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?

Punching up is a euphemism for editors criticizing specific people or groups with the power to effect change as opposed to punching down which is editors criticizing specific people or groups without the power to effect change.
Like most euphemisms it has lost its original journalism application and is used to justify criticizing and condemning people based on their politics or class.
It is unfortunate because it was a useful way to assess editorial content.

The problem is that words don't map precisely onto concepts.
Someone's nan above, she says 'coloured' in an effort to be respectful. So the respect and politeness is there, despite how things have moved on

As long as there is prejudice against black people, say or disabled or gay people, the words we use will become slurs.

Many of us have experienced being called darling. We know the difference between being called darling by a loving partner, by a patronising boss, or by a hateful man when you are alone and powerless.

Insistence on correct terminology is a power play. It is a way if measuring how on message you are. You are graded on your swift adherence to new rules. If a new word is introduced for an old grouping- it takes quite a bit of dedication headspace etc to.get a handle on it.

Nobody can do that for all the pressing issues that besiege the world. So no matter how hard you tryare wrong.

I'm reminded of poetry classes in school..looking at words and their connotations, looking at tone and imagery. Interpretation.

I’m in the camp of ‘the intent is more important than the means of expression’. In fact, it reminds me of driving in Greece. I kept holding my hand up to thank other drivers and my friend’s dad kept telling me off as the motion I was doing was apparently very similar to the one they use to tell someone to eff off.

But intent is not always known ot clear particularly to strangers and even if the intention was honest, it doesn't stop feelings from being hurt like accidental blow is still painful albeit accidental and no intention of harm was there. People are not mind readers and everyday interactions don't have enough time or detail to ascertain intentions. I think more responsibility should be taken for what we put out rather than whats in our hearts.

Or are we just less tolerant of jerks?

But intent is not always known ot clear particularly to strangers and even if the intention was honest, it doesn't stop feelings from being hurt like accidental blow is still painful albeit accidental and no intention of harm was there. People are not mind readers and everyday interactions don't have enough time or detail to ascertain intentions. I think more responsibility should be taken for what we put out rather than whats in our hearts.

I agree that an accidental blow can be just as painful. However, I’m talking more about say elderly people who’ve been out of the workplace for years using a term which was acceptable in their day. I don’t think it’s wrong to correct them but some people seem to relish in admonishing them, and IME it’s rarely actually POC that are the individuals worrying about the particularities unless there is blatant disrespect displayed.

It’s not easy either. I remember being told that POC is now the preferred term over ‘black person’, but when I googled it to check, the first article that popped up was one written by a black woman saying she hated being called a POC as she was specifically black. Others hate ‘African American’ as they may actually be of Haitian descent etc. And with gender pronouns etc it seems to change monthly - I’m never going to be able to learn all the 100+ different genders they’re now teaching children about!

Insistence on correct terminology is a power play. It is a way if measuring how on message you are

It is interesting, isn't it? In relation to the trans debate, a central theme is the rigorous policing of pronouns on social media. This is a linguistic battle above all else. This is because its proponents believe that if you control the language, reality can be bent to fit the fantasy. Like so much else about the trans debate, it is about inversion and reversal. Reversing the relationship between sex and gender. Undermining the relationship between words and the external reality they describe. This is a Newspeak imperative. Its proponents are the 21st century editors of the Newspeak dictionary.

I don’t think the genuine level of offence has changed but the amount of people looking for offence and ‘calling it out’ has grown exponentially.

This is because ‘offence’ has been weaponised. In the last few years, if someone takes offence, it can be career threatening for the ‘misspeaker’. If you can accuse someone of an ‘ism’ and claim to have been offended by it, you gain huge leverage.

And it is, frankly, boring and damaging to free speech and normal work place relationships (in the broadest sense of the word). It is also disastrous in academia where seeking THE truth has become more seeking a truth which is ‘politically’ acceptable.

Of course, it is a good thing that the crass sexist office culture of the 80s has changed and genuinely prejudiced people are called out and challenged.However, parsing speech for ‘micro aggressions’ makes a Friday night drink into an academic essay, not fun at all.

Offence should be judged by ‘the person on the Clapham omnibus’, not the offendee.

I agree, Larry, and I’ve never been happier having moved from a really corporate PC environment to a logistics orientated one where I’m surrounded by truckers and warehouse staff all day. The relative freedom of speech seems to work both ways as most people seem unafraid to tell another to ‘stop being a prick’, so any transgressions are dealt with then and there and people quickly know what’s acceptable and who they can joke with.

On my first day I remember being walked around the workshop. One of the mechanics (a chubby bloke) was working on one of the old, beaten up trucks and the guy who was walking me around (not slim himself!) dryly said ’fancy that, two knackers in one place’. I couldn’t believe my ears coming from a ‘no banter’ environment (we were literally told that ‘many offensive things are passed off as banter’) but I can honestly say that I’ve never worked anywhere before with such a strong team ethos/morale and I put it down to good relationships.

Of course, I’ve no doubt that some people/bullies use ‘banter’ as a cover for being truly spiteful, but I think you can usually address these types of individuals in most cases without turning the whole workplace into a soulless corporate drudgefest.

This is because its proponents believe that if you control the language, reality can be bent to fit the fantasy.

This eagerness to control language and the suppression of contentious debates seems to be quite widespread, especially in left-wing circles. There are people who think any discussion or debate or criticisms around immigration is automatically racist or xenophobic, so it should never take place or be televised. If you air a programme or publish an article criticising immigration policies or decisions around it, which is the equivalent in their eyes of fully endorsing racism, they believe the stupid and idiotic (in their opinion) general public will watch / read it and immediately transform into racists as well. So to stop racism, we must never discuss immigration except to say how amazing it always is. If we don't talk about things we deem as bad or problematic then these social issues disappear and society will be wonderful. It never seems to occur to these types that preventing discussion or pushing a specific narrative doesn't stop people from having their own opinions privately and they will continue to discuss these things elsewhere and express their views especially at the ballot box.

But intent is not always known ot clear particularly to strangers and even if the intention was honest, it doesn't stop feelings from being hurt like accidental blow is still painful albeit accidental and no intention of harm was there. People are not mind readers and everyday interactions don't have enough time or detail to ascertain intentions. I think more responsibility should be taken for what we put out rather than whats in our hearts.

I suppose it is this that I disagree with. I do not think we should be having to police our own - perfectly well meaning and accepted - language to try and stop someone''s feelings being hurt. I think that someone who is hurt by such language really needs to take care of themselves. In some circumstances - probably people you know well - it will no doubt be appropriate to speak to the person talking and explain why this language in particular hurts you (or perhaps merely grates on you), but even then we should be left with a situation where the person speaking is sensitive to that individual and perhaps the debate, not being told they are wrong and that they should monitor their language more generally.

We also need to be able to recognise the difference between language that grates, language that hurts feelings and language that offends. They are all different. We also need to get back to the fact that these are feelings that affect individuals, so when "we" make generalisations that designate words and language constructions wholesale as "offensive" or "hurtful", we need to be quite sure why we are doing so and that it is appropriate, precisely because it can have such a profound impact on well meaning people's ability and willingness to engage.

I say all that as a massive pedant (I hate inaccurate language and hate being being picked up on my own inaccurate language even more!)

This eagerness to control language and the suppression of contentious debates seems to be quite widespread, especially in left-wing circles

Nonny
I agree. I had never heard of 'purity spirals' before reading about their toxic influence on online knitting circles cited on this forum! Have you seen the Evergreen college video? It is mentioned by Douglas Murray in the Madness of Crowds. The use of control words to silence any debate is a tactic, as you highlight. Some of its proponents do not believe in debate. They believe in total narrative control. And anyone who dissents is immediately denounced as a bigot. This is increasingly an issue about freedom of speech. Harry Miller's comment about 1984 as an instruction manual are particularly relevant.

Have you seen the Evergreen college video?

No I haven't, BovaryX. What is it about? I should put Madness of Crowds on my Amazon wishlist otherwise I keep forgetting to purchase it!

Nonny

Brett Weinstein, an academic at Evergreen College in Washington State, was subjected to a campaign of unbelievable abuse because he objected to a diktat that all white faculty and students vacate the college for one day. Google it, on YouTube, it's not long, but it's astonishing. I recommend the Madness of Crowds. Douglas Murray is a witty writer, his deconstruction of Judith Butler is entertaining.....

Just a passing thought. Is there any connection with the strict guidelines on offensive language and the complete abandonment of any kind of sexual morality or even etiquette. Kink shaming is now another way of giving offence but not parading around in fetish gear.

Nonny

This is a snippet from Murray's section on Weinstein and Evergreen. The next part is about Yale. It's astonishing.

the threat of violence became so great that the campus went into lockdown for days...the police called Weinstein and told him to stay away from campus and move his wife and children into hiding...Weinstein never taught at Evergreen again. Only one if his or his wife's academic colleagues ever came out publicly in support of his right to take the stand he took

he objected to a diktat that all white faculty and students vacate the college for one day.

Just watched a snippet on YouTube.

Why are universities so spineless when students threaten faculty and staff like that?!
What an awful thing for him and his family to experience.

Students are being told that they are the (paying) consumers - so stamping of feet when marks aren’t as high as they wanted and ‘rate my lecturer’ has given them a right sense of over importance! Seems to make them think that they are very important and knowledgeable indeed.

Plus it seems that every teen and their dog goes these days almost as a ‘right of passage’ so maybe a chink aren’t serious scholars after all?

Chunk not chink.

What I remember most clearly from the Evergreen video was that the protesting students, after spending hours disrupting other students trying to study in the library, arrived at the cafeteria as it was about to close and there was very little food left.

The students kicked off because one of the cafeteria workers said they'd missed the opening hours so they wouldn't serve them. The students acted like this person was actively willing them to starve and causing malnourishment AND stealing from them as they had pre-paid lunch passes.

Eventually a manager turned up, offered them a refund on their passes and any of the remaining food. The students said it wasn't good enough, they wanted more food making and the cafeteria employee to be fired. They claimed themselves as the most oppressed but had no issue using their power to target a working class member of staff just doing their job.

This is how easy it is to manipulate language of oppression if you have a vested interest in constantly changing language to wrong foot others.

'I don’t think we get offended too easily; for some things we are not offended easily enough or we are expected to show infinite tolerance of offensive behaviour.'

I find this rather hilarious. It is just a way of saying that YOU want to define what is offensive and what is not i.e that you don't like being censored but want to be the censor.

Anyone can be offended by anything. That is their right. Where it is wrong is to believe you can censor someone else's behaviour according to your personal views.

There have to be some rules in shared space as to the limits as to what people can say, otherwise offices etc just would not work. However, these should be as broad as possible and defined by a general perception of that is acceptable (which does change with time).

It is messy as you have to choose between competing rights and there is no perfect solution. However, my personal view is that we are way too intolerant of different views and that one should regard being offended from time to time as a natural part of life and a reason for discussion (sometimes robust), not laws and sanctions.

But intent is not always known ot clear particularly to strangers and even if the intention was honest, it doesn't stop feelings from being hurt like accidental blow is still painful albeit accidental and no intention of harm was there. People are not mind readers and everyday interactions don't have enough time or detail to ascertain intentions. I think more responsibility should be taken for what we put out rather than whats in our hearts.

No. What helps with this if we generally believe most people aren't speaking with the specific intent to hurt your feelings, and if we have some level of inner resilience.

If someone is hurting your feelings because they say POC instead of African-American, or or disabled person instead of person with a disability, or even if someone is a minor asshat, that suggests a problem. I know people characterise that as a sort of victim blaming, but some level of psychological resilience, an ability to put things in perspective, is actually important. To our happiness, and to our social relationships as well.

I agree, Larry, and I’ve never been happier having moved from a really corporate PC environment to a logistics orientated one where I’m surrounded by truckers and warehouse staff all day. The relative freedom of speech seems to work both ways as most people seem unafraid to tell another to ‘stop being a prick’, so any transgressions are dealt with then and there and people quickly know what’s acceptable and who they can joke with.

Generally speaking I find these kinds of environments much better places to work.

Is this punching up / punching down thing just another way of defining oppressor / oppressed? And, of course, the oppressor is always fair game.

Depends how they decide it though. I'm a white male and, for example, Afua Hirsch is black and female so, if those are the key grounds, she gets to punch up against me as her oppressor.
Then again, I can point out that, unlike me, she went to private school and then Oxbridge, and hence make a case that, in fact, she is my oppressor.

It's an overly simplistic, silly game. You end up externalising your frustrations on some other group and hence there's no encouragement to self-analyse or self-improve (but I've already gone into this on the Solzhenitsyn thread so I'll leave it there).