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?

It's not really very easy to create a lot of content without ever using "stereotypes."

The thing is, stereotypes are fundamentally generalizations about groups, and some generalizations are true, statistically speaking.

The idea that popular stereotypes about groups are mostly inaccurate has been studied extensively, and it's pretty much been show to be completely untrue. There is actually a really high correlation between common stereotypes and actual statistical facts about groups.

The problem with stereotypes is assuming they are true of individuals and then treating individual people as if they are just a kind of representation of the abstract image of that group.

What this means for things like tv, or advertising, or literature, is that if you try and subvert the stereotypes every time, chances are it won't ring true to viewers, when you take it in the aggregate. If in every ad the mum is a beast, racing ahead of the dad and kids on her bike, people know it's advertisers playing the game, not a real attempt to make a funny commercial.

And because a lot of stereotypes are true, they also reflect many people's experience, so it's a way to connect. Maybe that ad didn't subvert people's views about mums on bike, but maybe a lot of mums connected with the experience of lagging behind?

A lot of the frustration people have with those who pick at all these things constantly comes from the sense that they are looking at every statement, interaction, and image from the view that it is either upholding, or subverting, some kind of underlying power dynamic that is evil. A lot of the time that just isn't the right lens though, it's irrelevant and inappropriate.

So we come down to it: the greatest sin is to somehow make just regular folks uncomfortable? That can’t be a sincere reflection of an experience or belief that is different from yours—it has to be “waffle” or “virtue signaling?”

There’s not necessarily any power there - but there should be the freedom to point out the issues in an intelligent way. There’s not necessarily any power in calling someone a snowflake either; it’s just silly and exasperating.

Well, yes, plenty of stereotypes are based in a sort of truth. That’s where they came from. But a stereotype is generally reductive is some way. And can be harmful more often than it’s helpful.

It’s not just the same as a statistical likelihood. For example, statistically, most families consist of some configuration of parents + children. Far, far fewer households consist of grandparents + children or aunts/uncles as primary care-givers for the children. So most advertising will work off that. That makes sense. It is not a stereotype as such; it’s just a common sense interpretation of the most common, practical circumstances. The reason people live like this isn’t based in prejudice.

By contrast, women (due to a massive weight of sexism through history of which you can’t be unaware!) are viewed as less. They are sneered at on a class level. Men do wield their physical superiority over them. They are more likely to be the one running round after everyone else on holiday, completely knackered. And these likelihoods are based in that highly prejudiced backstory. This is a stereotype. Based in reality but undesirable because of its reductive connotations.

It doesn’t take a great deal of thought to see that another reminder of that stereotype could be a little tiresome.

I do think one of the things we keep tripping up on is the word "offence". I'm not offended by common stereotypes of women, for example. I just think they aren't helpful. Generations of advertisements have presented women and girls as weaker and sillier and more focussed on their appearance and more domestic than men. And if girls and boys grow up surrounded by that it's going to have some effect on how they see the world. I'm not suggesting the advertisers have malicious intent. But surely it's better to show a more progressive vision whenever possible?

This is the best post on the whole thread. 👏

I think the concept of ‘micro aggressions’ is very dangerous. It encourages a sense of victimhood.

Someone looks at you the wrong way, or you think there’s something sneery in their tone, or they turned away when you were approaching them. Any of those could be completely innocent, or by someone who hadn’t even noticed you. But if you want to find fault, they’re micro aggressions.

Not every stereotype is actively harmful, but stereotypes that reinforce prejudices that are tangible existent in society - those reinforcing misogynistic, racist, homophobic (et al) stereotypes - aren’t appropriate for use in advertising.

In all honesty, I think that is just you misunderstanding micro-aggression as a concept.

@TempestTost "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."

I'm sure some people are. The reverse also applies.

@Ofcourseshecan That's not what a micro aggression is.

What is a microaggression? I’ve read the Wiki explanation but it all seems very ill defined (and quite widely criticised as a concept by people who work in the field - as opposed to by inveterate naysayers).

Is the CP ad a microagression? There seem to be lots of institutions that recognise microaggression towards women.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying I've been hunting for a definition of micro aggression I'm happy with- I think I like Derald Wing Sue's
"brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership. The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned and unaware of the potential impact of their words."

Coincidentally, I heard Richard Osman talking today about how exhausting and belittling it feels to have people comment on his height the whole time, however well intentioned.. The constant reminder of being different, being a minority, and not quite fitting in.

Really curious to know what your agenda is here @LancashireTart
You seem very invested in the idea that people are over-sensitive, as if you just want to defend your right to sort of bulldoze your way through life without considering the feelings of other, potentially disadvantaged, groups. I’m sure it’s not that, but I don’t think you’ve really explained your viewpoint in much detail.

It's also very often quite wrong.

People bring their own feelings to interactions with others, and can often project their own worries or past experiences into a situation. That person who supposedly is commiting a microaggression may well have some totally differernt set of motivations or thoughts or background that has nothing at all to do with what the supposed victim of the exchange thinks.

The reason I know this is because, like most people, I've experienced it hundreds of times, where I interpreted some interaction as being negative towards me, and only realized later it wasn't. In some cases, the other person's thoughts and feelings and intentions were almost the opposite of what I had thought.

Yes, some people may intend some kind of malice, but mostly they don't, and this focus on our own feelings in these things is usually not the best way forward and nine times out of ten is about our own feelings of inadequacy. The tenth time, it's just an asshole, almost always best dismissed.

It also creates a negative focus on what are often pretty normal interaction, that some people may just not like, and it's ultimately very damaging to normal communications. I knew a woman once who moved into a small town, and was upset people kept asking her who her parents were, because it made her feel like she wasn't accepted when she had to say they were from far away. She wanted people to be more accepting by not asking. It didn't seem to occur to her that maybe she should make people with the fact that she was from away, in a small town where most people could trace a connection, and that no one else minded except her.

@TempestTost That's one of the things about micro aggressions. There doesn't have to be any ill intent at all. It's just just things that are said to members of minority groups that act like the drip of water wearing away a stone. No ill intent but just a constant reminder of otherness. As Richard Osman said-nobody's been intending to make him feel different- but each individual forgets that they are one of 20 people who have said "Ooh, aren't you tall!" that day.

Is the Richard O example really a micro aggression? It just sounds like people with poor social skills to me. For example, some people’s names tend to generate predictable comment - like quoting lines from songs that feature the name - and often get an eye-roll and a “I’ve never heard that before” in return. I would just say that’s socially inept, not aggressive.

Of course it’s different to shop staff watching black people in a shop more than white people, or ignoring a woman and only talking to her male partner. Those are outright hostility, bigotry or offensive stupidity.

So not an aggression at all, actually.

"Othering" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Things like this are said to everyone at some point or another in life, tedious small talk, often meant to be light and funny, that you've heard 1000 times before and "reminds" you of something that you know very well which you are bored with or would perhaps rather not talk about or highlight.

Is it the word "aggression" that's the issue? I do agree it's probably not what I would choose, although I can't think of a better one. I do think that it's a real thing though. And "othering" is a real thing too, subtle things that reinforce a sense of not belonging. "You speak such good English!" "Where are you really from?" -that sort of thing.

And yes, I agree it's lack of social skills! But isn't that rather the point?

I really have no agenda whatsoever.

Ironically, it's others who seem to have an agenda to find offence where none exists, the Center Parcs advert being a perfect example of this.

Don't forget, offence isn't given, it's taken, and absolutely nobody has the right to not be offended. It's my view that if someone can find offence in something as innocuous as the CP advert then it's up to them to deal with their own feelings. It's cringey.

Don't forget, offence isn't given, it's taken, and absolutely nobody has the right to not be offended.

But where do you (as in you personally) draw the line?

Do you think it’s ok to shout racial slurs in the street? Presumably not? So you do think there is a point at which people have a responsibility not to give offence? You wouldn’t (presumably) blame the victim of that racial abuse for taking offence?

In which case, your point about taking not giving offence is rather flimsy.

It just comes down to where you draw the line. Which is kind of obvious I guess.

But even if your line is drawn at a very permissive point (i.e. you’re prepared to defend minor misogyny and refuse to call out any micro-aggressions because some people just need to toughen up), it’s still very lame to call people ‘permanently offended’ just because you can’t see their viewpoint/won’t fully explain yours. It’s just very belligerent and leads to conflict rather than understanding.

I draw the line where things actually become offensive, e.g. racial slurs, blatant sexism (e.g. "women belong in the kitchen", "men are useless so and sos", etc.), rather than things that aren't offensive per se.

And could you please explain where I've defended a minor misogyny?

Defending the CP ad is defending minor misogyny in a lot of people’s opinions.

Your points about offence are largely irrelevant as most posters who object to the CP ad are not offended by it, but simply think it is regressive, unhelpful and poor advertising.

You can disagree with that opinion, but calling people “permanently offended” when they aren’t even claiming to be offended by the thing in question isn’t a particularly logical standpoint.