Why do people think things are offensive????

[wfooshee]

So this thing about Minnesota renaming Asian Carp to Invasive Carp has pushed me over the breaking point.

It's along similar "thinking" as the ordeal people are going through with the Confederate flag.

There's an Alabama town planning on demolishing a Confederate memorial because it's "offensive."

The Confederate issue is nothing but revisionist history at work. Let's take slavery and the Civil War out of our books, and out of peoples' minds, and it will all go away. Let's completely forget that the Civil war was pretty much about a perception of a federal government exceeding its limits (sound familiar?) rather than slavery per se. If we completely remove the Civil War and slavery from history, then blacks (sorry, African-Americans) suddenly become fully endowed humans with nothing to complain about??? Is that what it takes??? How ignorant can you get?

Speaking of ignorance, some time back I saw a sports report on Lewis Hamilton's first World Championship, where the reporter called him the first African-American to win the World Championship.

See, in America we don't say "black" any more, because that's offensive. We call black people (those of the race once know as "Negro" until that was deemed offensive) African-Americans, even though while American, they are not African. Of course, Mr. Hamilton is not American, either.

We even have kids in Spanish class start laughing when they learn the Spanish word for the color black.......

I mean, seriously. A fish called "Asian" because that's where it's from can't be called Asian because an Asian-descended human might be offended??!?!?!?!

I have an idea: if you don't want to offend someone with what you say, then simply STFU!!!!!!

 

[Downhill Dino]

Whatever makes you politically correct. As long as you please the most people it's a win.

 

[photonrider]

...................................................XsnipX

I have an idea: if you don't want to offend someone with what you say, then simply STFU!!!!!!

You had me until that last sentence @wfooshee - and then I probably got mired in irony.

I'm not too familiar about how far the virus of righteousness has spread in regard to the latest book/flag/cross burning (to me same old, same old - the collective consciousness jerks the neurons via mob rule) but are you saying we should see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?

The problem is that the knowledge of good and evil has left our perceptions rather fitful.

 

[Grayfox]

I remember when a tourism Australia released the "Where the bloody hell are you" ad I heard that people in the UK found it offensive due to the word "Bloody".
They might see the word bloody as offensive, where as we dont, it is understandable

But there was a few complaints on a holden TV ad where a child said "Bloody Caravaners" and australians complained saying "A child should not be using the word "Bloody""

These days people can get offended by anything.

They think santa should no longer say ho ho ho as it sounds like "ho" is word for prostitute.

But all this may fall under political correctness.

 

[CinnamonOD]

Political correctness was not a problem back then, one could make things that today would be considered extremely offensive these days and get away with it without anyone giving it importance.
Racism everywhere

Now political correctness is pretty much summed by this:

You cannot make a comment on a minority now because you are labeled as racist/promoter of discrimination against x or y minority, if they don't like what you say, it doesn't really matter if you're right or not, you are the problem and you have to change to fit in a society that promotes free speech and the acceptance of the diversity of thoughts and what you like.

Spoiler

 

[Joel]

As always, whenever I hear people complaining about PC gone mad, I hear/read "I don't have empathy and I want that to be someone else's fault". This stuff really isn't that hard, we don't use the word negro anymore because it has a horribly racist connotation. We continue making movies and shows about Santa where he says "ho ho ho" because nobody in their right mind considers that an insult to...anyone. If people are calling you racist, sexist, or homophobic "all the time", it might be time for some introspection.

I have an idea: if you don't want to offend someone with what you say, then simply STFU!!!!!!

You sound offended. You'll also have to point to where they've started calling Asian carp Invasive carp, as I've googled both words and found news stories using both names interchangeably. I live in a town on the coast of Lake Erie and people use the term invasive species, but that's only because they're talking about zebra mussels and gobies along with carp.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm thinking it all started with a typo - "I can't stand Asian crap being in America. I hate those 🤬".

 

[niky]

Call it "white guilt"? The big problem with some Political Correctness is that no one ever tries to find out if the people who are supposed to be offended are actually... well... offended. Assuming an ethnicity is, as a whole, prickly and thin-skinned is pretty... racist.

Of all the things those of us with Oriental blood have been called over the years, "Asian Carp" is not one of them.

Of course, I have yet to hear about the word "Asian" being dropped from the name of "Invasive Carp"... they've been called invasive for years (because that's what they are), and yet news reports (at least everything on the first page of Google results under news still use the word "Asian").

-

If they do decide to drop the name, though... that would be massively funny. Could you guys also stop making Kung Fu Panda movies? I find them incredibly offensive.





Nah... I love that damn Panda.

 

[photonrider]

Panda rulez.

Hold on. Rules.

 

[InSight]

So this thing about Minnesota renaming Asian Carp to Invasive Carp has pushed me over the breaking point.

I have an idea: if you don't want to offend someone with what you say, then simply STFU!!!!!!

This is exactly why we have this problem, anything you say or do, will somehow offend some minority in existence. Unless you speak a politically correct language or belong to a minority.

 

[Dennisch]

offend some minority

No it doesn't.

It offends overly eager white people who feel the need to think and act for other races.

 

[Famine]

Why do people think things are offensive????

Probably because they are.

Offensiveness is simply the quality of causing a negative emotional response, and that can be done by anything. Some people have a negative emotional response to sexual abuse of children, some people have a negative emotional response to "the N word", some people have a negative emotional response to gender-specific pronouns - I have a negative emotional response to Piers Morgan...

There is no such objective beast as "offensive", because emotions are not objective. Offensiveness is always subjective.

That means that no-one can ever really know if they're causing offence from one word to the next, so it's not beholden on anyone not to cause offence - simply because they can't know if they're doing so or not. So how do we determine what words, phrases or actions are offensive?

Simply put, we don't. We only decide what is offensive to us.

Now the boot is on the other hand though. We know what's offensive to us, but is it reasonable to expect other people to know it too? Nope - for the same reason you don't know what they find offensive...

So let's all say what we like and screw everyone else, right?


Enter the Reasonable Person Test.

The Reasonable Person is a legal construct of someone who is of sound mind and above average intelligence who is capable of making reasoned decisions in the timescales available to them. We can apply the Reasonable Person to offensiveness, quite easily.

A Reasonable Person would judge that sexual abuse of a child is offensive, but that jokes about it aren't necessarily. Apply a context - a rape survivors support group or a primary school fete - and the Reasonable Person would judge that jokes about it are offensive, but put in the setting of a close-to-the-bone stand-up comedian's set and they aren't.

A Reasonable Person would judge that "the N word" is offensive, but in some contexts it isn't. In the context of Michael Richards abusing members of his audience, it's offensive - but in the context of Chris Rock saying that black people need to get rid of the "N word"s in their community, it isn't.

How about drawing a picture of Mohammed? The Reasonable Person would judge that it's not offensive, but spray-painting it on the side of a mosque is pretty offensive.

Gender-specific pronouns? The Reasonable Person might go on holiday at that point, as there's nothing reasonable whatsoever about the whole damn thing.

No Reasonable Person would say that calling a fish "Asian Carp" is offensive, unless the reasons for calling it that are that it's yellow, has narrow eyes and can't reverse park. That would be quite offensive.


The Reasonable Person would also judge that once they have become aware of what is offensive in certain contexts where they were not previously, it's not reasonable to continue doing it. Again though, this depends on the context...

 

[DG_Silva]

I have a negative emotional response to Piers Morgan...

I don't, I have a positive emotional response to Piers Morgan. I absolutely positively want to punch him in the face every time I see him.

Enter the Reasonable Person Test.

The Reasonable Person is a legal construct of someone who is of sound mind and above average intelligence who is capable of making reasoned decisions in the timescales available to them. We can apply the Reasonable Person to offensiveness, quite easily.

That's assuming that the people who are running around, screaming discrimination and offensiveness at everything and everyone are at anywhere near average intelligence, let alone above it...

No Reasonable Person would say that calling a fish "Asian Carp" is offensive, unless the reasons for calling it that are that it's yellow, has narrow eyes and can't reverse park. That would be quite offensive.

I'll have you know, my goldfish can park his tank quite well, thank you very much...

 

[Famine]

That's assuming that the people who are running around, screaming discrimination and offensiveness at everything and everyone are at anywhere near average intelligence, let alone above it...

No, it's very specifically not that.

The Reasonable Person test has nothing to do with real people, much less average people or morons. The Reasonable Person is a construct of someone who, in the time allowed to them, can judge the risks and make a decision based in reason.

It doesn't matter if someone is "triggered" by something or not, if it's not something the Reasonable Person would judge to be offensive.

 

[DG_Silva]

It doesn't matter if someone is "triggered" by something or not, if it's not something the Reasonable Person would judge to be offensive.

That's why I'm agreeing with you. The people who are calling it offensive are not reasonable persons.

I get what you're saying though, it's a person able to reason, not a person who can be agreeable or reasonable.

 

[Zenith]

Reasonable Person Test.

How do you determine what the reasonable person would say? What is outrageous to one person is reasonable to another. The Reasonable person also changes over time.

You use the term "risks", does this mean that the Reasonable Person allows the expected result of an action to determine their interpretation of what is considered offensive? For instance, saying the "N-word" to a group of young black men is more likely to elicit a violent response than saying "Chink" to some Asian men. Could that make one word offensive, but not the other, even though they are comparable in terms of history and intent?

The only metric that I see for determining offensiveness is quantity of people offended, but large quantities of people can easily be unreasonable. Doesn't this make the reasonable person a result on unreasonable people?

 

[homeforsummer]

Speaking of ignorance, some time back I saw a sports report on Lewis Hamilton's first World Championship, where the reporter called him the first African-American to win the World Championship.

I find that offensive.















He's a sodding Brit, not an American

No Reasonable Person would say that calling a fish "Asian Carp" is offensive, unless the reasons for calling it that are that it's yellow, has narrow eyes and can't reverse park. That would be quite offensive.

But also quite funny. My Reasonable Person can't help finding slightly racist jokes quite funny, even though I'm not racist myself.

Which goes back to the whole "anyone can be offended/offensive at any time by anything".

 

[Famine]

How do you determine what the reasonable person would say?

The key is in the first six letters.

The Reasonable Person is a construct, not a real person.

What is outrageous to one person is reasonable to another.

No no, not reasonable as in agreeable. Reasonable as in able to reason.

The Reasonable person also changes over time.

It may well do. It can also change if the Reasonable Person has 2 seconds to react or 2 hours to cogitate.

You use the term "risks", does this mean that the Reasonable Person allows the expected result of an action to determine their interpretation of what is considered offensive?

No.

The Reasonable Person test is, as I explained, a legal construct. It's used to determine whether actions are misjudged or from ill-intent - from assessment of risk. I said that the Reasonable Person test can be applied to offensiveness, simply because the Reasonable Person is a person who can reason.

For instance, saying the "N-word" to a group of young black men is more likely to elicit a violent response than saying "Chink" to some Asian men. Could that make one word offensive, but not the other, even though they are comparable in terms of history and intent?

The only metric that I see for determining offensiveness is quantity of people offended, but large quantities of people can easily be unreasonable. Doesn't this make the reasonable person a result on unreasonable people?

Then you should read what I said about context:

A Reasonable Person would judge that sexual abuse of a child is offensive, but that jokes about it aren't necessarily. Apply a context - a rape survivors support group or a primary school fete - and the Reasonable Person would judge that jokes about it are offensive, but put in the setting of a close-to-the-bone stand-up comedian's set and they aren't.

A Reasonable Person would judge that "the N word" is offensive, but in some contexts it isn't. In the context of Michael Richards abusing members of his audience, it's offensive - but in the context of Chris Rock saying that black people need to get rid of the "N word"s in their community, it isn't.

How about drawing a picture of Mohammed? The Reasonable Person would judge that it's not offensive, but spray-painting it on the side of a mosque is pretty offensive.

Gender-specific pronouns? The Reasonable Person might go on holiday at that point, as there's nothing reasonable whatsoever about the whole damn thing.

No Reasonable Person would say that calling a fish "Asian Carp" is offensive, unless the reasons for calling it that are that it's yellow, has narrow eyes and can't reverse park. That would be quite offensive.


The Reasonable Person would also judge that once they have become aware of what is offensive in certain contexts where they were not previously, it's not reasonable to continue doing it. Again though, this depends on the context...

No quantities of people were invoked. It could be one person who doesn't like their weight being brought up, or a nation.

 

[Jet Badger]

The social justice warrior kinds that scream discrimination and offensiveness at everything, in my eyes, are just another bunch with nothing to show, say or do to make them stand out, so they play a "white knight" to whatever groups or minorities by looking for things that may, remotely or not, upset or offend someone despite it's context and boast about it on Tumblr. That's most likely the only thing that makes them feel like they're doing a good job or have some authority and moral superiority. Nonetheless, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams.

 

[wfooshee]

Apparently it's all about removing differences between people, the idea being that without differences to squabble over, people will simply stop squabbling.

As I look around, I don't see a whole lot of folks that I'd actually want to be like......

As for my last sentence in the original post, my point was not that someone should not be allowed to express themselves because their viewpoint is different than mine, my point was that they should come up with something useful to express themselves about.

I based these paraphrased lines on lines from a Chicago Tribune editorial about the Asian Carp name change in Minnesota:
And speaking of fish names, are all rainbow trout gay? Most likely not, so change the name! How about European Flounder? Bottom-feeding deformed things they are, but are most Europeans like that? Well, maybe. Still, it's rude to point it out all the time. Change the name!

 

[homeforsummer]

The social justice warrior kinds that scream discrimination and offensiveness at everything, in my eyes, are just another bunch with nothing to show, say or do to make them stand out, so they play a "white knight" to whatever groups or minorities by looking for things that may, remotely or not, upset or offend someone despite it's context and boast about it on Tumblr. That's most likely the only thing that makes them feel like they're doing a good job or have some authority and moral superiority. Nonetheless, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams.

To be fair, the opposite is also true. Plenty of people will justify anything and everything as "free speech", like it's some kind of get out of jail free card for being an offensive knob.

Of course, the perfect way of dealing with this isn't to be part of the offended-at-everything brigade, but simply to ignore offensive knobs and deny them the glory of being listened to.

Which is why I die a little inside any time a newspaper reports on something Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan has said. If we had the will to ignore them, they'd simply go away.

 

[Famine]

Apparently it's all about removing differences between people, the idea being that without differences to squabble over, people will simply stop squabbling.

What is?

I based these paraphrased lines on lines from a Chicago Tribune editorial about the Asian Carp name change in Minnesota:
And speaking of fish names, are all rainbow trout gay? Most likely not, so change the name! How about European Flounder? Bottom-feeding deformed things they are, but are most Europeans like that? Well, maybe. Still, it's rude to point it out all the time. Change the name!

Now read what I wrote and try to tell me why that makes sense. I'll point out that it doesn't.

To be fair, the opposite is also true. Plenty of people will justify anything and everything as "free speech", like it's some kind of get out of jail free card for being an offensive knob.

Of course, the perfect way of dealing with this isn't to be part of the offended-at-everything brigade, but simply to ignore offensive knobs and deny them the glory of being listened to.

Which is why I die a little inside any time a newspaper reports on something Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan has said. If we had the will to ignore them, they'd simply go away.

It is important to note that free speech must be absolute (as soon as any part of it is limited it isn't free, after all)... but...

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of a platform from which to speak. If your employer doesn't like what you have to say, they are wholly entitled to sack you. If the social media site through which you express yourself doesn't like what you have to say, they are wholly entitled to ban you. If the restaurant you're in when you choose to express yourself doesn't like what you have to say, they are wholly entitled to eject you. If you're in my house and say something I don't like, I'm wholly entitled to remove you. If you're on the street saying something someone doesn't like they, on the same basis, are entitled to tell you what they think too...

 

[niky]

The social justice warrior kinds that scream discrimination and offensiveness at everything, in my eyes, are just another bunch with nothing to show, say or do to make them stand out, so they play a "white knight" to whatever groups or minorities by looking for things that may, remotely or not, upset or offend someone despite it's context and boast about it on Tumblr. That's most likely the only thing that makes them feel like they're doing a good job or have some authority and moral superiority. Nonetheless, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams.

I'm of two minds about so-called "Social Justice Warriors". Just because some people there isn't a social problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no reason women cannot be misogynistic, or minorities cannot be self-hating racists (actually, that's fairly common).

Yes, there are those who trump up any perceived slight or discrimination to further their political agendas, but this situation has nothing to do with that (and it really should go in its own thread). This situation is purely about Political Correctness.*

Anything to do with language falls under the purview of Political Correctness, which is less about Social Justice and more about whitewashing language to remove "trigger" words, no matter how inane they are.

-

Aaaand... I still have yet to see evidence that there's any anti-discrimination logic applied to calling Carp "Invasive Carp", since they're still called Asian Carp, (sometimes Invasive Asian Carp) in the news.

 

[Jet Badger]

To be fair, the opposite is also true. Plenty of people will justify anything and everything as "free speech", like it's some kind of get out of jail free card for being an offensive knob.

Of course, the perfect way of dealing with this isn't to be part of the offended-at-everything brigade, but simply to ignore offensive knobs and deny them the glory of being listened to.

Which is why I die a little inside any time a newspaper reports on something Katie Hopkins or Piers Morgan has said. If we had the will to ignore them, they'd simply go away.

That's definitely true. I was thinking more along the lines of comedy routines that people find offensive without taking in the fact that they're just that - jokes where the person saying them usually doesn't hold the position in at all. In contrast to someone using offensive and disrespectful terms or expressions in a political statement and the like. Sometimes you probably need more than immediate context to tell whether it's a lighthearted joke or a hate message, things like the person's background. Someone like Jimmy Carr saying essentially the same things on a stage as a religious cult leader on TV would be perceived very differently.

But I definitely agree that people using free speech or 'ahh, it was just a joke' to justify saying actually offensive things is a complete ******** move. That's why it's sometimes very hard to say without knowing them whether they're actually joking or just being a doorbell.

Also I've really no idea who Piers Morgan is, only that I've seen people wanting to punch him in the face on multiple occasions now...

I'm of two minds about so-called "Social Justice Warriors". Just because some people there isn't a social problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no reason women cannot be misogynistic, or minorities cannot be self-hating racists (actually, that's fairly common).

I didn't mean to say anything otherwise...

Just wondering about the reasons behind people going to extremes in looking for something to be offended at, as someone brought that up few posts above.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The social justice warrior kinds that scream discrimination and offensiveness at everything, in my eyes, are just another bunch with nothing to show, say or do to make them stand out, so they play a "white knight" to whatever groups or minorities by looking for things that may, remotely or not, upset or offend someone despite it's context and boast about it on Tumblr.

We've established that you dislike Tumblr. Why is that, why should you even have an opinion? There is no right to avoid being offended, why shouldn't people be free to offend you as you are them?

Nonetheless, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams.

I thought this was the God-mumbling thread for a minute... what on Earth does that mumbo jumbo mean?

 

[Jet Badger]

We've established that you dislike Tumblr. Why is that, why should you even have an opinion? There is no right to avoid being offended, why shouldn't people be free to offend you as you are them?

I have a Tumblr account and even log on there every couple days. Offence? I SAY BRING IT ON. I'VE SEEN IT ALL.

I thought this was the God-mumbling thread for a minute... what on Earth does that mumbo jumbo mean?

Just an observation.

If you have some jet fuel I can find some steel beams and we can do a science to demonstrate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you have some jet fuel I can find some steel beams and we can do a science to demonstrate.

Are you a tin-hatter or do you simply feel that Boyle's Law is for nooobz?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Well, people have the right to their own emotions. You do not get to decide what other people should feel. And while there's people who go all out fanaticaly offended at everything, I definitely see more accusations of it than actual cases. There's loads and loads of empathically challenged people who love to label other people as over sensetive simply because it doesn't affect them personally.

 

[Jet Badger]

Are you a tin-hatter or do you simply feel that Boyle's Law is for nooobz?

The only Boyle I recognise is Frankie.

 

[huskeR32]

So this thing about Minnesota renaming Asian Carp to Invasive Carp has pushed me over the breaking point.

For every person that gets a little "too offended" by something, I see ten people railing against PC/SJWs, claiming their free-speech rights are hanging by a single fraying thread and OH MY GOD HERE COME THE SCISSORS!

Yes, some folks are just always looking for something to be outraged about. But who cares? If you're asked to say "Invasive Carp" instead of "Asian Carp," what real impact does it have on your life?

There's an Alabama town planning on demolishing a Confederate memorial because it's "offensive."

Are you really unable to understand why it might be offensive to some people?

The Confederate issue is nothing but revisionist history at work. Let's take slavery and the Civil War out of our books, and out of peoples' minds, and it will all go away. Let's completely forget that the Civil war was pretty much about a perception of a federal government exceeding its limits (sound familiar?) rather than slavery per se.

Have a read of Mississippi's Declaration of Secession.