On Being Offended

'when is it ok?' is the wrong question — 'when is it worthwhile or useful?' is closer the mark. When BAWWWWW is obviously the most beneficial thing to do, probably.

To me, verbally 'taking offense' is a political move (and was usually intentional at some point, even if by now it has become reflexive).. implying 'You're not allowed to say that!'. I'm unconditionally, completely against censorship, so I just do not do this. You can say whatever you want, and so can I — I really do my best to live that.

Taking offense (without necessarily saying or doing anything) will still mess with your objectivity. So I also favor just eradicating those self-righteous bits of your psyche. (this is much more tricky, I have much more mixed success with this).

In general, I have to agree with Anonym that offense is a sign of weakness. If you're in a strong position, you don't have any reason to whine about it. "Big dogs don't need to bark". I guess it sums up to accepting that opinions are just that; just something someone is expressing, not strong evidence of anything. Not even that, for example, they are trying to bait you. Reading motives into what people do is one of the most reliable ways to become a paranoid and oversensitive individual. Don't do that As long as you haven't read motives into what someone is saying or doing, you should have little trouble with getting offended and thus derailed. That's my experience.

Are your 'rights' relevant at all to what kind of person you want to be?

edited 24th Apr '11 4:35:09 AM by SavageOrange

I think people have a right to be offended by some things. If, for example, somebody were to swear profusely and hurl sexist comments at me while I went about my daily business, I would consider it in my rights to be offended.

Is that a valid question but? I mean if I my sister started dating people of the wrong colour I've got the right to be offended by it. I would still be a racist a**hole however.

edited 24th Apr '11 4:34:41 AM by joeyjojo

I think Loni Jay has my view on the matter.

I think you have a right to be offended when someone is purposely trying to hurt people with their actions. Nor do I see it as a sign of weakness; I don't see why I should be expected to tolerate in any way someone deliberately being a jerk to me. (I'm kind of dismayed and annoyed by the number of people who do seem to think that's expected... that people have the right to say or do any jerkish thing they want and it's the recipient's fault if they're bothered by it. It's like, wait, what?)

But if someone's not actually deliberately trying to hurt people, I'd consider it at most a need to instruct the person they might want to be more mannered, rather than getting flat-out offended.

edited 24th Apr '11 6:17:48 AM by Jeysie

Sure, no way, you're not supposed to *tolerate* that kind of behaviour.. It's just that taking anything personally is surely gonna just make things worse. I guess generally people take things personally and decide they've just gotta repress it (rather than learning some perspective)

I guess 'offended' brings to mind someone whining, rather than simply making some flat, pointed comments.

You can always pick out the dudes and dudettes that take things personally in a debate. It's usually because they are directly affected by whatever the topic is.

While that's all well and good, having to explain for the tenth time I am specifically using standards that would give them what they want, and am merely using it for the ones that are indeed a legitimate problem (or whatever the situation calls for) is gravely aggravating. It is also the quickest way to get me to hold a grudge against someone.

You have the right to be offended whenever you want and by whatever you want, the question is how much good it will do you. Usually none, other than making someone feel better on occasion.

I loathe the concept of people getting offended and having figures of authority do something to ease the offense in daily life.

I'm personally very hard to offend by most things. You have to insult things I have a lot of value in, and you have to do it in a way that makes me think you honestly hold that viewpoint and aren't just trollan. Proverbial dead baby and genocide jokes? More often than not I'll laugh. Actions offend me much more than words. I'll joke about the dead and laugh at others jokes about the dead, but fuck you if you try to interrupt someones funeral or deface a corpse. There's a certain sanctity to the dead that I hold.

Yeah Westboro Baptist Church, I'm looking at you. You don't offend me, you piss me the fuck off.This is what you deserve every time you leave your homes, and I encourage every cop to do the same thing that these ones did, and every witness to do what every witness did.

Anyone who says they don't get offended is a fucking liar.

Obviously, it is possible to be offended too easily, the trick is to pick what you're going to be offended about and make it something worthwhile. The Christian Far Right offends me because I find their beliefs and practices abhorrent. Will a race joke made in poor taste offend me? Meh, not really.

^

This.

@Joeyjojo: Johnathan Swift actually advocated eating babies as a solution for irish hunger once. :D

No he didn't.

That depends. In order to be offended, you both have to be caught off-guard and have a deep respect or love for the thing being insulted. I'm extremely detached and apathetic, so even when someone says something horrible about a loved one, it sails over my head.

In any case, I think you're generalizing from one example. (IE, typical mind fallacy.)

Of course, I consider my inability to care is something I consider a flaw, even though it brings me an endless supply of bliss. Bliss is great and all, but there is something evil, I believe, about turning a blind eye to hatred and suffering.

I think you should really only take offense if it was obviously intended to be offensive.

If someone makes a little slip and says something they really shouldn't have by accident, there's no need to get up all in their shit about it. I've been in that position before, and it really, really sucks.

^

That's called falling for the troll though. That essentially means they won, and you lost. The only way for me to take offense is if they really and seriously have convictions about bullshit like that, and that offending me isn't the main goal.

edited 24th Apr '11 11:56:12 AM by Barkey

I'm just the opposite myself. I'm not offended by someone's genuine convictions in and of themself, because they're not trying to hurt other people merely by existing. It's only if they use their convictions as a reason to hurt others that I'll get riled up.

Conversely, to me spouting an opinion you don't hold just for the sake of riling other people up I find rather offensive/objectionable.

I guess for me it's all about the intentions and actions. You can hold whatever horrible black thoughts and opinions you want as long as you conduct yourself in a reasonable and civil manner in spite of them. The most I might do is try to educate you on any misconceptions you have, or make you aware that your behavior may not be appropriate in some cases, or similar things as relevant.

It's only when you start trying to slander, antagonize, or otherwise hurt others that I start getting upset/angry.

edited 24th Apr '11 4:56:18 PM by Jeysie

Hmm . . . The last time I was offended, I was sitting in a class on game design. The teacher was discussing the various forms of fun in games, and a student raised his hand and asked what form griefing fell under, then derailed the class for five minutes with a long, self-indulgent, and increasingly sociopathic-sounding monologue on his favorite forms of griefing. Halfway through, I wondered if he was trying to irritate everyone else in the room. Then I realized the answer was probably yes. (I wound up rerailing by raising my hand to ask whether games like Paranoia that deliberately encourage teamkilling fall under the "agon" class of fun.)

That sounds like an awesome class.

Continuing on-topic...I think a better question might be when you feel like it is appropriate to be offended. Can you name some cases where you were not offended yourself, but someone else was, appropriately and/or inappropriately?

Saying that it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to be offended really gets into matters of opinion.

In my opinion, it's "appropriate" to be offended at actions or insults directed against you personally and for no justifiable reason. If somebody says to me, "I disagree with your opinion on such-and-such because of reasons X, Y and Z," then it would be inappropriate to get offended.

On the other hand, telling somebody "You're an idiot for believing X, Y and Z and I hope you die in a fire," it would be appropriate to be offended then. It goes against reasonable conventions of polite behavior.

Now, when I'm with my friends we will rib on each other and nobody takes offense, because nobody means any offense and we know it. It would be inappropriate for me to get offended at those times.

People do often take offense too far. Nobody has a right to NOT be offended, and if you are offended you have no right (as I see it) to force somebody else into silence. You can refuse to listen, or leave, or tell them to go away, but you don't have any business forcing them to stop being offensive. Being offended doesn't give anybody a claim to force your beliefs onto others.

Then what exactly do claims of being 'offended' or claims that something is 'offensive' do? Obviously they are intended to communicate something, to cause some type of behavior. What is it?

To tell them to stop being a jerkass?

I mean, Lawyerdude kind of missed that option, as IMHO I actually have every right to force someone to not be offensive around me. I'm perfectly within my right to lecture someone, or, if I have enough authority in the situation, put them on a probation where they're instructed to behave, ban them from a place, dock their pay or fire them, etc.

I mean, in a situation where neither of us can leave, I don't see why I should be forced to ignore someone who's purposely trying to harass me, as opposed to the person who's harassing me being forced to behave like a civil human being. See, like I said, that's what really pisses me off. Why do people always act like someone's right to be a jackass takes priority over my right to be treated with civility?

@Jeysie: You're right, I didn't add that in. I was assuming the offense took place in a neutral setting. But if somebody's offending you in someplace where you make the rules, then by all means you have the right to give them the boot. Likewise if you're on somebody else's turf then the burden is on you to be inoffensive. (Something that I, admittedly, have failed at in the past.)

A boss has the right to discipline employees who act offensively and cause a disruption in the workplace. The boss is also responsible for determining what behavior among employees is acceptable.

Now take the example of an art exhibition that somebody finds offensive (of which there are plenty). Who makes the rules then? I'd say it's the gallery owner. Members of the public can come in and view it or not. But that same member of the public has no business threatening or trying to force the gallery to close or take the exhibit down just because he's "offended". Likewise the gallery owner has the right to stand his ground and refuse to bow to threats or pressure. "My house, my rules", as I'm sure we've all heard.

Plus, we also need to remember that there's a distinction between being harassing and being offensive. Not all offensive behavior is harassment, but has a right to be free of harassment.

edited 25th Apr '11 8:19:31 PM by Lawyerdude

I personally define offensiveness as, someone's purposely trying to hurt/antagonize someone else by doing or saying something they know the other person can't stand, for the express intent of riling them up. So "offensive" and "harassment" are mostly synonymous to me.

So to me, the art gallery situation isn't really an example, provided the artist didn't create their work deliberately trying to hurt/antagonize the intended audience. Otherwise it just falls into, "If you don't like it, tough."

edited 25th Apr '11 8:27:49 PM by Jeysie

The problem I have isn't with being offended (while easily hurt by words, I tend to keep a stoic façade, attempt to snark back (I usually do poorly) and/or reflect), it's with people being offendable easily.

As the old saying goes, "He who WANTS to be offended, WILL BE." Have you noticed, for example, how members of a particular world religion are always significantly more vocal about any attempts at satire against their religion and/or religious symbols, while the other major world religion is a lot more tame in that regard? One can always say that this is because they more firmly believe in their own religion and will defend it against any offences that may be hurled at it... but death threats against political cartoonists regarding a piece of satire that all the world religions could've been offended at if they WANTED TO is taking it a bit too far, methinks.