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?

Anyway I said my piece. I am really not up to getting a roasting today so will be off. I don't think badly of anyone here and was just giving opinion.

I think that being offended on behalf of other people is patronising. Don't be offended, get angry and do something to make change happen. Being offended is a rather self-indulgent emotion which is often used to trump how other people are feeling. Being angry is much more dynamic and can be an engine for change.

I think usually people mean angry or hurt when they say offended, personally.

Later all.

Being angry is a form of being offended.

It's another reason why offended is such a pointless term.

A word that can mean angry or hurt or upset or all three at the same time is not actually useful in knowing how to respond.

Being offended is a state of mind, an attitude.

For example:- 2 people stuck in a traffic jam on the way to a meeting. Both have phoned ahead a warning.

The first is stressed by it, they can do nothing about it, feel trapped and that time is being wasted.

The other appreciates they can't change the situation so puts on some great music and sings along.

The point is is that the situation is the same but one is bound up in stress and anger that poisons themself and doesn't have any affect on the issue, may even make it worse as stress and anger doesn't make for rational thinking when they do finally arrive. The other is calm, actually enjoyed the situation and was in a great frame of mind to make rational decisions regarding the fall out of being late.

Being offended is the same. It changes nothing and doesn't make you better able to improve the situation.

I don't get offended by the things that affect me but that so many other choose to be offended on my behalf about!

As I said earlier, being offended is something that people are more often accused of being than actually are.

If you can choose to not be offended then you arent. Its not something you choose.

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).

Whether it is or not[dont mean it to be], that still doesnt deal with the issue.

What you talk about only really applies to 10% of the population.
What about the other 90%?

As a scientist, I dont think it is wise for you to just look at a tiny picture and ignore the biggest one.

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

Quite agree.

Don't be offended, get angry and do something to make change happen.

What are you doing? And about what?

If you can choose to not be offended then you arent. Its not something you choose

Disagree.

You cannot (usually) choose whether something inspires anger, or sadness, or hurt, or a sense of unfairness, at least in the immediate aftermath. You can choose to process those feelings into "being offended". "Being offended" is not, in my opinion, an emotion, it is a philosophical or political position and one which explains very little

Being offended is the same. It changes nothing and doesn't make you better able to improve the situation.

Possibly. Will have a think about that.

But on a forum, posting about it is doing something sometimes.

If you can choose to not be offended then you arent. Its not something you choose

I disagree too.
Sometimes it has a lot more to do with self control.

settingsitting What you talk about only really applies to 10% of the population. What about the other 90%?

Are you saying that you think only one in ten people would respond to, say, a racial pejorative with "That's unacceptable to the vast majority of the population and makes you look like a bigoted twat" (or similar), while the remaining nine out of ten would only be able to manage "That's offensive"?

Stephen Fry did that famous speech about being "offended", didn't he? About how he doesn't give a stuff if someone is offended and it shouldn't change people's behaviour? I thought that was a little naive of him. If someone called him a "fucking queer" or similar homophobic insult, he'd have every right to be offended by it, after all, and I'd expect he would be. Different people having different levels of offended-ness.

It's cultural, too - e.g. in some parts of France, it will cause far more raised eyebrows if you say "nom de Dieu" (in the name of God) than if you say "putain de merde" or something similar.

Well..for example.

This happened.

I am at work. I have child with a severe learning disability.

Colleague in next room starts laughing about the "undateables" and calling it hilarious entertainment to laugh at the participants. And saying she looks "special" in her work shoes.

Oh I was definitely offended. It was a feeling and not a political or philosophical stance. And I couldn't switch it off.

Something like that MaidOfStars.
I find that intellectual people have a more positive expectation of others' intellect than is actually the case.

Even mumsnet is quite distorted to rl in this respect.

It is the same with anger. People feel anger. People can say quiet calmly that they feel angry. Acting in an angry manner is a matter of self control.

I am not responsible for somebody else's angry behaviour. I am responsible for treating people fairly.

About how he doesn't give a stuff if someone is offended and it shouldn't change people's behaviour?

I've typically taken this to mean that he doesn't feel the premise of "being offended" is sufficient to dictate a change in people's behaviour. You need more solid reasons to argue for change.

However, I have more recently read the opinion that actually, he was indeed very naive and was arguing for privilege in some contexts, and the right to divvy out deliberately provocative shit in others.

"Something like that MaidOfStars.
I find that intellectual people have a more positive expectation of others' intellect than is actually the case."

I categorically do not have a low intellect.

Despite ability to feel offence.

I find it remarkably insulting to imply that the oi polloi of MN just can't understand maid because they don't understand her.

It is possible to disagree with someone while understanding then perfectly.

I sincerely hope that none of my comments here have been processed as an insult to the intellectuality of others .

Maid. You haven't said that but others have said that several times.

What happens in a situation where someone is 'offended' because you are piercing your child's ears/circumcising your son and you are 'offended' by their criticism of your religious/cultural beliefs. How does either of you saying that you are 'offended' further the discussion and whose feelings are more important? I think most people choose to ignore when some else is offended if they feel that their opinion is correct. So, if saying that you are 'offended' won't necessarily stop someone from expressing their opinion then surely it isn't a good enough word?