Something that I don't quite get about most people is this freakish tendency to believe that when... for instance... Person A does something that inadvertantly offends Person B .... that somehow Person A is in the wrong.
This seems completely backwards to me. Its only natural that if Person B doesn't have sufficient control of their emotions and resolve in their opinions to be unfazed by a certain action or comment then they are clearly in the wrong and need to shape up.
Even if Person A was actually -trying- to offend Person B, if B remains unfazed by it then naught has gone wrong at all and they are clearly in the superior position.
So what is the justification for thinking otherwise? Why am I punished because things I have said were taken the wrong way by fools who aren't in control of their faculties? ... The emotional equivalent of driving without a license......
2007-03-15
07:50:04
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Nihilist Templar
4
in
Society & Culture
➔ Etiquette
[Just in case anyone tries bringing up analogies involving shooting guns and placing blame... let us not forget that a person can only be offended by something if they allow themselves to be..... whereas offending someone else cannot always be helped.]
2007-03-15
07:51:47 ·
update #1
A note here... irrespective of what may or may not apply to or with the average person, my opinion on the matter still stands. I -never- apologise if I have offended someone, which annoys some... but on the flipside, I always apologise when I feel offended... and that just seems to confuse people.
As I see it, it is my responsibility to keep in control of my emotions. If someone calls me a retard just because I have Asperger's Syndrome I generally don't care too much; I just correct them unemotively and move on. They aren't to blame for their ignorance. Anyone who would get angry at a thing like that though is clearly less than capable of controlling themselves and could actually be dangerous to those around them.
2007-03-15
23:10:19 ·
update #2