[INFJ] Easily offended

[
acd said:
I think the internet has a lot to do with it. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that it's much easier to treat people badly online than in person. I think the flag thing is just a sign of that bleeding into in-person interactions. Maybe the person with the flag wouldn't walk up to their neighbor and actually voice that opinion or tell someone in the grocery store or on their job they suspect of having certain opinions "F*ck your feelings" (at least for right now but we may be edging closer to something) but it kind of seems like an irl post right outside your house. Kind of interesting how the behavior is something we're supposed to tolerate though the person acting out in that way shows no tolerance for the differing opinions of others. Maybe it's a paradox of tolerance sort of thing.

I kind of wish we could just blow up the internet. I realize the irony of making that statement on the internet lol.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Yes, I think the internet has a lot to do with it too. But I don't think most people just do things because they saw it on the internet (no matter if the cause they choose is "good or bad"). To me it's not obvious that the person with the sign is the one in the wrong. Many don't have the intellectual capacity to express their opinions in an (by today's standard) appropriate manner. Others may be very capable, but have given up talking to deaf ears. What are they supposed to do?

I would love to blow up the internet too. Or just move to Siberia. :grin:
 
Infjente said:
Many don't have the intellectual capacity to express their opinions in an (by today's standard) appropriate manner. Others may be very capable, but have given up talking to deaf ears. What are they supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Humanity is in a constant state of learning (gain) and dying (loss).
We have to reconnect with this notion. We must have the ability to fail, or we will learn to try less, which will cause stagnation.
 
acd said:
I think the internet has a lot to do with it. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that it's much easier to treat people badly online than in person. I think the flag thing is just a sign of that bleeding into in-person interactions. Maybe the person with the flag wouldn't walk up to their neighbor and actually voice that opinion or tell someone in the grocery store or on their job they suspect of having certain opinions "F*ck your feelings" (at least for right now but we may be edging closer to something) but it kind of seems like an irl post right outside your house. Kind of interesting how the behavior is something we're supposed to tolerate though the person acting out in that way shows no tolerance for the differing opinions of others. Maybe it's a paradox of tolerance sort of thing.

I kind of wish we could just blow up the internet. I realize the irony of making that statement on the internet lol.
Click to expand...

That is just it. The irony of being oversensitive to other people's sensitivity.

"F your feelings" is in essence a highly guarded, emotional response.
 
I think this is a conversation primarily about emotional regulation on both sides of the fence.

For the person who feels another person is easily offended- they need to process their feelings about wanting to control other people's behavior. Why does the offense bother you? Does it threaten you because you feel invalidated like you're not allowed to say what you want to say? Would there be any in harm in listening to the other person's perspective as to why they didn't like what you said even if you'll never agree with them? Could you set your opinion aside and acknowledge the humanity of the other person and at least acknowledge what you said was hurtful to this person even if you don't think they should have been hurt?

For the person who is easily offended- can you look at the perspective at the person who said something offensive to you and understand that you don't agree with their perspective? Are you interacting with this person to try to change their mind or do you want them to simply acknowledge that they have hurt you? Was it necessary for you to express your hurt, or could you have found a way to self soothe? Can you forgive the person who has hurt you even if they don't acknowledge the hurt or change their mind, and understand that you simply have different perspectives? Is it possible that the remark was not intended to hurt you and though it did hurt you, you understand this person's intent?

I mean at the end of the day we are talking about emotions and what to do about how we feel. What do we do when another person is hurt by our actions, and do we really have the right to judge what should or should not hurt another person? What do we do when we are hurt by another person and does the other person have a responsibility to address our hurt, and if that's not possible, can we address our hurt on our own?

People don't all think the same. Some people have opposing views and have a hard time getting along. Other people have different views but practice tolerance. A lot of offense and hurt has to do with communication breakdown and both parties not fully understanding the other person.
 
I think it is hypocritical in either extreme, and is why a discerning balance is necessary, and hope for rehabilitation for the offensive- prudent. Otherwise, you end up with a tyrannical society, where you lose your life because you aren't operating in a way that is deemed appropriate by the few with more power or the most hurt feelings; the ideals of a particular few are made paramount to the whole. Or you end up with an anything goes society, with a bunch of anarchists wildly burning down everything and hurting everyone in their need to utilize the most violent forms of expression possible. Either way is human nature at an extreme, and both are forms of control on others to operate how the 'loudest of those' assume appropriate.

Striking a balance is what occurs already in society, with those who harm others with force or break laws placed in prisons/rehabilitation centers/psychiatric wards, etc. Albeit, they are often biased towards those already discriminated against, and tend to operate with underlying motives and agencies of greed (I hope for a change). Though, this is still better than the alternate options of expedient expulsion from society or of taking their life instead of seeking for their reconciliation back into society. As someone in the influence of those who are offensive, it is likely best to just allow people who aren't harming anyone in an objective way to do their own thing, and will yourself as far away as possible from them, choosing if or when to ever let them back into your sphere of influence.

I don't think anyone here is honestly saying that a blatant disregard for others is acceptable.

Many who are blatantly offensive, have never been taught how to deal with others in a healthy or constructive way, or to express themselves without unnecessary force or brashness. Often, those who are offensive (such as the man with the f-word sign in his yard), have some notion of feeling oppressed, so they step a bit too far in one direction in their expression (riots no matter what the cause, tend to operate in the same extremes). The opposite side is also offensive, where in speaking in truth to someone, the one who always finds everything offensive seeks to silence the other's voice because they deem their peace of mind as more sacred than the other person's. You see this a lot in abusive relationships where the one with the most power consistently feels offended by any notion of criticism, and seeks to punish or censure the other.

Both kinds of behavior are offensive, in my humble opinion.

I mostly just leave those people who cannot work out how to be civil with others, to their own devices. More often than not, they end up alienating everyone away from them all on their own, whether they are intentionally offensive, or the one who's always offended by anything that contradicts their own worldview.
 
Last edited:
slant said:
I think this is a conversation primarily about emotional regulation on both sides of the fence.

For the person who feels another person is easily offended- they need to process their feelings about wanting to control other people's behavior. Why does the offense bother you? Does it threaten you because you feel invalidated like you're not allowed to say what you want to say? Would there be any in harm in listening to the other person's perspective as to why they didn't like what you said even if you'll never agree with them? Could you set your opinion aside and acknowledge the humanity of the other person and at least acknowledge what you said was hurtful to this person even if you don't think they should have been hurt?

For the person who is easily offended- can you look at the perspective at the person who said something offensive to you and understand that you don't agree with their perspective? Are you interacting with this person to try to change their mind or do you want them to simply acknowledge that they have hurt you? Was it necessary for you to express your hurt, or could you have found a way to self soothe? Can you forgive the person who has hurt you even if they don't acknowledge the hurt or change their mind, and understand that you simply have different perspectives? Is it possible that the remark was not intended to hurt you and though it did hurt you, you understand this person's intent?

I mean at the end of the day we are talking about emotions and what to do about how we feel. What do we do when another person is hurt by our actions, and do we really have the right to judge what should or should not hurt another person? What do we do when we are hurt by another person and does the other person have a responsibility to address our hurt, and if that's not possible, can we address our hurt on our own?

People don't all think the same. Some people have opposing views and have a hard time getting along. Other people have different views but practice tolerance. A lot of offense and hurt has to do with communication breakdown and both parties not fully understanding the other person.
Click to expand...
Sorry, slant. I didn't see this until now. Otherwise, I would have just liked it and pointed to your post, as I think similarly.
 
Anomaly said:
Sorry, slant. I didn't see this until now. Otherwise, I would have just liked it and pointed to your post, as I think similarly.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that we posted like minutes apart. I don't think you could have had time to see my post. Weird that we literally posted the same thing at the exact same moment lol
 
I’m probably the last person to say anything considering I’ve been guilty of it. But I noticed that it all comes from a place of learning to face yourself. Your weaknesses and strengths as a whole and being willing to grow. The only thing that can change that is boundaries and patience while looking forward with hope.
 
David54 said:
How about if we just stop being offensive..why is that so difficult. Be responsible for what you say and do. Stop blaming victims and accept consequences.
I guess I just dont get why this is hard
Click to expand...
Because there is no such fixed standard for this across time, space or culture.

Unless, that is, you want to tell people to stop being gay because their homosexuality is offensive to Southern Baptists, or to stop eating beef because it's sacrilege for Hindus.

In the earlier part of this century there was an attempt (still ongoing, but now much weakened) to negotiate just such a 'single standard' recognised under the term 'political correctness', but as @Infjente pointed out, this resulted in dire consequences as certain opinions were simply driven underground and allowed to fester, before exploding back onto the stage of civil society in the form of electoral success for populist candidates or various acts of terrorism.

It's all well and good to insist that people 'stop being offensive', but i) this is impossible because the codes of values by which to measure this are inconsistent and self-contradictory, and ii) it has tended to *strengthen* the censured opinions in the long term.

We can't forget, either, that the right to be 'offensive' has been a critical means of how democracies in the West have functioned - be it Punch, Charlie Hebdo, or any other form of satirical irreverence. If we didn't have this, we'd create a much more conformist society in the manner of those that are prone to authoritarian domination.

A certain level of tolerance for 'offense', therefore, seems to be absolutely necessary for the long-term stability of the democratic way of life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a hopeless issue, and here is why:

On one side, you have the social justice warriors (think Twitter outrage culture) who revel in it all and sometimes even bully people. On the other side, there is a huge problem with racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. in this and pretty much every country to various degrees, and "political correctness" has been weaponized to try to silence people speaking about legitimate issues in society.

None of these people is interested in a discussion or compromise; they want to fight until they win. If you want compromise or discussion, a line has to be drawn somewhere, but everyone's line is different.

I think things will mellow out in time because what is going to happen is the older generations are going to die off and younger generations (especially gen z) will have more consensus on where lines should be drawn on these issues.
 
Wyote said:
I think you bring up a good point. Part of the problem is that on some level, some people are receiving the message that things are "bad" and "getting worse."
Your perceptions of this as a truism are going to be your personal experience.
In order to see the reality, we have to look at things with a more objective lens.
As has been mentioned, it may not be the case that things are "worse than before," but only that we are able to access more of the world's problems more readily.
Perhaps ignorance is bliss, and we are simply becoming less ignorant as a species.

So, it is pretty important to figure out which things are legitimately worth being offended by.
I think in a lot of cases it's circumstantial, and often people are offended where the circumstance doesn't merit being so.
Click to expand...
Idk why I disagree with this yet agree at the same time. We can either end up creating more wars arguments and disagreements or create a complete utopian world. I think this is definitely where a final opinion WOULD need to take place. I think the question would remain in how and therefore an even scarier thought with imperfect beings— whom. I’m sure this is where many disagreements, wars, and opinions come from. This may lead to saying that one may matter less than another which would kill the idea of a utopian society as is.
 
ExhumedMorrison said:
Idk why I disagree with this yet agree at the same time. We can either end up creating more wars arguments and disagreements or create a complete utopian world. I think this is definitely where a final opinion WOULD need to take place. I think the question would remain in how and therefore an even scarier thought with imperfect beings— whom. I’m sure this is where many disagreements, wars, and opinions come from. This may lead to saying that one may matter less than another which would kill the idea of a utopian society as is.
Click to expand...

It's ok, I'm easily and not easily offended
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top