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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.