Effects of being overly sensitive/offended

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 5:22am

We live in a time where many people seem to be offended by everything.

On a daily basis I hear people complaining about their own insecurities. And I see them frantically jumping on any chance they get to bring down everything they encounter that doesn't suit them or their insecurities. The whole world needs to adjust exactly to their personal wishes. Of course this can never happen with 7.5 billion different wishes.

It occured to me that this is seeping through in the theatre/film/tv world too. A few examples are that the hindi scene in Moulin Rouge is supposedly being offensive because the scene in a fantasy film, set in a fictional story that takes place a century ago, did not accurately represent current India.

Another example is people complaining that a black character in a movie has a normal job. Another example is people complaining when a fat girl is bullied in a tv drama series and not anymore when she changes. Another example is people being offended when Cruella de Ville has a cigarette in the 101 Dalmatians animated movie, a story set in old London. The list is endless.

Can somebody explain to me why every fantasy film has to represent current reality or be culturally accurate? Can somebody explain to me why it is not allowed to see things in stories that we personally don't like/agree with? Can somebody explain to me why every fat girl in every story should be a noble hero and can't be shamed in the story? Storytelling is making points in many different ways.

Where do we cross the line? I have never heard a good argument for this limited box mindset other than "kids are going to copy what they see" or "we are victims so we can't be confronted with anything".

Are kids going to copy a villain from a James Bond movie who kills too? Are kids going to rob a bank because they see it in a movie, so should we take it out of movies? Or do people agree with me that that would be a bit silly because that doesn't touch their personal insecurities or fears? That's a bit of a double agenda peeking through.

It might differ per generation. A lot of millennials are indeed raised in a very sensitive way. A lot of them have burn outs too. A girl I know stayed in bed, crying, for a week because she went to school to work on a project but when she came into the school's computer room at 11.30 AM on tuesday there was no computer available anymore, and this was too much to bear. Her parens stood behind her in this victim role. I personally would have dragged her out of bed on wednesday, but then a bit earlier, so that a computer IS available. But I digress. 

My point about comparing generations is because when you take a movie like, for example if Grease was made today, there would be groups complaining. Because it "shows that you need to be trashy to be popular" or "being decent is not attractive". Or "it shows kids that they need to change for a man". Or do they turn it around then because trashy happens to be more popular in current culture, so that actually suits them, so then it doesn't matter?

I think this mindset is a downward spiral and we need to teach our children resilience and the ability to see things in perspective and to stay away from the victim role.

Another thing I wonder about is how much people are actually like this. I mean, were there protest groups when Grease came out or is it really a current thing? And could it be that it's just a very small number of people who complain, that actually the whole world doesn't care, but because of the internet, social media and fora these few people are just able to magnify their personal insecurities?

Andrew Lloyd Webber was plagued by what he thought was the whole world, the whole internet seemed to tear down Love Never Dies and he received personal threats. But it all turned out to come from 1 married couple.

I hope this is the case here too, because going down this path is not the way to a happy life.

 

 

 

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 05:22 AM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 8:33am

I think there's a line to be drawn between those who are so offended by these things that they loudly condemn them and try to shut them down, and those who just seek to acknowledge and discuss perceived problems. The former is basically an attack on our freedom and openness, while the latter is, I think, a very worthy pursuit.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 10:35am

I don't think these complaints or critiques come from no where. People usually have often complained about these things even during the time it happened (like with Grease release). It's just that their voices were drowned out by people living in their own narrow world where they could ignore "unpleasantness" and live in their own world free from other people's experiences and opinions. Thanks to the Internet, and newer generations benefiting from the strides previous generations have gained, they feel more empowered to speak out and not to be shut down. It's no coincidence that more people are speaking out when there are more people of color and people from lower socio-economic classes going to college more than ever. To me, it's a sign that some populations are now more than ever able to seek tools to fight what they have always found to be unfair treatment or depictions. Plus, it hits a critical mass. There's only so much of this people can take before they break and once they do they have to really let it out of their system and some times the applications of very valid critiques and ideas leave a lot to be desired but other times they are very much on the mark.

Like a lot of things, people bark a lot when they first hear themselves speak. Once it is out of their system, they'll be less angry and have knee-jerk reactions and will learn to be more conscientious before they decide to publish a critique. This isn't to say they will reverse their positions or anything, but it will change the way they express it and will learn to consider other people's opinions in a more substantive way.

Well...that would happen if the Internet didn't have the downside of people responding and fighting with them right away which then makes them defensive and then both sides stick to their guns and stay stubbornly unable to be flexible about their position out of spite as it has now become super personal. Multiply that by millions, and that's the issue. It's that the dialogue isn't able to move past the initial anger stage and stays in the fight stage. This is exacerbated by people adopted generalities about whole generations without self-reflecting on how all of this has existed in some capacity in every generation, and the fact that people only look at things in simple binaries or categories (left v. right, baby boomer v. Gen X v. millennials, etc.)

To be fair to the Internet, even before the Internet with YouTube hosting all sorts of crackpot politically-slanted videos, there was talk radio, and specific newspapers/magazines that catered to echo chambers of all sides and made people stew in their anger for so long they no longer can see clearly. Political dialogue is susceptible to this blatant tribalism since our political system is really set up as a game and one that is a winner-takes-all game where to the victor goes the spoils. You know how some people are sore losers and bad winners in Monopoly much less a high-stakes game where people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.

Anyway, people find some people people to be overly sensitive/offended but then they themselves are overly sensitive/offended by new ideas and new people putting their experiences and perspectives out there that challenge things those people comfortably enjoyed in the past without guilt and now realize they may not be able to do that anymore or be confronted with their own prejudices, biases, and -isms.

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 10:35 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 11:12am

kdogg36 said: "I think there's a line to be drawn betweenthose who are so offended by these things that theyloudly condemn them and try to shut them down, and those who just seek to acknowledge and discuss perceived problems. The former is basically an attack on our freedom and openness, while the latter is, I think, a very worthy pursuit."

True, this comes down to the freedom of speech versus silencing people again. But even in normal discussions, it always seems that they actually want to shut down or erase what bothers them. We should also focus on the cause of this behaviour. Why people use it as a shield/a figurative pencil eraser so gladly and often paired with the need to complain/silence others. I guess it all comes down to what I described in the other thread. 

Updated On: 7/28/18 at 11:12 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 11:23am

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "People usually have often complained about these things even during the time it happened (like with Grease release). It's just that their voices were drowned out by people living in their own narrow world where they could ignore "unpleasantness" and live in their own world free from other people's experiences and opinions. Thanks to the Internet, and newer generations benefiting from the strides previous generations have gained, they feel more empowered to speak out and not to be shut down."

You would think that with the internet there are so many directions and interests that  is has become much easier to ignore "unpleasantness". Back in the day the whole country was forced to watch the same things and turn their noses in the same direction. It feels like new generations are much more insecure. Even though they can do and like and watch what they want, they seem to live with a figurative pencil eraser that attacks everything that happens to appear, that has to do with their insecurities.

That is not an open mind or worldview. Every person has experienced insecurities and ugly things, but that does not mean your specific issues need to be banned from movies. That mindset kills the arts, and life in general.
 

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 11:23 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 11:30am

People had to watch the same things, but it's easier to ignore people's varied reactions and critiques of such things and it was way easier to stay insulated. People are insulated nowadays in a different way BUT there's constant headlines, links, videos, articles, etc. being shared 24/7 that you can't avoid things. People simply have easier access to watch certain things so even though there is a high volume of content compared to the past, specific scenes, criticisms/op-eds, etc. are highly shareable and it's harder to miss it. That's why so many articles get so many troll comments that come from people who seem like they only visit like InfoWars or only get their news when they watch The Young Turks. Anyway, these days, people can reach people and for the aforementioned reasons, people now are demanding better and are not going to just accept certain depictions of a variety of topics. 

I think the issue is that some people think people are overly sensitive these days and just need to suck it up. The other side says all they do is suck it up all of the time and they don't express everything that they really feel. If anything this is a form of fighting back and challenging certain norms that they themselves had no participation in establishing but are affected by it. So people telling them to stop complaining and just suck it up is a way to tell them to stop fighting back and know your place.

Art only gets better if it's critiqued or challenged. If an artist cannot stand by his/her/their work then they have some self-reflecting to do. Art is challenged all the time and time will either vindicate him/her/them or his/her/their critics. The thing with art is that it's not just a one way street. It's an expression that people will then react to. I also think if something that is "art" is incredibly misinformed and/or deals with an issue in a completely incompetent manner then people have the right to speak about it. People think criticism is always "shutting down" but you know, if enough people don't like something, it'll naturally be shut down anyway due to lack of positive response. That's the way these things work. I'm assuming this point was made in good faith and is not just an attempt to  allow "artists" to do completely racist things in the name of art and to be free from criticism by people who are actually the victims of such actions. 

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 11:30 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 11:44am

It's not about who is right or wrong here and pointing fingers to the other side.

But for example, there is a lot of fuss now about the tv show where a big girl is bullied. I fully understand how people are bullied and how that feels and that it is bad in real life. But why the need to erase this whole tv show? Why do people think they have that right? Why is it not possible to have 1 story out there about a girl who loses weight and feels better?

Why should every big girl in every story in existance be a noble hero and can't be shamed in the story? Storytelling is making points in many different ways.

But what is happening now is that the people who scream and want to take down the complete show get a pat on the shoulder, confirming that they are victims and not equal people, and it brings more negative feelings than they had before. 

It really is silencing people and using a figurative pencil eraser for one's own issues.

I'm not telling people to "suck it up" but to "accept there are more colors and stories in the world than your own".

 

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 11:44 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 11:52am

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Art only gets better if it's critiqued or challenged."

Art never gets better when it is silenced or taken down completely, which is what is happening here.

There is also the negative taste a project gets because of these remarks, which has been proven to have effect on audiences.

Not only this tv show with the big girl, but also projects like The Great Comet suffered from this, and the list is long.

Edit: Also producers are sensitive to this. 1 person has to complain and they take down a project or fire someone. They are just as scared and affected by this overly sensitive society we live in.

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 11:52 AM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 7/27/18 at 12:13pm

Well, it's a commercial venture. It requires an audience to watch for it to survive. It's natural that if there's a show with a concept that makes a good number of the population angry, then the project will be shut down. That's how it works. People didn't like the concept of the fat girl (played by a thin girl in a fat suit) becoming skinny because her face was wired shut so she couldn't eat solid food, and then becoming skinny and then getting revenge. The intention was noble, but we all grew up with depictions of overweight people showed in a certain way so people are tired of it. They are just speaking out and if it causes the show to get shut down, then there might be a reason for it. This isn't charity but a business. Not all art deserves to get that level of distribution and attention. If Netflix feels really strongly about this project then they'll air the show and try to turn people around. If it's a worthy show, people may turn around. But those who feel their critiques are validated won't watch and the show may get canceled anyway due to low ratings.

I also think you're so far-removed from people who are actively trying to change the narrative and bring light to issues affecting them that you think they just want to erase their experience. Believe me, they know they can't erase anything. They're just trying to invoke changes of attitude so that people learn from things and future projects will be done with that in mind. That's how societies evolve and have evolved for centuries. You yourself are an advocate and not so different from those you think are trying to censor certain projects and depictions. You're just on the other side of the coin on that one but it's the same need to change people's attitudes and perceptions and make things go in a direction YOU want it to go.

Updated On: 7/27/18 at 12:13 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 8:39am

This should be too obvious to state, but maybe it's not: people saying and doing offensive things remains a far, far bigger problem than people being overly offended.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 10:57am

I understand your points but I think you both fail to understand the problem I describe.

The problem is that when a fat character in a tv show loses weight and is happy with it, it makes people angry, and these people know that when they scream hard enough, the show gets taken down. People happy, on to taking down the next thing that doesn't completely suit their insecurities. This ruins the arts and the world.

I fully understand how people are bullied and how that feels and that it is bad in real life. But why the need to erase this whole tv show? Why do people think they have that right? Why is it not possible to have 1 story out there about a girl who loses weight and feels better?

Why should every big girl in every story in existance be a noble hero and can't be shamed in the story? Storytelling is making points in many different ways.

But what is happening now is that the people who scream and want to take down the complete show get a pat on the shoulder, confirming that they are victims and not equal people, and it brings more negative feelings than they had before. 

It really is silencing people and using a figurative pencil eraser for one's own issues.

I'm not telling people to "suck it up" but to "accept there are more colors and stories in the world than your own".

Everything will always offend someone. What is wrong with a variety in stories and angles?

I am not pushing a direction. I am saying that all directions in storytelling must be possible and that not every project has the same message to everyone. This series could be wonderfully inspirational for skinny girls out there who are bullied constantly for being skinny, not gaining weight no matter how much they try, who feel horrible and see being thin as something negative and it's great for them to see that in a more positive light. And even if that was not the case, why does everything have to be? Anna Wintour is offended by ugly people and others are offended by guns and other are offended by beautiful people so let's take down all James Bond Movies, America's Next top model and Disney movies. I am personally offended my Maleficent being mean to Aurora in the original movie.

Being offended does by no means mean that what they are offended by is actually offensive.

A girl losing weight in a tv series is not people doing offensive things. The show shows both sides and it shows how bullies act. What is there to complain about before you have seen it?

 

Updated On: 7/28/18 at 10:57 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 11:17am

I'm often overly sensitive.

I sympathize with others who are overly sensitive or are more likely than many others to take offense.

Whom I don't sympathize with are those who believe they have a right to not be offended or those who demand that their sensitivities not be threatened.  

Society doesn't work that way unless it's censorious and repressive.  

A censorious and repressive society doesn't make what's offensive disappear.
It makes what's offensive react and grow.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 7/28/18 at 11:56am

henrikegerman said: "I'm often overly sensitive.

Isympathize with others who are overly sensitive or are more likely than many others to take offense.

Whom I don't sympathize with are those who believe they have a rightto not beoffended or those who demand thattheir sensitivities not be threatened.

Society doesn't work that way unless it's censorious and repressive.

A censorious and repressive society doesn't make what's offensive disappear.
It makes what's offensive react and grow."

 ^^^^

Well presented.

If only others shared this point of view but sadly, its usually a case of ME 1st  ( my concerns issues feelings) rather than the surrounding world.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/30/18 at 6:25pm

Just to comment on the "fat girl being bullied" thing, I always find it so incredibly annoying when you try to tell someone to make "healthy" choices and then they say you're fat shaming them, etc. Like, no, some people are just "bigger" people, and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm one of them - but there's being a healthy weight and not being a healthy weight. And that's not fat shaming anyone. It's okay to exercise and workout and watch what you eat and care how you look. 

[BPfan81]

Posted: 7/31/18 at 11:49pm

I think the real question is, do we really possess any restraint anymore when it comes to our behaviour. We each have what is referred to by sociologists as a 'social responsibility' to act in a decent manner opposite one another with each encounter. People today have become too egotistical and allow their ego to dictate their behaviour, resulting in what is commonly noted then as feeling offended. Truth is, there is no need to always express an opinion nor object to another as well. Notice how nowadays, anything news-related is really opinionated? The View, The Talk, cable news networks, etc etc etc. always asking, "What do YOU think? How do YOU feel?" My point is, it is not necessary to always react - remember the phrase, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all?" In other words, possess restraint - do not always react. Keep the peace. I also hate the way how the First Amendment gets thrown into the mix here. You may still have the right to express an opinion, however, think how it will effect the person on the other end. Keeping the peace is something I attempt to do every day, whether online or face to face. Possessing restraint is a discipline that should be retaught to the younger generation. It is quite obvious they lack it and are in need of it.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/1/18 at 7:11am

Well written BPfan81,

I think this lack of resilience and restraint comes from a place of severe insecurity and the idea that we live in a day and age now where screaming about whatever doesn't suit our own insecurities actually seems to work. Playing the victim role and using it as a tool to shut everything down seems the way to go for many. This really is a shame, because if we keep on going down that road, everything in the arts and life in gerenal will be shut down. I am seeing so many instances where for example companies give in to an angry, unreasonable tweet, fearing their reputation, while in fact they are the one being right. It's just fear that this socially accepted lack of resilience will hurt their company, so they give in out of fear.

People really need to accept and learn there are more colors and stories in the world than their own and that not everything has to suit them. And that not everything they are offended by is actually offensive.

Edit: Ugly people are not offensive because Anna Wintour says they are. A fat girl losing weight and feeling better is not offensive because some people say so. A project with not enough people of the color of choice to completely satisfy you is also not offensive. Not everything has to suit you.

I think that the people we are talking about are missing the point, because they literally turn around what you describe. They think everybody who says or does something they find sensitive has no restraint and that the whole world is responsible for their insecurities. The victim role is blurring their clear sight. Indeed, people today have become too egotistical and allow their ego to dictate their behaviour, resulting in what is commonly noted then as feeling offended.

Updated On: 8/1/18 at 07:11 AM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/1/18 at 3:19pm

One of the biggest tragedy of this was Scotsboro Boys. I saw the show and thought it was brilliant! Yes, it did have a Minstrel Show format, but that was the point! That was the time of the birth of the Civil Rights movement. At the end, it wasn't white actors doing blackface but Black actors. Driving home a very intense message!

 It were people of color,y who heard about the "Minstrel Show" structure and knee jerked protested it causing it to close. I had the chance to chat with John Cullum about it. Once it announced it's closing the invited some of the protesters in to see the show during a matinee, gratis. They left the theatre in tears. Too lately discovering their faux pax.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/1/18 at 3:49pm

SNAFU said: "It were people of color,y who heard about the "Minstrel Show" structure and knee jerked protested it causing it to close."

I totally agree that the protests were misplaced, but I don't think that caused the show to close. I saw the show before the protests started, and was moved from an empty mezzanine to the third row of an almost empty orchestra. I just don't think it ever found an audience, unfortunately.

[KFC1991]

Posted: 8/2/18 at 8:13am

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

[Cat Guy]

Posted: 8/2/18 at 12:19pm

KFC1991 said: " When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)"

 

This jaw-dropping post is yet another reminder of how important it is for us "leftish" people to VOTE in 2018 and again in 2020.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/2/18 at 1:18pm

KFC1991 said: This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.

No, it's most pronounced among Trump supporters, who almost all come across as fragile snowflakes.

The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.

This is nonsense. 

Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.”

This is a much more precise term, and therefore better suited to scholarly work.

They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

Given world history, I think it's a good thing to be careful how we treat other cultures.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/3/18 at 12:40pm

The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.

KFC1991 said: This is nonsense.

Speaking as a black male born in the 60's, no, this is not nonsense. I can't speak for oriental, but the rest when I was growing up were not originally derogatory.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/4/18 at 9:36am

Actually, I’m the one who said it’s nonsense. I’m a little younger than you, but not much, and it’s my experience that my white male peers have always used these terms in a derogatory or dismissive way. Maybe I should equivocate on the word “originally,” but they’ve been used this way by many of my middle-class white peers for 40 years.

Updated On: 8/4/18 at 09:36 AM