2014: Year of the fainting couch

[fm93]

It reminds me of the social media outrage over Darius Rucker (a black singer) who sang a cover of "White Christmas." Apparently a whole bunch of people forgot that snow is, you know, white. It was beyond ridiculous. When referring to snow by its actual color elicits cries of racism, flippancy becomes a very attractive response.

That wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

[Zymologist]

That wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

I know, I just thought it was a good example of a response that is clearly absurd.

[Sparko]

What do you plan to do about it? Help people learn to cope and properly respond, or callously make fun of them and scoff at them?

That. I go with that.

[rogue06]

I vehemently disagree. No one is deserving of mockery for being hysterical, and in regard to some of the listed issues, I don't believe that their response was unwarranted.


What do you plan to do about it? Help people learn to cope and properly respond, or callously make fun of them and scoff at them?

First it must be determined if these folks are even slightly inclined to grow up. So far nothing indicates that they are. They appear to be grimly determined to be offended by anything and everything that they disagree with and overreact in comical fashion.

[Sparko]

First it must be determined if these folks are even slightly inclined to grow up. So far nothing indicates that they are. They appear to be grimly determined to be offended by anything and everything that they disagree with and overreact in comical fashion.

Have you MET Square_Peg?

[Jesse]

The expression of some of those things may have been unwarranted, but their feelings and concerns are very real and are rooted in things that they believe ARE deeply serious. A decent response might involve serious advice on what proper expression ought to entail, but instead the author basically completely dismisses everything just to scoff at them. That if anything is even more unproductive.

People have feelings and concerns about a whole list of different things. Not all of them are valid or need to be consistently pushed upon others. I am sorry to tell most of these people, but the world at large really doesn't care about your opinion on everything. You may have a concern, that does not mean that concern should be important to everyone else. This "the world revolves around me" attitude is getting old real quick.

A decent response was given. Treat their self-centeredness with the disdain it deserves. And I hope it continues.

[Sparko]

People have feelings and concerns about a whole list of different things. Not all of them are valid or need to be consistently pushed upon others. I am sorry to tell most of these people, but the world at large really doesn't care about your opinion on everything. You may have a concern, that does not mean that concern should be important to everyone else. This "the world revolves around me" attitude is getting old real quick.

A decent response was given. Treat their self-centeredness with the disdain it deserves. And I hope it continues.

Yup. Like this meme says:


AR-Offended_Internet-932x752.jpg

[fm93]

First it must be determined if these folks are even slightly inclined to grow up. So far nothing indicates that they are.

How would you know? What sign do you not see that you'd expect to see that you think would indicate such an inclination?

They appear to be grimly determined to be offended by anything and everything that they disagree with

Again, how would you know? What in the world gives you this bizarre conclusion (and I have never understood how some folks come to think this) that people WANT to feel offended by things? Do you believe that feeling constantly gnawed at or consumed by anger and sadness and anxiety and bitterness and helplessness is something that people enjoy?

People have feelings and concerns about a whole list of different things. Not all of them are valid or need to be consistently pushed upon others. I am sorry to tell most of these people, but the world at large really doesn't care about your opinion on everything. You may have a concern, that does not mean that concern should be important to everyone else. This "the world revolves around me" attitude is getting old real quick.

This is all fine, but...

A decent response was given. Treat their self-centeredness with the disdain it deserves. And I hope it continues.

...this is where I object. For one thing, it is part of our human nature to be self-centered. Becoming less self-centered takes conscious effort and often times, assistance. I therefore don't agree that this condition deserves to be treated with disdain.

For another thing, they're the ones who are self-centered? The writers and commenters who show no empathy or compassion (aka qualities that involve focusing less on the self and more on other people) at all aren't self-centered? Some of the people mentioned in the article may seem self-centered, but others did what they did in efforts to show support and solidarity for other people, which if anything is the exact opposite of being self-centered.

As for the other cases, allow me to offer a bit of side commentary to illustrate a larger point. You might've heard that earlier this year, some male college students developed a special type of nail polish that, when dipped into a drink, could detect whether the drink had been spiked with date rape drugs. If you're like most people, you probably think the students are commendable for developing this product. A few women, however, actually expressed disapproval, saying that it implied that a woman bears responsibility for preventing herself from getting raped and that if she does get raped, she's at fault. Similarly, I've also heard some women discourage other women from learning self-defense techniques that might be useful in fending off an attacker.

If you're like most people, you probably think these responses are ridiculous. I certainly agree that they're overblown and potentially harmful by discouraging the use of such valuable technology and techniques. But at the heart of their complaints, there is a legitimately serious fear. Some rape survivors are in fact further humiliated and insulted by men (although women can be guilty of this as well) who essentially blame them for getting raped and even say that they "deserved" what happened to them. If you're like most people, you probably agree that that sort of attitude is infuriating, and that no woman deserves to be raped and that no one should be blamed for it if it happens. So although the particular women whom I mentioned in the above paragraph are taking an unwarranted response, you can surely understand where they're coming from, right? They understandably want to ensure that a certain type of attitude isn't allowed to fester. So if you're an understanding and empathetic person, you might kindly explain to them where they're wrong and show them a middle ground. On the other hand, if you're a callous [censored], you might jeer at them or launch into a stupid, completely-missing-the-point rant about how annoying you think feminism is, and probably extend into a rambling diatribe about women that actually might constitute sexism. (I've actually seen things like this happen.)

So ultimately, if you do feel that some responses are self-centered and that the people involved need to become more mature, what do you do about it? Try to understand where they're coming from and meet them on common ground to help them become less self-centered and more mature? Or smugly sit back from a distance and self-righteously laugh at them?

[Zymologist]

Take the Darius Rucker example (which wasn't in the OP, but I think is relevant): a black singer who does a cover of "White Christmas." Pretty innocuous. When a bunch of people start talking about how this is an example of white oppression and he shouldn't be singing that song, are you saying that we should respond with:

"I understand your frustration. "White Christmas" can certainly be understood to have racist undertones."

Or is a response like this a little more realistic:

"Uh, snow is white. What in the world are you talking about?"

Feel free to berate us for not being sensitive, or whatever, but there comes a point when something is so ridiculous that responding with sensitivity and concern for their hurt feelings is just...dumb. If somebody is offended by the racism in the color of snow...well, dang, dude. What kind of a response does that deserve?

Edit: I feel like we have nurtured a culture of offendedness. Rather than focusing on things that are actually offensive, we emphasize feeling offended, whether there's any rational reason for the offense or not.

[fm93]

Take the Darius Rucker example (which wasn't in the OP, but I think is relevant): a black singer who does a cover of "White Christmas." Pretty innocuous. When a bunch of people start talking about how this is an example of white oppression and he shouldn't be singing that song, are you saying that we should respond with:

"I understand your frustration. "White Christmas" can certainly be understood to have racist undertones."

Or is a response like this a little more realistic:

"Uh, snow is white. What in the world are you talking about?"

Well, in this case, the issue is entirely one of conflating two completely different contexts just because they're related to the same term. So of course the second response would make sense in this case, because the outcry is indeed ridiculous. But the cases mentioned in the article aren't like that.

Feel free to berate us for not being sensitive, or whatever, but there comes a point when something is so ridiculous that responding with sensitivity and concern for their hurt feelings is just...dumb. If somebody is offended by the racism in the color of snow...well, dang, dude. What kind of a response does that deserve?

I agree with you for this specific instance, but again, the other cases are substantially different.

Edit: I feel like we have nurtured a culture of offendedness. Rather than focusing on things that are actually offensive, we emphasize feeling offended, whether there's any rational reason for the offense or not.

Hmm...what specific examples do you have in mind for that claim? ("we emphasize feeling offended whether there's any rational reason for the offense or not")

[Zymologist]

Well, in this case, the issue is entirely one of conflating two completely different contexts just because they're related to the same term. So of course the second response would make sense in this case, because the outcry is indeed ridiculous. But the cases mentioned in the article aren't like that.


I agree with you for this specific instance, but again, the other cases are substantially different.


Hmm...what specific examples do you have in mind for that claim? ("we emphasize feeling offended whether there's any rational reason for the offense or not")

I can't really say that I have any specific examples in mind; it's just an impression I've gotten.

[Jedidiah]

I can't really say that I have any specific examples in mind; it's just an impression I've gotten.

If you look at most of the cases of people being offended at something you will have all the examples you need.

[fm93]

If you look at most of the cases of people being offended at something you will have all the examples you need.

The problem is that in every instance I've seen, there's a reason given for the offense. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's perfectly justified, but it does seem to belie the claim that people are emphasizing feeling offense for no reason at all.

[Jesse]

...this is where I object. For one thing, it is part of our human nature to be self-centered. Becoming less self-centered takes conscious effort and often times, assistance. I therefore don't agree that this condition deserves to be treated with disdain.

If it is human nature to be "self-centered", than it isn't a condition that needs to be coddled. It is not our job to help anyone with their self-centeredness. But here we are, telling them they are indeed self-centered. I consider that helping.

For another thing, they're the ones who are self-centered? The writers and commenters who show no empathy or compassion (aka qualities that involve focusing less on the self and more on other people) at all aren't self-centered? Some of the people mentioned in the article may seem self-centered, but others did what they did in efforts to show support and solidarity for other people, which if anything is the exact opposite of being self-centered.

The writers and commenters are not the ones out there waving the "look at me" signs. If you don't want the attention, don't fly the flag in a public forum.

Showing support for those whom you agree with is not selflessness. You are getting self-centeredness confused with agreement. No one is talking about that.

As for the other cases, allow me to offer a bit of side commentary to illustrate a larger point. You might've heard that earlier this year, some male college students developed a special type of nail polish that, when dipped into a drink, could detect whether the drink had been spiked with date rape drugs. If you're like most people, you probably think the students are commendable for developing this product. A few women, however, actually expressed disapproval, saying that it implied that a woman bears responsibility for preventing herself from getting raped and that if she does get raped, she's at fault. Similarly, I've also heard some women discourage other women from learning self-defense techniques that might be useful in fending off an attacker.

If you're like most people, you probably think these responses are ridiculous. I certainly agree that they're overblown and potentially harmful by discouraging the use of such valuable technology and techniques. But at the heart of their complaints, there is a legitimately serious fear. Some rape survivors are in fact further humiliated and insulted by men (although women can be guilty of this as well) who essentially blame them for getting raped and even say that they "deserved" what happened to them. If you're like most people, you probably agree that that sort of attitude is infuriating, and that no woman deserves to be raped and that no one should be blamed for it if it happens. So although the particular women whom I mentioned in the above paragraph are taking an unwarranted response, you can surely understand where they're coming from, right? They understandably want to ensure that a certain type of attitude isn't allowed to fester. So if you're an understanding and empathetic person, you might kindly explain to them where they're wrong and show them a middle ground. On the other hand, if you're a callous [censored], you might jeer at them or launch into a stupid, completely-missing-the-point rant about how annoying you think feminism is, and probably extend into a rambling diatribe about women that actually might constitute sexism. (I've actually seen things like this happen.)

I am not real sure where you are going with this? Are those women in your above paragraph making a big deal about them being against this nail polish or self-defense? Are they creating entire articles about it? Are they trying to create some fake "national conversation" narrative out of it? If the answer is no, then you might want to ask why that is. Could it be that they think their concern doesn't need to trump everyone else's? You are not getting the point. You having a concern about something does not mean you get an unchallenged soap box from which to shout. I am sorry square_peg, but if someone decides to use the public forum to push any kind of trivial bull-crap, expect someone to call you out on it. There are no untouchable snowflakes here.

So ultimately, if you do feel that some responses are self-centered and that the people involved need to become more mature, what do you do about it? Try to understand where they're coming from and meet them on common ground to help them become less self-centered and more mature? Or smugly sit back from a distance and self-righteously laugh at them?

Again, not anyone's job to help them with whatever personal hangups they might have. If they need that, seek a therapist. But if you are going to make your stupidity public, be prepared for someone to point it out to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

First it must be determined if these folks are even slightly inclined to grow up. So far nothing indicates that they are. They appear to be grimly determined to be offended by anything and everything that they disagree with and overreact in comical fashion.

Careful now guys. Soon, he'll start whining on threads in the psychotherapy room how he should be able to ignore you two as well for daring to disagree with him.