Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rougarou

Do we look for reasons to be offended?

Recommended Posts

Rougarou

So, I'll take the dive and be the first to start a subject.

 

How many times do we see the news about group a has been offended by something said, an action taken or product made and the offender must apologize?  Is that apology sincere?(I think most aren't, just PR CYA). 

 

There are nearly eight billion people on this planet and I can guarantee that anything that you say will offend at least, at the very least one of them.  A recent article about a lady in Australia that got her kid a Kinder Egg was offended/sickened because the toy had three balloons with "K"'s on them,....so she, in her "looking for reasons to be offended" posted about it and the company removed the "offending" toy, destroyed the remaining stock and set up procedures for internal review(what a cost that's got to be for a "misinterpretation").

 

It's a "wow" moment to me!!!  Being from the south I would have never associated an Italian candy company with a U. S. based racist organization that's promoting subliminal messages to children via toys.  The toy didn't have three "K"'s on each balloon to represent, but a single "K" on each balloon, to the normal person would be the symbol for "Kinder",......hmmmm.

 

I'm quite certain that we can come up with other "reasons to be offended" in recent news.......as far as I know, there is no official document that states you have a right "not to be offended".....but I could be wrong. 

 

For me,....the only thing that offends me is those that are offended,.......(and calling me a soldier:classic_tongue:)

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Whip

I think people want attention, feel lonely and left out of society. The new social media and internet world can make you feel even more alone because you don’t interact with people enough. Then something happens or you see something that will get you the attention you crave and you yell LOOK AT ME I AM A VICTIM. Someone will interview me and make me relevant. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou

" LOOK AT ME I AM A VICTIM "

 

That's another subject but very closely related.  You are NOT a victim just because of your religion, race, sex, national origin, gender choosing, "state your individual category here".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Whip
58 minutes ago, Living the Dream said:

" LOOK AT ME I AM A VICTIM "

 

That's another subject but very closely related.  You are NOT a victim just because of your religion, race, sex, national origin, gender choosing, "state your individual category here".

 

 

I think it is the same thing. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Medic Mike

I will not copy and paste the exact quote from Ricky Gervais due to the language with his tweet.  He touched on this exact topic, though he kept it within the realm of comedy.  He is a very open and antagonistic with the continually offended society here in the US and Europe...with hilarious results.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Red

I'm not offended when people do or say things when they don't, to a certainty, know what they said or did was offensive.  I consider those learning opportunities.

Probably the next level up is the people who know what is offensive but they are simply rude.  They don't particularly believe what they said, they just said it to get a reaction or to be a bully.  Doesn't mean they aren't hurtful,  you just have to consider the source.   They most often don't mean what they say.  They just say it to be mean.  These people can change given the right circumstances.

Then there are the people who have deep beliefs which are offensive (in today's world).  They believe they are 'right'.  I'll admit, depending on the subject, I get offended by them.  There's no use getting in a urinating match with them over it.  If a reasoned discussion can follow, then both may come away with a different and more tolerant view of the other.  If there is no opportunity for listening or understanding, then move on.  We have to accept that some people believe things and do things that we don't agree with.  If their beliefs don't manifest in unlawful acts, then they are entitled to those beliefs.  I don't have to agree with them.  Deeply held beliefs in adults are near impossible to change.  

Part of what is different today is technology and mass communication.  We no longer feel compelled to ask a person why they said that or did that.  Today when a person is 'offended' they can instantly share it with the world.  There is or will be an instant support group.  They can electronically cluster with like minded individuals.  They can nurture and heighten their feelings of offense.  They can sensitize one another.  Thus begins intolerance and all that goes with it.  We don't have to attempt to understand or get along anymore.  We the offended can group up and fight back.  We can talk about 'the other' rather than to talk with them.  It's akin to mob behavior.

Edited by Red
grammar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
tallman

No.

The opposite.

People look for reasons to offend, or just to offend, for no reason.

Creating the perfect storm.

So, some are legitimately offended.

Others, illegitimately offended, seek legitimacy.

Bastards...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Bud

Isn't being offended the political norm of the day? I'm right and you are evil. Seems to me what the majority of political discourse ends up that way.

 

When the extremists, on both sides, become the norm, it's hard to have a middle which is required for our form of government to function successfully.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Paul De

Clearly the troll and victim minded have a goal to get noticed, but certainly I can believe that there are legitimate grounds for some to be offended by someone's statement and it typically is driven by very different life experiences. This is where the public forum should create understanding and even tolerance, but the public forum seems broken today.

 

I find it troubling when the solution the broiken public forum is to create a sterile environment where opposing views can't be debated, challenged and defended.   Some of the best life lessons are when you can make a cogent argument for a position and defend it well.  It seems that most public forums are leaning toward being overly sterile to be sure no one feels uncomfortable, let alone get incensed.  Too bad as it cedes the public forum to ever more outrageous statements by provocateurs each trying to be the most extreme.  And worse yet, when these provocateurs run up against the well reasoned cogent argument against their position they take the easy way out and claim to be hurt in some way and hide behind mom's apron of the sterile environment, never having to take an intellectual beat down and either admit they were wrong, or develop a better argument for their position.

 

That said and society will always have limits and may even impose laws to enforce those limits.  Rightfully so.  Without limits humans are capable the most terrible and disgusting things and giving that a forum is unwise.  A no limits society make me think of the Mad Max or Book of Eli Movies.

Share this post


Link to post
mickeym3
On 1/28/2019 at 10:04 AM, Bud said:

Isn't being offended the political norm of the day? I'm right and you are evil. Seems to me what the majority of political discourse ends up that way.

 

When the extremists, on both sides, become the norm, it's hard to have a middle which is required for our form of government to function successfully.

 

 

Moderates are lost, viewed as weak by Trump’s base (which apparently is the Republican Party) and the socialists agenda (make no mistake, only the political elite benefits) Left sees moderates as just another category of deplorable (deplorabus minimus). Government has essentially ceased to function at this point anyway. But to the point of the thread, I never considered myself easily offended, but by inference on Facebook apparently I am completely beyond redemption and lower than whale shit.  I find solace in knowing that family and friends have a slightly higher opinion of me. 

Share this post


Link to post
BendBill

And another thing [ to justify resurrecting an older thread ] :

In 2005 an FBI cointelpro coined the phrase “wound collectors” to describe societies’ or groups’ tendency to focus blame on others for their own perceived loss of status--Joe Navarro, Hunting Terrorism: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror.  *found in Friedman below

Thomas Friedman’s 2016 book, Thank You for Being Late, analyzes this tendency in looking at various historical and contemporary groups who all repeat the refrain, “Who did this to us?”  Affecting US interests, he singles out some Middle Eastern groups and Putin's Russia.

The idea of blaming the Other also runs throughout the 2nd half of JD Vance’s book, Hillbilly Elegy, as he atomizes his own  Kentucky subculture’s seeming embrace of the habits and attitudes that keep them down.

These works are interesting though not cheerful reading, in which case one can always go for a ride to set the world right again.

Share this post


Link to post
John Ranalletta
On 4/21/2019 at 10:57 AM, BendBill said:

The idea of blaming the Other also runs throughout the 2nd half of JD Vance’s book, Hillbilly Elegy, as he atomizes his own  Kentucky subculture’s seeming embrace of the habits and attitudes that keep them down.

 

Probably half of any population is composed of people who are reactive, i.e. they will not make any changes on their own unless coerced.  They hold onto traditions and beliefs because "the devil the know is better than the devil they don't".  They may want something better than they have but are unwilling/unable to bring themselves to bring it about.  Simple example:  In a sales office comprised of equally intelligent, proactive and reactive people, the proactive people will adapt to situations to score sales wins.  They will behave differently, take risks, etc.  

 

The reactive people in the room see how the other group behaves and the rewards that follow but cannot bring themselves to do what the proactive people do like making cold calls, asking for orders, living on a commission.  But, it doesn't end there.  The reactive group thinks, "It's not fair" and attempts to find someone on whom they can lay the blame, because, "It's not my fault I can't do that."  It's the credo of socialism and communism.

 

The motto of the reactive group is, "I don't care how bad I've got it as long as no one has it any better."  A perfect example can be found in union bargaining units.  No one in the group can be paid more than others based on individual initiative, e.g. "We'll settle for small, incremental annual increases as long as every one in the group gets no more."  Every member carries a copy of the union contract to make sure the company assigns overtime to the most senior but not necessarily the most productive employees.  Not surprisingly, proactive union members are the most likely to become union reps and leaders.  Go figure!

 

This is not an anti-union screed.  My pop walked with John L. Lewis in coal mine strikes.  Our lives were better because of the union, just understand that unionization today is usually not a product of economic inequity; rather, it an effort by a group of largely-reactive people to achieve "fairness" and protect against change.

 

It's playing out large in the current presidential campaign.  The leading Dem candidates are all about "level playing field", "spreading the wealth", etc.  Those pitches appeal to people who believe our system is unfair yet who cannot bring themselves to proactively change their own situations.  It's not about being Democratic or Republican, it's about large groups of proactive and reactive people vying for control.  It explains why Dem administrations tend to be perceived as regressive and Rep as progressive.  Because there are reactive factions within both parties, the Independent party candidates are usually left out in the cold entirely because their ideas scare them.

 

Jude Wanniski opined that the Dems were the "Mommy party" and the Reps were the "Daddy party" where Mommy soothes, protects and nurtures and Daddy encourages the kids to leave the nest and make a go of it on their own. And, so it shall always be IMO.

 

Quote

It is the “mommy party” that worries about “risky schemes.” The “yin” of Taoist cosmology is the feminine, the dark and the negative -- in the sense that the female’s role is to avoid risk to hearth and home and promote equality and security. “Yang” is masculine, light and positive, in that the male’s role is to accept the challenges of risk to advance the family interests. He must be optimistic of his chances of success or shrink from his mandate. Individual initiative takes precedence over collective needs.

It is when these two opposing forces are in balance that there is harmony in the family. When one party overpowers the other, there is discord and ultimately failure. (Wanniski has written that in the extremes, the “daddy state” becomes Hitler-like, fascistic while the “mommy state” becomes Maoist, communist.) 

 

ps.  I don't agree with the mommy/daddy stereotypes.  I my work, I find the ratio of proactive to reactive in females and males, but the culture determines how much latitude proactive females are allowed to actually be proactive, e.g. Sweden = a lot; UAE = none.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
beemerman2k

I am old enough that I was raised prior to the victim / perpetrator model by which so many see the world these days.  And I agree, this "I'm offended" crap has gotten way out of hand.

 

When I was a boy growing up in Detroit, we used to chant a song, "Sticks and stoned may break my bones, but words will never harm me".  Point being, it's up to YOU as to whether you are going to allow something to offend you or not.  Place one of these modern day babies in my day and they'd be laughed out of society by the most caring among us! 

 

"Grow the hell up, already!" - Dr Martin Luther King, Jr

 

It's a poisonous mentality, and I am very disappointed to see society cater to this disposition.

 

Speaking of Martin Luther King, imagine how much he would have accomplished if he had this sissy "I'm offended" mentality!  Marching in the south coming face to face with the likes of Eugene "Bull" Connor.  "I'm offended, you called me 'boy'!"  ROLF, the whole movement would have been laughed out of existence!

 

No, I'm with Red when he said, "I consider those learning opportunities".  That's exactly correct.  That's exactly how Dr King engaged individuals, police forces, jail keepers, and the nation at large, as a series of learning opportunities.

Edited by beemerman2k
update thoughts.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
beemerboy

I'm OUTRAGED at this thread! 

 

Outraged. A grossly overused word employed largely by a class of people who wake up each morning looking for a reason to be pissed off about something. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time, too. In fact I'm reminded of a scene from the movie The Wild One where Marlon Brando's character is asked "What are you rebelling against?" He replies "Whadya got?" Some people will always say white when you say black and when you way white they'll say black. Just deal with it and don't feed the trolls.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...