Are we all too easily offended these days?

[Gigitree]

After calling someone out for their ’jokes’ full of chauvinistic bigotry, I was met with that oh so nuanced argument ‘oh everyone is so easily offended these days, you can’t say or do anything anymore’

What are your thoughts? Are we generally more easily offended these days? Should we just ignore ‘jokes’ like these or should we call people out for their casual racism, homophobia or anti-feminist attitude?

Pottering about isn’t offensive unless your looking to be offended for yourself on some one else’s behalf.

This is what I meant earlier by the hypocrisy. If you are offended you call them out and expect them to react favourably, when you are called out on your own offensive language... they are looking to take offensive.

Do you really not see it? 🤦🏼‍♀️

There is a trend towards become offended over trivial things which is part of the trend to see ourselves as part of small identity groups

I believe this is because, in some circles, offence has become a form of currency, one where demand rapidly outstrips supply. Being 'correctly' offended confers a great deal of perceived power in terms of controlling the speech of others and therefore, paradoxically, becomes desirable.

most importantly - my daughters were at the table. I will not have him talk about females like that in front of them

Not offended but I find the use of "females" here really weird rather than "women"

But yes, loving the irony here.

Well the word you are objecting to was a medical term, as was idiot, and cretin, within your colleague's lifetime. And incidentally "downs syndrome children" isn't particularly enlightened as it goes. IF we're splitting hairs.

I agree that I look at intent and pick my battles. Much rather save my energy to challenge a dickhead who tells rape jokes, for example, than pull up my 80 yo mother for saying "coloured" because she was brought up being told it's polite and it's indicative of her making an effort.

Words fall in and out of favour and usually they do so because bigots appropriate them and turn them into insults. A person continuing to use particular terms in good faith who genuinely hasn't kept tabs on each instance of this happening during the course of 70 years is not part of that process. I'm sure that, at 50, there are words I use that would make a 20 yo cringe and this will increase as I get older as terminology has already gone through numerous changes just during my working life and once you get to the fifth or sixth round it is more difficult to keep track of. This is true for lots of people I think.

And incidentally "downs syndrome children" isn't particularly enlightened as it goes. IF we're splitting hairs

It really isn't. You are reducing the child to the syndrome. The non offensive description would be "children with Down's Syndrome"

like my grandad who referred to "Auntie Sarah's special kid" because he thought it was the right thing to say

The large rural comprehensive I attended, which had a combined primary and secondary school, had a "Special Unit" set up in the mid 60s and continued until at least the early 80s. I assume they no longer use that term.

I’m not really going to learn anything about why some one thinks it’s ok to call a disabled child a mongoloid

You might want to think about your own use of "disabled child"

My understanding of preferred usage is that a person with impairment should not be defined by his or her condition and that one should not use a disability as a way to describe an individual. "A child with a disability" not "a disabled child"

This would seem to be borne out from websites by and for parents of children with disabilities.

Offended just means someone is upset or annoyed.

What it means in the context of identity politics is that someone may use official means to get you into trouble over it, because offended has become the language of HR, the police and moderators of social media platforms. That is why it has become paired with ‘called out.’

I think some of it is that we are braver now to say something rather than just put up with it. Chauvinist pigs have always been unpleasant and of course they don't like being told that they are offensive - it goes with their territory.

In some ways it's a good thing and they need to be told. Putting up with it helps no-one.

I thought that whole ‘person with x’ language had been dropped about 10 years ago. It sounds very 2000s.

My understanding of preferred usage is that a person with impairment should not be defined by his or her condition and that one should not use a disability as a way to describe an individual. "A child with a disability" not "a disabled child"

This is a great example of something that might be good to think about, because saying this in one way might offend some people with diasabilities, but unless you think the person speaking actually does not see the child or other person as a whole person who happens to have a disability, then pointing out "preferred" language in the course of an everyday conversation is exactly the kind of policing that I object to because it hinders people's ability just to speak.

PFL is very divisive. Some people prefer it, because it avoids reducing an individual to their disability. Others dislike it intensely, because it minimises the impact their disability has on their lives. There is no blanket correct usage, it is very much an individual preference.

I looked on various sites this morning- one specific example was

Don't use a disability as a way to describe an individual. For example, instead of saying "autistic child," it's better to say "a child on the autism spectrum."

Generally the advice was to avoid "disabled child" "Down's Syndrome Child"

I would not have considered it had the poster in question not been virtue signalling whilst at the same time minimising other posters' points.

It's complicated. As I understand it, "disabled child" coheres with the social model of disability ie that, broadly, people are disabled by their environment - that they are prevented from working, accessing opportunities etc not because of their diagnosis but because of the way their surroundings including wider society are/is structured. Therefore it's the language used by disability campaign groups and organisations.

However some people who fall within the remit of these groups don't themselves agree with this and feel that they are disabled by their condition so prefer the older terminology of "person with a disability" as it's the disability that causes them challenges and they want this to be the point of note/campaign.

Regardless, for most conditions across both campaigning groups and disabled people themselves, it isn't acceptable to use a condition as a descriptor and say for eg "downs syndrome child" any more than you would say "cancerous child".

BUT even with that there are caveats - eg some people who are deaf or who have an autism diagnosis consider themselves to be part of a distinct community and therefore would use the words eg "deaf person" or "autistic teen". But that doesn't apply to downs syndrome afaik.

And even this will all likely change in the next 10 years. Tbh I think it's more important to increase access to opportunities than it is to pull someone up for wrong words, which is why I generally wouldn't bother but for the pp here having a go at her colleague and a discussion developing.

I think some people are definitely always on the defensive, looking to be offended, but there’s also a large group of people who are deeply saddened that we’re not longer living in the “good old days” where you could be openly sexist, racist and homophobic and either go unchallenged or excuse it as a “joke” or “free speech”. They think if anyone doesn’t like something they‘ve said, no matter how disgusting it was they “chose to be offended” and are “snowflakes”. They think they should be able to say pretty much whatever they want and go unchallenged and receive no consequences.

These types of people are typically white heterosexual men, who feel resentful that they’re no longer “top dog”, that they can’t go around doing and saying pretty much whatever they want and don’t have the same privileges of being white heterosexual men as they once would have had. I also think a large element is that as a traditionally powerful majority, and a group who collectively have never suffered persecution, they have pretty much no experience of discrimination or prejudice, so can’t seem to grasp that jokes about their gender, sexuality, skin colour etc are not comparable to those made against minorities or women, who have a long history of discrimination and persecution due to their gender, skin colour, sexuality, religion etc.

Milk I get what your saying I just don’t agree with it.

I potter about. My kids potter about. My dog potters about in the garden. Some ones dad potters about in my work.

I can say people potter about and if some one wants to ‘call me out on it’ they can 🤷‍♀️

most importantly - my daughters were at the table. I will not have him talk about females like that in front of them

Not offended but I find the use of "females" here really weird rather than "women

Because they are females

People accused of being offensive, both in the workplace and online, in my experience, are rarely white heterosexual men.

It is usually women and other groups who are expected to behave in a submissive and deferential matter who are treated harshly for language infractions.

You aren’t been called out over the pottering about remark. A few people just disagree with you.

Calling out would be when people started demanding that your pottering about remark made you a bad person who should not be tolerated, accepted or listened to on this or any other forum until you had confessed, apologised and listened to the impact you had on the elderly, and maybe not even then.

Eh, whenever someone gets precious about an offensive joke I usually remind them that jokes are supposed to be funny.

Lost-voiced

Black man, Irish man and a disabled kid goes in to bar...

That kind of joke?

Splillinteas - You've just been "called out" on it so you either don't care or you really don't get it. And yet when you call others out you expect them to care, get it, and change their language. Very hypocritical.

It isn’t hypocritical at all.

We can all say that we don’t like what someone else says.

That person can then either agree or disagree with our assessment of their speech.

And we can all then also agree or disagree with someone else’s assessment of our speech.

I think people always were pissed off/ uncomfortable with stuff but as the person feeling pissed off/ uncomfortable was usually the one with less 'power' they kept their mouths shut much more.

So people aren't more offended on the whole just more likely to express it.

Quite a lot of sweeping generalisations there Elsie

That person can then either agree or disagree with our assessment of their speech.

Except that's not what really happens is it. Bob says something, Bill goes "That's offensive!!!". Bill expects Bob to apologise profusely and amend his awful ways immediately. If Bob doesn't then we're in to complaints to HR, dark muttering etc. Bill then goes on to a chat forum and asks if he's being unreasonable to be soooo offended and how horrible Bob is knowing damn well that he will be validated by other like minded offended people. Thus entrenching Bill's view that he is superior to Bob.

Not offended but I find the use of "females" here really weird rather than "women

Because they are females

Really- you refer to women, including your daughters as "females" ? Each to their own but it looks really odd.