Question: Is Being Offended A Personal Choice?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

The whole point is it's your choice. You can choose to be offended if that's useful, or you can choose not to be.

This statement contradicts the last. One can not choose the moment at which they are aware of their belief, and therefore have a choice in the matter. It will happen when they are ready to become aware. We all have quite a depth of unconscious desires, and beliefs. Surely you would agree here?

Generally speaking, in most non-violent, real world situations, being angry only limits the possible solutions you see to real world problems. Not being angry allows you to see a variety of solutions, and then intelligently choose a solution you think will work to solve a real world situation.

It seems you're of the opinion that anger holds no validity or usefulness as a response in a variety of situations. I'd have to disagree.

Yes, you absolutely have a choice when you become aware of a belief!

Here's how:

The moment you begin to feel a "negative" emotion, bring your attention to your thoughts. Observe your thoughts. Use the emotion to trigger observing your thoughts.

Ask yourself, "Is that a story, or a fact?"

You'll instantly identify your beliefs in any situation.

After a sports team lost I was pissed. A friend was messing with me and mockingly said, "Observe your thoughts."

I was like, F you... lol Then I did. I observed my thoughts. The thought that was pissing me off was, "We should have won..."

And thoughts that begin with "should have" or "could have" are probably not useful beliefs.

Re anger, I never said anger doesn't have a purpose. The difference is consciously deciding vs reacting.

That's actually some pretty great advice. Next time I'm upset or angry I'll be asking myself to observe my thoughts. Thanks!

You're welcome!!!

Thank you for sharing that. It's very powerful. They don't teach this in schools. I'm very blessed to have had a series of circumstances where I was able to be in real world situations, learning from masters, not in academic philosophies, but in real world situations.

I'm so glad that helps!

Here's the best part.... when you think, "It's not working...." it means it's working.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

The whole point is it's your choice. You can choose to be offended if that's useful, or you can choose not to be.

This statement contradicts the last. One can not choose the moment at which they are aware of their belief, and therefore have a choice in the matter. It will happen when they are ready to become aware. We all have quite a depth of unconscious desires, and beliefs. Surely you would agree here?

Generally speaking, in most non-violent, real world situations, being angry only limits the possible solutions you see to real world problems. Not being angry allows you to see a variety of solutions, and then intelligently choose a solution you think will work to solve a real world situation.

It seems you're of the opinion that anger holds no validity or usefulness as a response in a variety of situations. I'd have to disagree.

Yes, you absolutely have a choice when you become aware of a belief!

Here's how:

The moment you begin to feel a "negative" emotion, bring your attention to your thoughts. Observe your thoughts. Use the emotion to trigger observing your thoughts.

Ask yourself, "Is that a story, or a fact?"

You'll instantly identify your beliefs in any situation.

After a sports team lost I was pissed. A friend was messing with me and mockingly said, "Observe your thoughts."

I was like, F you... lol Then I did. I observed my thoughts. The thought that was pissing me off was, "We should have won..."

And thoughts that begin with "should have" or "could have" are probably not useful beliefs.

Re anger, I never said anger doesn't have a purpose. The difference is consciously deciding vs reacting.

That's actually some pretty great advice. Next time I'm upset or angry I'll be asking myself to observe my thoughts. Thanks!

You're welcome!!!

Thank you for sharing that. It's very powerful. They don't teach this in schools. I'm very blessed to have had a series of circumstances where I was able to be in real world situations, learning from masters, not in academic philosophies, but in real world situations.

I'm so glad that helps!

Here's the best part.... when you think, "It's not working...." it means it's working.

originally posted by: Jamie1

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?

After 12,000 years of "civilisation" it hasnt. I wouldnt hold my breath.

My phone is metal and plastic programmed to do what we tell it. It doesnt think, it doesnt have emotions, it does what it is told(usually). Technology was supposed to replace labour, and give us leisure. Well thats what they said in the 80's. And obviously that never happened.
The evolution of technology and the evolution of mankind are two completely different timescales.
The rate of technological evolution is vastly outpacing human moral evolution. Its like comparing apples to buses.

a reply to: Jamie1

An aside, I'm quite interested in your previous work with emotionally traumatized. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? It doesn't have to be here, a U2U would be fine. If I am asking too much, that is also fine.

a reply to: Jamie1

Because some people care about others happiness and survival. If we didn't care about wrongs committed against ourselves and others atrocities would abound. Transgendered are damn near the bottom of the barrel when it comes to rights and protections. What you're advocating is not caring when we have no rights, and our very livehoods are stripped from us because some ass doesn't like us and decides we don't need to work for him, and this is completely legal still in most places. Without caring about wrongs progress never occurs. You advocate a world where victims never fight back, where any transgression no matter how bad should just be forgiven, where one should just have a different perspective and let them get away with it. It's sick.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Jamie1

Again, this is entirely circular. I'm sorry we're not going to come to an understanding here. I'm quite aware of what meta-cognition is and how to use it within my own personal life. I'm also aware that not everyone is capable of doing this on a continuous basis, from the point they are currently at. It seems some people are indefinitely without this ability.

The fact that you would not empathize so as not to become unhappy is quite telling. You won't maximize your ability to help people without opening up yourself to their pain, and sharing the load. I'd suggest you reconsider your method. It'll eventually lead you down a very dark road.

Again, all your perceptions and beliefs. If they serve you, that's awesome... I'm not sure how you know you're beliefs will serve me.

I can share with you that from my perspective there is a huge difference between empathy and compassion. When somebody is standing on a ladder with a rope around their neck, at least for me, I can't afford to lower my state. I must be in total uptime, meaning 100% aware of every breath, every heartbeat, the skin tone changes, the eye movements, everything. Empathy, at least how I define it, is feeling the same state in that moment. Of course I can feel empathy for others.

I'm talking about in the moment. Not conceptually, or academically, or hypothetically talking about global injustice.

I would like to challenge your perception that not everybody is capable of what you call "meta-cognition."

How could you possibly know this? Your entire life has consisted of meeting a tiny fraction of people in this world.

If we're talking about the same thing, everybody who's ever wanted help, can learn to be aware of their own thoughts, and how they affect their state.

Yes, some people are more stuck in their stories than others. That doesn't mean to give up on them and let them stay stuck in misery because you believe they can never get out of them. Is that compassion?

When somebody has a situation that they're dealing with, especially if it's super intense, I don't have the luxury of believing they can't have "meta-cognition" as you call it. I do whatever it takes to get them out of their stories, and aware of their stories, even if it's just for a couple of minutes.

Sometimes that's all that's needed.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

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.

And I am not offended, simply chuckled and wouldn't have said anything except for your response

I chuckled at how people can play with words out of context and how they can care so much for precise grammar.

Not offended by The Arrow at all,
he/she is a person who takes things extremely literally
and goes on the offensive with irrelevant observations
to bolster his/her feelings of self importance.
The Arrow must have been greatly offended by what I had to say.

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.

That's you're perception and you're truth.

There are countless examples of people who care deeply about something and have a higher level of awareness, and don't react emotionally by being offended, but instead respond intelligently.

It may be bs in your life, but that doesn't mean everybody is like you.

First, to follow your logic, you have to have a belief or meaning of what is "insulting." There is nothing a person can say that "insults" me or anything I care about. My happiness is not vested in what somebody else, especially a stranger, believes or says about me.

I respect that other people can believe what they want, and perceive things how they choose, and it doesn't have to be the same as what I believe or how I perceive things.

It would be moronic to expect everybody to have the same beliefs and perceptions.

Maybe you think you are required to be offended because nobody ever taught you how not to be offended.

Try unconditional love.

I am not sure I follow your perceptual challenge completely.

When I say that one cannot foresee what one finds offensive, it is an assertion that one cannot know what possible situation, story, scene, allegation, or injustice one will encounter over the course of time. In a world of virtually limitless horror and atrocity how can offense be avoided? Are you suggesting I reprogram myself to find no offense in the slaughter of humorists? Should I not be revolted by the sexual abuse of an infant? There are countless scenarios thrust upon us daily that I am justifiably offended by.

Somehow, people seem to have lost sight of the distinction of offense and disapproval. I personally take no offense from people's race, religion, sexual orientation, political preference, these things are non-issues. People can scream all they want. Opinions do not warrant offense. Actions are a different story. People who find an opinion offensive should really try to get a life.

Know what I mean? a reply to: Jamie1

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Jamie1

If you had children would there be anything you would not want me to say or do in front of them?

Great question!!!!

You always come up with scenarios to test models. That's one of your gifts.

Wanting a real world, practical reality is not the same as being offended. I have a friend who pulled out his penis and flapped it around in a fancy bar. I didn't not want that. And I wasn't offended.

I've been around a lot of kids. Many in what seem like horrible situations. People who try to install beliefs into them that make it harder for them to be happy isn't cool. Again, it's not a matter of being offended. It's the practical, real world outcome.

So yeah, there's lots of things I wouldn't want. And that doesn't mean I would be offended.

Practice it.

Get your friends to insult you and practice just being aware of your own thoughts, and decide there's nothing they can say that will offend you. Decide ahead of time that no matter what they say you'll give them a compliment in return.

It's really easy. It's like dudes who are scared to talk to girls because they're afraid they're going to be rejected. Then they talk to them and so what? Girls might say get lost, or not. Their world doesn't end either way.

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Jamie1(...)
Do you believe being offended is a personal choice based on what you choose to believe?

And if so, what justification is there for wanting people change their behaviors so that you don't upset yourself with your own beliefs?

If it's criminal or extremely hateful, as in the people who did hte terrorist act in Paris, then that's justification for change. In this case, either it means killing them or prosecuting them under the code of law.

For example, if your employer is openly racist, that's grounds to ask for chagne or to simply leave the job place if nothing occurs.

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.

You can seek justice without being in state of anger or unhappiness. The myth is we require unhappiness or anger to seek change. We can seek the exact same change, the exact same "justice" from a place of being calm or a place of being angry.

Typically, you will be able to see a larger universe of possible solutions when you are calm and responding with intelligent anticipation rather than reacting from a place of anger. Reaction is quick - it doesn't leave much room for looking for alternative options and deciding on the best option.

a reply to: Jamie1

I'm on mobile, but must quickly reply. The false dichotomy of happy or unhappy was my point that you're reinforcing. It's absurd to seek happiness at the expense of truth, which is what your words are showing. You're also reinforcing my stance that we can't become aware of our beliefs until we're ready.

There are more who understand this that have entered the thread. I'll leave you with the fact that unoffended buddhist monks don't live within modern society. In order to attain their level of detachment they require to live outside of external influences for a significant chunk of their adult lives.

You're just not thinking this through in depth, but i know you mean well. See ya in other threads.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
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.

Yes, on a political level, absolutely.

And it begins on a personal level. We don't need protected from other people's thoughts. We're not that weak. Institutions have a vested interest in convincing us that we are so weak emotionally that we need their protection from other people's words.

The biggest conspiracy of all is that we're taught by these institutions that we require some external circumstances to be true in order to be happy. That's demonstrably not true.

Every one of us can be happy today, many times. Our external circumstances didn't change. The world didn't change. Our dead loved ones didn't come back to life. Our bills didn't get magically paid, and everybody in the world didn't suddenly stop believing things about us that we don't like.

These institutions that benefit from the myth that we need our external circumstances to change to be happy:

- Religions
- Governments
- Corporations

I'm not here to sell you anything, or to tell you that you need me or some magic snake oil to make you happy. I'm here to tell you that you don't need anything to be happy. You have the power to be happy right now, no matter what your situation.

Why do you think I'm posting here? For stars and flags? For recognition? Nobody knows who I am.

Why I'm here is I see so many people being taught to be unhappy. To fight for their right to be unhappy. We can be happy first, AND seek social justice. Economic justice. Political justice.

It's like planting a garden. You can plant a garden and it will bear fruit later. It doesn't mean you are required to be upsest or angry or offended when you plant the garden. Or you can see somebody else who already has a garden and be offended, and angry, and jealous, then convince yourself it's ok to steal fruit from their garden. Or you can be happy for them and ask them to help you with your own garden.

The choice you take is entirely based on your own beliefs and perceptions.

Everything in our lives is like having our own gardens. It's like going through the drive though at McDonalds. You get what you order up. If you order a burger and fries, don't expect McNuggets.

Being offended is the same thing. If you choose to be offended today, anticipate what that plants in your garden, and what will grow later.

If you voluntarily give up your ability, your freedom, your personal power to control your own emotional states, then you can anticipate others will take that opportunity to manipulate your emotional states for their benefit.

Thank you for your post! Great insight!!

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Jamie1(...)
Do you believe being offended is a personal choice based on what you choose to believe?

And if so, what justification is there for wanting people change their behaviors so that you don't upset yourself with your own beliefs?

If it's criminal or extremely hateful, as in the people who did hte terrorist act in Paris, then that's justification for change. In this case, either it means killing them or prosecuting them under the code of law.

For example, if your employer is openly racist, that's grounds to ask for chagne or to simply leave the job place if nothing occurs.

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.

You can seek justice without being in state of anger or unhappiness. The myth is we require unhappiness or anger to seek change. We can seek the exact same change, the exact same "justice" from a place of being calm or a place of being angry.

Typically, you will be able to see a larger universe of possible solutions when you are calm and responding with intelligent anticipation rather than reacting from a place of anger. Reaction is quick - it doesn't leave much room for looking for alternative options and deciding on the best option.

We are emotional beings, the only way to turn us all into logical robots is by drugging us all up on emotion numbing pills. Sort of like "Brave New World". We just aint built that way.
Our unhappiness does motivate us to achieve happiness.
Our unhappiness is what drives us to get out of bed every morning to go to work to try and better our situations.
Our sadness, our pain and our suffering are what give us the tools to understand and empathise with others.
My anger makes me outspoken, it makes me want to stand up and point out the ridiculous hypocrisies, lies and scumbag tendencies of those in positions of power. It makes me want to point out the ridiculous ideologies that get cartoonists murdered for telling jokes.

I like my emotions, they let me know Im alive. Every emotion serves its purpose from love to hate, from bravery to fear, and happiness to sadness. They are the instinctual tools that millions of years of evolution has refined and honed to better ensure my survival as a species. They should be heeded. But we should never let those emotions dominate us. Thats the hard part.

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.

What's your view? Do you believe being offended is you personal choice or not?

a reply to: Jamie1

I think they are still offended but have chosen not to exhibit it. You can be offended and still respond intelligently or ignore what's offended you.

If you post something that offends me I have choices:

I can counter your post.
I can ignore your post.
I can rage at you and lose my account.

Regardless of which I choose, I'm still offended but being offended doesn't mean I've lost any happiness. The only thing that has ever affected my ability to enjoy life is loss. All the misery I choose to look at and be aware of even if it breaks my heart and causes me to cry or be angry... it does hurt me but still doesn't affect my happiness. That may be hard to understand, it is what it is though.

originally posted by: Annee
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.

Yes, that's about as clear as it gets. The immediate emotional responses get triggered, even in monks. It's the time between that first response and the next step, making the choice, that's the difference between a monk and somebody who's angry their entire life.

You can separate the emotions that are triggered from the response to the situation. That doesn't mean the outcome needs to change. You can strive for the same "justice" from a state of determination or anger.

I keep thinking about Leelah, and her mom. If her mom would have known this.... Unconditional love is better than being offended or upset. Compassion is better than judgment.

Thank you. Very important distinction.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Some things are universally offensive.
The rest is just politlcally correct whiners, getting butthurt over something. Grow a thicker skin or stay home.

That is exactly what I was thinking. I just didn't know how to put it into words. WELL SAID.

Not using PC is what makes people offended - Whiners, all of them.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Jamie1(...)
Do you believe being offended is a personal choice based on what you choose to believe?

And if so, what justification is there for wanting people change their behaviors so that you don't upset yourself with your own beliefs?

If it's criminal or extremely hateful, as in the people who did hte terrorist act in Paris, then that's justification for change. In this case, either it means killing them or prosecuting them under the code of law.

For example, if your employer is openly racist, that's grounds to ask for chagne or to simply leave the job place if nothing occurs.

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.

You can seek justice without being in state of anger or unhappiness. The myth is we require unhappiness or anger to seek change. We can seek the exact same change, the exact same "justice" from a place of being calm or a place of being angry.

Typically, you will be able to see a larger universe of possible solutions when you are calm and responding with intelligent anticipation rather than reacting from a place of anger. Reaction is quick - it doesn't leave much room for looking for alternative options and deciding on the best option.

We are emotional beings, the only way to turn us all into logical robots is by drugging us all up on emotion numbing pills. Sort of like "Brave New World". We just aint built that way.
Our unhappiness does motivate us to achieve happiness.
Our unhappiness is what drives us to get out of bed every morning to go to work to try and better our situations.
Our sadness, our pain and our suffering are what give us the tools to understand and empathise with others.
My anger makes me outspoken, it makes me want to stand up and point out the ridiculous hypocrisies, lies and scumbag tendencies of those in positions of power. It makes me want to point out the ridiculous ideologies that get cartoonists murdered for telling jokes.

I like my emotions, they let me know Im alive. Every emotion serves its purpose from love to hate, from bravery to fear, and happiness to sadness. They are the instinctual tools that millions of years of evolution has refined and honed to better ensure my survival as a species. They should be heeded. But we should never let those emotions dominate us. Thats the hard part.

Your perception that I mean to become emotionless robots is incorrect.

Yes, all emotions server us. This is about the power we have to consciously harness those emotions to help us create the life we want, rather than be a slave to those emotions which sometimes leads people to destroy the life they have, or at the very least, stops them from creating the life they want.

All conditioned emotional responses are not useful in all situations.

Now here's the million dollar takeaway. If you get nothing else from this thread, get this:

Anticipate possible things that are going to come up in the future, possible adverse situations, and decide now, while you're in a good state, how you will respond to those situations instead of waiting to react when they happen.

Try it.

Plan now on how you want to respond on ATS when somebody says something that you used to find offense. Decide now. Then when you feel offended, just reply what you decided now instead of from a state of reaction.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Jamie1(...)
Do you believe being offended is a personal choice based on what you choose to believe?

And if so, what justification is there for wanting people change their behaviors so that you don't upset yourself with your own beliefs?

If it's criminal or extremely hateful, as in the people who did hte terrorist act in Paris, then that's justification for change. In this case, either it means killing them or prosecuting them under the code of law.

For example, if your employer is openly racist, that's grounds to ask for chagne or to simply leave the job place if nothing occurs.

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.

You can seek justice without being in state of anger or unhappiness. The myth is we require unhappiness or anger to seek change. We can seek the exact same change, the exact same "justice" from a place of being calm or a place of being angry.

Typically, you will be able to see a larger universe of possible solutions when you are calm and responding with intelligent anticipation rather than reacting from a place of anger. Reaction is quick - it doesn't leave much room for looking for alternative options and deciding on the best option.

We are emotional beings, the only way to turn us all into logical robots is by drugging us all up on emotion numbing pills. Sort of like "Brave New World". We just aint built that way.
Our unhappiness does motivate us to achieve happiness.
Our unhappiness is what drives us to get out of bed every morning to go to work to try and better our situations.
Our sadness, our pain and our suffering are what give us the tools to understand and empathise with others.
My anger makes me outspoken, it makes me want to stand up and point out the ridiculous hypocrisies, lies and scumbag tendencies of those in positions of power. It makes me want to point out the ridiculous ideologies that get cartoonists murdered for telling jokes.

I like my emotions, they let me know Im alive. Every emotion serves its purpose from love to hate, from bravery to fear, and happiness to sadness. They are the instinctual tools that millions of years of evolution has refined and honed to better ensure my survival as a species. They should be heeded. But we should never let those emotions dominate us. Thats the hard part.

Thinking about this thread I was going to post something similar; Ask OP if their ideal vision of the world would be if every single person was spock.

Or, since they dont have a problem with people doing 'offensive actions', if their ideal world would be everyone constantly being A holes to one another (we are pretty close to this ideal) and noone caring or being offended because they are too busy being an A hole to everyone, so everyone has the freedom to be offensive, but no one is offended, would be ideal?

Trying to establish a world in which noone acts, speaks, or behaves in a manner that might offend someone, is restricting freedom.

Who would be in charge of rationally and reasonably proving exactly what and what not is offensive. What if I was offended by you living? Or what if I was offended by cars existing?

If one believes that there is rational, justifiable reason to be offended, one must be willing to formally prove why it and not other things, such as being offended by tall buildings existing, is allowed to insight change to others behavior?

Is it democratic, everyone votes on what is offensive, and if the majority votes that something is offensive that makes it true?

On what grounds is something deemed offensive, where is the foundation, and what is the foundation, that gives a person the right to be offended, and have their being offended mean something other than words and chemicals interacting in their head?