ehowton (ehowton) wrote,
ehowton
ehowton

Truth be Damned: How Becoming Offended Validates Our Belief System



Originally posted by pro_ts_tumblr at the-barricades-shall-rise:

thelogicofstupid:

Playing that race...


the-barricades-shall-rise:



thelogicofstupid:



Playing that race card…



It is perplexing to me, how liberals can be so blind to hypocrisies such as this.






ehowton says:

While it would be hypocritical to state hypocrisy "such as this" outweighs the hypocrisy of this very image, which as far as I can tell from a little "elementary-level fact-checking" the difference was the Obama-clown's inappropriate comments rather than the inclusion of the mask - something presumably missing from the Bush-clown (as it appears to have been only an effigy) and Black-clown-wears-Hilary-Clinton-mask...clown - I wouldn't know as I wasn't at any of the depicted events. But if factual, might suggest two camps of hypocrites philosophically debating which of them was more hypocritical than the other - as if it were actually significant (its not).

But I don't care about the obvious. This rubber President mask thing reminded me of the recent outcry over ET's Julianne Hough dressing as her favorite Orange is the new Black character for Halloween (which some found offensive) or the promo shots for Nick Cannon's new release, "White People Party Music" (which others found offensive). Reading through the droves of comments on the respective stories were eye-opening; patterns emerged. What I found particularly interesting (not perplexing) was the diversity in the offense taken:

Some were offended by one and not the other, others were offended by both, and some were offended by neither - and everyone was offended (or not offended) for different reasons to the degree that people who were offended were making some of the same arguments as those who were not, and those who weren't offended were not offended for some of the reasons those who were, were. Others on both sides cited completely independent reasons from others who were also either, or not, offended.

Schism began breaking out in the camps of those who were offended if they were perceived as being offended for the wrong reason - because being offended wasn't universal enough - and those who were grouped together as having not been offended were also called out for not being offended for the right reasons. Toward the end, those who were offended for the same reasons as those who weren't were trying to convince them they ought to be while simultaneously shunning those who were likewise offended but for the wrong reason, while those who were not offended were cajoling those who were but for reasons they shouldn't to their side all the while suggesting some of those who also were not offended probably should be.

(Don't think that wasn't tricky to write.)

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but opinions based upon ignorance denotes the very word. Regardless, almost everyone who gets offended has an opinion as to why their offense is justified - wrong or not. But why tell people you're offended?

"That offends me."

Stephen Fry is credited with the best response to date, "So fucking what?" which is admittedly always hysterical - until it happens to us - then its Issac Hayes v. Southpark all over again - suddenly and inexplicably not funny! So why tell anyone? Why admit to it?

More pointedly, what would I gain by admitting to someone I was offended? Good question, really - and I would love to dig into that question with someone who isn't me someday. My point was going to be something along the lines of never giving anyone else power over my emotions in such a way I could be manipulated - any argument to the contrary would still end with handing my emotional control over to someone else (fantastic in loving, secure relationships; not so healthy anytime else). So that's something I wouldn't do, right? Admit offense?

The question was meant to be rhetorical, but as soon as I penned it, I wondered if anyone would try to answer it - to justify themselves. I began formulating answers in a myriad of different perspectives; with most of you I've had these life-altering conversations with and we're all very different people and its all so fascinating - then suddenly, it popped out at me - the different answers I had written throughout synthesized into a single underlying reason - while each answer was seemingly diverse and varied from the next, they all contained a single motivating factor driving them: Purpose.

Since we define ourselves by what we believe (and existential questions are scary), suppressing offense calls into question our commitment to those immutable, ironclad beliefs - and we are therefore compelled to validate them to those who have trod upon them, else our very purpose in life becomes suspect.

Truth be damned.



Tags: offended, offense, purpose
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments