We’ve lost a lot of words to overuse lately. Mainly because it’s become trendy to go straight for the top-shelf words to communicate distress or confusion or distaste. Genocide, bigotry, hatred, fascism, the list goes on. And one that I find particularly irritating; trauma.
Another great article. Yes, language has fallen prey to the culture of victimhood. A key question, which was not addressed in your example, is "who is the audience?" If it is just the "offending" party, then an exaggerated response to a perceived slight is an attempt to assert the moral high ground, however unjustified.
But the REAL damage occurs when the exaggerated response is directed at third parties or the public at large. And here, I would argue, is where the real cultural change has taken place, in that these exaggerated claims of offense are VALIDATED by workplace HR departments, college disciplinary bodies, Twitter mobs, etc. Validation by society or by authoritative bodies is what makes it a "culture" of victimhood as opposed to one person just trying to shut the other person down.
The guy rightly outs the entitlement culture behind all this "offense;" the rest of the world has to conform to MY "reality" and say what I demand in order not to hurt MY feelings.
My second daughter (A high school teacher) recently moved from a violence-ridden high school in a poor area in NJ where none of this crap exists to a more affluent high school in DC where students are starting to demand "their pronouns." She has already been disciplined by the administration for a "name-based micro-aggression" by an "outraged" student whose parents demanded her head because my daughter (who lived 6 years in Egypt) told the student offhandedly that her name "Tabiah" meant "ashtray" in Arabic. She is now in really deep shit.
She wants to return to the rough NJ schools where she can relate better. This fragility appears to be reserved for the more affluent of all races.
When people resort to hyperbole and expect people to take it seriously it is difficult to remain polite and not just call it bullshit. It is so frequent in internet discussion that it seems like it has become the norm. When coupled with mindreading (assumption of motivation) it is amplified.
Pepe may have a point. Many, if not most of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 are examples of first world pampered and privileged people who have never experienced emotional discomfort beyond things that should have a micro prefix. But as Steve points out, are they really so fragile that they are traumatized by things considered trivial in most of the world? Probably not, they are trying to collect undeserved sympathy as empathy.
Teakettle tempests Karen and Ken may richly deserve the blowback that "traumatizes" them but the people they claim to represent may not.
In a Facebook post about a year ago I referred to Trump as "the fat oaf," back when we were trying to not spell out his name.
Someone implored me to refrain from "body shaming."
My response was "no."
I've known people with multiple sclerosis, cancer, disabilities of all sorts, people who would leap at a chance to rid themselves of their problems by something as freaking simple as going on a diet. When I stopped taking Zoloft I dieted off over a hundred pounds in nine months, instead of demanding that people not notice I'd developed a belly.
As Rosanne Barr said back before she stopped being funny, "if you're fat, then be fat, and shut up." And if being fat makes you feel bad about yourself, then eat less for a while.
Totally okay to 'fat shame' certain people, and Donald Trump is one of them. Why? Because he has 'fat-shamed' so many women. Kim Jong-Un? I call him 'the fat kid'. He's slimmed down in recent years, probably forced to by his health, but for years he was quite obese while his people were starving. Former Toronto mayor the late Rob Ford, self-descried '300 pounds of fun' and an international scandal 13 years ago, suggested a better way to deal with the homeless was a 'public lynching'.
Yeah, some folks are game for 'fat shaming' and Donald Dumpy is one of them. That reminds me, gotta go get some champagne tonight in anticipation of an arrest this week.
I don't make fun of fat people, that would just be rude, but compared to people with the afflictions I named, being fat is nothing to whine about. If it makes you uncomfortable, diet it off. Problem solved. If I can do it, anyone can. It's not like I'm some master of self-discipline.
I don't either, but I do point out hypocrisy when applicable.
Rob Ford claimed he was going on a diet and then got caught sneaking out of a KFC with a bucket of chicken. I have a huge problem with someone who's never missed a meal in his life (his family was wealthy) and showing so little compassion for people living with food insecurity.
And I have zero sympathy for a man who fat-shames women who don't meet his exacting standard of female wankability (the only reason, he thinks, that women exist), especially when he lies about being '239 pounds' when he's clearly over 3 or 400 himself.
At my peak, before I couldn't stand it anymore, I was within a few pounds of 239. And despite being a good 6" shorter than him, I was nowhere near the sphere that Trump is. I still had a shape. I still had pecs even if it would be over 7 months before I saw my abs again.
Trump can't be a gram under 350. His staff probably orbits him.
Maybe it's monomania but I have a hard time seeing all these claims of offense as anything more than screaming for attention, just like the "trans" stuff and, even more, the "nonbinary" stuff.
We've seen those published lists of anathematized words. We're not supposed to use "field" as in "field of study," presumably because it might sound like "cotton field." We can't refer to someone in a wheelchair as "disabled" despite the factual accuracy but "differently abled" implies that being unable to walk is equivalent to being able to, which is absurd. I remember in Spain in the 60s there was no stigma or insult in referring to someone as a "cripple."
I certainly don't want to be impolite, insensitive, rude, or cruel, but, I mean, really. We all have problems; I'm diabetic, I have a vestigial stutter, I'm below average height, so what. People can refer to any of these without ruining my day.
But someone who constantly calls out these infra-significant designations is likely just trying to soun special. One of those in vogue right now is this gender-neutrality thing, which I see no justification for at all. People are male and female. Neither is a disability or weakness. But obligingly using "he/she" or—choke—"they" is supposed to sound sensitive or "woke" or whatever, adding nothing to comprehension but putting on a show of sensitivity. Gender neutrality makes for awkward language and does nothing to address what matters, for example fairness in salary.
Racism is prevalent enough in reality without needing to contrive it out of nothing. Fascism has a definition (and, yes, Trump meets certain significant parts of it), so does communism, but both are thrown around willy-nilly as euphemisms for mere dislike.
Ultimately these restrictions do nothing to right injustices but serve to deprive language of texture. If not meaning.
You are right again; although if someone has had a lot of adverse experiences, a minor incident to others can tip the scales for them and be traumatizing. I don't know the guys involved so won't comment specifically on the incident.
Victimhood is a detour or stumbling block but resilience is born of hope and promotes growth.
My favourite is 'literally'. The woke particularly literally don't know what the word 'literally' means. Which is why we have so many claims that words are 'literally killing trans people'. First of all, trans people are murdered a helluva lot less than people think, and second of all, I'll bet ALL people accused on Twitter of 'literally killing transpeople' have never done such a thing, as they'd be literally in jail if they had.
Another great article. Yes, language has fallen prey to the culture of victimhood. A key question, which was not addressed in your example, is "who is the audience?" If it is just the "offending" party, then an exaggerated response to a perceived slight is an attempt to assert the moral high ground, however unjustified.
But the REAL damage occurs when the exaggerated response is directed at third parties or the public at large. And here, I would argue, is where the real cultural change has taken place, in that these exaggerated claims of offense are VALIDATED by workplace HR departments, college disciplinary bodies, Twitter mobs, etc. Validation by society or by authoritative bodies is what makes it a "culture" of victimhood as opposed to one person just trying to shut the other person down.
How would you like to have her as a coworker? Maybe sharing an office?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFjUjSJplfs
Ignore the framing narrative, it's not that good.
The guy rightly outs the entitlement culture behind all this "offense;" the rest of the world has to conform to MY "reality" and say what I demand in order not to hurt MY feelings.
My second daughter (A high school teacher) recently moved from a violence-ridden high school in a poor area in NJ where none of this crap exists to a more affluent high school in DC where students are starting to demand "their pronouns." She has already been disciplined by the administration for a "name-based micro-aggression" by an "outraged" student whose parents demanded her head because my daughter (who lived 6 years in Egypt) told the student offhandedly that her name "Tabiah" meant "ashtray" in Arabic. She is now in really deep shit.
She wants to return to the rough NJ schools where she can relate better. This fragility appears to be reserved for the more affluent of all races.
he's right about that but he uses "capitulate to your worldview" as much as that idiot girl uses "my correct pronouns."
You’re a hard guy to please….
I've never handled repetition very well.
When people resort to hyperbole and expect people to take it seriously it is difficult to remain polite and not just call it bullshit. It is so frequent in internet discussion that it seems like it has become the norm. When coupled with mindreading (assumption of motivation) it is amplified.
Pepe may have a point. Many, if not most of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 are examples of first world pampered and privileged people who have never experienced emotional discomfort beyond things that should have a micro prefix. But as Steve points out, are they really so fragile that they are traumatized by things considered trivial in most of the world? Probably not, they are trying to collect undeserved sympathy as empathy.
Teakettle tempests Karen and Ken may richly deserve the blowback that "traumatizes" them but the people they claim to represent may not.
In a Facebook post about a year ago I referred to Trump as "the fat oaf," back when we were trying to not spell out his name.
Someone implored me to refrain from "body shaming."
My response was "no."
I've known people with multiple sclerosis, cancer, disabilities of all sorts, people who would leap at a chance to rid themselves of their problems by something as freaking simple as going on a diet. When I stopped taking Zoloft I dieted off over a hundred pounds in nine months, instead of demanding that people not notice I'd developed a belly.
As Rosanne Barr said back before she stopped being funny, "if you're fat, then be fat, and shut up." And if being fat makes you feel bad about yourself, then eat less for a while.
Totally okay to 'fat shame' certain people, and Donald Trump is one of them. Why? Because he has 'fat-shamed' so many women. Kim Jong-Un? I call him 'the fat kid'. He's slimmed down in recent years, probably forced to by his health, but for years he was quite obese while his people were starving. Former Toronto mayor the late Rob Ford, self-descried '300 pounds of fun' and an international scandal 13 years ago, suggested a better way to deal with the homeless was a 'public lynching'.
Yeah, some folks are game for 'fat shaming' and Donald Dumpy is one of them. That reminds me, gotta go get some champagne tonight in anticipation of an arrest this week.
I don't make fun of fat people, that would just be rude, but compared to people with the afflictions I named, being fat is nothing to whine about. If it makes you uncomfortable, diet it off. Problem solved. If I can do it, anyone can. It's not like I'm some master of self-discipline.
I don't either, but I do point out hypocrisy when applicable.
Rob Ford claimed he was going on a diet and then got caught sneaking out of a KFC with a bucket of chicken. I have a huge problem with someone who's never missed a meal in his life (his family was wealthy) and showing so little compassion for people living with food insecurity.
And I have zero sympathy for a man who fat-shames women who don't meet his exacting standard of female wankability (the only reason, he thinks, that women exist), especially when he lies about being '239 pounds' when he's clearly over 3 or 400 himself.
At my peak, before I couldn't stand it anymore, I was within a few pounds of 239. And despite being a good 6" shorter than him, I was nowhere near the sphere that Trump is. I still had a shape. I still had pecs even if it would be over 7 months before I saw my abs again.
Trump can't be a gram under 350. His staff probably orbits him.
Well he is the centre of their universe lol
"Milk is racist"
Maybe it's monomania but I have a hard time seeing all these claims of offense as anything more than screaming for attention, just like the "trans" stuff and, even more, the "nonbinary" stuff.
We've seen those published lists of anathematized words. We're not supposed to use "field" as in "field of study," presumably because it might sound like "cotton field." We can't refer to someone in a wheelchair as "disabled" despite the factual accuracy but "differently abled" implies that being unable to walk is equivalent to being able to, which is absurd. I remember in Spain in the 60s there was no stigma or insult in referring to someone as a "cripple."
I certainly don't want to be impolite, insensitive, rude, or cruel, but, I mean, really. We all have problems; I'm diabetic, I have a vestigial stutter, I'm below average height, so what. People can refer to any of these without ruining my day.
But someone who constantly calls out these infra-significant designations is likely just trying to soun special. One of those in vogue right now is this gender-neutrality thing, which I see no justification for at all. People are male and female. Neither is a disability or weakness. But obligingly using "he/she" or—choke—"they" is supposed to sound sensitive or "woke" or whatever, adding nothing to comprehension but putting on a show of sensitivity. Gender neutrality makes for awkward language and does nothing to address what matters, for example fairness in salary.
Racism is prevalent enough in reality without needing to contrive it out of nothing. Fascism has a definition (and, yes, Trump meets certain significant parts of it), so does communism, but both are thrown around willy-nilly as euphemisms for mere dislike.
Ultimately these restrictions do nothing to right injustices but serve to deprive language of texture. If not meaning.
You are right again; although if someone has had a lot of adverse experiences, a minor incident to others can tip the scales for them and be traumatizing. I don't know the guys involved so won't comment specifically on the incident.
Victimhood is a detour or stumbling block but resilience is born of hope and promotes growth.
My favourite is 'literally'. The woke particularly literally don't know what the word 'literally' means. Which is why we have so many claims that words are 'literally killing trans people'. First of all, trans people are murdered a helluva lot less than people think, and second of all, I'll bet ALL people accused on Twitter of 'literally killing transpeople' have never done such a thing, as they'd be literally in jail if they had.
that transition-or-suicide is almost as galling a lie as "trans women are women."
And to read some people one would think that advocating deferral of medical treatment till 18 is the same as knifing kids with sadism.