Cancel culture expands to real life in the USA

[hood1971]

@mmj_uk what is you take on Liz Cheney being removed from her roles in the Republican party? Is she being cancelled for not agreeing that Trump was beaten due to fraud?

 

[chroniclard]

@mmj_uk what is you take on Liz Cheney being removed from her roles in the Republican party? Is she being cancelled for not agreeing that Trump was beaten due to fraud?

Dont be silly, they dont care unless its lefties doing it. When Trump attempted to cancel tons of people over the years of his disastrous failed presidency they didnt care.

 

[fez]

The English language is a wonderfully varied tool that allow people to convey their thoughts to one another, if "ordinary people are scared to voice traditional opinions and scientific facts" (whatever an ordinary person is) then perhaps they need to try rephrasing things so they're not misunderstood and not causing offence.

Huh, thats basically saying that the onus is on the world to tiptoe around anyone who might be offended by something they say which is complete BS. This idea that we should bend the world to the will of the few is quite ridiculous.

Its not a case of someone being misunderstood, its a simple case of disagreement. When people are experts at being offended at the smallest perceived slight, you want everyone to pander to their delicate constitutions and adhere to their world view.

Its not even a case of left vs right, its a case of the vast majority of people not really giving a crap about things and then being told that their indifference is racist/transphobic or bigoted.

There are plenty of things that we should be aiming to be better at but there are also plenty of things that are just fine as they are and the push to change them is counterproductive and dangerous as its achieving the complete opposite of what we should want. Identity politics is fundamentally toxic and is more divisive than it is inclusive. We used to listen to the moderate voices of minority groups because they were usually sensible and spoke with experience and understanding. Now we bow to the most aggressive and regressive voices in these groups.

 

[Murphy]

Huh, thats basically saying that the onus is on the world to tiptoe around anyone who might be offended by something they say which is complete BS. This idea that we should bend the world to the will of the few is quite ridiculous.

Its not a case of someone being misunderstood, its a simple case of disagreement. When people are experts at being offended at the smallest perceived slight, you want everyone to pander to their delicate constitutions and adhere to their world view.

Its not even a case of left vs right, its a case of the vast majority of people not really giving a crap about things and then being told that their indifference is racist/transphobic or bigoted.

There are plenty of things that we should be aiming to be better at but there are also plenty of things that are just fine as they are and the push to change them is counterproductive and dangerous as its achieving the complete opposite of what we should want. Identity politics is fundamentally toxic and is more divisive than it is inclusive. We used to listen to the moderate voices of minority groups because they were usually sensible and spoke with experience and understanding. Now we bow to the most aggressive and regressive voices in these groups.

It doesn't basically say that at all. If you're using words you know to be offensive then that's on you, if someone takes offence at something you say then the onus is on you to rephrase so as not to cause offence, if you lack the vocabulary to do so that's on you.

It's got nothing to do with disagreement, people can disagree without causing offence. That is unless you're suggesting that someone sets-out to cause offence and they've not simply been misunderstood, personally i assume the other person is acting in good faith until they prove otherwise, if they're not willing to rephrase something they're aware causes offence then they're no longer acting on good faith, they've proven their intention was to cause offence.

Not sure why you feel this has anything to do with so called "Identity politics".

 

[Tony Edwards]

It doesn't basically say that at all. If you're using words you know to be offensive then that's on you, if someone takes offence at something you say then the onus is on you to rephrase so as not to cause offence, if you lack the vocabulary to do so that's on you.

It's got nothing to do with disagreement, people can disagree without causing offence. That is unless you're suggesting that someone sets-out to cause offence and they've not simply been misunderstood, personally i assume the other person is acting in good faith until they prove otherwise, if they're not willing to rephrase something they're aware causes offence then they're no longer acting on good faith, they've proven their intention was to cause offence.

Not sure why you feel this has anything to do with so called "Identity politics".

I think this line explains it for you.

We used to listen to the moderate voices of minority groups because they were usually sensible and spoke with experience and understanding. Now we bow to the most aggressive and regressive voices in these groups.

 

[Tony Edwards]

In other news.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-horse-racing-cancel-culture-disqualification

Bob Baffert, whose horse faces disqualification from the Kentucky Derby after a failed drugs test, has blamed the situation on “cancel culture”.

Medina Spirit won this month’s Derby by half a length at Churchill Downs but on Sunday it emerged the horse had tested positive for double the legal amount of the steroid betamethasone after the race. Churchill Downs has suspended Baffert from entering horses at the track, and indicated it would invalidate Medina Spirit’s victory if the results of the drug test are upheld.

During an appearance on Fox News on Monday, Baffert appeared to suggest he was a victim of larger forces. “Churchill Downs came out with that statement – that was pretty harsh,” said Baffert. “With all the noise … We live in a different world now. This America is different. It was like a cancel culture kind of a thing so they’re reviewing it. I haven’t been told anything.”

Baffert has had at least 30 positive doping tests for his horses, but insisted to Fox that he runs a clean operation.

“We live in a new world now. These horses don’t live in a bubble,” he said. “They’re in an open farm. People are touching them. He went from the Derby to after the Derby everybody’s out there touching them. I mean there’s so many ways these horses can get contaminated and when they’re testing at these really ridiculously low levels … I’ve been saying it for over a year now these are gonna get innocent people in trouble and this is what happened now.”

Baffert also suggested on Monday that Medina Spirit may have tested positive after a groom took cough medicine and urinated on some hay, which the horse then ate.

Nutters!

 

[Werewolf]

I saw that one about the racehorses and my immediate reaction was that's not "cancel culture" unless you class doping tests for athletes as cancel culture.
One or two horses testing positive for something over the space of several years/hundreds of races might be a mistake, but if you're racking up dozens of positive tests for your horses then something is going wrong with your [s[attempt at doping[/s] training and care regime for them.

It does rather seem that the Republican party has started screaming about "cancel culture" where at one point they would have been the ones saying that people should take responsibility for their own actions (they seem to love that line in regards to almost everything else). if you do something that means a company no longer wishes to support you, that's not "cancel culture" that's a company deciding you're a liability, if you are disqualified from a race because you're caught doped up that's not cancel culture, that's breaking the rules on the competition.
If you refuse to follow the rules for a platform that is letting you use their service, that platform has every right to stop you using their services, that's not cancel culture that's enforcing the terms of service.
Likewise if you are disruptive on a flight or abuse to airline staff and they refuse to carry you that's your problem, if you do something that actively puts you on a terrorist watchlist, such as taking part in a violent attack on the seat of government and the government security agencies put you on a no fly list, that's not cancel culture, that's the government deciding that maybe until they know better you're possibly not a great bet to be allowed on a passenger aircraft.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the IIRC Alaskan state politician who is now looking at 18 hour car drives rather than being able to fly to the state senate, apparently the only airline flying the route from his remote district decided to cancel him when he repeatedly refused to wear a mask (as was required by airline policy, and then by Federal rule) during the flights.


[edit]
Just seen that the race horse guy has apparently issued a new statement saying "we gave the horse a medication that had the banned substance, that might be the cause of the result".
So again very much not cancel culture, IIRC in any sport it is always considered the sportsperson or animal owner/trainers responsibility to ensure that any medication they take (even over the counter stuff) does not have any banned substances, or if they do to get an exemption in advance which may allow them to have up to certain limits.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I saw that one about the racehorses and my immediate reaction was that's not "cancel culture" unless you class doping tests for athletes as cancel culture.

Yes, it's like the mis-appropriation of the term 'woke' by the right and presenting it as a vice rather than a virtue.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

"Cancel culture" really is the buzz word of the right at the moment. They are going so over the top on it its just become a joke. Everything or anything that happens is being blamed on cancel culture.

 

[FoxEye]

It doesn't basically say that at all. If you're using words you know to be offensive then that's on you, if someone takes offence at something you say then the onus is on you to rephrase so as not to cause offence, if you lack the vocabulary to do so that's on you.

It's got nothing to do with disagreement, people can disagree without causing offence. That is unless you're suggesting that someone sets-out to cause offence and they've not simply been misunderstood, personally i assume the other person is acting in good faith until they prove otherwise, if they're not willing to rephrase something they're aware causes offence then they're no longer acting on good faith, they've proven their intention was to cause offence.

Not sure why you feel this has anything to do with so called "Identity politics".

This is quite the bizarre argument.

Very few people are using words that others find offensive. Other than racial slurs, which I doubt many people here would dream of uttering, there are few words that can cause offense simply by their use. I will assume since you talk about vocabulary causing offense that this is the gist of your argument - that substituting one word for another is the solution.

However, mostly these days it's ideas that cause offense. So if you were to say, "trans-women boxing against real women and demolishing them is a travesty," then you would cause offense to the trans-advocacy groups.

If you were to say, "I refuse to apologise for things that happened well before I was born," you would cause offense to the people who demand modern-day white people should feel guilt over the European/American slave trade.

 

[fez]

It doesn't basically say that at all. If you're using words you know to be offensive then that's on you, if someone takes offence at something you say then the onus is on you to rephrase so as not to cause offence, if you lack the vocabulary to do so that's on you.

Of course it is. If you purposely intend to offend someone then thats on you. If someone decides to take offence to something you have said when your intent is simply to have a discussion then maybe, just maybe they need to grow up. Someone complaining when you greet a group of people with "hey guys" or you forget someones gender because you know, you see them rarely or have never met them and you simply don't know or forget. If you want to, its very easy to be offended at every turn.

Why do you think that the onus is on everyone to make sure that the other party is not offended. Genuine question. Much like racism, its usually very easy to see when someone is actually racist and yet we have suddenly seen racism everywhere. With your logic, the responsibility there is on the person accused of racism to change their behaviour because someone else has decided that what they are doing is wrong. That makes zero sense and gives one side all the power to change the world to fit their worldview.

It's got nothing to do with disagreement, people can disagree without causing offence. That is unless you're suggesting that someone sets-out to cause offence and they've not simply been misunderstood, personally i assume the other person is acting in good faith until they prove otherwise, if they're not willing to rephrase something they're aware causes offence then they're no longer acting on good faith, they've proven their intention was to cause offence.

Or they simply don't agree that what you have taken offence with is actually an issue. This is the crux of the point. I find it offensive to suggest that women and men are the same and should be treated as such. They are not the same. They have different strengths and weaknesses and goals in life. I think that suggesting trans women should be treated at biological women is very damaging to women in many respects and plenty of people would call that trans-phobic and take offence. Both these opinions are offensive to some people no matter how you phrase it.

Just because something offends you or someone else doesn't mean that you have the right to change that persons language or views so that your opinion is validated. As I said above, if someone is trying to offend you then you will usually know about it. We are not talking about someone being outwardly nasty, we are talking about people being offended by the content of what you are saying, not the specific terminology used.

I think that if you are religious and don't believe in gay marriage then you have the right to say that. I think gay people should have all the rights of any other group but I don't think that we have the right to tell people they can't disagree. If they are saying "I don't thinking ******* faggots should be able to marry" then they are clearly being nasty and should be ignored but they still have the right to their scummy opinion.

It does no one any good to be told that whenever you are offended, the other person is in the wrong and should adjust their behaviour. If you don't agree with someone then thats fine. If you don't like the way they have said something, fine. Thats life. You will encounter that. We shouldn't all be catering to the most delicate constitutions.

 

[Murphy]

This is quite the bizarre argument.

Very few people are using words that others find offensive. Other than racial slurs, which I doubt many people here would dream of uttering, there are few words that can cause offense simply by their use. I will assume since you talk about vocabulary causing offense that this is the gist of your argument - that substituting one word for another is the solution.

However, mostly these days it's ideas that cause offense. So if you were to say, "trans-women boxing against real women and demolishing them is a travesty," then you would cause offense to the trans-advocacy groups.

If you were to say, "I refuse to apologise for things that happened well before I was born," you would cause offense to the people who demand modern-day white people should feel guilt over the European/American slave trade.

You say that but someone on these very forums took offence at my use of the word "fella", in that situation they didn't tell me that they considered that word offensive or explain why, i only discovered they found it offensive and the reasons they took offence after, i assume, reporting it to a mod. So no there are not very few people and/or few words that can cause offence, the onus is on the person to make it know that they find a word offensive and then it's on the other person whether they choose to either not use that word or find an alternative.

As for ideas causing offence it depends on the idea and another persons idea can only be know or understood through having a conversation. Your example of "trans-women boxing against real women and demolishing them is a travesty" is a perfect example, if you can't explain why you consider a trans-woman having a boxing match with a woman to be unfair without using loaded words like "travesty" then that's on you because rather than using facts, being objective, and being dispassionate you've used emotive words like "demolishing" and "travesty". Your other example of saying that you "refuse to apologise for things that happened well before I was born" is another example of where either through laziness or a lack of vocabulary you've failed to convey why, maybe it's because you hate the people who had these things done to them, maybe you think the people who did it had the right to do it, and an endless list of maybe you "refuse" for *insert reasons here*. You've not conveyed your thoughts to anyone, you've simply attempted to shutdown any further conversations, you've made no attempt to come to some sort of understanding on the issue, you've not helped the person who took offence understand that your intention was not to cause offence and that you bear them no ill will.

Of course it is. If you purposely intend to offend someone then thats on you. If someone decides to take offence to something you have said when your intent is simply to have a discussion then maybe, just maybe they need to grow up. Someone complaining when you greet a group of people with "hey guys" or you forget someones gender because you know, you see them rarely or have never met them and you simply don't know or forget. If you want to, its very easy to be offended at every turn.

Why do you think that the onus is on everyone to make sure that the other party is not offended. Genuine question. Much like racism, its usually very easy to see when someone is actually racist and yet we have suddenly seen racism everywhere. With your logic, the responsibility there is on the person accused of racism to change their behaviour because someone else has decided that what they are doing is wrong. That makes zero sense and gives one side all the power to change the world to fit their worldview.

That's my point though, the offender and offended can't read each others minds so the only way to understand the other persons thoughts is to have a conversation, both parties can only know if the other is intentionally wanting to cause or take offence by acting in good faith, if someone makes it know that they find a word offensive and when you rephrase it they still find it offensive there's only so far you'd go before coming to the conclusion that they're not acting in good faith, that's they're purposefully taking offence and visa versa, if after repeated notifications that a word causes offence the person continues to use that word then you know they're not acting in good faith, that they're intention is to cause offence, that it's not about having a conversation about the issue at hand.

I didn't say "the onus is on everyone to make sure that the other party is not offended", i said once someone makes it know that they find a word offensive the onus is on the people who they made aware of that to either choose to continue using that word and knowingly cause offence or find an alternative. It's not a matter of someone else deciding something, it's a matter of finding out someone's intentions though conversations, are they really interested in discussing the issue or is their intention to either cause or take offence, and you can only do that by putting the onus on the other person so they can choose to either continue to take or cause offence or modify their behaviour so the exchange of ideas and thoughts can continue.

Or they simply don't agree that what you have taken offence with is actually an issue. This is the crux of the point. I find it offensive to suggest that women and men are the same and should be treated as such. They are not the same. They have different strengths and weaknesses and goals in life. I think that suggesting trans women should be treated at biological women is very damaging to women in many respects and plenty of people would call that trans-phobic and take offence. Both these opinions are offensive to some people no matter how you phrase it.

Just because something offends you or someone else doesn't mean that you have the right to change that persons language or views so that your opinion is validated. As I said above, if someone is trying to offend you then you will usually know about it. We are not talking about someone being outwardly nasty, we are talking about people being offended by the content of what you are saying, not the specific terminology used.

I think that if you are religious and don't believe in gay marriage then you have the right to say that. I think gay people should have all the rights of any other group but I don't think that we have the right to tell people they can't disagree. If they are saying "I don't thinking ******* faggots should be able to marry" then they are clearly being nasty and should be ignored but they still have the right to their scummy opinion.

It does no one any good to be told that whenever you are offended, the other person is in the wrong and should adjust their behaviour. If you don't agree with someone then thats fine. If you don't like the way they have said something, fine. Thats life. You will encounter that. We shouldn't all be catering to the most delicate constitutions.

TBH I've not read the above, that's on me as it's taken me an hour just to get this far.

If there are specific points you want me to address that I've not done already maybe you could let me know as i just don't have any more time ATM.

 

[fez]

You say that but someone on these very forums took offence at my use of the word "fella", in that situation they didn't tell me that they considered that word offensive or explain why, i only discovered they found it offensive and the reasons they took offence after, i assume, reporting it to a mod. So no there are not very few people and/or few words that can cause offence, the onus is on the person to make it know that they find a word offensive and then it's on the other person whether they choose to either not use that word or find an alternative.

I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't think that you need to change your language. Fella is not offensive in my view and you have the right to use it. If you said ******* or something like that then thats clearly intended to insult them but you haven't. That person has chosen to take offence at your use of the word "fella" which they are welcome to do. I just don't think you have any obligation to change it.

Apparently we shouldn't use the word "girls" to talk about women as its degrading and belittles them. I know a lot of women who use the term to describe their friends. Heck, my partners mother still goes out with the girls and she is in her 60s. Its another case of people ascribing negative connotations to a completely inoffensive term. I talk about going out with the boys and I'm in my 30s. There is no negative intent behind its use but its just another thing that someone has decided to become offended by.

Your example of "trans-women boxing against real women and demolishing them is a travesty" is a perfect example

That was another poster, not me. His point still kind of stands though. The other side of the argument is free to use nasty words like hate crime and trans-phobia and is allowed carte blanche to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a monster while the other side has to tip-toe around the issue.

That's my point though, the offender and offended can't read each others minds so the only way to understand the other persons thoughts is to have a conversation, both parties can only know if the other is intentionally wanting to cause or take offence by acting in good faith, if someone makes it know that they find a word offensive and when you rephrase it they still find it offensive there's only so far you'd go before coming to the conclusion that they're not acting in good faith, that's they're purposefully taking offence and visa versa, if after repeated notifications that a word causes offence the person continues to use that word then you know they're not acting in good faith, that they're intention is to cause offence, that it's not about having a conversation about the issue at hand.

I don't think its quite as simple as that though. Just because someone takes offence at a word doesn't mean you should stop using it. I am happy to talk to anyone about any issue but I will not stop using every term or word that they don't like simply because they don't like it. I wouldn't expect them to change their vocabulary to meet my standards either. There has to be some give and take but it shouldn't be the person who is easily offended always getting their way.

I didn't say "the onus is on everyone to make sure that the other party is not offended", i said once someone makes it know that they find a word offensive the onus is on the people who they made aware of that to either choose to continue using that word and knowingly cause offence or find an alternative. It's not a matter of someone else deciding something, it's a matter of finding out someone's intentions though conversations, are they really interested in discussing the issue or is their intention to either cause or take offence, and you can only do that by putting the onus on the other person so they can choose to either continue to take or cause offence or modify their behaviour so the exchange of ideas and thoughts can continue.

Thats interesting because I would go complete the opposite direct honestly. The surest way to tell me that you haven't got a valid point in an argument is to focus on things like taking offence at specific words and try to take the debate away from the actual topic of discussion. Aa I have said, you know very easily when someone is trying to be nasty or offensive so assuming their use of an innocuous word is designed to offend is not operating "in good faith".

 

[pp111]

I get tired of the way that almost every comment anyone makes these days theye are trying to pigeon post it to some political party or other as some kind of slur and political statement. "Radical Liberals", "Crazy Lefties", "Extreme Right". These are terms that are just being used far to often now. Can events not be just examined without a swing at some political party or viewpoint? Invariably the discussion ends up as to what is Liberal, what is not, what is extreme and so on, when all of that doesn't matter at all. Can we not just discuss events from the viewpoint of what we think is right or wrong without getting involved in how to classify it?

 

[mmj_uk]

With your logic, the responsibility there is on the person accused of racism to change their behaviour because someone else has decided that what they are doing is wrong. That makes zero sense and gives one side all the power to change the world to fit their worldview.

Isn't that exactly what this is all about? an attempt to subvert western society from one of unique individuals who all have different views and opinions to something like China or North Korea (or even Nazi Germany) where everyone must conform to the group or party mindset, anyone seen to be stepping out of line is punished with cancel culture. Those pushing this group conformity are using issues like BLM and LGBT which in themselves are seen as 'doing good' so that anyone who fights or resists the assimilation process can be attacked as a bad individual who is racist or transphobe or whatever, which then has a chilling effect on others to tow the line.

Communists/socialists were never going to beat the west militarily, when the west opened trade with China the hope was that China would become more free like the west, not the other way around.

 

[fez]

I get tired of the way that almost every comment anyone makes these days theye are trying to pigeon post it to some political party or other as some kind of slur and political statement. "Radical Liberals", "Crazy Lefties", "Extreme Right". These are terms that are just being used far to often now. Can events not be just examined without a swing at some political party or viewpoint? Invariably the discussion ends up as to what is Liberal, what is not, what is extreme and so on, when all of that doesn't matter at all. Can we not just discuss events from the viewpoint of what we think is right or wrong without getting involved in how to classify it?

I agree but the issue is the the politics of these topics is impacting the language we use, what is deemed an appropriate opinion and what is now considered hate speech.

Politics have unfortunately become so interwoven with every aspect of society that its almost impossible to talk about one without the other.

The truth is that both far left and far right have very little actual support. The issue is that both ends of the spectrum enjoy far more power than their support base merits.

 

[Murphy]

I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't think that you need to change your language. Fella is not offensive in my view and you have the right to use it. If you said ******* or something like that then thats clearly intended to insult them but you haven't. That person has chosen to take offence at your use of the word "fella" which they are welcome to do. I just don't think you have any obligation to change it.

I never said you need to change your language, no one can force someone to do something they don't want to do, but if you want to be seen as acting in good faith and that your intention was not to cause offence you would, that's a choice you (not you personally) make. Do you listen, adapt, and take account of the thoughts and feelings of the person you're conversing with or do not.

In my view the word "fella" was not offensive, however even though i only discovered this person was offended via a third party i chose not to use that word because my intention was not to cause offence. Had the explained that people in the armed forces consider the term to be offensive because that's what (iirc) Afghans use that term in a derogatory manner i still would've modified my vocabulary, had that person confronted me directly, explained the reason why they considered it offensive, i still would've modified my language. It just would've saved a lot of time is all.

Apparently we shouldn't use the word "girls" to talk about women as its degrading and belittles them. I know a lot of women who use the term to describe their friends. Heck, my partners mother still goes out with the girls and she is in her 60s. Its another case of people ascribing negative connotations to a completely inoffensive term. I talk about going out with the boys and I'm in my 30s. There is no negative intent behind its use but its just another thing that someone has decided to become offended by.

No. Apparently some people think we shouldn't use the word "girls" to talk about women as its degrading and belittles them, and they're welcome to believe and voice that opinion, however once again the onus is on who they've explained that to to either take that onboard and modify their vocabulary when speaking to that person or explain to the person who voiced that opinion why the intention is not to degraded and belittle them.

That was another poster, not me. His point still kind of stands though. The other side of the argument is free to use nasty words like hate crime and trans-phobia and is allowed carte blanche to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a monster while the other side has to tip-toe around the issue.

Again no. If someone disagrees with someone's opinion that something is offensive then the onus is on them to explain why they disagree, that the intention was not to cause offence, and then choose to either disregard their thoughts and feelings or take that into account when conversing with them.

I don't think its quite as simple as that though. Just because someone takes offence at a word doesn't mean you should stop using it. I am happy to talk to anyone about any issue but I will not stop using every term or word that they don't like simply because they don't like it. I wouldn't expect them to change their vocabulary to meet my standards either. There has to be some give and take but it shouldn't be the person who is easily offended always getting their way.

No one is saying you should stop using a word, that's a personal choice each person makes. If you've been made ware that a word causes offence you can either choose to use another word or carry on using a word that you now know that person finds offensive.

Personally I'd choose to use another word because i care more about discussing the issue at hand than i do for the emotional reaction in the person I'm conversing with.

Thats interesting because I would go complete the opposite direct honestly. The surest way to tell me that you haven't got a valid point in an argument is to focus on things like taking offence at specific words and try to take the debate away from the actual topic of discussion. Aa I have said, you know very easily when someone is trying to be nasty or offensive so assuming their use of an innocuous word is designed to offend is not operating "in good faith".

And the only way you can know if someone is more interested in taking or causing offence than the issue itself is to test that putting the ball back in their court (so to speak). If you choose to rephrase something so as to avoid what caused offence in the first place and they still take offence, even after multiple attempts, you know they're more interested in taking offence.

The same applies to being offensive, if you tell someone you find something they said is offensive and they choose not to modify their language, even after multiple attempts to get them to modify their language, then you can be fairly confident they're more interested in causing offence.

 

[Angilion]

I never said you need to change your language, no one can force someone to do something they don't want to do, but if you want to be seen as acting in good faith and that your intention was not to cause offence you would, that's a choice you (not you personally) make. Do you listen, adapt, and take account of the thoughts and feelings of the person you're conversing with or do not. [..]

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence if you use an entirely innocuous word without malicious intent and someone else will take offence if you use whatever word the other person orders you to use?

How do you adapt to a situation in which the word you are ordered to use is offensive to you?

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to an idea, however you phrase it?

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to you speaking at all because they consider you to be an inferior group identity?

How do you adapt to a situation in which someone will take offence to you being alive because they consider you to be an inferior group identity?

Weaponised offence is an extremely powerful political weapon and it both reflects and reinforces a hierarchy of group identities. A serf taking offence at something a noble says is not treated the same as a noble taking offence at something a serf says. The group identities might change. Their relative postions in the hierarchy might change. But the idea, unfortunately, remains the same.


For example, I consider the word "disabled" to be offensive. I can give a good reason for that - the word means "made useless, having no functionality at all". Calling a person disabled places them below, for example, a chair. A chair is not useless. A chair has a function. "disabled" is probably the most extreme possible insult. Even a corpse is not truly disabled - it can be used for spare parts, it can be used for teaching, it can be food for worms and suchlike. There is no more dismissive word. It's worse than contempt because contempt requires some consideration of the target.

Yet I'm forced to refer to people in such an extremely insulting way because it's demanded and I will (very perversely) be deemed to be causing offence if I don't spew such an insulting label on people. My position is discarded because I am deemed to be lower in the hierarchy of group identities and thus it's deemed to be of no importance if I'm offended.

 

[deuse]

The Rugby Football Union has become the latest institution to sign up to the woke agenda in deciding to drop “Saxons” from the name of the England Rugby squad’s second team because it does not reflect racial diversity. The team will now be known rather less inspiringly as England A.

Swing Low Sweet Chariot will be next.

 

[Angilion]

The Rugby Football Union has become the latest institution to sign up to the woke agenda in deciding to drop “Saxons” from the name of the England Rugby squad’s second team because it does not reflect racial diversity. The team will now be known rather less inspiringly as England A.

Swing Low Sweet Chariot will be next.

"England" should be the next target after "Saxons" since they're both named for Germanic peoples who conquered most of Britain around the beginning of the middle ages. Mnay countries are named after a group of people. Perhaps all country names should be replaced with numbers. But then people would be offended by perceiving an ordering in the numbers, even if they were randomly generated.