One of the biggest societal blots of the modern age is the act of choosing to be offended on behalf of other people who aren't themselves offended. It's what I call the societal blight of proxy offense.
Here, I think, is the right way to think about offence. Offence isn't really given - it is taken by
the person who chooses to take it - so if you personally choose to be offended
at something, that's on you, and others are free to decide how they feel about
you. Sometimes people may feel like your choice to be offended is a reasonable
one - and on those occasions, your offence might improve their future behaviour
and make them more mindful of their conduct. Sometimes they may find your
choice of being offended pitiable, and tell you you're being unreasonable.
But…..none of this happens to the same extent when someone is offended on other people's behalf - they’ve simply chosen to be the kind of citizen that gets on most people’s nerves - and their only in-crowd consists of other people that are widely considered to be as equally annoying and victim-seeking. I'm not, of course, talking about those who courageously stand up for a good cause for the underdog. Proxy offence-seeking is different. In most cases (there are always exceptions), those who habitually choose to be offended on other people's behalf only serve to inflate the reality of what reasonable people are likely to personally find offensive; they distort behavioural signals about what balanced individuals ought to find acceptable; and they help create a society of people trapped in a gilded cage of self-imposed inadequacy, where the cage door is bolted shut from the inside, and where people become weaker and more and more over-sensitive, utterly unable to cope with other people's ideas, opinions, lifestyle choices, tastes and freedoms.
