Question: Is Being Offended A Personal Choice?

People have been killed because they somehow offended a home sports team.

You think only Muslims can react violently to being offended?

Careful what you say at a home game, don't want to offend the extremist home fans in the crowd.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Also one must only look at the definition of offensive...

It means causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed.

Causing!!!


In the sense that it's not a choice.




The pseudo-psychologists have come along to tell us we can choose how the chemicals in our brain react to stimuli...

How surprising.

Merriam-Webster are subject matter experts in the field of psychology now?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

If I'm in a conversation with someone who has Cancer or has been Raped, & I derogatorily lambaste them in such a subject...

Tell me how they choose to be offended?


Or a child abuse victim, or domestic abuse?


They may seem like extreme examples but they a poignant to the topic.



If you didn't generalise all offences then I wouldn't debate you on it...
But you have, claiming it's always personal responsibility.


I agree with Sinter, how one reacts to offence is a choice, unless someone has mental health issues...
But to be offended isn't a choice when we can't control our emotions.


& anyone who claims they can control their emotions at all times must be Buddha reaching Nirvana.

I'm passionate about this too.

I work with people a lot who have incredibly traumatic experiences. Finding their kids dead in their living room for example. Watching a spouse shoot himself through the head.

The initial shock is a reaction. The amygdala kicks in. Fight or flight.

But the years of pain and suffering are unnecessary. I'm not saying people choose to be offended like it's a value judgment on them. It's not.

It's their thought process they are not even aware of. They take on beliefs and perceptions and begin to think those beliefs are real, or facts. A person who lost her daughter can't ever have the same life again, but they can be happy and grateful again. Whether they are or not is based first on just becoming aware that it's what they believe that's keeping them from being happy.

Mental illness is a different subject. The brain functioning is different.

I'm talking about normal, every day life.

Yes, you can help people who have suffered the worst tragedies imaginable. The process is the same no matter what the context. There are some PTSD-like conditioning that has to be unconditioned, but the cognitive part works the same.

Just being aware of the thoughts that are causing the emotional pain dissolves the emotional pain.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Forgive me, professor, but you mix taking offense with being offended so often in your post that I can't take you seriously as an expert.

a reply to: grandmakdw

if one lacks a strong belief/conviction in one's religion, ideas, convictions, etc., one is easily offended

Except if the belief system demands you defend the personification of the belief e.g. God. All religions used to enforce the defense of the honor of "God".

One by one they've dropped that rule. Except for one.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Jamie1because another persons opinion of me and my beliefs is not really that important to me?I would consider myself a secure individual not a trait I see in those who are easily offended. I come to ats, because of the terms and conditions that some would describe as too PC I just see them as enforcing a code of politeness, which creates a better atmosphere to spend my time in online

So it's about your beliefs. It's your beliefs about another person's opinion of you.

What beliefs about yourself do you have that make you secure? What's your core belief about yourself, your identity?

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: TheArrow
Being offended is not a choice, it is a passive response to stimuli.

Taking offense is a choice, it is an active response to stimuli.

Great distinction. So how are the passive responses formed? Based on conditioned beliefs? Can a person be passively offended if they don't already have existing beliefs and rules that are triggered?

I.e., how does somebody know when to be offended?

How does somebody know when to be happy, or sad, or angry, or in love, or jealous?

a reply to: Jamie1
I don't think you can separate the right to be offended from the action of being offended (to be clear I don't mean right in a legal sense).
For example the gentleman sitting opposite me on the train is eating a sandwich in what to me is a fairly offensive manner, could I justify my offense as there is no actual harm to me, probably not but the social conditioning makes me feel that way and have every right to feel that way.
I don't have any right to take action to stop him eating that sandwich.
The examples you gave were of action taken by people because they had taken offence, if the action does not break the law or enforce your beliefs on someone else the that is generally fine.
In short offence is a reaction to ones own beliefs and upbringing. You can take action to change your beliefs but some reactions you have no control over.
Just to add some times it is right to take offence.

a reply to: grandmakdw

hah!

You've helped me to reinforce my stance on why psychiatrists are utterly clueless.

Thanks. I was beginning to actually give them a little credit.

a reply to: TheArrow I find the ones always bleating about political correctness are the most easily offended, normally by political correctness

originally posted by: TheArrow
a reply to: grandmakdw

Forgive me, professor, but you mix taking offense with being offended so often in your post that I can't take you seriously as an expert.

Ah, the old attack the poster and not the post technique. My old nemesis. Love the sarcastic emphasis on the word "professor". See, this is a great example of how a person can intend to lead a person into a certain emotion. Of course, only Grandmakdw can make the choice, whether subconscious or conscious, to be offended.

Thank you for such a wonderful example! Have a star.

originally posted by: TheArrow
Information for the thread that is at the heart of this matter.

Changing societal mores.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is awesome.. Thank you.

"Mores" are highly valued agreed upon group beliefs. This is super helpful. Thank you.

We all have a primary fear of being thrown out of the pack. If the pack believes XYZ and we think XYZ is nonsense, we either become the leader of the pack at great risk and change the beliefs of the pack, leave the pack, or conform to the pack's beliefs.

Thank you. Great model. I'm going to use this. In order to be aware of one's own beliefs, it's important to become aware of the "mores" of the peer group that the individual is a part of.

a reply to: Jamie1

But the years of pain and suffering are unnecessary.

Maybe it's because we have a horrible time being able to do what this bear does in this video.



I think that we are discussing two different populations here: Life is full of traumas, so you have folks like the bear.

But then you have the others that I have mentioned have "Branded" themselves. America will have a hard time with their bull# because Pierre Bordieu isn't part of the curriculum. Anywhere.

a reply to: Jamie1 geez Jamie I don't really have too many core beliefs. Pretty easy going kind of fella, so don't really get offended. You can try if you'd like. I give you free reign

a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, you can help people who have suffered the worst tragedies imaginable.

That doesn't mean you can stop them from being offended by certain statements.


That borders on Dianetics... Which is Pseudo-Psychology at its finest...


Research Dianetics it's almost identical to what you're saying.


ie: The more you look at the root cause, the less it affects a person.

Scientology's ideology.


That's not how it works for everybody.


If you're talking about being offended by people who lambaste a religion, yeah that's a choice...
The extremes I have mentioned are not.

Everyone's brain functions differently...
It's as unique as a fingerprint...

It's not just mental health issues that brain chemistry is studied in.

All this talk about freedom of speech is a right is true, except it comes with great responsibility. There's a reason why you can't say shut the f up during parliament or a UN meeting. No matter how much Palestine or Israel would like to say it. They don't. Despite all the war crimes they commit, they never come right out and say stfu you stupid !!*@&!!. Why? Why is that? Doesn't it seem rather ironic that DIPLOMACY is always adhered to? Regardless that they're blasting missiles right into family laps.

They never say stfu. Think about it

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
We all live in our own brains. Words carry meaning, but not emotion. The emotion is a result of your own brain chemistry. No word, or combination of words can forcibly illicit an emotional response in a person. It's all subjective. That said, there are societal pressures that constantly remind people they SHOULD be offended if someone makes a rape joke, or jew joke, or any other number of crude things. But the joke itself carries no emotion. You determine the feeling you get from someone's word, either consciously or subconsciously.

Interesting. I agree.

Now dig deeper. What are "societal pressures?" Are they beliefs you have about how other people will judge you, or how you'll be valued, based on how you think you're *expected* to respond?

It's partly that, I believe. There's a deeper level still, however, and that is the intent of the speaker. I'm a firm believer that empathy is a real thing. It's a combination of our subconscious ability to determine the emotional state of another person based on their facial expressions, body language, speech patterns, and so forth. Therefore, it's possible to SURMISE, but not know exactly, what emotion a speaker INTENDS to illicit in you which their words. I can speak to you, for instance, in way that would tell you that I 95% intend to offend you. Some people react to that by actually becoming offended, but it is their own internal process that caused the offense. It's a quick succession of "The person wants to offend me, I don't like that. I'll be offended." thoughts, whether conscious or not.

In short, a speaker can convey what emotion they WANT to you respond with, but your response itself is still subjective experience.

Wow.... that's another great distinction. I never thought of it that way. Of course. That's super smart. That's why building rapport is a must. YOUR own state is the most important thing that influences another person's state.

The person more committed to their state will influence the other person.

So if a person says something from a state of hatred, the other person will not just pick up on the words, but on the person's state. They'll resonate states, and the person receiving the statement will also go into anger, a lower level of awareness if you will.

From this place of lower awareness, they'll react, and not be aware of their own thoughts, or how their thoughts are causing them to be upset.

Super smart. Thank you.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, you can help people who have suffered the worst tragedies imaginable.

That doesn't mean you can stop them from being offended by certain statements.


That borders on Dianetics... Which is Pseudo-Psychology at its finest...


Research Dianetics it's almost identical I what you're saying.


ie: The more you look at the root cause, the less it affects a person.

Scientology's ideology.


That's not how it works for everybody.


If you're talking about being offended by people who lambaste a religion, yeah that's a choice...
The extremes I have mentioned are not.

Everyone's brain functions differently... (emphasis Railgun's)
It's as unique as a fingerprint...

It's not just mental health issues that brain chemistry is studied in.

So here do you admit that offense and taking offense is an internal process, and not an external one?

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

No not all religions demand one be offended if one's God is insulted.

Buddhists certainly don't believe that,
..............they believe in total pacifism

Unitarians certainly don't believe that,
.................they believe on should embrace everyone.

Wiccans and pagans don't believe you must harm someone
......................who offends their "goddess or gods"

Only one religion that I know of demands one to be offended
..........................................by an insult to one's chosen God, Islam.

In Islamic countries, men are raised to have a complete lack of self control
read the books written by women in those nations, even princesses
men are not taught self control as boys
and grow up narcissistic and emotionally weak

I am a Christian and am told to turn the other cheek (don't be offended) if someone offends "my God."
Christians are taught to ignore insults to "God" and to be kind to those who believe differently. Remember, the New Testament in the Bible is what guides Christians, the Old Testament is put aside when it conflicts with what is in the New Testament, which DEMANDS one not be offended, but turn the other cheek.
The Christians who do otherwise, are weak in their faith and their beliefs. But the religion itself does not demand that, it is an emotional reaction by those with a lack of self control and a weakness in their beliefs.

Your generalization of "all religions" is way, way off track.

There is only one that has written in their primary religious text that one must kill, injure, maim those who "offend" their God, and that is the Koran.
In the Koran, the early writings demand peace and peaceful interactions, that is true.
However the later writings are, according to Muhammad, supposed to supersede (replace) any inconsistencies or conflicts with the earlier writings. It is the later writings which demand the killing of non-believers.

I still posit that:
only those who lack self-control
and those who are weak in their convictions
are "offended" by a challenge
to their belief system/be it about race/gender/religion/abortion/whatever
in order to force others to conform to their beliefs
to make themselves feel more secure in their beliefs, which they are insecure in.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

LOL.


It's the definition of the Word.

Psychologists haven't changed that, bar a few armchair psychologists here at ATS.


So I'm gonna say that the definition stands.