Can't stand "banter" - esp the dimwit kind

[eti]

How do you cope with the mind-numbing "banter" that people often find amusing, and will tell you "you need to lighten up" for not finding in the slightest bit, funny? I find it tedious... brain-dead, lazy, how about you guys?

This article explains how I feel, mostly: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/its-just-banter-is-a-feeble-excuse-from-cowards-who-know-theyre/

Article copy (as it's inaccessible to some):

"'It's just banter' is a feeble excuse from cowards who know they're not joking
Ancient tribes used to believe that they knew of an efficient way to rid themselves of sin. They would figuratively heap the transgressions of the afflicted onto a goat and force it out into the wilderness. This is the origin of the term "scapegoating": the practice of shirking responsibility for one's sins by piling them onto a convenient third party. A lot of good goats were unnecessarily traumatised.

"Banter" has become the scapegoat of our era. A headteacher in Sheffield has recently become a former headteacher after she instructed female staff “not to come back from their holidays pregnant” and, when she faced a disciplinary panel, blamed her misjudged comments on "banter".

Once scapegoats were real animals Credit: -/-
Dropping that loaded, dreaded word into any sort of legal context will always leave a bad smell in the room. No matter who you are, “It was a bit of banter, m'lud” will seem a pitiful excuse, however true it happens to be. Judges don't like jokes - judges like cars and money. But the urge to use banter as a get-out clause in the first place is frequently a suspect one, with sinister motivations.

This thoughtful series of tweets by a lawyer who wrote a dissertation on the purpose of humour proves that the “It's just a joke” defence – used in the above case by Donald Trump after he made a thinly-veiled threat about Hillary Clinton being shot – is problematic at best. “Nobody is ever 'just joking'”, writes Jason Steed. The way in which we choose to employ jokes is meaningful and serves to include or alienate people we deem to be in certain groups. Thus, when Trump made his remark about Clinton, he was not simply deploying sarcasm or humour; he was entrenching the sincere viewpoint of a significant proportion of his electorate. They knew he wasn't joking but, when challenged, he could tell his detractors that he was. Trump's intention was that two groups of people would therefore walk off with a different interpretation of his remark: one would admire him more than ever; the other would take him to be an orange Oscar Wilde.

The truth in what ex-headteacher Helena Button said made it funny - and stinging Credit: -/SWNS.com - South West News Service
To a lesser extent, this is the crime of which Ms Button, the Sheffield headteacher, was guilty: Her "banter" about not wanting to see pregnant teachers was underscored by the understanding in her audience that pregnant teachers are indeed inconvenient for headteachers. A man laughing at the comment might have thought little of it; if you were a woman, however, you would be forgiven for feeling ostracised and vulnerable, however banterful the atmosphere was supposed to be. This is the power of humour. Deep down, the headteacher knew that the comment could only be perceived as a funny joke if it contained a certain degree of truth.

The reason banter is such a feeble excuse is that, in the eyes of the person who generated it, it can always seem valid. There is no situation – including the podium of a presidential candidate – in which it cannot be wheeled out. It conjures uncomfortable images of the school bully who means every nasty word he says but, if he is a good enough actor, can wriggle out of any situation by explaining that he was “only joking”. This, again, is an unmistakeable power move: you thought what I said was nasty? You need to get a sense of humour. Everyone with a sense of humour understood what was going on. It is no coincidence that this sentence is one that could easily slither out of Donald Trump's lips in the next 24 hours.

Of course it's all a wind up Credit: -/-
More than anything else, the use of banter as a scapegoat gives one a greater appreciation of all the world’s arseholes who are committed to being unrepentant arseholes. Saying something horrible, meaning it, and sticking to your guns displays a great deal more dignity than saying something horrible, pretending you didn't mean it, and fooling no one. The banter get-out clause is essentially a half-retraction: it means neither that you are standing by what you said nor that you entirely disown it.

In pointing out that people too often get away with the “It’s just a joke” excuse, we have to be wary of pandering to a culture increasingly gleeful about taking offence. Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed provides valuable insight into the horrors that come from victimising people who have simply typed an ill-judged joke. The point is to notice when "banter" is being used lazily and insincerely. It cannot be a plaster for every single wound.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that joking about teachers getting pregnant is a sackable offence. (Button resigned for more than just this.) But I do think that it is embarrassing when grown-adults have to use the word "banter" to explain that something they said was meant to be funny. If it were funny, it could speak for itself. As soon as it’s not funny, it’s not really banter.

Ralph Jones is a staff writer for ShortList magazine. @OhHiRalphJones"

It's often heard in the workplace; I say thank GOODNESS I don't have a workplace within which to find it common. 

[schmitt trigger]

Article is behind a paywall. Unfortunately.

[eti]

Oops, corrected by pasting it in OP.

[SerieZ]

It depends on the Context and the people involved.
Personally I like a cheeky Joke even if I am on the receiving end,... then some things can and do go under the belt. 

Regarding your Article: I find the tone that "Journalist" employs arrogant, I find the whole context of the story laughable and sad and I especially fn hate cancel "Culture" and mob mentality from overly sensitive Idiots who provide nothing to Society except finding blame in others.
So no, you will find yourself alone on that one.

 

[M0HZH]

...
Regarding your Article: I find the tone that "Journalist" employs arrogant, I find the whole context of the story laughable and sad and I especially fn hate cancel "Culture" and mob mentality from overly sensitive Idiots who provide nothing to Society except finding blame in others.
...

I think we found the ex-headteacher. Boy, she still holds a grudge.

[SerieZ]

...
Regarding your Article: I find the tone that "Journalist" employs arrogant, I find the whole context of the story laughable and sad and I especially fn hate cancel "Culture" and mob mentality from overly sensitive Idiots who provide nothing to Society except finding blame in others.
...

I think we found the ex-headteacher. Boy, she still holds a grudge.

Hah..., cute! 
Its all fun and games till they come after you for something stupid you said as a Teenager.
And Its all about measurement and I don't think someone should loose their Job for something THIS Banal.

But maybe its too much to ask people to think of the Consequences of their Action, I guess Instant gratification and burning people at the stakes is easier. 

[M0HZH]

Well it looks like the headteacher learned the hard way there are consequences for being an asshole to your underlings.

For anyone that understands the dynamics of social interaction, that type of "joke" is a power play. The same mechanics of asserting dominance are in place everywhere in the animal kingdom and still in every human society, the only difference is in the way it's done; animals are more physical, we have language. The problem is the animal pecking order is very simple and based mostly on strength, while we humans (as we claim to be more evolved and intelligent) put people in certain positions because of their suitable skills. We are organized, smart and we're trying to evolve to where our civilization wouldn't rank ourselves based on animal-like displays of dominance. Not sure if it's better, but it feels like evolution.

Condeming someone for saying something 20 years ago that is out-of-place now however is just ridiculous; I guess there are people that exagerate on both sides.

[SerieZ]

Well it looks like the headteacher learned the hard way there are consequences for being an asshole to your underlings.

You are assuming she is. You do not know the Context (and neither do I).
That is exactly why I hate mob mentality and this cancel culture.

 

[M0HZH]

Indeed, my assumption is that she learned from this, but there's no way to know that.

It looks like a disciplinary panel listened to all parties involved, knew the context and made a decision. The case is closed, no mob involved, no "cancel culture", no trending hashtags.

There is also another social interaction detail worth noting in this context: people supporting an idea they know is wrong will plead for a neutral-ethical stance like "let's hear all the facts / we don't know all details / let's hear what all sides have to say" even in face of overwhelming evidence, instead of openingly admitting and defending their position.

[SerieZ]

Indeed, my assumption is that she learned from this, but there's no way to know that.

Good Start but you are forgetting about your first assumption. The one that she is guilty of being an asshole only based on the judgement of one Authority - and we do not even know which (mostly the Author).
I personally am risk averse and do not like to take many leap of faiths when it is about hampering with the livelihood of another Person.

It looks like a disciplinary panel listened to all parties involved, knew the context and made a decision. The case is closed, no mob involved, no "cancel culture", no trending hashtags.

You can add at least one shitty Article written by a Journo + this thread besides her losing a Promotion or whatever for saying something shitty to her underlings.

There is also another social interaction detail worth noting in this context: people supporting an idea they know is wrong will plead for a neutral-ethical stance like "let's hear all the facts / we don't know all details / let's hear what all sides have to say" even in face of overwhelming evidence, instead of openingly admitting and defending their position.

Sounds more like a person unsure of their Opinion or about to change it rather than one who knows he/she is 100% in the wrong.
Also completely besides the point.

Maybe you can enlighten us with your stance on Banter and how to punish people for it instead of writing snarky replies.

[artag]

What are you doing in a 'General chat' forum if you don't like banter ?
That's pretty much the purpose of it.