Is society so easily offended by being offended around the offense of the offender?... OH GODS!!

[timeformime]

Yeah I really couldn't say whether being well off makes you less likely to be offended. Any conjecture I throw at you about social classes would just betray my own biases.

In any case, I do feel it mostly relates to your general mindset, and how secure you are in your opinions or beliefs.

And wow, thanks for hitting the nail on the head by saying that. Being offended does not give you the right to force whatever changes are necessary to make you "comfortable." It's about the most self-centered attitude you can take.

 

[Wraith]

Although, I dislike it that people can and will overact at the drop of a hat, I find myself being more upset at those who take offense at others being offended. Their arguments usually adhere to "It doesn't offend me so you should not be mad", which shows a complete misunderstanding or outright disregard for another person's perspective.

Now, I agree that people who want things changed or destroyed because it offend them can take it to an extreme. But there are things out there that offend me and I would be happy to see them gone, stuff like sexism, racism, rape etc. So I don't have much to say to those who can be easily offended.

 

[norashepard]

You know what I think? I think we're all getting too offended at people taking offense. Like, it's reasonable for a woman to be offended by sexism, or a PoC to get mad at racial slurs. My question is why are people always so offended when people who have a right to be offended are offended? It's hilarious. They get mad when others get mad, completely oblivious to the irony.

 

[Psychobabble]

Well OP I tend to agree with you. It seems many people stay in shape these days using knee jerk reactions alone. I personally don't think it's the taking offense over an issue that's the real problem, but instead the level of offense being taken all out of proportion with the issue at hand.

However let's look at something before we go to that discussion. It's very easy to complain about someone being offended over something when it isn't offensive to us personally. That doesn't meant that lack of personal offense equates to the issue at hand being unoffensive. I find in this annoying age of political correctness drum beating there are still offensive issue that should be discussed but get ignored due to the "What? That doesn't effect ME" factor.

A personal example of this kind of behavior is a row a mate and I had over him wanting to play a certain UK comedian's comedy bit in my living room. The video in question was Roy Chubby Brown's comedy skit called "The Gollywog Song." You'll have to look it up on youtube as I'm not posting it here. Anyway his point was it was a harmless pisstake of how overly politically correct the UK has become. I disagree, to me it just seems a veiled and unfunny act of race baiting. Also it's a prime example of someone being angry at being called racist when they act ... well, racist. When I got annoyed he was astounded and could not understand why it upset me so much. "You're not black, what's it to you?" He asked. Which just made me more angry. And here's why. The friend in question is the person who was set upon by skinheads about two years back due to him being Eastern European. They beat him with bricks and put him in hospital for weeks. Then he lived in my flat for several months since he couldn't do heavy labor work and couldn't afford rent. These same twats had harassed him for a couple of weeks but only yelled taunts at him. Up until that night in question they'd never crossed over to actual brutality. But obviously eventually some line was crossed where they felt empowered enough to make their hatred physical. To this day he still doesn't see any connection between the behavior of those pricks and this silly little comedy jingle. Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive, but I doubt it. Maybe when those twonks, who by the way were never arrested, give the same beating to some poor black person he'll see the light.

Anyway back to the main point. While I agree there are many instances of people taking offense to an issue all out of proportion, you might want to try to see the offending material from their point of view before just discounting it out of hand. In other words, sometimes it might be best to avoid saying or doing something offensive rather that going ahead with it an then saying "Well, no offense meant". Just because something doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean it won't wound someone else.

 

[Denizen]

It's because the media has sensationalized the "outrageous" aspect of when someone does something offensive. People are now so fixated on finding something that may offend someone or themselves for the sake of purely pointing it out when in nearly all cases, it's a pure accident and the occurrence of it is purely arbitrary.

When was the last time someone did not make a big deal out of a slip-up? It's like everyone forgot that someone makes a mistake and is obviously not trying to be offensive but everyone condemns that person anyway.

On that note, did everyone forget the only people who are deliberately trying to offend are extremely obvious? I think at this point those deliberately offensive people are buried under all the victims of over-sensitive jerks who ruin someone's career or life because of a mistake.

But overall, I go back to the first thing I said, it's the media's fault for sensationalizing and sensitizing people to the point where a slip is on the same scale as directing any purposeful insult; thus, a slip up is ignored for its context.

That's also something else to point out. People say context is no longer good enough when that's all that's separating a mature discussion of what's typically sensitive topics from flame-bait. So, why are we throwing out context?

The answer, it holds back good news stories. Take note, that good is no longer substantial or important, it's simply (and unfortunately) acceptable and easy to sell, selling controversy.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

 

[GAunderrated]

I'm sorry to everyone who wrote pages upon pages that I did not read. OP one thing I learned is that if you don't get offended by many things, then when people get offended you wont really care.

I see people offended by things and just ignore it because quite frankly I don't care. If you spend all your time worrying why people are so complacent then you won't have any time to enjoy life instead of worrying why people are offended by x or y.

 

[anthony87]

Bleh...offence. You know what I do when/if something/someone offends me? I think to myself "What a ****" and then continue doing what I was doing.

It's served me well so far.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

Yeah, in theory that makes sense, but in practice, there's all sorts of problem with that.

It's getting pretty close to the tone argument there, and saying that the people most affected by an issue are too biased to be able to do anything about it.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

Yeah, in theory that makes sense, but in practice, there's all sorts of problem with that.

It's getting pretty close to the tone argument there, and saying that the people most affected by an issue are too biased to be able to do anything about it.

I'd honestly like to know what the problem is.

As for the tone thing, I don't think an offended person can't get anything done. It's just that the things they do will probably be overly destructive and poorly done.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd honestly like to know what the problem is.

As for the tone thing, I don't think an offended person can't get anything done. It's just that the things they do will probably be overly destructive and poorly done.

Well, by slightly tweaking that logic, you can dismiss anyone who cares about and/or has a personal stake in an issue, they are too emotive and should be ignored. This is something that gets used a lot, really big can o' worms there.

Alternatively, it can be tweaked into auditing people's reactions, which is likewise.

Now, certainly, the idea makes logical sense in theory, just it's rather awkward in practice.

 

[EternallyBored]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

The problem with this idea it that you've directly linked offense to gut reaction, and in order to eliminate that, you would essentially have to prevent emotional reaction, as well as heat of the moment decisions. While it's cetainly possible to say that making decisions based on purely emotional reactions in a tense situation is a bad idea, actually doing it is little more than wishful thinking.

Would it be nice if people could always step back and look at their decisions rationally, and think their actions through before going forward? Yes, that would probably be a good idea, actually doing it is another matter. Short of genetic modification, species wide brain surgery, or a totalitarian society capable of enforcing lockstep adherence to its edicts, there's no actual way to pull this off with any degree of uniformity.

In the end, who is the ultimate arbiter for what offense is considered action worthy or not? What if after calming down and thinking it through, a person still decides their issue of choice is worth fighting for, but you don't see it that way? Which one of you gets to decide where the line is? What about when more people get involved, if the majority of a population decides that this is an issue they want to discuss, but you disagree, is the offense still unjustified? What about when social values change, most people in the 50's would have a very different view of what an action worthy offense is, do we hold to the past model or try our best to adapt to what may be a new emerging model.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'd honestly like to know what the problem is.

As for the tone thing, I don't think an offended person can't get anything done. It's just that the things they do will probably be overly destructive and poorly done.

Well, by slightly tweaking that logic, you can dismiss anyone who cares about and/or has a personal stake in an issue, they are too emotive and should be ignored. This is something that gets used a lot, really big can o' worms there.

Alternatively, it can be tweaked into auditing people's reactions, which is likewise.

Now, certainly, the idea makes logical sense in theory, just it's rather awkward in practice.

Ah, I see what you're saying. And I actually agree.

In my original post, I was really mostly referring to internal conflict and responsibility, not how other people judge the offended person.

Less "I wish we could all disregard people if they seem offended" and more "I wish we could all be a bit more rational and think before we act after being offended"

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

The problem with this idea it that you've directly linked offense to gut reaction, and in order to eliminate that, you would essentially have to prevent emotional reaction, as well as heat of the moment decisions. While it's cetainly possible to say that making decisions based on purely emotional reactions in a tense situation is a bad idea, actually doing it is little more than wishful thinking.

It may be wishful thinking that everyone in the world should change overnight, but we have gotten pretty good about not acting on gut reactions like love and fear(sort of), so I don't think the idea is completely impossible
[quote/]

Would it be nice if people could always step back and look at their decisions rationally, and think their actions through before going forward? Yes, that would probably be a good idea, actually doing it is another matter. Short of genetic modification, species wide brain surgery, or a totalitarian society capable of enforcing lockstep adherence to its edicts, there's no actual way to pull this off with any degree of uniformity.

[/quote]
[quote/]
In the end, who is the ultimate arbiter for what offense is considered action worthy or not? What if after calming down and thinking it through, a person still decides their issue of choice is worth fighting for, but you don't see it that way? Which one of you gets to decide where the line is? What about when more people get involved, if the majority of a population decides that this is an issue they want to discuss, but you disagree, is the offense still unjustified? What about when social values change, most people in the 50's would have a very different view of what an action worthy offense is, do we hold to the past model or try our best to adapt to what may be a new emerging model.[/quote]
That's my point though. Offense should [i/]never[/i] be the entire reason for doing something. Racism, sexism, homophobia, violation of rights etc. are all perfectly valid reason to take action. Offense alone is not.

 

[EternallyBored]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

The problem with this idea it that you've directly linked offense to gut reaction, and in order to eliminate that, you would essentially have to prevent emotional reaction, as well as heat of the moment decisions. While it's cetainly possible to say that making decisions based on purely emotional reactions in a tense situation is a bad idea, actually doing it is little more than wishful thinking.

It may be wishful thinking that everyone in the world should change overnight, but we have gotten pretty good about not acting on gut reactions like love and fear(sort of), so I don't think the idea is completely impossible
[quote/]

Would it be nice if people could always step back and look at their decisions rationally, and think their actions through before going forward? Yes, that would probably be a good idea, actually doing it is another matter. Short of genetic modification, species wide brain surgery, or a totalitarian society capable of enforcing lockstep adherence to its edicts, there's no actual way to pull this off with any degree of uniformity.

[quote/]
In the end, who is the ultimate arbiter for what offense is considered action worthy or not? What if after calming down and thinking it through, a person still decides their issue of choice is worth fighting for, but you don't see it that way? Which one of you gets to decide where the line is? What about when more people get involved, if the majority of a population decides that this is an issue they want to discuss, but you disagree, is the offense still unjustified? What about when social values change, most people in the 50's would have a very different view of what an action worthy offense is, do we hold to the past model or try our best to adapt to what may be a new emerging model.[/quote]
That's my point though. Offense should [i/]never[/i] be the entire reason for doing something. Racism, sexism, homophobia, violation of rights etc. are all perfectly valid reason to take action. Offense alone is not.[/quote]

Offense doesn't just form in a vacuum, sometimes people will calm down and realize their initial response was unwarranted, but when a person actually takes the effort to add action especially when they go as far as to try and effect systemic change, that generally means they've put some thought behind why they were offended. You might not agree with that reason, but they might still see it as perfectly rational on their end.

Which brings us right back around to who gets to decide which offense is worth being acted on and when it's worth being acted on.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This may get me hate, but I find the concept of taking action as a result of being "offended" to be one of the fundamental fatal flaws in humanity that needs to be abandoned as soon as possible.

The feeling of offense I understand. It's a natural reaction that we can't fight like fear. But to actually speak out because of those feelings or take action because of those feelings is just as bad as acting or speaking as a result of panic or fear.

Offense isn't useful. It doesn't do anything and in most cases, it's utterly irrational. Sometimes things need to happen. People need to be held accountable for racism, sexism, whatever. But it should be done with a cool, calculated head.

In a perfect world, any time someone is offended by something, they would feel their feeling, but then stop and think very hard and as objectively as possible about why they feel that way and if something truly needs to be done about it.

Offense can be a catalyst, but it should never be a driving force.

The problem with this idea it that you've directly linked offense to gut reaction, and in order to eliminate that, you would essentially have to prevent emotional reaction, as well as heat of the moment decisions. While it's cetainly possible to say that making decisions based on purely emotional reactions in a tense situation is a bad idea, actually doing it is little more than wishful thinking.

It may be wishful thinking that everyone in the world should change overnight, but we have gotten pretty good about not acting on gut reactions like love and fear(sort of), so I don't think the idea is completely impossible
[quote/]

Would it be nice if people could always step back and look at their decisions rationally, and think their actions through before going forward? Yes, that would probably be a good idea, actually doing it is another matter. Short of genetic modification, species wide brain surgery, or a totalitarian society capable of enforcing lockstep adherence to its edicts, there's no actual way to pull this off with any degree of uniformity.

[quote/]
In the end, who is the ultimate arbiter for what offense is considered action worthy or not? What if after calming down and thinking it through, a person still decides their issue of choice is worth fighting for, but you don't see it that way? Which one of you gets to decide where the line is? What about when more people get involved, if the majority of a population decides that this is an issue they want to discuss, but you disagree, is the offense still unjustified? What about when social values change, most people in the 50's would have a very different view of what an action worthy offense is, do we hold to the past model or try our best to adapt to what may be a new emerging model.

That's my point though. Offense should [i/]never[/i] be the entire reason for doing something. Racism, sexism, homophobia, violation of rights etc. are all perfectly valid reason to take action. Offense alone is not.[/quote]

Offense doesn't just form in a vacuum, sometimes people will calm down and realize their initial response was unwarranted, but when a person actually takes the effort to add action especially when they go as far as to try and effect systemic change, that generally means they've put some thought behind why they were offended. You might not agree with that reason, but they might still see it as perfectly rational on their end.

Which brings us right back around to who gets to decide which offense is worth being acted on and when it's worth being acted on.[/quote]
Sometimes, yes you're right. People do put thought into it. But not always. And that's what needs to happen.

 

[DugMachine]

Yes, many people will take a disagreement, or an invitation to debate, as an attack. I come from a pretty good background, where arguing on heady, important topics was normal, and now I'm in a low-end job going to school where if you disagree with someone and say so, it means you're trying to start something. There's no room for compromise.

So I can't help but think it's somewhat related to education - a good education usually gives you experience in looking at your own views objectively. This helps you not get offended when they are challenged.

This is true. Where I live there are a lot of uneducated people (mostly Mexican immigrants) or just plain ignorant people who refuse to discuss/debate anything. You either think like them, or you're going to have problems. Upsetting but nothing I can do about it, just gotta pick better people to converse with.