Jesse and I were having this very interesting discussion today about being offended. I personally believe that you choose to be offended, while Jesse believes that there are initial gut reactions that people have to certain things that can't be controlled. But she believes that what you do with those reactions and whether you choose to let it slide or choose to blow it up is where the choice comes into play. I can definitely see it both ways because there are people in this world that are very in touch with their emotions and can be made to feel a certain way. I know that psychologist douche's will tell you that you can't be made to feel a certain way, that it's always your choice, but I say BS to that. Psychologists have this double standard of saying that your emotions are you choice and nobody can make you feel any way. However, at the same time they say that if you tell somebody something long enough they will come to believe it, and you can condition somebody to feel and respond in a certain way. It sounds to me like they are trying to have it both ways. I believe that somebody can make somebody feel a certain way. Example, Jesse makes me feel happy. She just does. I don't have to make a choice to be happy, I just am when she is around. I know this all sounds hypocritical but it's not in my head. Anyway, let's go to a new paragraph shall we?
I am saying you choose to be offended because I feel like I do. If a customer came in and call me a retard and a butt face, I could very well choose to be offended by that or not. Well, I wouldn't be offended by that because I don't care about their opinion. But I also feel that I could be offended because somebody called me names.....does any of this make any sense? I am trying to work it out in my brain and maybe it's not translating well because maybe it's not a black and white issue. So what do you all think? I would like to know people's thoughts on this. Do we choose to be offended or do we have gut reactions and then based on those we can choose to do whatever with it. That sentence was horrible, but leave me alone. This isn't a take sides kind of debate, I just want to know what people think.
4 comments:
As with most either/or psychology debates, the answer to this one is "both".
First off, some grammar. You don't choose whether or not someone offends you. They are the actor for that verb. They did something. To "be offended" still denotes action on the part of the offender, not you. Your response to being offended is your action.
So, if someone tells me to "f" off or if they flash an obscenely pornographic picture in my face, they have offended me; I don't have a choice about it. However, my response to the offense is entirely up to me.
So I agree with both of you. There are a lot of semantic issues with this debate that make it particularly difficult, but I think most people are on the same page with this whether they realize it or not.
But that's my problem, I don't see that the answer to this is both. I am not sure there is an answer....I guess it's mostly subjective. Because if somebody told me to "f" off, I wouldn't be offended, I wouldn't even care. So how does that work? And what about those uber-sensitive people that you offend without even meaning to? Then is it still my fault? Although I did nothing wrong? Or are they at fault for allowing themselves to be offended?
I would have to agree that being offended is a choice. But I also think there are some instances where the gut reaction comes into play, and I think someone talking bad about family would be one of those instances.
What if gut reactions are conditioned responses that come from years of deciding what will and won't offend us?
Under that condition both of you are satisfied. Being offended is a choice and sometimes a gut reaction conditioned by thousands of previous choices.
Post a Comment