• irmoz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    That is a very privileged position to take. They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging. And to consider it a choice is absurd even on the face of it. Being offended is an emotion. You can’t genuinely, fully control your emotions. You can control what you do about it, sure, but not always, and not completely.

    And apart from that, even if we entertain the idea of it being a choice - who on Earth would choose to feel offended? It feels awful. And it never goes well. If you even have the guts to say something about it, you generally get mocked and laughed at. Who would choose to go through that?

    • Lightor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s not privileged at all lol, you’re just wrong.

      Someone can put their elbows on the table while eating and offend someone. That person is hurting no one. The fact that it offends someone doesn’t make it damaging. Stop acting like being offended in and of itself means anything. Either that or explain to me the real harm of it. Or any other stupid little thing that can offend someone, like taking the lords name in vain or wearing white after labor day to a party. These are BS nonsensical things that people get offended by and you’re trying to act like they cause real harm. Get out of here with that pure nonsense.

      Who chooses to feel offended? No one, but you chose your world view and that dictates if you will be offended.

      Bottom line, you said “the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging”. Explain to me how putting your elbows on the table while eating is damaging. Who is it harming?

      • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nobody has the right to not be offended.

        If we gave people that right, everything in civilization would grind to a halt.

        Choosing whether or not to offend a small number of people for the sake of expressing something is an individual decision.

      • irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It’s not harming anyone, and that person is just being an asshole. They are linked, yes, but not always directly correlated. Some people just be crazy.

        This whole time I’ve been talking about bigotry, and I’ve been consistent on that. These little kooky “Don’t put your elbows on the table” level stuff in my own opinion is not a genuine form of offence, it’s an enforcement of conformity and tradition. “Offending” tradition is its own can of worms. If you ask me, before we consider if offending a tradition is something actually bigoted and offensive, we must first consider if that tradition might actually be batshit insane.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          They’re inextricably linked but not correlated, that makes no sense.

          You said being offended causes harm, I said it doesn’t, there were no classifiers. Someone being offended by something stupid doesn’t make them any less offended, they still are. I would argue a lot of people who are offended are because they see some form of tradition or cultural norm they value being upset. Whether that norm is them wanting to be racist or wanting you to eat a certain way.

          My point is, people can get offended by literally anything, and I’d say 9/10 times it’s not damaging and they’re just being professional victims. Yes there are racists and horrible people, and the things they do are damaging. That’s why I care, because it’s damaging, not because it offends someone.

          • irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I don’t think you realise you’re agreeing with me, lol

            Yes, harm and offence are linked, butthat doesn’t mean every offence was caused by harm. It just means every offence perceived some harm. But that harm may just be some kooky belief of theirs

            I didn’t say offence causes harm. I said harm causes offence.

            And “professional victim” tells me you’re just not taking this issue seriously.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t think I am.

              They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

              Saying being offended and being damaging are inextricably linked means they are, well inextricably linked. Meaning it is impossible to seperate the two. Meaning one always comes with the other, always. This means, by your very own logic, that every instance of being offended is linked to harm and every instance of harm is linked to being offended. That is your logic, using your argument.

              I’m not taking it seriously? You said being offended and damage are inextricably linked, but don’t always correlate, and doesn’t mean one always implies the other. You’re either back peddling hard or you didn’t know what the term “inextricably linked” meant when you said it.

              Also if you think the concept of a professional victim is outlandish or some such you need to watch more Karen videos online, those people %100 exist. And me acknowledging that doesn’t make me any less serious, if anything it makes me less naive.

              • irmoz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yes, the fact of them being linked means the offence is always to do with some perceived harm. But we must take it on a case by case basis, like I’ve said before, and determine whether harm has truly been done, or if they’re just nuts. Like the Karens you mentioned.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Wait so now we’re at “perceived harm”, you didn’t say that at all. You did linked to harm, full stop. Those are two very diffent things.

                  I originally said that being offended and harm are not connected, they are two separate things. You said I was privileged and wrong. Now you seem to slowly be back peddling to agree with me…

                  • irmoz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    If I’d known you’d be this pedantic, I’d have said from the start, I just thought it goes without saying - all harm has to be perceived to be known at all, doesn’t it? And can our senses not deceive us, either simply through illusion or misperception, or more deeply through our intellectual biases?

    • thews@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      While I understand your perspective, it’s worth noting that reactions to offenses, like many emotions, exist on a spectrum. Some individuals might experience deep hurt from a comment that others brush off with ease. While we can’t always control our immediate emotional responses, we can cultivate resilience and perspective over time. Claiming that no one would choose to be offended might oversimplify a complex web of human emotions and social dynamics. Some might lean into being offended as a defense mechanism or to further a personal or societal narrative. Emotions are complex, and so are the reasons behind them.

      • irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        While I understand your perspective, it’s worth noting that reactions to offenses, like many emotions, exist on a spectrum. Some individuals might experience deep hurt from a comment that others brush off with ease.

        I believe I addressed this. Of course that’s true. That’s why I said you can control your actions, “but not always, and not completely”.

        While we can’t always control our immediate emotional responses, we can cultivate resilience and perspective over time.

        We can, but certain things are bound to simply be offensive, no matter what. “Perspective” is a buzzword in this conversation. No amount of perspective will get me to react kindly to statements like “women belong in the kitchen”. The onus should not lie with the offended party to just not be offended, it should lie with people trying to not be offensive. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

        Claiming that no one would choose to be offended might oversimplify a complex web of human emotions and social dynamics.

        No, it really doesn’t. Saying people choose their emotions is the oversimplification. Would you “choose” to be angry, sad or scared? No. You can only choose your actions. I think you’re conflating emotions with actions.

        Some might lean into being offended as a defense mechanism

        Being offended doesn’t protect you whatsoever. Again, maybe you’re conflating actions with emotions. But what actions are you talking about here?

        or to further a personal or societal narrative.

        This just seems like a dogwhistle to me. What narrative is furthered by feeling something?

        Emotions are complex, and so are the reasons behind them.

        Yes, which is why we should put in more effort than just saying “they’re doing it on purpose”, and justifying that with a truism. “It’s complex” is easy to say. Digging into that complexity is harder, and maybe that’s why you’re not doing so.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The onus should not lie with the offended party to just not be offended, it should lie with people trying to not be offensive.

          Jesus, I didn’t really want to respond to you in another thread but this line I had to say something. Anyone can be offended by anything, so you’re saying everyone should go out of their way to not offend anyone? Ok I’m offended by your user name, change it. I’m offended by the way you speak, the onus is on you to change it. I mean a society with that mindset wouldn’t function, anything I didn’t like I would just say it offends me and demand you change. We need to follow laws, that’s why we have them, and we should strive to be good people, but suggesting that a person should try to conform to every little offense anyone could have is unreasonable, that’s a VERY slippery slope.

          No amount of perspective will get me to react kindly to statements like “women belong in the kitchen”.

          Unless you live in a world where that is normal for decades on end and it becomes your normal. Nazis never saw themselves burning people in ovens, it’s not a switch that happens over night. What can become your normal is very scary.

          What narrative is furthered by feeling something?

          For example saying that you are offended by pride flags because you are homophobic. Maybe you “feel” (general “you”, not you specifically) that gay people touch kids, many homophobic people do “feel” that. Feeling that way and expressing your offense to pride flags in that way very much is pushing a homophobic narrative that can be damaging to the gay community.

          Being offended doesn’t protect you whatsoever

          That’s not what defense mechanisms are in psychology. They are subconscious responses, usually to avoid anxiety or facing any cognitive dissonance. If you point out that they hate gay people but are best friends with a gay guy, they may get offended as a way to avoid confronting that cognitive dissonance.