Question: Is Being Offended A Personal Choice?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What kind of individual do you suppose would chose to change their values in a way which maximized their own happiness?

Anyone that realized they held a belief that was holding them back.

Like people too afraid to go to college because they've convinced themselves that they will fail.

Would you consider this a healthy individual,

That would depend on a multitude of factors.

if so for their selves or for the society they live within?

People can change their values that better either one separately, or both at the same time.

I think the OP is just trying to rally against 'thought police.' Going from making it criminal to be a racist or to hate homosexuals, even if the perpetrator only does it via words, to criminalizing everything from what you eat to what you wear, to your habits and tastes, is the inevitable course the 'thought police' are on. The OP wants to stop this from happening, so is trying to convince others we're all in control of our reactions. So the power is in our hands and we don't need thought police to exercise it.

Am I right?

And the 'thought police' are trying to convince us we need them. After all, it's easy for thoughts or words to turn to actions.

originally posted by: Puppylove
That's not contextual it's a balancing scale.

It's having a scale with two sides, positive and negative, all you've done is overwhelmed the negative side by loading up excess positive. Different things have more or less negative weight depending on the individual, and other things have more positive weight depend on the individual and how important something is to them. You really like to think everything is all or nothing. There is no subtext or shades of grey.

No, I think in terms of the results I want in my life, and how to help other people get the results they want in their lives.

There is no "balancing." It's the exact opposite. You have the personal power to control your own perceptions and beliefs in any moment. Right now.

Your metaphor of having a scale is a belief. It's not real. I'm not saying it's right, or accurate, or inaccurate. I'm just recognizing that it's a perception. If that perception serves you, and helps you have the life you want, then great. If not, then not so great.

The bigger point is nothing needs to have negative "weight" at all. Nothing. Not death. Not suicide. Not sexual abuse. Not rape.

There is no benefit in forcing others to believe their life experiences required them to be unhappy.

I have a friend whose daughter killed herself. She found the body. Should I call her and tell her that she's required to be depressed the rest of her life, or take drugs?

Another friend was sexually molested between the ages of 5 and 12 by his parents. Should I email him and tell him he can't be happy because of what happened to him? Or should I tell him because of what happened, he's condemned to a life of misery?

The belief that one is at the mercy of their own emotions and thoughts is why Leelah walked in front of the truck. Nothing requires you to live a life of suffering. Suffering comes from your thoughts, the meaning you give a situation, not the situation.

Do you believe everybody that's transgender must be unhappy, or must be at the mercy of what other's think?

a reply to: Jamie1
Well, if that isn't a 'are you still beating your wife?" kinda post! I think it would be a lot less disingenuous if you simply stated your opinion and encouraged a healthy debate.

originally posted by: jonnywhite


How do we detertmine when something is criminal or extremely hateful? That's subject to our society, its laws, its common values and so on, and our own individual best judgment. It's a human thing.

Its the standards set out and commonly accepted social values of the culture in which they reside.
Its not so much a human thing as humans are capable of as much barbarism as they are of love.
Its a socially acceptable thing. Thats the shared values of a community. Values that are also shared with the animal kingdom, which has its own social hierarchies and accepted behaviours. So social constructs are not technically "human".
Laws are usually an attempt to make life better for our community to thrive. At least until corruption takes a hold.

IMO -- being offended is the immediate emotional reaction.

What you do about it after that reaction is choice.

You could choose that the "offender" had every right to their viewpoint or action and let it go.

If the action of the "offender" caused harm to another, you could choose to remain offended ---- not take action --- or take action.

You could choose to take action by legal means or illegal means etc.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: pl3bscheese

What kind of individual do you suppose would chose to change their values in a way which maximized their own happiness?

Anyone that realized they held a belief that was holding them back.

I'd disagree, and say that this interpretation of what is "holding them back" falls under the same "multitude of factors" situation. If someone holds happiness as their highest value, they're really missing the point, imo.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Jamie1
And the only way to STOP the going around in circles is first just be aware that being offended is a choice. Stop mindlessly reacting.

Reacting to being offended is the choice.

I don't really know any other way to say it to you, so that's probably my last word.

You have it completely backwards. The real world problems, when things escalate, is when people DO NOT react to those being offended.

If everybody simply ignored those who were offended, the ones who were offended would be forced to stop being offended long enough to figure out a real world solution to the real world problem that doesn't include forcing other people to act a certain way.

I'm not talking about territorial wars. I'm talking about daily, personal real world situations.

Is being offended a personal choice? Not really. It's an involuntary reaction. Where the choice comes into play in the way you respond to and deal with it.

And then, of course, there are those who make careers or hobbies of screaming about every little thing and stirring the pot and those who blindly follow them thinking that's the way it has to be. But that's a whole other discussion.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Jamie1
Well, if that isn't a 'are you still beating your wife?" kinda post! I think it would be a lot less disingenuous if you simply stated your opinion and encouraged a healthy debate.

She's a scientist. She doesn't do that (she because of avatar).

Expect to be written into her next "paper".

originally posted by: Jamie1

You have it completely backwards. The real world problems, when things escalate, is when people DO NOT react to those being offended.

If everybody simply ignored those who were offended, the ones who were offended would be forced to stop being offended long enough to figure out a real world solution to the real world problem that doesn't include forcing other people to act a certain way.

I'm not talking about territorial wars. I'm talking about daily, personal real world situations.

That's not even close to the truth. I'm sorry. Situations escalate real quick when people feel as if their emotions are not being given the proper respect by others. I don't know what world you live on, but am pretty sure I've had a lot more years to experience this in person.

It sounds like you've recently adopted this attitude, and have put it up for debate to test it's validity. Eh, keep with it. Not as if I'm going to change your mind, but eventually you'll realize the err.

I'm out of this thread. It's a bit too ridiculous for me.

originally posted by: Jamie1


Do you believe everybody that's transgender must be unhappy, or must be at the mercy of what other's think?

Not everybody, but Id say a very high proportion.
We are all at the mercy of what others think. We all seek acceptance in our social groups. We all want to just fit in, which is why many will change themselves to fit in, with their perception of other peoples perceptions.
This is the beginnings of the sheeple mentality. Just going along for the ride.

Considering that a person can only say something varying degrees of true and/or false, we see that the ways in which a person becomes offended (by language) is by a person saying something true, a person saying something false, or a person saying a half truth. This can be said about the person who is being offended, about another person, or about non people/the environment. We can understand how a person may 'be offended' by another person saying something untrue about them, and insisting it is true, this is because words do hold weight and have meaning and have consequences. For example, you would be offended perhaps if a coworker told your boss that you raped a little kid, lets assume this is not true, you have reason to let mere language effect yourself, of course you do not have to get emotional, you simply need to be able to prove that what was said is false, or at least you are innocent and it is them that requires the burden of proof, but you can see how the way in which another uses language in inter human relational situations when your person is involved can affect your person. You are being threatened with language, a person is attacking your character with language, attack, offense.

The same can be said for half truths, someone saying something about you that contains truth, but they say wrong things in it, and people who they are saying this too believes them and now has a different perspective and relational context with you, based on non truth, you are offended because this person attacked your character falsely, you will want to correct them, you should want to, and you should.

The final general category, is truth. Now this I believe may be one of the more sensitive ones, because this is pretty much covers the nature of 'being mean'. This is from the fact that humans attach 'feeling's to the state of their selves in relation to the world. It is true a person can be fat, it is true a person can be relatively ugly, it is true a person can be on their deathbed. It is true that it is possible for a crowd of people surrounding these people chanting and laughing and shouting truths about their conditions could not affect the inner voice of the human in the conditions, but I think more easily, would be that the person would be affected. But, yea, dont know...

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Jamie1

I think you're failing to take notice of the difference between being offended, and acting out in response to these emotions. It's not a strong-mind that is never offended, it's a psychopathic mind.

Being offended is quite natural, and the only individuals who are not offended at least on occasion are those whose instinctual repulsion towards certain acts do not illicit a strength of cognition to properly come to the offended state.

Repusion is a product of feeling which is physiological in nature, and unconscious in origin. You can't will away the feelings, you can only rewire your psyche and become sociopathic due usually to trauma's in one's lifetime. So the bulk of offense lies in the feeling, not the cognition. You're placing it on the belief itself. That is not correct. The belief acts as a force mutiplier to compel an individual to react. What you're focusing on is the reaction and the belief, and not the instinct and feeling.

I would like to challenge that perception.

Have you ever spent time with Buddhist monks? Do you think they're psychopaths?

You're entire perception is based on a belief that one must require a "strength of cognition" to take on an "offended" state.

So you must be smart enough to know when to be offended.

A higher level of awareness is when you have the "strength of cognition" to be aware of how you came to be in an offended state. Being offended cannot bypass your beliefs. Repulsion does not equal being offended.

The bulk of the offense lies in the feelings, not the cognition?

How would you know to be offended if you didn't have beliefs that told you to be offended?

Can you give me a real world example? I'm curious to understand what you mean.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

BS. If you care about something and someone insults it you get offended, there's no way around it unless you are either incapable of caring about anything or have become so jaded about everything that you just stop caring. I think I'll pass on not caring.

I do believe that would be a false dichotomy. You would also have to place value in the person doing the insulting. Your husband doing the insulting would have a greater affect on you than some guy you've never met before.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon


You choose your emotions by changing your values. You change your values by analyzing the validity of your current beliefs.

If a person has no analytical abilities, then yes, they won't choose their emotions and will tend to be reactionary.

What kind of individual do you suppose would chose to change their values in a way which maximized their own happiness? Would you consider this a healthy individual, if so for their selves or for the society they live within? Think about this carefully.

What type of person would choose values to make them unhappy?

Do you think the world is better with billions of people who chose to be happy, or billions who chose to be unhappy?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: humanityrising
Personally, I see a direct correlation between how unhappy someone is and how reactionary they are.

That's because all unhappiness IS a reaction.

That's circular. You'd have to conclude that all happiness is a reaction as well. In truth studies show that when one has a balance between locus of controls they are most happy. Those extreme in either direction, internal or external will be less happy. The more extreme the less happy.

Every study ever done on happiness that I've seen comes down to simple variables.

Are you focused on something in your control, or not in your control?
Are you focused on what you have, or what you don't have.

Those focused on what they can control, and what they do have, are happy.

Those focused on what they can''t control, and what they don't have, are not happy.

More importantly, forget regurgitating what 3rd parties academics are reporting back to you about people they studied and quantified.

We can only speak our own truth, with a small t.

What is your truth?

If you believe you can't control being offended, you would fit into the unhappy category. Your emotional states would be at the mercy of other people.

Does that make it easier for your to have a happy life, or more difficult?

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon


You choose your emotions by changing your values. You change your values by analyzing the validity of your current beliefs.

If a person has no analytical abilities, then yes, they won't choose their emotions and will tend to be reactionary.

What kind of individual do you suppose would chose to change their values in a way which maximized their own happiness? Would you consider this a healthy individual, if so for their selves or for the society they live within? Think about this carefully.

What type of person would choose values to make them unhappy?

Do you think the world is better with billions of people who chose to be happy, or billions who chose to be unhappy?

People dont "choose" to be happy or sad. Those that think they can control their emotions like that are fooling themselves, or are extremely mentally strong.
I choose to be happy, but life often makes me sad. I dont choose to be sad, the reality of the world has a habit of making me angry or sad.
Its also the "strongest" willed people that end up having nervous breakdowns for canning everything up inside, pretending to be happy when an unhappyness is eating them up inside.

That said, the best way out of depression without using drugs is the strength of mind you talk about. But it takes real character and an uncommon strength to achieve.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Jamie1


Think of it this way. How ridiculous is it for people to want to control other people's emotions and actions coming from a place of admitting they can't control their own?

Yes its ridiculous, but all of human history tells us that some people will always try to control others in a very wide variety of ways.
Its human ridiculousness.

It doesn't have to be.

Just because it's always been this way doesn't mean it's not going to change.

Would you have dreamed, 20 years ago, your phone could do what it can do now?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: pl3bscheese

What kind of individual do you suppose would chose to change their values in a way which maximized their own happiness?

Anyone that realized they held a belief that was holding them back.

I'd disagree, and say that this interpretation of what is "holding them back" falls under the same "multitude of factors" situation. If someone holds happiness as their highest value, they're really missing the point, imo.

I get to insert a quote. Very cool.

"Not all missions have to have a happy ending when the true objective is understanding."