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?

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

Your nym rather gives the game away at the start, doesn’t it?

1. yes I was referring to your point about advertising not being culturally significant.

2. I’m finger typing on my phone or I would be less terse.

3. I could write a dissertation on the political and cultural significance and force of advertising because it is a well known subject for investigation in fields like sociology, anthropology, literary criticism, and even business studies since companies spend a fuckton oof money on them. Whether you know it or not advertising moves people and shapes public opinion.

4. Guilty, I suppose, of using some shorthand terms like “tone policing” and “sea lioning” to describe online phenomena. Of course the terms snowflake and permanently offended do the same. Objecting to my language rather than to the point I am making is both tone policing and a form of registering offense even if rather delicately and by imputation.

5. This is all quite British, of course as it is part of British (high) culture to affect a robust indifference to other’s opinions, to refuse to make a fuss, to carry on, no complaints, don’t draw attention, don’t be needy, don’t be emotional, blah blah…

6. in Rhetoric of Reaction the political scientists/historians look at the typical responses of reactionary forces to any hint of progressive change. These are assertions that the change will put cherished values in jeopardy, be futile, or perversely produce unexpected negative outcomes.

I would argue that sll this tut tutting about people who are permanently offended is just a fairly typical reactionary pose expressed in a classic british cultural form (stiff upper lip, lets not be hasty).

I’m not surprised that the idea of cultural production itself is largely invisible to some posters. You have to be an outsider, or want serious change, to note injustice and the cultural forces that push against change.

Do some posters take it too far? Yes! I find the endless charges of ableism, ageism, and misandry quite tedious because they are often besides the point, derailing, or in bad faith. But that isn’t to say those things are not legitimate things to talk about or taise as a problem.

But that's my point. Having the dad lagging behind would just be reinforcing a different harmful stereotype that you've already mentioned. Then you suggest changing the concept entirely to get around this.

Will it get to a point where advertisers or people in creative industries more generally are too focussed on avoiding stereotypes than actually creating something good? Has that already happened to some extent?

@Underthinker "Will it get to a point where advertisers or people in creative industries more generally are too focussed on avoiding stereotypes than actually creating something good?"

Are you suggesting that the CP advertisement was good?

What was wrong with it? Other than the interpretation you place on it, I mean, which requires you to suppose that it would have any effect on anyone’s thinking at all.

(Other than thinking “Good timing. I was pondering a short family break. I’ll check Center Parcs out.”)

Well, it certainly wasn't bad, was it? And it most definitely wasn't offensive.

Sorry- what I meant was there seemed to be a suggestion that keeping an eye on not perpetuating stereotypes would somehow prevent agencies make quality advertisements. That avoiding sexist and old fashioned representations of women would mean that advertisements like this one couldn't be made...

No I'm asking if all media religiously avoided anything that could be seen as a stereotype, would it reduce quality? Would things feel weird, contrived or samey?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The CP ad isn't perpetuating stereotypes and wasn't sexist so I don't know how anyone can draw any conclusion that it is.

@LancashireTart To my way of thinking the advertisement is presenting women/mothers as weak, less physically fit and capable, and figures of fun. As I said, not a huge deal but just another added tiny brick in the sexist wall!

I did wonder what the actual stereotype causing the issue was. Women being unfit was my guess, but wasn't 100% sure.

Anyway the joke is on the rest of the family because what they don't realise is she's slipstreaming them and is going to overtake 100 yards from the end of the ride and laugh in their faces.

All this breast beating about the CP ad—not about whether it was offensive or stupid or anything but about the supposed harm done to cp, or culcha, or interesting advertising when someone complains about the ad is just so odd to me. CP is not some well meaning elderly granny being pulled up by stroppy woke teens! The advertisement is an expensive, professional, campaign to get customers to come pay for use of the facilities. If the advert creates more confusion, boredom, disgust, annoyance, or anything other than cash on the barrelhead it has failed in CP’s own terms because it has failed in its great natuonal duty to separate the punters from their cash. Thats it!

Criticism is engagement so I can assure you that mere criticism doesn’t mean CP doesn’t get what it wants from the advertising campaign—don’t you remember the benneton ads of yesteryear. Even running and then apologetically pulling an ad or an entire campaign is a very well known advertising midel. So don’t weep for CP until you see their year end revenue.

I don’t think people should get ‘upset and angry’ about the advert. But I am very glad that people do question this stuff these days. Little by little, it will hopefully get us to where we need to be, despite the odd blip in the road.

Give me that over the racism, sexism, homophobia etc that I grew up around in the 70s and 80s any day. Hopefully overall we will get to a better world thanks to the people that question things. Prejudice is not always overt. And yes things like adverts matter.

I don’t think a dad struggling to keep up with his family is reinforcing a harmful stereotype in the way that it with the roles reversed.

An inept dad sticking his kid in front of a tablet so he can game/ watch football, can’t work out how to clean a kitchen - those would be reinforcing a different, harmful stereotype.

The CP advert was bad - not because I found it offensive, but because it was crap, lazy, unthinking advertising, with an undertone of light misogyny. That isn’t what I look for in a successful advertising scheme.

I also disagree with a PP who said that arguing principles is pointless and leads to a loss of perspective. Arguing about things at the smallest level is the first step in changing things at the highest levels. If your arguments aren’t robust about something trivial, they’ll never stand up to the complexities of bigger issues.

I don’t think a dad struggling to keep up with his family is reinforcing a harmful stereotype in the way that it with the roles reversed.

OK, let's assume that's correct. That means in any media produced going forward, when depicting any family doing a sporting activity together, are we saying the only acceptable plot is to have the mum be the best at the activity? Every single time without fail? How long then till "unathletic Dad" is also a harmful stereotype?

Also I've just looked at the image again. Its a massive stretch to say it depicts her as struggling to keep up. She's pretty much level with the Dad and a couple of metres behind the kids - which is probably a good place to be so you can keep an eye on them. She looks fit, healthy & relaxed and not at all out of breath. If anything the stereotype is "cheeky kid" rather than "unfit Mum".

You see, the ad is definitely not offensive per se, that's just how you interpret it and that's on you. In other words, tough.

I would sincerely hope that the ad wasn't pulled because people have complained that it's sexist/derogatory because it simply isn't.

The advertisement is an expensive, professional, campaign to get customers to come pay for use of the facilities.

AFAIK it was a static online ad. One stock photo and 5 minutes work for a copywriter (if one were needed at all). Probably £75 all in. I don’t know if they bought space, but that’s cheap as chips online these days.

I do think advertising is a bit of an obsession with some people, particularly political campaigners and academics, because it carries the ‘demonic’ qualities of being (mostly) capitalist; and the industry boasts - quite wrongly - of its power to persuade, so adding up to a perception of powerful corporations brainwashing and manipulating us.

It’s all bollocks. Most ads do absolutely nothing except for a bit of reinforcement of brand recognition or help for a new product launch. Virtually all money spent on advertising products in mature markets is wasted.

I understand the objection to this ad, though I don’t perceive it that way. But however it’s understood, the ad itself is utterly trivial.

What I do wish they’d do is turn the volume down on TV ads!

@LancashireTart What, in your opinion, is the point of the ad? Why "keep up, mum"
not "keep u,dad" or "keep up, Sally"?

If your arguments aren’t robust about something trivial, they’ll never stand up to the complexities of bigger issues.

I can’t agree with that. Arguing vociferously about a Center Parcs ad showing a happy family on bicycles doesn’t advance any cause. It sets it back if anything.

It doesn’t have a point, except to remind people of the opportunity for nice bike rides at Center Parcs.

Searching for meaning, especially strained meaning, is often fruitless.

Well that’s not really what I said. There are multiple ways of presenting a family engaging with sport - and here’s a magnificent idea, how about not focusing on who “wins” at a leisure activity anyway?!

Show people engaging with sport and enjoying themselves without singling one out as the hopeless case. Sport is about so much more than that, and it’s a regressive stereotype in itself.

Fair enough. I'm ducking out now- I've said my piece. I've already been called obnoxious and told I was trying to be an arse on this thread-that's enough for today!

Searching for meaning, especially strained meaning, is often fruitless

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.

And I don’t believe in “strained” meaning - all meaning is interesting and valuable, even if the logic behind it seems bonkers, because it explains a lot about the person who proposes it (even if it seems to me to have little relevance to the concept it’s ascribed to).

But hey, we’re all different and each to their own…

The point of the ad is simply trying to promote CP with an excited child wanting to ride off quickly. Translating it into anything else is just silly and, frankly, looking for issues that simply don't exist. That isn't healthy.

Very well put.