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?

That's not how it works though.

EG at work we had a talk and after I was chatting to a colleague saying I didn't agree with everything the presenter said. He said 'well what do expect from a young blonde woman like that'. I was a young blonde woman myself and looked at him and said, what? And he blustered and back pedalled. What I didn't do was say 'I'm offended' and march straight to HR.

People IRL don't really say 'I'm offended' in real life very much IME. It seems to be more prevalent on the net (AIBU to think this is/ is not offensive) and also with people who like to talk about how everyone is offended by everything these days.

Calling women females is less iffy than having a man sit at a table with a woman and 2 girls and say their dad had lots of affairs not because he was a cheating sod but because English girls are all easy do what could be be expected to do.

There was a time when if someone told me that another person had made sexist/offensive jokes or comments, I would tend to think it was probably true. Now I don't unless I can hear the comment specifically, and even then I wonder about the tone or context.

Maybe part is that people use the word offended more broadly - for things I'd have called annoying, or in poor taste. But I also find that there are a lot of people who seem to see people who disagree with them about certain topics offensive, or who don't understand certain types of humour and take them at face value.

Some people seem to use the idea of offence as a sort of weapon, too, and I also think the tendency to encourage easy offence can prevent people from being able to look at other perspectives dispassionately.

Some people seem to use the idea of offence as a sort of weapon, too

It's a frightfully effective one at that. If you don't like what someone has to say or simply dislike the person saying it, finding offence in what they said is incredibly effective at winning in the court of public opinion and shutting them down (or, at least, having them shunned), all for very little mental effort.

A good part of this discussion has been about people figuring out what the exact right word to say at a given moment that is non-offensive is.

Disabled child, or child with a disability? Autism parent, or parent of a child with autism? Black, African-American, coloured?

And many people don't see much gradation here, when one of these falls out of favour, it's become a slur, and younger people start to look askance at even historical examples of the use. There are still older people in North America who think of themselves as coloured or even negro, and many Native people still use the word Indian, but then all are words that people would be "called-out" about in a heartbeat.

At one time, like some others, I'd have said we need to consider the intent, but I'm no longer convinced that is the real issue. I think there is a problem with the way we are approaching language altogether.

At one time, like some others, I'd have said we need to consider the intent, but I'm no longer convinced that is the real issue. I think there is a problem with the way we are approaching language altogether.

The problem is, until we can issue stars or badges to the "right people", we have to use language as a proxy for "right thinking". Which is neither it's job, nor it's origins.

Language is intended to facilitate universal communication, not "the right sort" of communication.

And control of language - or attempted control - has always been a hallmark of oppressive regimes.

@DidoLamenting not really, I see many white heterosexual men complaining about “snowflakes” and “pc gone mad” and lamenting about the “good old days” because someone was offended by them saying something very clearly racist/sexist/homophobic. Of course not everyone who delights in being “none-pc” is a white heterosexual male, but a large proportion are. Every time I’ve ever been harassed or given grief for being a lesbian it’s always heterosexual men.

Oh and they always try to tell me they’re “just joking”.

it's not about people getting offended easily.
The thing is - we started paying attention to the issues that were neglected before.
Of course, it's always easier to say that it's we who are weak than take measures and make a positive change in anything.

I looked up "Ayatollah Khomeni's contact lens" in response to Mockers post earlier.
I hadn't heard of Atkinson's comment before, I imagine it wasn't in the news here since it related more to UK events. But there were a number of people around that time who predicted this issue, usually in the context of political correctness, and people were pretty dismissive on the left. "PC just means being kind and people don't like it because they want to be jerks" was the usual response. No one ever seemed to bother to find out where the phrase really came from.

it is sometimes hard for people to see the difference between offensive jokes and clever jokes that use stereotypes.

This seems to happen quite often. Jokes that are actually anti-racist or anti-sexist etc are somehow interpreted as the opposite, it especially seems a problem with younger people.

Words fall in and out of favour and usually they do so because bigots appropriate them and turn them into insults.

Absolutely. Spastic was a medical term, but when I was at school in the 80's, it became used as an insult (incidentally, we never said people are too easily offended, it was supposed to be offensive!).

Likewise, my mother has only recently stopped using "coloured people", despite herself being "coloured" (she used to refer to herself as "half caste" too). But "coloured" was the "nicer" term at the time, no insult was intended.

As Gronky said:

'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'.

Remember the ridiculous 'point of personal privilege' clip? A heady mix of virtue signalling and attempted power plays to control speech.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bX9FgvXZXZ8

Absolutely. Spastic was a medical term, but when I was at school in the 80's, it became used as an insult (incidentally, we never said people are too easily offended, it was supposed to be offensive!).

I think this is totally the case, although in some instances it is not that it was an insult but because people associated it with a time where views were less enlightened. For example in the US the word Negro fell out of use specifically because activists wanted a new word that wasn't associated with past times and attitudes, not because it had become an insult as such. In general though today in the US most people assume that it is a serious slur if anyone uses it now. In a way the effect has been to create the word as a slur when it wasn't before.

But in any case I question whether the approach of changing these words to avoid the negative connotations they have acquired has been successful. We can see in several areas that as long as some people continue to have negative attitudes, the new word will always become somewhat associated with them. It seems to be a cycle that lasts 10 to 20 years though at times it can go faster.

The constant changing has had some significant downsides, creating a kind of jargon to identify in-groups and out-groups being one. But as time has gone on I think it has also made many people increasingly cynical about the approach to language, especially as divisions within communities about what language to use have sometimes been revealed to the wider public.

Remember the ridiculous 'point of personal privilege' clip? A heady mix of virtue signalling and attempted power plays to control speech

Was there a longer version of that where they attempted to vote on something? It's hilarious.

Here's the full clip. I'm still not 100% sure it is not fake.

Every single time I’ve seen somebody call out another on their language, the accuser has been a white, middle class female.

I think the opposite is the case. People are still afraid to object to racist, homophobic, and and misogynist remarks, especially in public, so they pretend it is a joke and laugh it off.
Racism, homophobia, and misogyny, are deadly.
We do not need to go looking for reasons to be offended by racism, homophobia, and misogyny, because we are surrounded by them in this society.

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.

And yet if you ask actual disabled people some of them (myself included) will say there is ansolutely nothing wrong with saying "disabled child/person."
Is it wrong to say a "Jewish/black/Asian/gay..." person? Nope, of course not. So what's the problem with "disabled person?"
Referring to a person as autistic doesn't mean you're defining them by it. Do you think calling a person Jewish is defining them by their Jewishness? Do we have to say "person with Jewishness?" Or is it just disability that you're trying to enforce person first language for?

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."

Most autistic people prefer "autistic person," parents and professionals are the ones who prefer stuff like "person with autism" and a "child on the autism spectrum." Or does what actual autistic people prefer not count? There's nothing worse than NTs pontificating about the best way to refer to autistic people. Why do you think it's wrong to use a disability to describe a person? Is no-one allowed to say anything anymore? Why is it fine to say a person is deaf but not autistic?

Or does what actual autistic people prefer not count?

The NAS reported a survey on this and reported that most autistic people/people with autism preferred ‘autistic people’ but ignored the fact that this was only the most popular of range of options and 80% chose other options such as ‘with autism’ or ‘Aspie’.

Since then I have noticed a much stronger element of ‘identity’ in this amongst the loudest autistic voices and criticism of those who prefer to describe themselves as ‘with autism’ as not fully accepting of their autism; dismissing them and their views.

So there are a variety of ways of talking about things and different people have preferences about how things are discussed/how words are used. How did we go from knowing that to people actually being offended (it is a big word - it comes with a feeling that is difficult to deal with) at someone using a different (but perfectly acceptable in some/most quarters) language construction. Why do people feel they need to police other people or educate them about their views outside of academic circles/special interest groups, when there is a perfectly decent argument in favour of their non-preferred construction. There is clearly no right or wrong here, and clearly no consensus among people to whom the words apply (and I imagine that the vast majority of people (including those you whom the words apply) really don’t care and think both constructions are fine) so what is going on? It is incredibly obstructive to discourse if we expect everyone to have even thought about these issues.

Not only that, but even if I am aware of all the details of the general discussion, how the heck would I make a choice about which language to use about a person I don't know anything about, or in an article or something?

We don't have a right not to be offended by what others say. Diversity should include diversity of opinions, even ones that are controversial or that you might find offensive. The current climate of fear created by this weaponisation of identity and language policing means that people don't say what they think and it goes underground, which I consider to be much more deadly. I'd rather people felt comfortable airing their opinions, however controversial, so they could be confronted with alternative views in an open discussion. The people holding sexist views for instance may be too scared to air them in public but they can still express themselves when they're sitting on selection committees, the results of which are very damaging to society.

I’ve always found it to be a bit inconsistent too. Like how you can start a thread called ‘I’m starting to hate men’ but absolutely definitely not one called ’I’m starting to hate black people.’

The only explanation I’ve ever seen called it ‘punching up’ and basically said it was ok to discriminate against those with privilege. I never understood why it was ok to be bigoted or discriminate against anybody to be honest.

Yeah, I don't find explanations about punching up or punching down very helpful. Both can be shitty but it's also quite possible to make worthwhile/true observations in both directions.

I do kind of of understand it. It’s a bit like when people say it’s not as bad for a woman to hit a man because they usually do less damage. In both cases it’s a philosophical argument between the intent and the outcome. Similarly, if you try and shoot your partner but forget to load the gun, are you any less culpable for your attempt to murder them?

In practical terms, though, it doesn’t make sense IMO to fight fire with fire when you have a match and they have a flamethrower. They’ll beat you at their own game and it just reinforces the message that discrimination is ok as long as you do it to ‘the right person’ (which is of course going to be a different individual depending on who you ask).