When people start implying that because they take no offence, nobody else should be, either. That’s when their arguments lose all relevance. You see, some people haven’t really learned that everyone is entitled to their feelings, whether those feelings are “rational” and “logical” or not, and that one person’s feelings don’t have to be everyone else’s feelings too.
These people seen to engender a sense of superiority that they are not entitled to.
They feel that “not being offended” becomes somehow morally better, or a sign of strength
or “maturity” or “perspective.” It’s also assumed to be the “healthier” option, because being
offended means you’re “holding a grudge” or something equally ridiculous.
Of course, even if being Not Offended were healthier, that wouldn’t really matter because it’s
not a CHOICE. While we can choose whether and how to act upon our feelings, we can rarely choose
which ones to have. It’s not really your choice whether to be upset by something or not.
If you’d like to change the feelings that you automatically have in response to things, you could
try therapy, but that’s not available to everyone and the stigma associated with it is still
significant. So at best you’re shaming people for not going to therapy, which the non-offended
don’t go to either.
Instead of trying to be superior to your fellow human beings you should be trying to comfort them
and do YOUR part as a human being to help them feel better about themselves.
So all this crap about “if your offended by this then you are the problem” crap is really just
another form or trying to feel superior to others. This is one of the GIANT problems I have with
religion in general. Sad to see people I ordinarily consider bright and open minded individuals
falling into this “I’m better than you” trap, which is what this all really boils down to.