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?

Would "Permanently finding things unhelpful" be better?

It would be slightly more accurate, but it’s still a really lazy way to engage with a discussion.

Fundamentally, blaming the individual for their argument, rather than engaging with the content of the argument itself, is a logical fallacy.

"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."

Then that goes precisely back to my point about people seeing offence that isn't there. Because there simply isn't and anyone who claims there is is simply wrong and I would question their mindset.

@LancashireTart

I draw the line where things actually become offensive

But that’s entirely a matter of opinion and will vary hugely depending on perspective. What a silly thing to say.

Bollocks. You sound like a prejudiced person who can't take a challenge

If you see an ad with gratuitous and pointless use of a woman’s body - say, an ad for car spares prominently featuring a woman in a bikini - would you say it offended you? If you did I would agree with you and say it was offensive.

So why is ‘offence’ not the right word to use for those objecting to the CP ad?

The reason I would be offended by the first example but not the CP ad is that I don’t interpret the CP ad as you do. I don’t read a socially undesirable message into it, whereas I would with the car spares ad.

I can see that there can be mild or grave offence, and narrow or widespread offence. But I don’t see how the emotion behind the criticism isn’t one of offence.

If something’s said to be wrong and objectionable I think the right word for the reaction is ‘offence’.

I suspect that people shy away from the word because it conjures up images of angry prudes complaining about Channel 4 programmes. But I’m happy to own it if I object to some message or portrayal for whatever reason.

Fundamentally, blaming the individual for their argument, rather than engaging with the content of the argument itself, is a logical fallacy.

Is it though? If someone found almost everything offensive (or unhelpful) then that would be relevant in deciding whether their claim that X was offensive was reasonable or not wouldn't it? It doesn't address the substance of their claim, but I'd say it affects its credibility.

"I don't like that shade of red on the wall, can you repaint it?"
"That's green and you know you're colour-blind."
"Logical Fallacy!"

How is it silly? Society knows what is considered offensive (racism, sexism, for example). It's obvious from this thread alone that there are people who try to find offence where there isn't any. Whether they do that subconsciously or not I don't know, but I do know that it isn't healthy.

Of course people have rights not to be subject to things that cause them to be offended, many of which are rights protected in law, such as those covering anti social behaviour, public decency, hate speech etc. Not to mention the various policies adopted by workplaces, public services and so on that set behavioural standards with the express purpose of protecting one's right not be subjected to offensive behaviour.

The reason I would be offended by the first example but not the CP ad is that I don’t interpret the CP ad as you do. I don’t read a socially undesirable message into it, whereas I would with the car spares ad

So you have a right to be offended by advertising you don’t like, but others don’t have a right to be offended by different ads?

No, I wouldn’t be offended by the ad you describe. I’d think it was in very poor form, but “offence” is an emotional response, and that isn’t what it would provoke for me. I’m not emotionally moved by poor advertising, I just think people should do their jobs better.

The spurious colourblind argument isn’t accurate: there is an empiric truth about the wavelengths of light involved. The interpretation of the colourblind individual is fine - they can not like it, even if they aren’t seeing it accurately - but correcting the colour is not an ad hominem argument. And that’s the relevant substance of the argument, not that they are personally colour blind.

@LancashireTart "It's obvious from this thread alone that there are people who try to find offence where there isn't any."

I disagree. (Well, I would, wouldn't I?) I think that we need to distinguish between "offensive", which the CP advertisement isn't, and mildly misogynist, which it is. Anything which perpetuates a stereotype of women as weak or incompetent or figures of fun is at least mildly misogynist and just better not part of our discourse. There are plenty of other narratives to use.

I’ve never said people don’t have a right to be offended by an ad or anything else. I’m not religious but I can easily understand why those who are religious get offended by jokes or slights about their faith, for example.

People equally do have a right to say that offence expressed is because of over-sensitivity, or its cause completely eludes them.

The point I made was that you can’t duck out of whether you’re properly described as being offended by the CP as simply by moving the goalposts on what the word means.

The colour example was not mine. And I don’t understand it.

My point is that if you are offended by the car spares ad, and someone else is not, but is offended by the CP ad - what gives you the right to call them over-sensitive, but not the reverse? Why is your definition of what’s offensive the only correct one? Or are you happy to be called permanently offended, or over-sensitive, for your views on the hypothetical car spares ad?

There is a huge difference between saying “I don’t believe there is anything offensive in that advert” and “you’re one of the permanently offended”. The former is a valid expression of your opinion. The latter is a lazy dismissal of the other person’s opinion.

I’m not moving any goal posts 🙄 You don’t get to project offence onto me - that’s batshit. I’m not offended by it - it is entirely possible to think something is a bit rubbish without being offended by it.

If your definition of offence is that broad (and inaccurate), I’m not surprised you think a lot of people are permanently offended.

You've just proved my point, entirely.

The CP advert isn't remotely misogynistic. You have literally taken a completely innocent, innocuous comment from an obviously excited child and twisted it to suit your mindset.

I’m not projecting offence on to you. I’m saying that’s what the word means. Whether you reject the word for what you feel is your business. It’s still offence.

You don’t object to the CP ad because it’s ugly or clutters up your screen. You object to the message you say it conveys and its effect.

I really don’t get this ‘what gives you the right?’ stuff. Does everyone have to accept the opinions and motives of others? Is everyone required to accept expressions of offence however vehemently expressed, however contrived or however persistent?

The issue ultimately is how many people take your side. I bet more would be offended by the hypothetical car spares ad than the CP ad, for lots of reasons.

As to “permanently offended”, I said upthread - more than once - that I dislike ‘snowflake’ and the like.

If you read back, my point was the, IMO, unjustified outrage at the ad on the original thread, for which the OP said CP should be “ashamed”. Yes, I’ll happily say that’s oversensitivity.

It really isn’t what the word means. Offence is an emotional response, by definition. You don’t get to decide if I’m having an emotional response to an advert or not - only I can judge that.

You seem very keen to tell people they feel, or how they should feel, about things.

You say I am over-sensitive, because I am “offended” by an advert (which I am not), because you do not seem able, in this context, to conceive that it is possible to have a different opinion to you, without it being a personal fault.

I don’t think you’re wrong to be offended by the hypothetical car spares advert, or not by the CP advert - even though I disagree with your interpretations or the importance you place on different aspects of each advert.

I do think you are wrong to tell other people they are “over-sensitive” for having different opinions to you.

I don’t disagree about the emotional basis of offence. But offence is expressed (when it’s expressed) in words and actions. That’s how observers know when people are offended.

If someone wrote to CP and said “I object to your ad because the mum is depicted as physically inferior”, CP could quite reasonably write back saying “We do regret the offence you felt at the ad, but…”

Anyway, I’ll leave it there.

Is there a risk that, when claiming something is offensive that relatively few people see a problem with (such as the CP ad) you undermine efforts to tackle things that more people found offensive/unhelpful (e.g. the bikini car ad).

Is there a "crying wolf" effect here?

So people who could have been persuaded that the bikini car ads were an issue dismiss your argument because your credibility is diminished by also believing that many seemingly innocuous things are also a problem.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying The colour example was not mine. And I don’t understand it.

That was mine, I just meant if someone thought all colours were red, you wouldn't trust their opinion on colour, and if someone thought almost everything was offensive you wouldn't trust their opinion on what was offensive.

@LancashireTart

Society knows what is considered offensive (racism, sexism, for example). It's obvious from this thread alone that there are people who try to find offence where there isn't any.

You are joking? You think there’s an accepted canon of stuff that objectively Is Offensive ?? And does this pre-approved body of material mysteriously coincide with what you personally find offensive? Wow! What a fascinating coincidence! 😂

I can sort of see your logic here but, no, I don’t believe that’s how it goes.

Zero tolerance gets results.

If I’m a teacher and I object to low-level distraction in class, although it’s only someone whispering to the next person about the work in hand, is my credibility damaged when I try to correct the big stuff, like swearing and fighting? No. It’s the opposite.

@BernardBlacksBreakfastWine
OK, but I would have said the analogy would be more like - if you're a teacher who is known to say "stop yelling" every time someone whispers in class, then when you tell a colleague that you gave a kid detention for shouting, they may not believe or support you.

I do see the sense in your analogy too however.

I'll tell you what, you carry on with your offended life and looking for oppression in everything but please keep your negativity to yourself, you're depressing the rest of us.

It's like debating with a flat Earther.

It’s interesting that you throw a little wobbly when people reveal the absurdity of your position.

I’m intrigued by the way you refer to the rest of us too, as if anyone else in the thread has been as intractable and unresponsive to actual arguments as you! Others have certainly disagreed with me, but they’ve tended to use reason…

"The absurdity of your position."

The fact that you regard my opinion as absurd says more about you than anything else and only serves to confirm what I've been saying all along.

And, by the way, I've given my reasoning further up the thread.

Anyway, I really am getting bored now. No offence!

Please try to enjoy life more, wasting so much of your energy looking for offence in everything every day is futile. 😘