Culture of offense relation to complaint culture

[annandatje]

Someone here posted recently about how we have a culture of complaining. I was pondering that perhaps the mindset of easily taking offense and personalizing comments or actions by others is related. I would give theoretical examples but people may personalize them and take offense.:lol:

[angela in ohio]

I've noticed the easily-offended going in a new direction lately: groups claiming everyday words with multiple meanings as their own, so that they can't be used in any way without offending. I think it's very sad for the English language, and I thinkit waters down the concept of what IS truly offensive language.

[momacacia]

Yes! No discussion of sex, religion or politics at dinner parties, for example, in case someone is offended. What else interesting IS there to talk about, really?!?;) I guess you could bring up educational choices, but then things would REALLY get heated!:lol:

 

I think, like complaining, it's really just a lack of maturity, on the part of speakers and listeners. If adults can't express their thoughts without some level of consideration for those who disagree and others can't listen without taking things personally or being offended merely because someone else holds a different opinion, really we're all just back in 7th grade again.

[Murmer]

I think it is also the world of PC language. Honestly there are so many things that can offend people that you never know it it will...IE birthmother/first mother or African American/black. Sometimes I think we are too PC.

[pqr]

I Sometimes I think we are too PC.

 

There is no "think" I know we are too pc. While I find the complainers annoying it is those cringing feeble individuals who are so afraid of offending someone that their level of thought and speech is reduced to absolute drivel that I find most offensive....well maybe not offensive, perhaps irritating. They go through verbal calisthenics to ensure that every word is so bland that no one could find fault with it.

 

Oops did I offend someone :-)

[Belacqua]

I think the complaining and the quick offense come from the same source: It's All About ME. My coffee was too weak, My commute took too long, My flatulent housecat is making sitting on the couch increasingly unpleasant (ok, maybe that really is just my life...). You obviously meant me when you said you're irritated by jaywalkers. My coworker has Disease X, so it's highly insensitive of you to bring it up.

 

Oi! Sunshine! It isn't always about YOU!

[OrganicAnn]

I also think that people think "others" should be less sensitive, but if you were to make a similar joke, comment or jab about them - then look out.

[pqr]

I also think that people think "others" should be less sensitive, but if you were to make a similar joke, comment or jab about them - then look out.

 

 

I disagree, some people are thick skinned others simply fragile.

 

Some can deal with a little needling or even direct insult, others seem to look for ways in which they have been insulted.

[twoforjoy]

I find that my own tendency is to assume that I am airing valid grievances whereas others are complaining. I'm standing up against an injustice while others are taking offense too easily.

 

In some ways I think we live in a very odd culture, where you'll see things like people getting very, very angry over the fact that other people aren't taking enough personal responsibility, and not seeing even a tiny shred of irony in that. But in other ways it's not odd at all, because I do think that's our tendency. We're always seeing that shard in the other person's eye.

 

I think it's best when I can extend grace to others while not giving myself much wiggle room. I'd like to keep myself from complaining while responding to the complaints of others--which I usually want to tune out--with the assumption that whatever they are complaining about is an issue that may indeed matter a great deal to them and that they need to talk about. I'd like to keep myself from taking offense while responding to the offense other's take with the assumption that they experienced real hurt that they need addressed. I'm not going to say I'm very successful with that, but I do think that if I think people complain too much or take too much offense, the only real course of action is to stop complaining and stop taking offense myself, rather than wanting others to stop.

 

I think it is also the world of PC language. Honestly there are so many things that can offend people that you never know it it will...IE birthmother/first mother or African American/black. Sometimes I think we are too PC.

 

I didn't know until very recently that the language traditionally used around adoption can feel hurtful or demeaning to birth mothers. I'm glad I know, and I'm glad there are alternatives. I can see, now that I'm aware of it, that "giving up" is probably not the best term to use, and there are better ways to talk about the adoption process and the people involved in it. It isn't a burden on me to make those changes, but I'm also not aware of anybody having taken offense at my use of language before I was aware of it. Having somebody point out that there are other, more preferred ways of referring to a person, or group of people, or certain actions, doesn't mean they are taking offense.

 

I always feel like I live in a different world that most people (on the internet, at least!) because I just don't run into all of these quick-to-take offense people. I've never met a black person who got upset if you called them black or if you called them African-American. (Yes, there are terms that would make them upset, but I would hope that we'd see refraining from using racial slurs as a matter of doing the right thing morally, not "politically correct.") I don't know if most people take having somebody suggest an alternate, preferred term to mean that person has taken offense, or just know way touchier people than I've ever run into, but I don't see people taking offense too quickly over language use as a particularly rampant problem.

[GingerPoppy]

There is no "think" I know we are too pc. While I find the complainers annoying it is those cringing feeble individuals who are so afraid of offending someone that their level of thought and speech is reduced to absolute drivel that I find most offensive....well maybe not offensive, perhaps irritating. They go through verbal calisthenics to ensure that every word is so bland that no one could find fault with it.

 

Oops did I offend someone :-)

 

OH, YES! :iagree:

[twoforjoy]

There is no "think" I know we are too pc. While I find the complainers annoying it is those cringing feeble individuals who are so afraid of offending someone that their level of thought and speech is reduced to absolute drivel that I find most offensive....well maybe not offensive, perhaps irritating. They go through verbal calisthenics to ensure that every word is so bland that no one could find fault with it.

 

Oops did I offend someone :-)

 

I'm hard-pressed to think of an actual example of this. But, assuming it happens, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it. What's the problem with referring to individuals and groups in the way that they prefer to be referred to?

 

I will give an example. I'm in favor of women have access to legal abortions. Personally, I think the position taken by people who want to have abortion re-criminalized is best labelled "pro-illegal abortion." But, I realize that people who think abortion should be illegal 1) do not think that accurately represents their position and 2) take offense at it, so I don't use it. It would be disrespectful of me to use it, and it would certainly not be conducive to productive dialogue.

 

Is it really a burden to refer to somebody as "a person with a disability" rather than as "a cripple"? Is it a problem to use "American Indian" or "Native American" rather than "Indian"? I don't really see it bringing any inconvenience to my life, and, even if it did, to me it's just a matter of basic respect and good manners to refer to people in the way they wish to be referred to.

 

I do think it's sad that we've come to dismiss people's efforts to be respectful of others--which used to just be considered good manners--as fearful, "feeble-minded" attempts to avoid offending anybody. I now say "chose adoption" rather than "gave up for adoption." I'm not doing it because I'm "feeble-minded" or afraid, but because I can see how the former term is both more accurate and more respectful. I'm very glad to have been made aware that there is more accurate, respectful language available, on this subject and in other areas. I'm not really sure why people get so--here it comes!--offended by the idea that the way they say things might not be the most appropriate, respectful, or accurate way to do so. To me it's kind of like insisting that you call somebody by a nickname that they don't go by, rather than their preferred nickname--why would somebody do that? Again, it just seems like a matter of good manners to me, not "political correctness."

 

And if the preferred term changes? Then you roll with the punches and use the new preferred term. It's no different than somebody who decides they want to go by a different nickname. If you've been Kathy to me for years but now you want to be Katie, well, I'd be happy to call you Katie, while also hoping you'd forgive me if I forgot and called you Kathy sometimes. ;) Just basic respect and decency on both sides.

[asta]

By and large it is the isms that get to me. I am not Belgian oe Enlish or Scottish or Irish American. I am just American. Where I live, "black" people are just as likely to be from Cuba, somewhere in the Carribean, or Puerto Rico as they would be from somewhere in Africa. If they have established residency here, they claim HERE as their nationality and, if asked, say 'well, I was born in _____ ." There is no hyphenation.

 

It is as if we have extended this idea - this sense of "isms" to large portons of our culture - and there will always be someone who is offended in any given situation.

 

I have no idea what the solution is. Perhaps this awful period that the world is going through (it truly is reverberating worldwide) will bring about some change as to what is truly important in life (family, shelter, food, work) bs needless bickering.

 

a

[pqr]

By and large it is the isms that get to me. I am not Belgian oe Enlish or Scottish or Irish American. I am just American. Where I live, "black" people are just as likely to be from Cuba, somewhere in the Carribean, or Puerto Rico as they would be from somewhere in Africa. If they have established residency here, they claim HERE as their nationality and, if asked, say 'well, I was born in _____ ." There is no hyphenation.

 

 

 

Reminds one of the statement by President T. Roosevelt who, when speaking to the Knights of Columbus in 1915 said:

 

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

[Murmer]

I didn't know until very recently that the language traditionally used around adoption can feel hurtful or demeaning to birth mothers. I'm glad I know, and I'm glad there are alternatives. I can see, now that I'm aware of it, that "giving up" is probably not the best term to use, and there are better ways to talk about the adoption process and the people involved in it. It isn't a burden on me to make those changes, but I'm also not aware of anybody having taken offense at my use of language before I was aware of it. Having somebody point out that there are other, more preferred ways of referring to a person, or group of people, or certain actions, doesn't mean they are taking offense.

 

I always feel like I live in a different world that most people (on the internet, at least!) because I just don't run into all of these quick-to-take offense people. I've never met a black person who got upset if you called them black or if you called them African-American. (Yes, there are terms that would make them upset, but I would hope that we'd see refraining from using racial slurs as a matter of doing the right thing morally, not "politically correct.") I don't know if most people take having somebody suggest an alternate, preferred term to mean that person has taken offense, or just know way touchier people than I've ever run into, but I don't see people taking offense too quickly over language use as a particularly rampant problem.

 

 

That is what is sad is that all the terms I picked are both appropriate language...possibly even PC but that there are people that choose to be offended by one or the other of the terms. That's the problem with PC language how do you guarantee that the words you use are not offensive to the person that you are talking to, you can't unless you ask what they prefer. But if you don't use the PC language that has been select by someone possibly unrelated to the actual situation then you are automatically offensive because many of the nonPC things are more offensive than the arbitrary PC terms. Its a lose lose situation.

[pqr]

I'm hard-pressed to think of an actual example of this. But, assuming it happens, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it. What's the problem with referring to individuals and groups in the way that they prefer to be referred to?

 

 

How about renaming manhole covers "person hole covers," how about the utter stupidity of "correcting" Twain in recent reprints of his works, how about those who insist in referring to our nation as an "it" rather than a "she," how about the -isms that Asta referenced, how about the lunacy in San Francisco where they seem to change the terms of reference every week.

 

Look at the terms we use for American Indians in this part of the world. Who decides which is appropriate? I know many who prefer the term American Indian, others who prefer Native American, others who want First Peoples...... Is someone who uses one rather than the other necessarily dense, ill-informed or racist? Need I go back and modify my text books? This is utter lunacy and we jump through hoops trying to determine which is pc. What will be the next term to be used? Who decides? What happens when segments within a group disagree on the term?

 

Have you never been in conversations where people do not know the correct term and try to speak around it, or conversations where there is the pregnant pause when an individual is unsure if he has used the right term? When he waits for the verbal rebuke before continuing or when there is the guilty glance at another as if to ask "did I say it correctly?" I am not talking of terms that are genuinely offensive but rather of the mistaken use of an outdated term.

 

Echos of 1984 and newspeak!

[annandatje]

... some people are thick skinned others simply fragile. Some can deal with a little needling or even direct insult, others seem to look for ways in which they have been insulted.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

On a personal level, I have found that if a jab stings, the speaker probably is making a valid point about me.

 

On another note, here is a hypothetical (and often real) situation that puzzles me to no end: A innocently and without ulterior motive says to B that A feels a certain type of educational experience is best for A's children.

 

B, who enthusiastically and successfully follows a different educational path for her children, assumes that A's comment is directed toward B; B personalizes the comment and takes offense, assuming A thinks B's children are suffering for not having same experience as A's children. B then proceeds to defend her way of educating even though it was never attacked by A.

[annandatje]

That is what is sad is that all the terms I picked are both appropriate language...possibly even PC but that there are people that choose to be offended by one or the other of the terms. That's the problem with PC language how do you guarantee that the words you use are not offensive to the person that you are talking to, you can't unless you ask what they prefer. But if you don't use the PC language that has been select by someone possibly unrelated to the actual situation then you are automatically offensive because many of the nonPC things are more offensive than the arbitrary PC terms. Its a lose lose situation.

 

Sometime ago a poster here was commenting on marriage, but her statement pertains to interpersonal relationships in general: Assume the best intentions on the part of the other person. Language is fluid, so we have to look beyond the words to the speaker's intent.

[SailorMom]

Overly sensitive people annoy the living daylights out of me..... I call them on it. Don't really want to be around people like that all the time, so if I offend them easily, then we should probably part ways.

I don't say anything actually offensive (I would never say the N word, or cus at someone), but it is amazing what riles people up.

 

What is truly sad is the people (I have relatives like this) that seriously go through their days thinking 'poor me' and finding ways to not only be angry at others, but to blame them for their lives. What a sad way to live, and what a waste of time.

[twoforjoy]

How about renaming manhole covers "person hole covers,"

 

Has that happened outside of one or two brief, isolated incidents? Because I've certain never seen or heard a manhole or manhole cover referred to that way. Have you? I don't mean, have you heard apocryphal stories about it happening, but have you actually heard/seen it for yourself?

 

how about the utter stupidity of "correcting" Twain in recent reprints of his works,

 

I take it from your past posts that you are a big fan of the free market. This was a particular publishing company deciding to publish an edition that they thought would sell. Do you think the government should have swooped in and stopped them? If they think they can make money doing that, why does it bother or offend you that one specific publishing company is publishing one specific edition of a book that is editing in a way you don't like?

 

how about those who insist in referring to our nation as an "it" rather than a "she,"

 

I'm not seeing how that's either awkward or "PC." Since in American English we tend to only treat things that are actually, biologically female as female, and the United States does not, AFAIK, have female parts, then I think using "it" is actually more technically correct than politically correct. It seems like a generational thing. I don't know anybody who would refer to the country as "she." It sounds like an issue of language change. I know language change offends many people, but it's how language works. Referring to the U.S. as "it" is neither awkward nor politically charged.

 

how about the -isms that Asta referenced,

 

I read her post, and I didn't really get what she was saying about "-isms."

 

how about the lunacy in San Francisco where they seem to change the terms of reference every week.

 

I'm not aware of that. I don't live in SF. Although, my husband has taken several trips there for conferences, and he was not given a list of approved and banned words, and did not witness any language police around. I have no idea what goes on in SF, but 1) if it doesn't bother the people there, why should it bother you? (do you think the federal government should come in and tell them to stop it?) and 2) it certainly has no bearing on my life.

 

Look at the terms we use for American Indians in this part of the world. Who decides which is appropriate? I know many who prefer the term American Indian, others who prefer Native American, others who want First Peoples...... Is someone who uses one rather than the other necessarily dense, ill-informed or racist? Need I go back and modify my text books? This is utter lunacy and we jump through hoops trying to determine which is pc. What will be the next term to be used? Who decides? What happens when segments within a group disagree on the term?

 

Honestly, when I hear people say things like this, I generally think they probably have very little contact with minority groups, and so are going on what they've been told by the conservative media about how people respond to certain terms, rather than how actual people actual respond.

 

I have lived in a mostly-black area for many years. I've been teaching classes with mostly non-white students for many years. I have never, ever seen or heard anybody take offense at being called either "black" or "African-American." This idea that if you fail to use the "right" term, people will be up in arms, is just not reality. It's a myth. Yes, if I walked into a room and used the n-word, I'd upset people. If I started saying "Negro," they'd probably assume I was either crazy or racist (but even then it wouldn't cause the kind of anger/outrage that the n-word would cause). But, nobody would blink an eye if I used either "black" or AA.

 

I imagine the same is true of American Indians. If you used any of the terms you listed, you wouldn't offend anybody. It might not be somebody's preferred term, but it wouldn't offend them. But, if you just used "Indian" or started talking about "Injuns," then indeed you would be causing offense.

 

Just because there are some words that are clearly offensive and that will offend people, doesn't mean that there is only one "right" word that won't.

 

Anyway, I don't know anybody--not a single person--who has real-life experience with somebody taking the kind of offense we're talking about here over somebody using a term that is non-preferred but neither archaic or a slur. That leads me to think that most people who imagine that they are going to get nailed if they don't use the "right" word spend very little time talking to people in that groups.

 

The funny thing is that I always see people using black/AA as the example, but I think there's probably no group that is more okay with multiple terms being used than black/African-Americans. I do know blacks who will say that they feel AA is inaccurate, but I do not know a single black person who would take offense over either word. I think we like to imagine, quite frankly, that black people are just sitting there waiting to take offense so that we can excuse our own actual racism as them "overreacting," when in fact black people are, in my experience, far more accepting of multiple terms being used than nearly any other groups I know.

 

It's actually people with disabilities who are the group I'm most aware of getting offended over language use. And, that's totally understandable, because words that are very offensive to them, like "handicapped" or even "crippled," are still used with regularity. But it's funny that nobody ever mentions people with disabilities when they talk about "easily offended groups," but always talk about blacks.

 

Have you never been in conversations where people do not know the correct term and try to speak around it, or conversations where there is the pregnant pause when an individual is unsure if he has used the right term? When he waits for the verbal rebuke before continuing or when there is the guilty glance at another as if to ask "did I say it correctly?" I am not talking of terms that are genuinely offensive but rather of the mistaken use of an outdated term.

 

I've actually never seen that, myself. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. One time I did. I recently had a friend move here from Oregon. She was very surprised that there's an area of the city called "Mexicantown" and was hesitant to use it. In Oregon, if you used that term, it would be as a slur. Here, it's what that part of the city is actually called; everybody uses the term, including the hispanic population there (and, no, you aren't going to get anybody mad at you for using "hispanic" or "latino" when the other is their preferred term--there are enough actual racial slurs aimed at people of Mexican descent that they aren't going to take offense at a non-preferred non-slur being used).

 

That really wasn't about PC, though; it was about cultural difference and context. "Mexicantown" could indeed be offensive if it were a label imposed on an area by outsiders, particularly if they were using it to demean that area. But, that's not the case here. Being aware of context is a good thing; it means somebody isn't tone-deaf when it comes to language. I don't see that as "feeble-minded" or fearful but as intelligently trying to use language in ways that will make the point you want to make, rather than one you don't want to make.

 

When it comes to Newspeak, I think Orwell would have taken far more offense with a "culture of life" that defines "life" as only referring to embryonic and fetal life and champion pre-emptive war and capital punishment, people who rename a tax only on those with very large estates a "Death Tax," "clean air" legislation that involves dropping regulations on emissions, and people calling union-busting legislation "Freedom to Work" legislation. But, let's not call that PC, right? That's just a fully sensible and straightforward use of language. ;)

 

But, again, I think the primary thing is that, if we are truly concerned about people taking offense to often, then our best bet is to try to take offense less often ourselves, rather than pointing fingers at "those people" who we think are just too sensitive.

Edited September 24, 2011 by twoforjoy

[pqr]

Has that happened outside of one or two brief, isolated incidents? Because I've certain never seen or heard a manhole or manhole cover referred to that way. Have you? I don't mean, have you heard apocryphal stories about it happening, but have you actually heard/seen it for yourself?

Yes I have seen that type of idiocy, both in the States and overseas.

 

At the Commemoration of the Battle of Trafalgar the two "sides" wer refered to in OFFICIAL commemorations as the Red and the Blue so as not to remind the French and Spanish that they had their rear ends handed to them.

 

One only need the newspaper to see scores of cases of so called "sexist" words being challenges and calls for their demise.

 

 

I take it from your past posts that you are a big fan of the free market. This was a particular publishing company deciding to publish an edition that they thought would sell. Do you think the government should have swooped in and stopped them? If they think they can make money doing that, why does it bother or offend you that one specific publishing company is publishing one specific edition of a book that is editing in a way you don't like?

 

Of course the government should not swoop in, the comment was regarding the stupidity of the action. The fact that such a move might make economic sense only makes my case about how far PC lunacy has spread. Thank you for making my point through a better explanation than I gave.

So yes there is a good example... see you were not to "hard pressed" to find an example.

 

 

I'm not seeing how that's either awkward or "PC." Since in American English we tend to only treat things that are actually, biologically female as female, and the United States does not, AFAIK, have female parts, then I think using "it" is actually more technically correct than politically correct. It seems like a generational thing. I don't know anybody who would refer to the country as "she." It sounds like an issue of language change. I know language change offends many people, but it's how language works. Referring to the U.S. as "it" is neither awkward nor politically charged.

 

 

I refer to her as a she as do many people I know

 

other examples:

de Tocqueville

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.â€

 

John Adams

"[America] has . . . respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings .

 

Are you really arguing that in an era when standards are falling, when the need to be "technically correct" in speech is a thing of the past, when we accept misspellings simply because most people are too lazy to correct them that suddenly we refer to our nation as "it" because it is "technically correct"? In this one area we are swimming against the tide?

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, when I hear people say things like this, I generally think they probably have very little contact with minority groups, and so are going on what they've been told by the conservative media about how people respond to certain terms, rather than how actual people actual respond.

 

 

I imagine the same is true of American Indians. If you used any of the terms you listed, you wouldn't offend anybody. It might not be somebody's preferred term, but it wouldn't offend them. But, if you just used "Indian" or started talking about "Injuns," then indeed you would be causing offense.

 

Just because there are some words that are clearly offensive and that will offend people, doesn't mean that there is only one "right" word that won't.

 

Anyway, I don't know anybody--not a single person--who has real-life experience with somebody taking the kind of offense we're talking about here over somebody using a term that is non-preferred but neither archaic or a slur. That leads me to think that most people who imagine that they are going to get nailed if they don't use the "right" word spend very little time talking to people in that groups.

 

 

I've actually never seen that, myself.

 

Well, I have seen it. We obviously move in different circles. I have even seen papers where the children of friends have been marked down for using the wrong term.

 

 

When it comes to Newspeak, I think Orwell would have taken far more offense with a "culture of life" that defines "life" as only referring to embryonic and fetal life and champion pre-emptive war and capital punishment, people who rename a tax only on those with very large estates a "Death Tax," "clean air" legislation that involves dropping regulations on emissions, and people calling union-busting legislation "Freedom to Work" legislation. But, let's not call that PC, right? That's just a fully sensible and straightforward use of language. ;)

 

 

Way off topic here but if I CANNOT WORK without being FORCED to join a UNION and GIVE them my money then any legislation that says I may have a job without FORCED membership in a political organization IS "Freedom To Work" Legislation.

 

Any tax that hits my estate IS a "Death Tax"

[Alicia64]

I've noticed the easily-offended going in a new direction lately: groups claiming everyday words with multiple meanings as their own, so that they can't be used in any way without offending. I think it's very sad for the English language, and I thinkit waters down the concept of what IS truly offensive language.

 

Well said, Angela!!

 

It bugs me that so many words are emerging that are "offensive" to someone.

 

It's like various groups patent public-use words!

 

Good topic.

 

Alley