Are People Truly "Offended so Easily Nowadays"?

I think it's safe to say we live in a fairly divisive society. It seems like there's a new controversy every other day, with one side demanding the de-platforming of an individual or group, and the other side standing in solidarity and support. Since online interactions are often not exactly cordial, these debates get extremely heated.

But why are these debates and controversies so prevalent in recent years? I grew up in the 90s and I rarely ever heard of anything like this happening. One simplistic explanation you've probably heard is "People are so easily offended these days." or some variation of that. Sometimes the phrase "easily offended" is replaced by "Sensitive" or "Crybabies". Whatever the exact verbiage, the message is the same: People get upset about the words or actions of others way more often now than they did even a few years ago.

This is an easy statement people use for one simple reason: it can't be proven or disproved. Being offended is not something we can quantify and put on a pretty graph to track changes year over year. As a result, the statement is used to trivialize the multiple controversies we bear witness to, dismissing any issues as people having thin skin.

Personally, I do not believe people getting thin skin is the reason behind the uptick of these online spats and that is what I want to discuss today. Regardless of the underlying reasons, one thing we can all agree on is that we are more aware of these controversies, which can certainly make it appear that people are looking to get mad. Let me outline a few reasons I believe we are seeing this vast increase in these online conflicts.

1) Social Media allows us to share our discontent

Growing up in the 90s and 2000s I consumed a lot of stand up comedy. Looking back now, there were most certainly jokes made that would have no hope of flying nowadays. However, those comedians never faced any backlash, at least that I was ever aware of. Many went on to have long careers (some faded overtime naturally, as is typical in show business). So why were they exempt from the public's wrath?

The truth is, there were probably just as many people offended by those jokes then as there would be now. However, what actions could they take if they believed someone's joke was harmful? There was no social media to post to, no direct line of contact to speak with the comedian and no where to discuss your discontent with others. There were, periodically, large letter writing campaigns that occurred when there was a mass distaste with something, but even then the average person probably wouldn't even know it happened. I never read the paper or watched the news when I was a kid (I mean, someone had to save Princess Peach all those times) so if a campaign of that magnitude managed to get picked up by the media, I was totally oblivious and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one this situation applied to.

This is even assuming the letter writing was so prevalent to even make it worth the media's time. Because there was no social media, organizing a protest large enough to be significant was extremely slow and tedious. If I was ever irked by a comedian's joke, I'd have to individually talk to everyone I believed shared my view. It could take me a full day jut to confim 10 like minded were on board with some sort of protest. Then, even if the entire group mailed a letter, no one except for us would know we even did it! And there would be no way to know if our letters were even read. Our anger and offense could be just as real as what you may see today but would be invisible to other people. Nowadays, you can take a clip of an offensive joke, put it on social media and in seconds have an army built. This means way more conflicts become visible much easier and to a wider audience. People who don't even consume stand up comedy (or whatever media is in question) can be exposed to the issue simply by being on twitter.

So of course we see more controversies and complaints on a regular basis not because people weren't offended. They had no way of telling anyone they were.

2) People are trying to be more empathetic and are coming to the defense of others.

It's easy to only care about issues that apply to you. Even if you wanted to care about every horrible thing going on in the world, you simply can't. It's too much for one person to handle. So when words/actions are made against a group you are not a part of it's easy to ignore it.

This was very true before the days of social medi and people often only saw problems when they were affected by them directly. To take an example from my own life, I grew up somewhere where everyone was white. I don't mean there were very few people who were prt of a minority group. I mean there were no minorities where I lived whatsoever (expect on the local univeristy campus, as is expected).

As a result, I was blissfully unaware of the vast number of issues minorities face because I didn't know anyone from those groups, not because I didn't want to, but because I had no access to those communities. I'd pick up a few things here and there from TV or movies, but the day to day issues minority groups face every day was completely unknown to me. As a result, when people made offensive jokes, I was unequipped to understand the emotional toll they could have. The joke wasn't offensive to me, as I was not the subject of it, nor was there a member of that minority group around to be on the receiving end. So no one spoke up and no one shut those jokes down, because it never seemed like they were hurting anybody.

Before social media we all lived in our own social bubbles. Now we live in a vast connected community whose members can easily share their individual stories. I now know many of the issues members of individual communities face and these jokes may not directly hurt them, if they aren't around to hear them, but such jokes can perpetuate stereotypes and downplay struggles.

People are way more in tune with this now and as a result people are trying to stand up for others more. Even when a joke is not directed at an individual, they still worry about the feelings of those in the cross-hairs, and so people who may not have been offended years ago, will still get angry at offensive jokes. Not because they are personally offened, but because someone else out there likely is. This once again, drastically increases dissenting voices to offensive jokes and statements, which may feed into the "easily offended" stance. People have started coming to the aide of those with no voice of their own.

3) It's hard giving people online the benefit of the doubt.

We all make jokes amongst our close friend groups that we probably wouldn't say to outsiders (for example, every game of Cards Against Humanity). That's because we know and trust our friends and jokes that they make are just that, jokes. There's no subtext or hidden malice. Just maybe a statement that pushes a proverbial line to get one of those shocked laughs from peer group.s

Even those in the "People are too sensitive" camp would probably admit there's certain jokes they've told their friends that they wouldn't say to a complete stranger (if they truly don't actually want to offend anyone, that is.) When talking to a stranger, who doesn't know you, most people err on the side of caution and try not to say anything offensive lest the stranger get the wrong idea.

Which brings me to my next point: People joke on social media just like they would with their friends, but seem to forget anyone can see your posts. I'm sure many of these conflicts online are actual misunderstandings. There's been TED Talks highlighting this. In real life, when we make jokes, your small friend group hears it. When you post in on Twitter, the whole world can witness and react to it and most of those people have no idea if you are joking or not so they naturally jump to a negative conclusion.

This feeds into the "People are easily offended" trope because jokes you make in real life to your friends get decimated online. In the perpetrator's head, the joke was harmless when said to anyone they knew if real life, so they are sometimes unable to grasp the fact that the same joke thrown online to be viewed by millions of people can be understood in obscenely different ways. In this case, it's a number game stacked against them. Almost every joke or statement offends someone but you are much less likely to experience that in a small group like their friends. Thrown online, offended parties can be found easily.

Conclusion:

While I can't say for certain whether or not people are simply more offended or not, I do believe the scenarios described above can explain much of the increased animosity online. In normal situations, I know the simplest solution is often true, but in a system as vast and varied as the online world, there are way more variables to consider. When you spend time online you see more of EVERYTHING than you would have 20 years ago. Not because more of those things exist, but because everything has a platform.

If anything I want people to not use "People are easily offended" as an easy dismissal of people's offense. Understand that these people now have a voice, and would have used it years ago if they had the ability.