Is there really an objective way to categorise that which is and that which is not offensive? In any instance, can a logical conclusion be reached? Is the 'grey' in this area too broad and therefore causing some, particularly in the media and advertising, to go mad?

Case in point the Waitrose ad - [Link]

Is the mere reference to, or mentioning of something, enough to cause such emotional trauma to certain individuals that absolutely everything has to be censored for every possible member of a global audience?

My answer to the above is no. It's impossible in any circumstance. I have traumas in my earlier life, I have troubles now, I do not however expect every single individual, organisation, instance that I encounter to cater to my delicacy. That's life unfortunately. I concentrate on my own mental wellbeing in such circumstances. Not for some apparently. The advert in the link above for me is not about the complaint, nor is it endorsing or promoting the related activity however it still falls afoul of some evidently and the business ultimately found it necessary to amend it as a result.

It does make me laugh that the above case is considered so acceptable however whilst many still die from alcoholism, which along with the likes of gambling causes so much heartache, tragedy and death in the world, this is apparently perfectly fine to advertise. It's an awful, illogical and mindbending culture.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

[Link]

Sums it up nicely. Mods close thread....

Pro USA & Israel

I think Elton John should apologise for suggesting that Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

As an apologist, I'm offended.

I'm sorry if that comes across badly.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Yep, social media is a blessing and a curse....which is essentially heading towards being a control mechanism.

Twitter is an example of an attempted break, but I'm sure we will see Musk being ruthlessly attacked by the socially 'liberal' authoritarians using lawfare and activist judges.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Nov 2022 3.40pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course and this applies to individuals too.

When did being empathetic, kind or even just polite become such a rare and therefore valued commodity to manifest a need to parade and of course, and more importantly, feign it constantly?

There is no doubt sensitivity is needed around a great deal of things and some things are so outrageously offensive they need not pointing out however there is a whole new industry around this which for me only serves three groups:

1. Those set to gain from it either financially or otherwise
2. Those so fragile and bereft of realism in life who see this as a condoning of their condition
3. Those so starved of attention, personality or achievement who desperately need an easy channel through which to find it.

My concern is for future generations and the overtaking of social interactions by technology and therefore those controlling it. I am waiting for a day when some youngster, invited for dinner at my own house, tells me I should not refer to it as a 'salt shaker' due to their great, great grandfather having Parkinson's.

Edited by Nicholas91 (23 Nov 2022 4.13pm)

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

3. I think this is the biggest group. People playing the victim so it makes them interesting and worthy of attention.

1. People will always see an opportunity to make money whether it's a Diversity role or providing a service to the public e.g. Deliveroo. More fool the rest of us for not seeing between nonsense and usefulness.

2. Sadly some people have mental health issues.

One more point