To be exasperated with posters who refer to ‘the terminally offended’?

[BernardBlacksBreakfastWine]

Been lurking on a couple of threads recently and I just get so frustrated by posters who use these phrases:

”People are offended by EVERYTHING these days.”

”Snowflake”

”The terminally/permanently offended”

etc

It’s just so empty and pointless; you could equally have used these phrases against, say, people objecting to page three photos a few years ago (and, to be fair, some of these posters probably did).

People get so angry when prejudice is pointed out to them. You just know they’re aching to say “This is political correctness gone mad!” but they at least know that’s been discredited, so they pull out one of those other meaningless catchphrases.

AIBU to wish that people could actually articulate a reason that people shouldn’t be offended by insidious prejudice rather than just slinging pointless insults?

I’m not sure that’s true of any advertising - or any language or any image!

Very few words, phrases, pieces of art are completely ‘neutral’; everything we create contains shades of our feelings, beliefs, culture and prejudices.

That’s not to say every creation is worth getting upset over of course!

But it’s equally foolish to imagine that every advert is pure and untainted by prejudice. Indeed, the power of the advert often lies in that prejudice.

Oh, no. That’s not on.

And not by me.

The search for meaning (within words and images) is indeed an important philosophical discipline. But it runs into the sand when the subject matter is a single, online Center Parcs ad.

Analysing the works of Dickens is one thing. Parsing a picture of a family cycling through Elveden or wherever with a few words of innocuous text added on, is quite another.

"But it’s equally foolish to imagine that every advert is pure and untainted by prejudice. Indeed, the power of the advert often lies in that prejudice."

I agree with that, but it certainly isn't applicable to the CP advert.

See: this is simply “futility” dressed up as principle.

You are simply asserting that there is high culture (worth studying) and low (not worth studying) but of course Dickens, for all his popularity, was once considered low culture and not taught or considered worthy of teaching. I’m 63–the study of popular culture, advertising, ephemera and the ephemeral in culture has been ongoing for my entire adult life. The field began way back in the 1930’s at least with Walter Benjamin if we don’t date it to Montaigne’s essays in the 1500’s. So lets not be so sniffy about people reading in to a CP ad as though its absurd.

I fundamentally disagree with you - a CP advert has more potential for relevance to modern society than the works of Dickens - and I say that as someone who has spent a fucktonne of my life interpreting Shakespeare, and defending the teaching of historic literature.

Just because something is modern, trivial, and low brow does not mean that it isn’t worthy of analysis, or significant in what it can tell us about society, values, prejudices and the general zeitgeist.

@FourLeggedBuckers
Sometimes this place reminds me how little my world view overlaps with some other people. The search for meaning is an integral part of life and humanity - for me, at least.

But not every bit of meaning you infer from a work is an accurate reflection of its creator's intentions or views.

I could say that in the above sentence "my world view" implies that you see the world as yours and only you may view it, and "humanity - for me" means that you see yourself as the only real human and no one else matters -which would be incredibly offensive and selfish views.

And obviously you wouldn't be able to tell me I was reading too much into it or leaping to the wrong conclusions because that would be to dismiss the search for meaning that was an integral part of my life.

Most of the academic work done on the analysis of advertising and much popular culture is pointless rubbish. So many turgid theses, so little insight or purpose.

Film studies - in some respects at least - is worthwhile. But then films can be substantial, complex and thoughtful productions that examine many issues in ways unique to the medium. Shake ‘n Vac ads or ABBA songs not so much.

It’s not sniffy to take that view. It’s common sense.

The intention of the author is only one way to evaluate a piece of art or cultural artifact.

And not the most interesting one. But the assumption that we have to accept the good intentions of the artist or actor underlies a lot of the conflict at mumsnet over whether something is “really” racist or harmful. MN often assert that good intentions, or ignorance, give people or art a pass. While the rest of us are not so sure.

Like @FourLeggedBuckers , I have spent many, many years interpreting literature including Shakespeare and other ‘high-brow’ texts. But I still believe quite deeply that you can analyse even tiny fragments of language and find meanings of all kinds. Analysing the conversation between teenagers yields all sorts of information about views, prejudices etc even when they’re being fairly taciturn!

You’re entitled to interpret my comments in any way you choose. It doesn’t change what I meant, just because you’ve projected a different meaning onto it. That meaning is fascinating, because of what it says about you - and possibly about wider sections of society as a result.

That’s why there is no subject too low brow or insignificant for analysis - every half-arsed advert, and every half-arsed interpretation of it says something about the creator (of both advert and interpretation).

I'm guessing you don't recall Nick Kamen taking his 501s off in the launderette?

Eh?

I do remember it well. I’m not sure of the relevance though.

Did I overlook the Center Parcs dad stripping down to his undercrackers in the Parc Market?

You said that adverts have little to no impact and I was reflecting on that, and that ad sprang to mind. The impact of that was game changing both for jeans and underwear (or perhaps that was Eddie Kidd...?)

Got it. There are some memorable ads and some success stories. I don’t know whether the Gold Blend couple helped sales, for example, but the campaign was good entertainment. Same for the Cointreau flirters. And the Milk Tray Man (what a shit product that was).

The vast, vast majority of ads (bearing in mind that most aren’t TV ads and that the days of mass audiences are long gone anyway) are just ephemeral and instantly forgotten though.

But to say they are ephemeral and “instantly forgotten” though perhaps true is not the whole truth. Ad campaigns can reinforce social shibboleths or break them. Not an ad campaign but famously actors smoking or not smoking or wearing hats or not wearing hats in films has had enormous influence on popular culture and the purchase of those items.

The interesting thing is that you insist on spending tons of time arguing a fairly petty point (advertising is not a proper focus of concern or study) which is trivially false. It has been the focus of study, and remains an area of political and social contestation. Who gets to advertise and what they show is of enormous social import: cigarette ads, abortion add, ads for prostitution? Do you ever ask yourself why you take for granted the artificial and market/state constructed advertising space? Your determined ignorance is not proof that you see the world clearly but rather that you prefer a passive stance.

Without wishing to be discourteous, that is some right high octane waffle.

Well it’s nice to know that reasoned and respectful debate is alive and well on the internet, eh?!

TBH I thought my (accurate) response was less ill tempered than what was said to me.

Yet again, I really can’t agree with you on that. Not on any part.

OK.

@FourLeggedBuckers what seems unjust to me in your way of looking at things, is that all the power is in the hands of offence finder. If you perceive sexism/racism in an advert for example, then that is part of some noble search for meaning, whereas the people who don't see prejudice in the same product are incurious at best and bigoted at worst.
It doesn't matter to you if the creator intended the negative meaning or holds that prejudice.
It doesn't matter if most people don't see the prejudice, or need it explained to them. (E.g. many didn't know "unfit mum" was a stereotype)
It just has the air of a witch hunt about it to me.
And I accept and appreciate your goal is to combat prejudice, but is there nothing to be said of thinking the best of people and assuming good intentions until proven otherwise?

How people wish to express themselves is part of the person they are, a core part of their expression of identity - it is always inappropriate to offer feedback or critique unless you are personally asked by them for that feedback.

The same applies where a meaning is being assigned to a statement believing there is a malicious intent - trying to find any hidden meaning or not viewing any statement in a natural way is not taking offence, but looking for and assigning a belief without asking the originator first is divisive.

People who feel they need to comment on how someone expresses themselves as you point out are rarely offended, but they are acting inappropriately and do deserve a label of trying to change other’s behaviour and values to match their own - “constantly preaching” is probably a better term.

Offence can never be given, it is purely a response by the one who is offended. It is possible to take never take offence, but rather just disagree if the conversation is an exchange of views. Irrespective of what is said, the offended are putting themselves in that state - its is solely a problem they alone have created. In essence, taking offence is always an unnecessary reaction that is being expressed, and the similarity is that those accused of being permanently in this state seem to have a lot of unnecessary and inappropriate reactions to others reasonable views and language.

If you find yourself thinking about someone else language or underlying meaning more than once or twice a year it is very likely the pejorative terms mentioned, despite not being accurate do apply to you and you should stop interfering with others self expression, assigning your own meaning to their choice of words and just concentrate on your own communication.

I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion from my standpoint at all.

I didn’t actually say that the intent of the creator is irrelevant- I said that the meaning inferred is also valuable - or relevant - even if it wasn’t what was intended. I stand by that - a reasonable human might say something with good intent and be met with offence taken from it by others. A reasonable human responds to that by questioning whether those offended have a point (or not), and considering whether to change how they express themselves going forward. A reasonable human does not respond with “woke snowflakes everywhere, permanently offended 🙄” - because that’s putting their own ego above the opinions and feelings of others.

As for whether the feeling of offence is widespread or not - I’ve explicitly stated in previous posts that it’s relevant whether it’s individual offence or significant minority offence or majority offence. You’re projecting your own interpretation onto my viewpoint here.

Assuming good intentions until proven otherwise is reasonable when you aren’t dealing with a society in which systemic prejudice exists. To even suggest that is, in my opinion, to deny the existence of that systemic prejudice, and that is a concerning starting moral point.

I'm happy to analyze people. And what I conclude is that some people are stupid in their analysis and also some are in fact virtue signalling, terminally offended, people.