Poll of the Day > Can people truly "choose" to NOT be offended by something?

(+) Yeah! (+)

They say offense is taken, not given.

Oh wait. Or is it the other way around?

**rubs chin**

Are they allowing themselves be offended? Or don't they have a choice? Or are they not actually "offended" at all, and just see a window of opportunity to complain about something in a futile attempt to bring awareness to it so maybe it gets fixed?

If someone says or does something that truly triggers you to your core.....who is responsible for your emotional state? You? Or the person who put you there by their words/actions?

Some people would say YOU are 100% responsible for your emotional reaction to something.

Others would say the person who wronged you is responsible for your emotional state because their actions are what put you there.

I'm seeing this trend in society a lot lately, and it's very interesting.

They say if you are a grown ass adult...you should be in control of your emotions. That you are only as offended as you allow yourself to be. That you should get a "thicker skin" if you can't take a differing opinion, an insult, an insensitive joke, etc.

But, depending on what it is we are talking about, do you think there are situations in which you simply cannot control your offendedness?
---

They say if you are a grown ass adult...you should be in control of your emotions. That you are only as offended as you allow yourself to be. That you should get a "thicker skin" if you can't take a differing opinion, an insult, an insensitive joke, etc.

Yeah, this

i know at least one poster here who can't not be offended about mr. game and watch.

teeth and feathers are racist!!
---

you dont necessarily decide how you feel, but you DO decide how you act

shit can bother you, but you can also choose to let it go. im pretty religious, and yeah it bothers me when people constantly shit talk it, but i dont let it get to me and i dont dwell on it. i dont feel the need to convert every single fucking person i meet to my way of thinking.

you get to decide your level outrage, and so to an extent at least you decide how offended you are going to be. youre not always going to agree with everyone and spending your life stressing over that fact is fucking stupid

I'm epileptic. People often joke about seizures. Hell, Adam Sandler did it in Eight Crazy Nights. Having one, you know that it feels awful afterwards. Seeing someone you care about having one is truly horrifying.

So do I get offended when people imitate seizures or refer to them in jest? I don't appreciate it, but I know that they don't have the same experiences that I have. It's easier to be offended initially but as you get older you learn that not caring is easier in the long run.
---

Its harder with some things for people because of emotional baggage. Those are called triggers
---

BADoglick posted...

I'm epileptic. People often joke about seizures. Hell, Adam Sandler did it in Eight Crazy Nights. Having one, you know that it feels awful afterwards. Seeing someone you care about having one is truly horrifying.

So do I get offended when people imitate seizures or refer to them in jest? I don't appreciate it, but I know that they don't have the same experiences that I have. It's easier to be offended initially but as you get older you learn that not caring is easier in the long run.

I have kidney stones

And I know its not the same as seizures and theyre (probably) not gonna kill me, but Im not gonna be mad because somebody makes a joke about them

^
you can get rid of kidney stones
---

Yes. To say otherwise is to say that one is not in control of their emotions, feelings, or thoughts.

People choose to be offended, however subconcious that may be.

This, however, does not excuse people from purposely trying to aggravate others. That's just rude.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Are they allowing themselves be offended?

Yes.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

you dont necessarily decide how you feel, but you DO decide how you act

Pretty much this.

Honestly, the world would be a much better place if people decided not to be assholes to each other.
---

Interesting responses. And I appreciate you guys for actually responding seriously. Wasn't expecting that. I'm really starting to like this board.

So now I'm wondering about something, and please try to follow me on this one:

If people are 100% responsible for how they think/feel/react to negative stimuli......then should the people who give negative stimuli ever be punished or held accountable for making someone feel bad, even though those people are ultimately responsible for allowing themselves to feel bad in the first place???

Like comedians being asked to apologize for an insensitive joke. Game developers being asked to censor/alter a game. A movie director being asked to cut a scene. A sports team being asked to change their name. Etc.

Should such things EVER happen in a world where people are 100% responsible for how they react to situations?

Because....the math isn't adding up.

If people are truly responsible for how they feel.....then there should be free reign to do and say whatever you want.....and everyone else has to deal with it, because it's on them how they choose to react to your insensitivity.

Yes?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

If people are 100% responsible for how they think/feel/react to negative stimuli......then should the people who give negative stimuli ever be punished or held accountable for making someone feel bad, even though those people are ultimately responsible for allowing themselves to feel bad in the first place???

Sure.

I mean, most of the people here aren't in agreement with your statement that people are "100% responsible for how they think/feel" about negative stimuli, only in how they react to it. And, depending on the severity of what was said, holding someone to account for saying something offensive can be a completely legitimate action.

Take the sports team thing, for example. If I found the name "Redskins" to be offensive and insulting, I would be completely within my rights to petition for a change to that name. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong or logically inconsistent with that course of action. The response isn't disproportionate or disingenuous.

To rephrase it in "Freedom of Speech" terms, you're free to make really offensive comments that cause people genuine emotional pain, but I'm also free to call you an asshole in response.
---

I never said I think people are 100% responsible for how they think/feel/react to something. I am asking that question. And haven't come to a conclusion about it. That was the purpose of this thread.

Of course you could be offended by a team called the Redskins, but why should they change their name just because it upsets you? There are countless other people out there who aren't offended by it. Some might say you are the one who needs to choose to not be offended. You are the one who needs to change, not the name of the sports team.

I'm trying to gauge how far this logic can go.

Offense being given, not taken.

Or offense being taken, not given.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

^
you can get rid of kidney stones

Thanks for the medical knowledge, champ.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

I am asking that question. And haven't come to a conclusion about it.

Sure I have - I already said so earlier, by agreeing with the statement "You don't necessarily decide how you feel, but you DO decide how you act."

GreenKnight127 posted...

Of course you could be offended by a team called the Redskins, but why should they change their name just because it upsets you?

Because it's good business sense not to deliberately upset potential customers and limit your ability to expand due to the risk of bad press?

Or, on a less nuts-and-bolts, more philosophical level, generally there's no reason to deliberately make someone mad or cause them pain, so most of humanity correctly identifies it as a dickbag move. If I went out and found a disabled kid and teased him until he was in tears and I wound up in the latest viral video as a result, no one is going to suggest it's the kid who has the problem.

GreenKnight127 posted...

There are countless other people out there who aren't offended by it.

Which means nothing. I'm not personally offended by swastikas*. My family isn't one of the groups that has traditionally suffered under people who parade around with that symbol. But I can recognize that it is tremendously offensive to some people, and justifiably so, given that it was used as the calling card of arguably the most evil regime in the history of humanity and has come to be a symbol of racial oppression, violence, and slaughter on a truly nauseating scale, so I would never suggest those people just *stop being offended*. Their not-too-distant ancestors were butchered under the swastika - it's not disingenuous of them to find its display offensive.

*OK, this is a slight lie, I am at least a bit offended by them, if only because a whole bunch of shitty people have done tremendously awful and evil things in the name of "the white race", of which I am a part, and that symbol is the banner they have used to encapsulate those evils.
---

The term offended has lost as much meaning as the term racist. You can be disgusted by bad behavior or not a find a joke funny it doesn't mean you have some great agenda against something
---

the problem is that offense has become a social currency, and there are people getting offended on behalf of other people to rack up the CuckCoins.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's good business sense not to deliberately upset potential customers and limit your ability to expand due to the risk of bad press?

But in some cases, not all, couldnt changing something for no reason cause you to lose real & current customers? Im thinking something similar to The Simpsons. When there was talk about removing Apu. It seemed the ones who wanted change werent probably their viewers. Where the viewers didnt want change. So, had they changed, they would lose current viewers while most likely gaining none in the process...
---

LinkPizza posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's good business sense not to deliberately upset potential customers and limit your ability to expand due to the risk of bad press?

But in some cases, not all, couldnt changing something for no reason cause you to lose real & current customers? Im thinking something similar to The Simpsons. When there was talk about removing Apu. It seemed the ones who wanted change werent probably their viewers. Where the viewers didnt want change. So, had they changed, they would lose current viewers while most likely gaining none in the process...

That definitely happens, but usually they hear a vocal minority and freak out and make changes just in case
---

LinkPizza posted...

But in some cases, not all, couldnt changing something for no reason cause you to lose real & current customers?

Of course it could. That's why there's no hard-and-fast rule about it and why trying to make one is impossible (especially given that what constitutes "unacceptably offensive" is a perpetually-shifting target).

It does come down to a personal judgement call at the end of the day.
---

I don't think they can choose not to be offended by something. You like what you like or don't. But they can learn emotional maturity and not be over sensationalized by every little thing.

We all have our little passions and listening around you have millions of them all crying out. So the other end of that you have to control your senses and filter it out like daredevil.

It is much easier to just laugh things off then take offense and get mad anytime something hits you personally. Unfortunately I seem to be in the minority most of the time with this. But, again, I just laugh it off and realize I am much more likable then those people anyways and they can just wallow in their misery angry and alone.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

They say offense is taken, not given.
Oh wait. Or is it the other way around?

The phrase is to 'take offense at' something. The inverse scenario would be if someone intends for other people to 'take offense at', but they just brush it off. The offender really has no control over what someone else will or will not find offensive.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Are they allowing themselves be offended? Or don't they have a choice? Or are they not actually "offended" at all, and just see a window of opportunity to complain about something in a futile attempt to bring awareness to it so maybe it gets fixed?

As a child, after standing up to a bully I was told I had a choice in how I responded. The adult then went on to explain that defending myself wasn't one of the choices I was allowed to make. One is not harmed if they 'take offense at' something. But often they do harm to the offender in response. I think what was poorly conveyed to me as a child was to be careful not to escalate the amount of harm done.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Some people would say YOU are 100% responsible for your emotional reaction to something.

Others would say the person who wronged you is responsible for your emotional state because their actions are what put you there.

Society of late seems to have an issue with taking personal responsibility.
---