Jump to content
changed

Being offended

Recommended Posts

I'm reminded of an old "Deep Thoughts" quote:

 

"Laurie got offended that I used the word puke. But to me, that's what her dinner tasted like."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, changed said:

 

I'm stuck right now with feelings of bitterness and anger - over something real that is impossible to resolve - over this evil high priest who wronged so many innocents and I cannot let go of the bitterness, of resentment to the organization who called him to leadership positions, that appears to support abusers more than victims - I am just filled with anger and I don't know what healthy thing there is to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think we will disagree on a lot of things - I am just a bit of a misfit; I don't join in easily. 

Hypocrisy is so rampant and I have a major issue with it. Following great people is much easier than following hypocrites. An example, this past week a restaurant would not serve a member of President Trump's staff. Many were very supportive of the action of the owner that said because of her convictions she could not serve the woman and asked her to leave. (We are not talking about making a cake, taking pictures at a wedding - we are talking about eating in a restaurant). Then you had Congress's all-time most stupid representative, Maxine Waters, give at least two speeches asking all people to attack, heckle, and refuse service to everyone that works in Trumps administration. 

The very next day I saw another article about a D.C. restaurant that refused to allow a man dressed up as a woman enter the women's bathroom and asked her to leave....and folks were up in arms about it.  

So now we have people thinking it is okay to deny service in a restaurant based upon what one thinks and the same group thinking that it is atrocious to deny service to what someone does.  Thoughts have become the enemy rather than actions.

Now, my problem is I detest these people for their hypocrisy. Why should I get excited about their social agenda when they are such horrible people? 

Let me be clear about something - I intensely dislike President Trump. He embarrasses me and he demeans the office of the President of the United States. 

I am just one individual. I cannot possibly connect to all of humanity. I strive to focus on the humanity I come in contact with daily. They are important to me. If I can give a smile to each person I meet and attempt to be a source of peace in the world then I do not live in vain. These are the traditions I grew up with as a child. My father was in the military and served faithfully for over twenty years. He was never a LDS or a member of any church, but he knew the difference between right and wrong. He was not perfect; to the contrary, he was very, very human. However, both he and my mother taught each of us how to treat others.

Why are you surprised.  When we start accepting discrimination, this is where it leads to.  I expect it will get worse on all sides.  It is not about a cake.  It is about discrimination.  Whether it is a restaurant or a baker, there is little difference.  This is the road many now want to travel down.  I personally think it is a shame.  But I also predicted this would happen when we allow business owners to discriminate based on personal beliefs.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree that there was a double standard (if one assumes groups in both restaurants would respond the same in terms of applauding one exclusion while booing the other).

However, choosing working for someone is also what someone does and not what they think.

It is not a double standard.  When you allow one group to discriminate, then you allow ALL groups to discriminate.  This concept to discriminate is just an old concept that for some reason many think is important to once again allow a business to do.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why are you surprised.  When we start accepting discrimination, this is where it leads to.  I expect it will get worse on all sides.  It is not about a cake.  It is about discrimination.  Whether it is a restaurant or a baker, there is little difference.  This is the road many now want to travel down.  I personally think it is a shame.  But I also predicted this would happen when we allow business owners to discriminate based on personal beliefs.  

You are exactly right!

When one accepts discrimination of others they must also accept others discrimination of them. I can call it my right, or religious freedom, but if I'm discriminating I should expect it to come back to me at some point. Discrimination and acceptance of discrimination is both immoral and illogical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think we will disagree on a lot of things - I am just a bit of a misfit; I don't join in easily. 

Hypocrisy is so rampant....

 

I do think the media misrepresents and exaggerates what most of us experience.   I agree two wrongs do not make a right.  Hopefully more facilities will start including "family" or "gender neutral" restrooms - see a problem, we need to change something to fix it, not argue with everyone...  but listen to the problem, and then actually do something to fix it - like build some new bathrooms.  

I think establishments should advertise who their target customers are, if they want to put out a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and then stick to what is on that sign, and not give service to someone with no shoes - that is their choice, but they should put up a sign.  I think signs on establishments would be a good solution that would avoid arguments inside.

So... find solutions - rather than blame, and yell, and make a scene - watch what is happening, then do something to fix it.

 

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/political-tribes-0

I listened to this podcast last night, it discusses the groupthink, and how people group together. They did a study and set up a mock wine tasting class, where one glass had some vinegar added to it. And the wine experts that were there picked the one with vinegar to trick the others. Turns out the ones that were unaware (but were intelligent), picked the wine with vinegar, and knew it tasted awful but wanted to do what the experts did (there was a list or something of the top listed wine).

And they mentioned how as a country we need to be careful how overboard we become from one end to the other. They said how strong the divide has become between the Dems/Republicans. And how this could have a devasting impact on the country.

Not saying this has much to do with your thread, but in a way it may. People do need to understand other's views etc. And not be so vitrol about it. But you on the other hand have a good reason to be angry with someone who is hurting another. My comment was meant for those that have hatred for someone's beliefs I guess. 

I watched an interesting TED talk the other day about artificial intelligence that was interesting - can't find it now, might have been taken down?  It said things like Google and YouTube gave AI the goal of keeping people on the internet longer - more viewing hours = more adds = more money.  For some programming, you set the goal, and let the program learn how to achieve it on its own.  So AI has this goal, and it ended up achieving its goal by offering adds, articles, and sites that not just aligned with the viewers political/social/religious views, but took those views one step further - so if they were vegetarian, show them the next extreme version of vegetarian (don't eat potatoes because it kills the plant) - that the suggested videos and articles that pop up were leading everyone down very polarized and extremist paths.  so... all the polarization we are seeing in society right now is AI's fault - for suggesting and showing everyone extremist videos to keep them hooked longer which means more advertising revenue.... 

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Really?  I don't think we have any control over how others react.  What we can control is what we do that they are reacting to. 

I agree with this, but would maybe change most to many, or some other word like that. 

"influence" is a better word than "control" ... I think if someone is reactionary - and many people are reactionary - you can control those types of people, because, you know they will react to you.

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This is a weird thing..but it works.☺️  Often in many places I have worked, there have been two friends/co workers that just did not get along..who were offended by dumb things that just didn't matter.  Because it caused such tension...I made them mad at me.  Give them a common enemy and they become friends..then, of course, I apologize.

Haha - although I think the best common enemy to unite around is just plain old mother nature - entropy - the laws of the universe that tell us we have to get up and work etc.  

I tell my kids "don't blame the messenger - I don't dictate school schedules, or what you have to learn to be successful in life - I am in the same boat you are in.  Redirecting anger is an art form that is good to learn, I agree.  

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I look at my participation in the exchange more as influence than control, which I think this is the spirit of the golden rule.

Yes, influence is a better word.  

3 hours ago, Rain said:

One is a behavior and the other us a feeling. Obviously, we should not behave offensively. We shouldn't be hurtful and unkind or worse. Taking offense is a feeling of response to a behavior that is offensive or seemingly offensive if you don't have all the info needed.

Feelings of hurt and anger come naturally. Feelings that you work through strengthen you. Feelings that you hold inside and let fester just poisen everything.  

So if an offense (behavior) is done we can respond with a behavior by saying or doing something that says "this should not be done. This should be stopped."

Taking offense is different. It is the feeling of anger or desire for revenge or to pull away over little things that we can't see past. 

Do you do something to stop a behavior that hurts people or do you do it to hang on to the feelings inside?

 

 

Stop the individual who is doing the bad behavior... but for those who have been hurt, it goes beyond that - you become paranoid that xyz will happen again (because xyz has happened to many different people), and you start going after every policy and organizational mistakes that allows xyz to happen ... you can't just "let it go" because "letting it go" leads to xyz happening again and again and more and more people being hurt.  ... is that hanging on to feelings inside?  I guess it is.  There is a point to it though - it is about trying to protect other people from the pain you have inside.  

 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

My friend did ask what was going wrong for her and was met with the bitter outburst I described. The lady stormed out of the office. My friend, knowing the parent would be coming to the school frequently, made the determination to win the lady over with genuine kindness. Over time she gained a friend. I don’t know why you came to the conclusion she was feigning a superficial politeness.

After finding out what was wrong, did she find a solution to it?  Was there an actual problem that needed to be dealt with?

It does not matter if someone yells at you about the problem, or if they politely explain the problem.  Either way, nothing is perfect, everything can be better, the real goal is not friendship (unless you want to become friends with easily upset people?)  but stopping the problem, and protecting others from the same thing in the future.  

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree that there was a double standard (if one assumes groups in both restaurants would respond the same in terms of applauding one exclusion while booing the other).

However, choosing working for someone is also what someone does and not what they think.

Calm, are you making a statement or are you saying it is okay if we deny serving people based on for whom they have their employment?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

 

 

I do think the media misrepresents and exaggerates what most of us experience.   I agree two wrongs do not make a right.  Hopefully more facilities will start including "family" or "gender neutral" restrooms - see a problem, we need to change something to fix it, not argue with everyone...  but listen to the problem, and then actually do something to fix it - like build some new bathrooms.  

I think establishments should advertise who their target customers are, if they want to put out a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and then stick to what is on that sign, and not give service to someone with no shoes - that is their choice, but they should put up a sign.  I think signs on establishments would be a good solution that would avoid arguments inside.

So... find solutions - rather than blame, and yell, and make a scene - watch what is happening, then do something to fix it.  

1

You almost make me think that it is okay for someone to put a sign up that informs the public, "We only serve Democrats" or "We only serve Republicans". Given the context it is hard to get another impression, but this medium is not the best for communicating and misunderstandings can happen easily.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Why are you surprised.  When we start accepting discrimination, this is where it leads to.  I expect it will get worse on all sides.  It is not about a cake.  It is about discrimination.  Whether it is a restaurant or a baker, there is little difference.  This is the road many now want to travel down.  I personally think it is a shame.  But I also predicted this would happen when we allow business owners to discriminate based on personal beliefs.  

You are twisting the reality of the comparison, but I understand your point. 

 - I typed a paragraph hit return and it all disappeared. I am getting really tired of this happening over and over again.

If I suspected someone was going to treat me in the same manner as Trump's personnel, I would hope I would act as well as she did and just leave.  However, if I was treated like the other one, who had the Socialist party gather and yell shame - I would hope that I was carrying several pistols - or at least two - to pull and let them know their right of express themselves ends at the door and to back. This will happen soon I have no doubt and I will not put any blame on the diner.  If any of the protestors survived I would want to see them sent directly to the Federal penitentiary for a lifetime of breaking rocks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You are twisting the reality of the comparison, but I understand your point. 

 - I typed a paragraph hit return and it all disappeared. I am getting really tired of this happening over and over again.

If I suspected someone was going to treat me in the same manner as Trump's personnel, I would hope I would act as well as she did and just leave.  However, if I was treated like the other one, who had the Socialist party gather and yell shame - I would hope that I was carrying several pistols - or at least two - to pull and let them know their right of express themselves ends at the door and to back. This will happen soon I have no doubt and I will not put any blame on the diner.  If any of the protestors survived I would want to see them sent directly to the Federal penitentiary for a lifetime of breaking rocks. 

 

Are you condoning an escalation to violence? Surely not.

While I agree strongly that the discrimination against republicans, democrats, Christians, muslims, gays, etc has got to stop, calling for the inclusion of weapons and violence seems like the absolute worst thing to advocate. I hope I'm misreading what you intend to be sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Calm, are you making a statement or are you saying it is okay if we deny serving people based on for whom they have their employment?

No, not defending the discrimination.

Just saying it is not discrimination based on thought, but on the action of choosing to work for someone.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, not defending the discrimination.

Just saying it is not discrimination based on thought, but on the action of choosing to work for someone.

Now I understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you condoning an escalation to violence? Surely not.

While I agree strongly that the discrimination against republicans, democrats, Christians, muslims, gays, etc has got to stop, calling for the inclusion of weapons and violence seems like the absolute worst thing to advocate. I hope I'm misreading what you intend to be sarcasm.

I have read an editorial that discussed how Administration officials and their bodyguards are being placed in an untenable situation that will result in guards protecting their people through drawn weapons. You can google and find more.  

Just as we have seen the manner the media has treated "cages" at the border they will treat this, when it happens, as if a guard out of the blue pulled his weapons.  It was not the idiot protestors in the restaurant, it was Trump who directed security personnel to shoot on sight. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the best thing to do is expect people to not get offended by what we do, but take great offense at what people do to us. 

And never apologize.

Have you considered running for President on this platform?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, changed said:

 

 

I do think the media misrepresents and exaggerates what most of us experience.   I agree two wrongs do not make a right.  Hopefully more facilities will start including "family" or "gender neutral" restrooms - see a problem, we need to change something to fix it, not argue with everyone...  but listen to the problem, and then actually do something to fix it - like build some new bathrooms.  

I think establishments should advertise who their target customers are, if they want to put out a sign saying "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and then stick to what is on that sign, and not give service to someone with no shoes - that is their choice, but they should put up a sign.  I think signs on establishments would be a good solution that would avoid arguments inside.  

Worked for 1930’s Germany and pre-civil rights America.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think the best thing to do is expect people to not get offended by what we do, but take great offense at what people do to us. 

And never apologize.

Ah yes, the mercy for me, justice for everyone else approach.  Always a winner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you think people hang on to anger? 

I think it has to do with justice.  If someone actually repents, and is able to restore what was broken - then it is no big deal, and no anger to hold onto.  If someone does not repent, does not do anything to compensate the victim, never even says "I'm sorry" - no justice - that is when things get hard to let go of.  

2 Nephi 28:10
And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. 

↑↑ does that mean the saints did not let go of their anger?  Did not just put it in the Savior's hands?  They are still crying from their graves over the injustice?  Did the Saints not forgive?  

D&C 87:7
That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies. 

"Saints" crying for revenge?

 

"Just put it in G-d's hands" works great for abusers, but does not bring justice to victims.  

 

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

If judgement is just, if there is a cause - we are entitled to our anger.  To not be angry, would be disrespectful to the victims involved... only I do not like being angry.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Worked for 1930’s Germany and pre-civil rights America.

 

The civil-rights movement was needed in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, changed said:

 

Stop the individual who is doing the bad behavior... but for those who have been hurt, it goes beyond that - you become paranoid that xyz will happen again (because xyz has happened to many different people), and you start going after every policy and organizational mistakes that allows xyz to happen ... you can't just "let it go" because "letting it go" leads to xyz happening again and again and more and more people being hurt.  ... is that hanging on to feelings inside?  I guess it is.  There is a point to it though - it is about trying to protect other people from the pain you have inside.  

 

There is a difference in protecting self or others and doing things for revenge or just out of emotion. Emotion can help us to have incentive, but it can also blind us to reality. If one sees a problem and stops looking for offense then his eyes will be open to what needs to be done rather than what is driven purely by emotion. 

It's important for some to let the emotion go, but it is also important to lourn with those who mourn. When we put our emotion to the side and allow ourselves to empathize with the other side then we can begin to stop bad things and see real and righteous change happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, changed said:

Why do you think people hang on to anger? 

I think it has to do with justice.  If someone actually repents, and is able to restore what was broken - then it is no big deal, and no anger to hold onto.  If someone does not repent, does not do anything to compensate the victim, never even says "I'm sorry" - no justice - that is when things get hard to let go of.  

2 Nephi 28:10
And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. 

↑↑ does that mean the saints did not let go of their anger?  Did not just put it in the Savior's hands?  They are still crying from their graves over the injustice?  Did the Saints not forgive?  

D&C 87:7
That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies. 

"Saints" crying for revenge?

 

"Just put it in G-d's hands" works great for abusers, but does not bring justice to victims.  

 

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

If judgement is just, if there is a cause - we are entitled to our anger.  To not be angry, would be disrespectful to the victims involved... only I do not like being angry.

People hang on (not necessarily initially feel it) to anger because then they feel they have a measure of control over someone else. 

It is a myth that we can provide justice. If I steal something from you I can pay it back, but that is not justice because perhaps the greater problem is the emotional toll it takes on you. There is no way that I can give it back to you fully. Christ is the only one who can. So the only thing that holding on to anger accomplishes is building a wall between you and Christ.  He is the only one who can make things just in the end. By holding on to the anger we signal that we don't trust him to be able to accomplish justice.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Rain said:

People hang on (not necessarily initially feel it) to anger because then they feel they have a measure of control over someone else. 

It is a myth that we can provide justice. If I steal something from you I can pay it back, but that is not justice because perhaps the greater problem is the emotional toll it takes on you. There is no way that I can give it back to you fully. Christ is the only one who can. So the only thing that holding on to anger accomplishes is building a wall between you and Christ.  He is the only one who can make things just in the end. By holding on to the anger we signal that we don't trust him to be able to accomplish justice.

 

LDS believe in works, not just grace and faith... you don't just sleep all day and put it all in G-d's hands... we all have to work, and take care of issues our self.

Holding on to anger:

  • Helps victims to feel loved and cared for.  (Tell that kid - you were hurt?  so what - smile - everything is fine?... or would it be better for that kid to see you get angry because you love them and you want to protect them.)
  • can change culture, bring awareness to issues, can change policies.
  • anger is a form of communication - hide and isolate, or connect with others.
Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A friend bore her testimony last Sunday. She is an elementary school secretary, on the front line that faces angry parents and teachers every day. She told of one parent who stormed into the office. Our friend’s greeting was met with an angry countenance and some very harsh words about how she hated everything about this place and couldn’t wait to get transferred to another city for her work. 

Our friend tried to respond nicely, as she was trained to do, but later she started to think about this woman. She could have taken offense and responded in kind. Instead, she determined that every time she came back to the school, she would greet the lady warmly and kill her with kindness. By the end of the year, they had become good friends, and the lady expressed her thanks for the way she had been welcomed at the school, and was sorry she would be leaving.

i think this is what the Brethren are talking about.

Yes, and that reminds me  the story of Pres George Albert Smith having to listen to swearing and  noisy workman in the street in front of his house.  He could have gotten angry and demanded that they cease and desist.  Instead, he prepared ice cold lemonade for them, went out personally served them.  His love tamed the savages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You almost make me think that it is okay for someone to put a sign up that informs the public, "We only serve Democrats" or "We only serve Republicans". Given the context it is hard to get another impression, but this medium is not the best for communicating and misunderstandings can happen easily.

 

Why not?  We put signs on food indicating what ingredients are in it, put signs on buildings saying what they do and who they serve, if someone is not going to serve ___ fill in the blank, just put up a sign, and everyone can either stay off that bit of private property, or walk onto it as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and that reminds me  the story of Pres George Albert Smith having to listen to swearing and  noisy workman in the street in front of his house.  He could have gotten angry and demanded that they cease and desist.  Instead, he prepared ice cold lemonade for them, went out personally served them.  His love tamed the savages.

 

My grandmother once came to a college event with me that involved a bunch of people swearing in the bleachers.... she stood up and told everyone in the whole stadium not to cuss - didn't your mother teach you better?  You won't believe this, but they all lined up and took turns apologizing to her... yes, turns out their mothers had taught them better... 

My grandmother was a single mom with quite a few kids - tough lady.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, changed said:

 

The civil-rights movement was needed in this country.

It was what got rid of the "No Blacks" and "No Coloreds" signs. And my other example brought in the "No Jews" signs. Not sure why you seem to want to bring those signs back.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×