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 think you need to go away and reflect in private and re-think, because becoming exasperated and being so het up about something you can’t and never will change, and something that actually doesn’t need to affect you at all, shows something lacking in your own life.

@ThePunchBowl "I think you need to go away and reflect in private and re-think, because becoming exasperated and being so het up about something you can’t and never will change, and something that actually doesn’t need to affect you at all, shows something lacking in your own life."

Wow. In the first place, I haven't actually seen anyone being het up. In the second place, things really won't change if nobody ever does anything about it-and there are things that need to change.

Okey dokey.

@ThePunchBowl
Things do change though, don’t they? Even attitudes like yours…

If they didn’t, we’d still have things like the slave trade and no votes for women.

FWIW, you come across exactly as a couple of PP have now pointed out. I found you so obnoxious I stopped interacting with you pages ago.

If this is not your intention, then it might be helpful to know that you are coming across like this, because if you are actually interested in intelligent debate, you are doing yourself a real disservice.

You come across like you are looking for any tiny ridiculous thing to clutch to, in order to make what you feel is a terribly clever point. I find it very hard to believe you are not doing this deliberately, it would take quite a spectacular level of lacking in self awareness to not know exactly what you're doing here. Hence someone else telling you "you're not looking for a debate, you're looking to be an arse."

I dislike the language of ‘snowflake’ etc, but it does really only express a view that, in one case or another, the complainer is over-sensitive. Whether one agrees that the reaction is unnecessary or got up is the issue.

The difficulty with an uncritical approach to complaint and objection is that it allows complaint for collateral purpose. The best example I can think of is the hounding of GC academics and others.

The Center Parcs thread was an interesting example too. The objectors seemed to give no thought to the lack of any realistic bad effect of the ad. It was just the meaning they derived from it that bothered them.

As to the existence or otherwise of offence…of course complainants are offended. If you object to an ad, a phrase, conduct, a policy etc, on general social grounds, then it offends you. The idea of some lofty intellectual detachment is nonsense.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

The Center Parcs thread was an interesting example too. The objectors seemed to give no thought to the lack of any realistic bad effect of the ad. It was just the meaning they derived from it that bothered them.

This is interesting to me because that was one of the key threads I was lurking on that made me think about this.

The ‘objectors’, on the contrary, seemed to give a great deal of thought to the whole thing! That’s part of the point. Those saying blithely “Oh, it doesn’t mean anything, stop being a snowflake” are surely the ones not thinking it through? Not thinking ‘hmmm, I’ve a feeling there’s a bit of a history of women being bottom of the pile, so maybe it’s not super helpful to put mum in the role that could be perceived as slow and boring in an ad intended to depict typical family life.’

And it certainly doesn’t mean those objecting are ‘offended’. I can totally see the logic of those arguing that it could be perceived as slightly sexist, but that little bit of micro-sexism doesn’t hurt my feelings on any personal level. It’s just part of a bigger picture. Some people are literally incapable of seeing the bigger picture though.

This is unnecessary. No need for personal attacks.

The title of the CP thread was AIBU…To think Center Parcs should be ashamed of this. So the ad was vociferously condemned from the word go. It clearly was objected to in very strong terms by at least the OP, and some others IIRC. The discussion wasn’t limited to a sober, restrained analysis.

My point is that the ad was wholly inconsequential as any sort of promotion of sexist thinking. (Ads are almost invariably inconsequential.) Surely anyone would come to that conclusion after a moment’s thought?

So the strong objections - which I take to be caused by offence - were really a reflection of posters’ own deeply held views. They were entirely disproportionate to any likely interpretation of the ad (though I accept its impression will vary a bit by reader) and more importantly to any likelihood of undesirable effect of the ad on those who saw it.

It was the sort of impassioned discussion that academics engage in but that leave everyone else mystified about how some tiny issue can generate such feeling.

I don’t really agree that you can directly relate the vehemence of the discussion to the level of ‘offence’ caused by the advert. And you can certainly disregard the thread title, as those are often incendiary and click-baity.

You’re imbuing all the ‘objectors’ with a high level of emotional involvement. I just don’t think that’s the case. People get involved in much more vehement discussions on MN over things like variations in regional pronunciation! It doesn’t mean that the posters concerned are walking round permanently furious about the way other people speak.

It’s a distinction between principle and scale in my view. Some really like to look at the root causes of things and the principles behind them, and they might object to what seems to be a minor detail because of the principle on which it rests. Others will breeze past and not notice. The conflict, the vehemence of the discussion, only escalates when the breezers dig their heels in and say that the principle isn’t there at all and the objectors dig their heels in and say why can’t you see what’s there even if it is tiny.

Doesn’t mean the original point is huge and emotional.

I take your point that discussion - particularly online - can become heated over small things. But I’m not sure that’s really the issue on this thread.

What I think provokes the ‘snowflake’ etc comments in this context (and I repeat that I dislike the term and others like it) is the imposition of a point of view or philosophy on something that just can’t bear the weight.

The CP ad is a good example. It wasn’t to everyone’s taste, but one or two people were even saying “see, CP have taken it down, there was a problem”, as if the ad was so unacceptable that it should have been withdrawn.

I’m saying that vocal opposition to an ad like that is a disproportionate response. (And I do think we have to take thread titles and comments at face value if they’re apparently sincere.) Arguing the principle of things unless there’s a very strong reason to do so is generally a good way to lose all sense of perspective and scale.

But it is people like this that I think are labelled as "terminally offended" because they don't live a normal life anymore, they can't maintain relationships, it's actually very sad to see.

This. It's because literally every aspect of life has become so heavily politicised. Even if you think about what people do on a daily basis:
-Get up, wash/brush teeth/skin care/make up (are those products harming the environment?)
-Make breakfast/lunch (are the ingredients harming animals?)
-Get the train to work (should I walk/cycle?).
-Man on train looks at me oddly (Is this sexism?)
-See ads on the way to work (are they 'offensive' or 'inclusive')?
-Get to work, send emails (Am I using correct pronouns!)
And so on and so on... And that's before we've even looked at what might be happening on/in social media/TV/newspapers!!
While it's of course good to be mindful of these things, for most of us, seeing a political angle in every aspect of life is getting utterly tedious.

@WillYouPutYourCoatOn Gosh. Well, I hope you feel better for that.

This 100%

Whilst I don’t disagree with this, it doesn’t seem relevant to the point I was making with this thread. When posters chuck out the phrase ‘terminally offended’, they’re usually doing it in response to one specific thing that is being discussed; they know nothing about how that poster generally lives their life. They’re using it as a way to discredit the poster by implying that they do live the life you’ve mentioned, but on zero evidence!

Fair enough.

I think I still disagree. You say this:

I’m saying that vocal opposition to an ad like that is a disproportionate response.

By ‘vocal opposition’, do you literally mean just saying anything at all? So you think, if people are a bit disconcerted by the advert, perhaps because they feel it’s part of a tedious pattern of gently mocking mums (which could be in turn part of a bigger, more unpleasant picture of attitudes towards mums), they should just shut up in case they annoy someone?

Seems kind of wrong.

I feel a better approach might be for that person to be able to voice their unease and to articulate why, and perhaps the people of a different viewpoint might say, “Hmmm, that didn’t occur to me, and to be honest, on balance, it seems ok to me.”

That clearly didn’t happen; the accusations of ‘snowflake’ abounded, and some posters had to explain basic sexism 101 to a minority of posters that increasingly resembled an angry MRA gang!

I do think a lot of people don’t see prejudice and they need it pointed out to them Every Single Time. Otherwise progress towards a more equal society is much slower.

You’re right that I was loose in describing discussion of issues generally as ‘vocal opposition’. I agree that there should always be the opportunity to discuss - and always the expectation of receiving contrary views in return.

What I meant more specifically was that strongly expressed opposition to essentially trivial material, or contrived offence/concern etc, including urging withdrawal or defacing or de-platforming or whatever, tends to be all too common. I do not believe CP had any reason to be “ashamed” of its innocent, no doubt well-intended, ad.

It’s really all about the manner and grounding of the objections, I suppose.

I do stress that I’m not suggesting that you contrived offence at the CP ad or that you were even strongly opposed to it. I’m just making the point that cries of ‘snowflake’ are much more likely when people voice vehement complaint or demand action.

I think it's a bit OTT in some areas. It hits home when then broadcast a disclaimer against an old movie or program saying it reflects attitudes at the time. You'd be an idiot to think otherwise but no doubt some do complain.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

Very true. I think we probably see things fairly similarly after all. You’re right that the title of that thread was a little hyperbolic…

This is such a 5 blind men and the elephant” topic. Its obvious that the accusation that “some people” are “permanently/professionally/terminally offended” is going to be a hard topic to discuss in good faith because the accusation itself is politicized.

One person’s “lived experience” of aggression /racism/sexism (its in quotes because I remember a recent thread where some posters went ballistic over the term) is another person’s everyday normal behavior or desired world or culture.

The accusation that so and so is a snowflake or easily offended is a straight up form of tone policing or even sometimes sea lioning. It is meant to derail the discussion and either shut it down or embarrass the accused into backing off the complaint.

It is ironic that the “I'm offended by the offense” crew are not able to recognize how very snowflaky they themselves are. They can’t tolerate a hint of perceived criticism of a stance on a behavior or language which they claim is trivial.

Like the pister upthread who asserted that adverts are not a significant form of cultural representation and education? At least when its centre parks. Because all these robust “it doesn’t bother me” types turn up gnashing their teeth and wailing about something that they do see as important: , trans issues, jkr, the rotal family, ableism, ageism. Its just a question of whose ox is gored not a principled stance on offense.

I think I’m the poster you’re referring to.

Leaving aside the vogue words, which don’t seem very clear or helpful, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Are you saying that it’s usual to be upset and angry about an ad showing mum, dad and two small daughters on bicycles with a strapline about mum keeping up? That that ad is some powerful “cultural representation and education”, whatever that is? If so, we’ll just have to agree to differ.

It does make me laugh that some people can see such influence in tiny, everyday things but can’t accept that their point of view might deserve even the mildest questioning, or even being ignored altogether.

"Are you saying that it’s usual to be upset and angry about an ad showing mum, dad and two small daughters on bicycles with a strapline about mum keeping up?"

Ridiculous to be upset and angry. However entirely sensible to be exasperated and think "oh, for heavens sake-has nothing changed?" Like those advertisements who think it's so incredibly funny to present men as incapable of cooking, cleaning or looking after children.

So if an advert portrays a family bike riding with one member failing to keep up, is there any non-problematic option available? You could argue that...

Dad = portraying dads as inept.
Mum = portraying mums as unfit.
Kid = portrays an abusive family where the parents ride off ahead, leaving kids to struggle.

@Underthinker Well, it's a bit of a lazy advertisement, but having the man lagging behind would at least subvert, rather than reinforce stereotypes. Or it might be sweet to have them waiting for a smaller child, maybe with a puppy. Always assuming CP allows dogs......Or have the woman looking happy and carefree and miles ahead.

I don’t think we disagree. As I said above, the CP thread’s OP was about how CP should be “ashamed” of themselves for the ad. I don’t see it’s surprising that posters would then say “you’re being over-sensitive” (or other similar terms).

If the OP had said “it’s exasperating to see portrayals of mums like that” I doubt there’d have been much of a pushback. That said, plenty of posters couldn’t see any reason at all to be bothered by it, even if they understood the nature of the objection perfectly well. Interpretations will vary.

And, as the poster immediately below your last post pointed out, it’s sometimes difficult to say anything without attracting criticism from one quarter or another. Which itself tends to make people exasperated.