To hate 'offence fishing'

[Squidgee]

You know, when someone wrote an innocent post and another person comes along and finds something offensive and gets all 'my uncles cousins best friends dog had that happen, how very dare you!'

OR

Says something like (and I've seen this happen on fb) am I right to be annoyed that my brother won't take his MH meds?' and someone comes along with 'what have you got against people with MH issues, how dare you, so many people have MH issues and you're just a prejudiced cunt who doesn't believe in mental illness'

or announces the thread needs a trigger warning because 'some people don't want to read that' when its something trivial.

Its unnecessary, it derails a thread and it makes you look like a complete and utter idiot.

For the lover of god, stop it.

I was on the “paddy” thread and certainly agree that on a common sense basis it’s a term to avoid.

But what also came up was offence at “beyond the pale”. That really doesn’t have any connection with it’s supposedly offensive origins and it’s plain wrong to insist that people don’t use it. This sort of bogus folk etymology is a curse because it attacks language and means of expression.

It’s this sort of ‘offence’ that I object to. Generally, we all have to put up with some offence and discomfort in life. It’s wrong to try and control others because any offence might be felt.

Having said that, we all know what real offence and insult is and people should exercise courtesy and pick their words with care.

So what you think is a comment without offence could genuinely be offensive to others

Well so what? They can express their disapproval then, and explain it; and maybe the first poster will retract it/ apologize/ become educated on the matter etc. Or maybe not.

What grinds my gears is tick box offence, e.g. "that word used to be used to describe blah blah in the 19th century, therefore it's offensive" and other such therefores, like there's an approved system of determining offence, rather than it being a personal feeling.

Yesterday I saw a thread where a poster said there should be a trigger warning in the title... because there was an indistinct picture of insect larvae in the OP .
A trigger warning!

Well so what? They can express their disapproval then, and explain it;

Agree. But OP objects to this.

Fair enough AWoman , but there's often an implicit or explicit requirement that as soon as someone is offended, the offender has to apologize, retract the comment or asked MN to withdraw it.
Sod that.
People don't have to pander to others as soon as they play the offence card.

Depends what it is. Mosquito larvae? I very much doubt that is offensive to anyone. Doesn’t require a trigger warning. (Did HQ add a trigger warning??) offensive phrase about an entire nation of people? Yeah, tone that down.

Paddy does have something to do with Irish people in that it came about referencing the stereotypical so-called Irish tendency toward being uncontrollably hot-tempered.

Throwing a paddy = behaving like a bad-tempered Irishman.

It's offensive because it perpetuates perjorative and harmful racial stereotypes. Is that clear enough for you NotAsGreen?

And Irish people can call themselves and each other Paddy in the same way black people can call themselves the n word, and gay men can call themselves the f word - it's theirs to reclaim and use as they wish. The only thing non-Irish/white/straight people lose by not using those words is the power to hurt or offend someone else.

It shouldn't be this bloody difficult to get it through your skull in 2018, it really shouldn't. There are no excuses.

YANBU - certain types of people live to be offended on behalf of others

How hilarious, the very thing the OP was decrying has taken place on this thread .

In the last day or so someone said that correcting spelling was "potentially disablist". I do worry for the future of the world. It's a race to the bottom.

Can I say that, as someone who experienced gun violence, I find trigger warnings triggering?

ElementalHalfLife

I agree with you about the use of ‘paddy’. That one’s clear enough.

But what if a person expresses offence at language on a misunderstanding or on a false basis, like the ‘beyond the pale’ example?

I’m not saying they’re not offended, even if the offence arises for no good reason. But I am saying they’ve no right to tell others to drop words and phrases because they’ve been told a load of bunk about word origins.

certain types of people live to be offended on behalf of others

And certain types just love getting a little kick out of knowing they’re offending.

“Paddy” is short for Padraig: there’s nothing to reclaim. It’s like calling a Welshman Dai or a Scottish man Jock. Or, indeed, an English man John or Johnny.

Plimmy When there's a clear misinterpretation or ignorance of the origin of certain words and phrases then, once having explained the actual historical provenance and meaning, if the offended party refuses to accept it - too bad, we have no further obligation to appease them further. But there are some words and phrases that people use where there is no doubt about the provenance and meaning yet they still refuse to accept they are offensive and why.

And I also agree with the OP in that some people do enjoy derailing and wrong-footing other posters who come on to have a little bitch about their mum/kids/state of their house on the basis they/someone they know has lost their mother/can't have children/is homeless therefore we should be grateful just to have a mother (no matter how toxic) or a child (no matter how much they're being difficult) place to live (no matter how much of a falling down shack it is).

Paddy” is short for Padraig: there’s nothing to reclaim.

Irish people are still referred to as “paddy” by some people in England. Simply because they are Irish.

It’s like calling a Welshman Dai or a Scottish man Jock. Or, indeed, an English man John or Johnny.

Which surely you have the sense not to do? are you really saying you refer to Scottish people as “jock”?

Elemental

We violently agree! I do find attempts to justify the use of words which have obviously become offensive - or even that are strongly insensitive - embarrassing and wrong. And if there’s good reason to let someone know that their (let’s assume) innocent use of a term is offensive, there’s no objection from me.

But I increasingly despair at attempts to control language without any proper reason behind the objection. In those cases it’s usually motivated by a desire to control the terms of discussion; it’s a way of gagging. We really should be careful about neutering language and the right to speak, I think.

This happens a lot in one particular area of debate - but I’m not going there!

Plimmy We violently agree!

I knew there was a reason I like you.

And I think I know the area you mean but I won't go there either - except to read (while sitting on my hands) because even the thought of negotiating that kind of semantic minefield is exhausting.