Sorry, but it’s your fault if you’re offended all the time

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/09/16/sorry-but-its-your-fault-if-your-offended-all-the-time/

Am I the only one who agrees with Matt Walsh? We've got problems, serious problems and they need to be addressed. However the way we do it looks like whining too often, not like constructive dialogue. Debate regarding gays? One of the parties will definitely be called homophobes. Simply because there is much easier to whine about someone's bigotry and backwardness than discuss the problem with your opponents. The same applies to abortions, women and minorities rights, ageism etc.

 

Oh thank god, you are finally admitting that it's you that has the problem. Good for you. I am glad to see that for once you are taking some personal responsibility and not projecting your own issues onto other demographics.

Thank you, I appreciate this change in your attitude. It's refreshing to see that maybe now you won't think all black people are genetically inferior.

 

Being offensive is real. Saying that the offended person is at fault is a defense mechanism for the offender because that person knows he or she is wrong.

For example a discussion of homosexuality.

If the anti-homosexual person relates gays to having sex with children, dogs or trees that is offensive and most people will agree. Pointing that out and the fact that it is not a legitimate argument is not my problem. It is a fact that two adult gay people who engage in sexual behavior, have physical attraction for each other and fall in love (not necessarily in that order) is not analogous to having sex with children, dogs or trees. It isn't thin skinned to point it out.

So I read his blog, or to be fair tried to because he is whining so much complaining about what he calls whining. He is upset that some Asian students are annoyed by the fact that when asked "Where are you from?" in not some foreign country because the asker really wants to know what country her family's origin is. When someone asks me where I am from I tell them and that is it. I have a friend that is from the same place and that answer is never good enough. Why?

But let's take a look at the rules he sets out:

Okay so a woman masturbating with a crucifix while in a nun costume is not offensive if it is done simply for porn?

Except some people lie to themselves. The old "I don't want to sound racist but...." statements that are always racist.

This is the biggest cop-out of all time.

Yes, I think the notion of this can be reduced to that age old saying "Don't get uppity".

So Matt you choose to be annoyed by this. Nobody is responsible for that choice but you.

This is just another attempt by someone to justify their fear of people getting access to society as full members and thus changing the power structure of society. While some of it is taken to extremes I find the examples to be nonsensical.

But whining about whining is a new thing and it too will fade. What we really need to focus on is why some people feel it is someone else's fault if they act like an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I find this post to be highly offensive.

 

I could not agree more with the title of this thread. Anyone that thinks they can go thru life without being "offended" almost every day is not living in the real world. They either need to see a shrink, or grab their blankee, and hid under their bed with their thumb in their mouth.

 

The OP is spot on.

 

Pointing out offensive things is not grabbing a blankee. It find it funny that this guy whose blog is a constant whine worries about others being offended because damn it he feels he has the right to be offensive and just wants people to stop pointing it out.

 

With the literal nature of (deeply rooted) problems being as OLD and NEGLECTED as they are in this society... no one should come a-blazin', as if they have any new, particularly concise 'solutions' to systemic, institutional and generationally embedded issues; because they DON'T.

Even so, there are things that 'everyone' can do to improve what we see before us. And if one cannot see and commit to the same... they should at least try to see, where/how they are a part of the overall problems.

The solutions for Americans aren't either/or, they are ALL OF THE ABOVE.

 

No, he is correct - being offended is a choice.

Sure, the "offender" might have a point of view that is abominable, but it's up to you to either allow that point of view to affect you at a personal level - becoming offended - or to just disagree with the offender. You can disagree without taking offense.

When you become offended, you're allowing the offender to have some measure of control over you.

Personally, I don't care to do that.

It's a choice.

 

`
I'm a big fan of the way you take a benign article about "microaggression" then twist and contort it to fit your predictable anti-gay, anti-abortion,anti-woman and anti-minority tripe. Four targets in one swoop. Fantastic...considering the article mentions none of the above.

Perhaps you are unaware of the conservative predilection to go into extreme bursts of outrage at the most insignificant things such as Obama; a) using a prompter, b) not wearing a flag on his lapel, c) saluting with a cup of coffee, d) having a Marine hold an umbrella, e) horrendous skeet shooting scandal...just to name a few. There is much, much more. Now that's "macroaggression."

At any rate, congratulations.

 

Very well-stated!! Amen!!

 

But when you disagree you are taking offense. It is a huge cop out from people who want to be able to say anything free of consequences. They are afraid of the fact society is changing and they don't like change.

 

Why not take a glance in the mirror Whatukno, before taking stabs at others?

After all, it is you who gets his panties all in a bunch over use of the word thug.

 

There are people who go looking for an excuse to feel offended. So yes, that's an annoyance, but I don't see the point in whining about it. Just tell them they're full of it, then ignore their tantrums thereafter.

There are also people who purposely try to be offensive, just to provoke a confrontation; adrenaline junkies. They're also an annoyance, but the best course of action is not to reward them with what they want. One can point out what they're doing so that others don't fall into their trap, but even that usually isn't worth it.

Then there are the people who are simply clueless. They may not mean to be offensive, but it's usually a product of them being so isolated in their own protective bubble that they have no understanding of what's going on outside they're own echo chamber. If you point out why the thing they've said/written is offensive, many of them will double down. It's inconceivable to them that they could be wrong about something, since they're surrounded by like-minded people telling them they're right, and will only seek out sources that confirm that opinion. They cannot accommodate a different viewpoint.

Then there are the people who are able to rethink what they've said or written, who will investigate both sides and come to the conclusion that either they were in the wrong, or the other person was one of those people who is just looking for offensiveness where it doesn't exist. You rarely encounter this kind of person on a forum like this one, where most people seem to be partisan extremists.

How do you distinguish these types from one another? You usually can't without confronting them and then seeing how they react.

Offensiveness usually comes in a few different forms. One is a reliance on negative stereotypes and generalizations about some group. Another is simply not seeing other possibilities (an example being the "where are you from", said to people who don't look or sound like you, but whose people have been here for generations - maybe even longer than yours.) Sometimes it's ignorance about one's own privilege, assuming that others have had the same opportunities you have, or ignoring the past (and continuing) poor treatment of certain groups. Yet another would be the case of appropriating things that have symbolic meaning to one group and using them in a way that appears disrespectful - as if you're purposely trying to stick it to them.

Probably other forms I haven't mentioned. The bottom line is that no one has an obligation to remain silent when confronted with something offensive. The only way we break down some of these barriers is to note the offense, explain why its offensive, and then move on. If the offender isn't receptive to rethinking what they said/did/wrote, then there's not a lot more one can do. The purpose in pointing it out should not be one of shaming, but to curtail the offensive behavior. This is where a lot of people go wrong in handling it, because it's easy to say, a lot harder to do when you're in the moment and honestly feel offended by something.

But whining about other people's whining is just more whining. Pretty hypocritical.

 

yeah, cause if someone tried to ban inter-racial marriage again, we would just debate it rater then calling them what they are.. racists

calling people what they are in not whining, whining is whining about how upset they are that two consenting adult people that love each other are allowed to marry, and then whining cause someone called them a homophobe


.

 

I personally have no issue at all with inter-racial marriage, despite being called a racist here by poster "whatukno" for my use of the term thug.

But I'm guessing many fathers wouldn't want their daughters marrying a thug. So I guess that means I'm against inter-thuggle marriage.

 

there really is no reason to be against two other consenting adults marrying, be they the same gender, different races, different religion, ect.... it really is pointless

.

 

Guess that one went right over your head.....zip.

That's been my point all along. A thug represents a particular behavior. Just so happens that mostly African Americans have been splattered all over the national news with this behavior in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc.

My point was light hearted....being against inter-thuggle marriage. If my daughter was marrying an African American GENTLEMAN, who was respectful, had a good head on his shoulders, could make her happy, etc, I would have no problem whatsoever with race.

However, if she brought home a thug, whether he be black, white, Hispanic, etc, I would have a real problem. And if he did just happen to be black.....I'd be just as much against it. No more, no less.

 

there are thug cops, thug whites, thug blacks, thug Mexicans, you name it, do not disagree there

I think most would agree with you in that scenario, but that scenario is not about race

if she brought home a white thug, would you have a problem with the white race? or just with that one guy?

.

 

But that's what many are missing here. It's not just the scenario I presented. It's this boogey man in the shadows problem that some here seem to have with the use of the term thug. It's not racist. Period.

 

So you feel offended by what someone said. So what? Why should anyone care that you have been offended? What makes your emotional state valid to the point that someone should feel obligated to apologize?

 

karma

I call BS on all that. Why do you and other liberals think that people cant have other opinions than what you approve of. Your are making yourself offended and victims. The way I look at it, thats too damned bad. Suck it up and grow a pair!!!!

 

A very excellent point!!!!

 

Quite right, I'm sick of those liberal State employed bleeding heart middle class that constantly rely upon the State to keep the taps running for them & there pet hobbies for their political views.

Suck it up & grow some !!!

 

So when you choose to be offended at something, how do you go about making that thing offensive in your mind when it wasn't to begin with?

Must suck to be you then.