If Offense is Always Taken, Never Given... (religion, soul, humans)

[Phil75230]

...then isn't it the free speech advocates' (especially the absoultists') fault for being offended that some Yale University students signed the mock petition to repeal the First Amendment?

or, for an example at least as pointed,

Isn't it the nontheists fault for being offended when a teacher says “Atheists are throwing a fit because they don’t have their own day. They do have their own day; it’s called April Fools’ Day, because you are a fool if you don’t believe in god.” ? (actual incident at Northwest Rankin High School, which is in a Jackson, MS suburb)

If someone is offended by either of these, how can you claim either free speech advocates or the nontheists are "just taking offense" (implying that the petition signers and/or the teacher is absolved from all responsibility for offending them - at least in a moral, if not legal, sense).

Notes:

*Claiming for the first "There's no chance of it passing, therefore it's just amusing" is beside the point. The point is that free speech advocates would be offended if such a repeal ever did have a chance of occurring.

*I'm all for keeping out of classrooms during school hours even a hint of an impression of government-sanctioned religion. This is beside the point.

[arleigh]

It seems to me that the smallest minds, that have the largest ego, are those most easily offended.

People choose to be offended because it give them a sense of power over others and like a baby crying ,get their way. Spoiled brats. they cast blame and take no responsibility for their own failures .

[Phil75230]

Calling offense a choice assumes people (or at least 95% of them) have complete control over their own emotions. In which case, "crybabies" (and every other epithet you used would include people ruled by a totalitarian regime but want to have democratic freedoms also qualify "crybabies". Furthermore, by that standard nobody should be offended by anything at all - including the most sadistic criminal acts, or a spouse or SO cheating on you. That is what I would have to conclude if I were to accept your claim. Not to mention your claim demonstrates an over-simple understanding of free will and personal responsibility.

Besides, your rhetorical sword can cut the other way too. It's not as if people conforming to society's definition of "acceptable person" have shortages of "small minds, large egoes, and easily offended" who "cry like a baby" to "get their way" - that way being preservation of conventional definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" person. Such people assumes - without a shred of self-criticism - that society's conventional and/or traditional standards of judging people are fine and good the way they are.

As for your "power" claim, that assumes the type of social change the "out" group wants is, in fact, illegitimate. History is riddled with instances of an "in" group having certain long-established ways of treating an "out" group that turned out not to be so just and fair after all (treatment of women, minorities, and other orientations and identities being the most blatant, dramatic example; but by no means the only ones).

The "responsibility" claim - let's just say that standing up to the status quo ispeople taking responsibility for their own lives. So is "out" group members working to repair the damage that "in" groups do to them - damage caused by the "in"s stack the deck so that the "in"s have easier criteria to meet than "out"s, to make a long story about it short.

Note that I never said which groups were "in" and which were "out", as that doesn't matter. What matters is that "Offense is taken, never given" is just a propaganda weapon used to tempt other people into dismissing other people's concerns in a particularly callous manner, often with the implication that anyone objecting to standard practices deserves whatever disrespect they get from "normal/in" people. This attitude is not going to lead to any sustainable solution to any problem in society.

[ukrkoz]

I agree with arleigh. being offended is a personal choice. In some people it builds up to the point that they go into any situation already pre-offended and immediately find any excuse to become.
This can be argued all you want to but, OP, should you personally start working on NOT becoming offended, in about a year you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

I agree with arleigh. being offended is a personal choice. In some people it builds up to the point that they go into any situation already pre-offended and immediately find any excuse to become.
This can be argued all you want to but, OP, should you personally start working on NOT becoming offended, in about a year you'll know what I'm talking about.

Let me ask you something. Why do you choose not to go out and be rude to people since being offended is a choice? I'm sure their are people you interact with that you want to say something to but don't. Why don't you?

This is the type of excuse and ratinalizations douchebags and jerks use to act like douchebags and jerks and prevent people from calling them out on their behavior.

[Phil75230]

Note: I actually don’t support using any word with an asterisk beside it. I only use them in this post to speak to such people in their own terms. If they object to my use of the word against them, then they shouldn’t use it against anyone else. That said, I’ll start my response.

Originally Posted by Ro2113

Let me ask you something. Why do you choose not to go out and be rude to people since being offended is a choice? I'm sure their are people you interact with that you want to say something to but don't. Why don't you?

This is the type of excuse and ratinalizations douchebags and jerks use to act like douchebags and jerks and prevent people from calling them out on their behavior.

Agreed, Ro. As I said in my OP – if offense if taken, never given, then it is ridiculous for the free speech advocates (especially FS Absolutists) to take offense at suggestions to repeal the First Amendment. It’s also ridiculous for atheists to get offended at blatant, verbatim claims in classrooms that atheists are fools. Same for feminists and mens’ rights advocates taking offense at some attack on their human dignity. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, after all. This also applies to situations well outside political, philosophical, and “culture wars” debates.
If you don’t blame any one of the above groups for being offended then you implicitly admit that sometimes offense IS given instead of taken – or at the very least you believe that people of lower social status (formal or not) are obligated to put up with slights and indignities from those of higher social status. This attitude is inescapably unequal and unjust.

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

I agree with arleigh. being offended is a personal choice. In some people it builds up to the point that they go into any situation already pre-offended and immediately find any excuse to become.
This can be argued all you want to but, OP, should you personally start working on NOT becoming offended, in about a year you'll know what I'm talking about.

Also, I noticed that people claiming “Offense is always taken, never given” love to bring up personal responsibility, or at least their idea of it. I now ask such people, if you think the targets of putdowns are are at fault for being offended by even the most personalized humiliating of your put-downs (also applies to matters well outside socio-political issues), then why are you getting “your panties in a twist”* over teachers who mock atheists and even mock suggestions to repeal the First Amendment? Or sexually harassing remarks at women, or the briefly popular feminist meme “bathing in male tears”? Aren’t you, by your own standards, behaving just as “immaturely” at such incidents as your accuse the targets of your put-downs of doing?

More to the point, at what point do you take responsibility for your own “immaturity”? Still more to the point, at what point do you admit that others are right to take offense at your putdowns - the negative impacts your acts, attitudes, and yes, even words, have on others? It’s plainly obvious that free speech people get offended at suggestions at limiting freedom of speech, and that women and men get offended at belittlement and put-downs by one side against the other, especially the most plainly disrespectful of comments, images, memes, etc. are plenty of people in my examples who would get offended.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Ro2113

Let me ask you something. Why do you choose not to go out and be rude to people since being offended is a choice? I'm sure their are people you interact with that you want to say something to but don't. Why don't you?

This is the type of excuse and ratinalizations douchebags and jerks use to act like douchebags and jerks and prevent people from calling them out on their behavior.

I agree with your take and I agree with their take. The problem is in a large group of people is what is rational. I think we can break it down by each interaction for the most part. Sometimes we shouldn't get offended and others time it is appropriate. I do know that "all or nothing" is stupid. We need limits on both sides.

Humans error, so just where do you want that error? I see us error-ing (is that a word) at the expense of honesty. For example, inner city schools. school districts are as good as the parents. It's not a pretty stat but it's a true stat. Stop tossing money at the school and start tossing it at parent training classes. I see us error-ing in forcing my 8 yr old to pay for flunky high scholars, emotionally sick parents, and mentals that are allowed to have children when she grows up. We all should be offened at that.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I agree with your take and I agree with their take. The problem is in a large group of people is what is rational. I think we can break it down by each interaction for the most part. Sometimes we shouldn't get offended and others time it is appropriate. I do know that "all or nothing" is stupid. We need limits on both sides.

Humans error, so just where do you want that error? I see us error-ing (is that a word) at the expense of honesty. For example, inner city schools. school districts are as good as the parents. It's not a pretty stat but it's a true stat. Stop tossing money at the school and start tossing it at parent training classes. I see us error-ing in forcing my 8 yr old to pay for flunky high scholars, emotionally sick parents, and mentals that are allowed to have children when she grows up. We all should be offened at that.

You're right it isn't all or nothing. But you know what there is no "should". Neither side of this discussion can't regulate the emotions of others, no one can. It's a practice that needs to stop on both sides. There are different things that offend different people.

For example let's say in a personal dispute I insulted someone's family member, a close family member like a parent or spouse. Would I be out of line? Most people would say so because most people would be offended. But what if the person I am talking to is not offended by me insulting their loved ones. Is something wrong with that person not being offended? Or is something wrong with the people who would be offended by such behavior?

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Ro2113

You're right it isn't all or nothing. But you know what there is no "should". Neither side of this discussion can't regulate the emotions of others, no one can. It's a practice that needs to stop on both sides. There are different things that offend different people.

For example let's say in a personal dispute I insulted someone's family member, a close family member like a parent or spouse. Would I be out of line? Most people would say so because most people would be offended. But what if the person I am talking to is not offended by me insulting their loved ones. Is something wrong with that person not being offended? Or is something wrong with the people who would be offended by such behavior?

Yup, I agree. There is nothing wrong with not being offended by a comment. There is a problem if we over react to a comment. I have to ask myself "why did I do that?" all too often the answer is "because I was stupid." If I know a person that over reacts all the time, the problem is usually with them. but Even a blind hammer head hits a nail every now and again.

[MikeNigh]

You can give offense, it just doesn't have to be taken. You can also take offense when it wasn't given.