the issue under scrutiny is not remotely offensive to them personally, or is contrary to what is deemed acceptable in modern society. For example, I mentally dismiss it when someone claims that two men kissing in public is offensive to them. Fuck 'em. If there is an opportunity to engage further on the issue - perhaps they proffer a reason as to why they find it "offensive" - I will engage. But I'm not going to deeply analyse their reasons for saying it without such explanation. Nor do I feel my empathic ability is under question if I do switch off in such situations.

People can be claim to be offended for all kinds of stuff, and sometimes I understand that there is genuine pain and hurt, and sometimes I think it's bollocks.

But that's now going around in circles, because I'm applying my own subjective feelings to how I view their "offence". And so it spirals. If someone at the receiving end of racial abuse claims to be "offended", and someone spying two men snogging claims to be "offended", how can you begin to work out how to proceed without resorting to your own personal feelings on the subjects at hand?

I think its a bit self indulgently intellectual to have a huge debate about the concept of offence
Ah. missed this. I won't hold my breath for a response then

Well those who don't consider a personal feeling as a basis for debate are seriously lacking in empathy IMO.

Even if that personal feeling is itself offensive to some, like disliking gays, it can still be debated and indeed should be.

Am not debating the woolly concept of offence.

Am talking about people's feelings.

No offence meant maid.

But I feel people being hurt by words is far more important than a good rigorous intellectual exercise.

And dont switch off because I said "no offence. meant"

FFS. God forbid we have an intellectual discussion rather than talk about a wedding invitation or the contents of a child's lunchbox.

There are three thousand other non-intellectual threads if it bothers you so much

---------------->

Well I am on this thread and telling you my opinion on the subject. Which is allowed, dear.

And personally this subject has far more meaning to me..and others..than talk of lunchboxes.

I mean what a lame argument.

Anyway sorry but I think its a bit self indulgently intellectual to have a huge debate about the concept of offence when really the imoortant thing is people's feelings.

Yes, but the trouble with that is hurting people's feelings isn't necessarily a good enough reason not to do or say something. For example lots of people were genuinely, authentically, upset and offended by the recent passing of a law legalising gay marriage. Their feelings and offendedness were not considered a good enough reason to prevent the law being passed. Why? Because it is right and just that same-sex couples can marry on the same terms as opposite-sex couples - and that rightness and justice is about more than just individuals' feelings. Otherwise who is supposed to adjudicate between the offendedness of people who think homosexuality is revolting, and the offendedness of people who think such bigotry is revolting? They are all offended, and they all have strong feelings about it.

If you have no recourse to a moral framework beyond people's feelings, all of morality is reduced to a kind of competition to prove that you are more offended or otherwise injured in your feelings or person, than they are and therefore your wishes should take precedence.

It isn't about being lacking in empathy. It is about putting the focus on the behaviour of the person saying the thing rather than on the person it has been said to. Because the person who said it is the one whose behaviour may or may not need to change.

Well then dont switch off if people say they are offended but merely formulate a response based on whether their offence is justified and hurts no other is how I prefer to live. Not switch off automatically. ??