Our Inalienable Right to Choose to be Offended

So There's This New Game Show 

Have you noticed the new game show on local television? It is that one where player number one gets offended and then player number two has to find something about player number one's offense that is offensive to them. The player that gets offended last wins.

You have not heard of it or seen it? It is getting coverage on all of the TV stations and social media outlets. The first episode had some girl in Texas who got offended by a cotton plant display, claiming it was racist; she further stated that she intended to boycott the store carrying the display. Her opponent was offended because the girl decided to only boycott the store carrying the cotton display instead of all cash crops and the stores that carry them. Player number one, the girl offended by cotton, gets offended by player number two's remark, citing racism. Usually the racism offense trumps all other offenses, but, out of nowhere, player number two hits player number one with the "My white family survived by picking cotton" card. Wow! It was a 2-in-1 racism-survival combo. I was not expecting that. The officials declared player number two the winner! What did player number two win, you ask? Well, the satisfaction of being most offended, of course. Why else are they playing the game? Seriously...why are they playing the game?

There are still some bugs in the game that need to be fixed. This player on the next episode got offended by the national anthem and decided to kneel, citing racial injustice. The opponent got offended, citing disrespect to the country and the nation's veterans. Judges ruled both as equally offensive. The first player responded with more racial injustice and the opponent responded with more patriotism. They ended up getting stuck in an infinite loop. Needless to say, the president of the show was embarrassed; he wanted the players to be kicked off of the set for lowering the ratings. The designers of the game had not accounted for this. They did not consider how redundant, yet seemingly logical, offenses can be. They released a statement, saying they will be creating some sort of sudden death round for instances like these. Tune in for the next episode, I guess.

If At First You Don't Succeed, Get More Offended

I believe that in most situations where a person is offended by something, that person is sincere.  I feel, however, that a lot of people take follow-up offense to avoid the issues sparking the initial person's offense; perhaps it is subconscious, fueled by a hint of ignorance (or in some cases, racism). I am alluding to the NFL national anthem protests. I will not talk about that any more though. I have already written about it here. How can we determine when becoming offended is logical?

The Offensive Rulebook

Rule Number One:

• Before getting offended, a player is required to consider what other offenses must follow as a result of the first offense. Let's consider the cotton plant, for example. If you want to get offended by the cotton plant because you are African American and your ancestors were slaves who picked cotton, unless you have documented, undeniable proof that cotton was the only plant your ancestors picked, you must also be offended by wooden, metal, and leather products, rice, tobacco, and sugar (to name a few things) [1]. 

Rule Number Two:

• If you are offended because of someone's action, which is a result of them being offended, you are required to ask them what is the cause of their offense. You may direct them to rule number one. If their offense (and action) abides by rule number one in it's entirety, you are not allowed to be offended. If it does not, you are allowed to be offended. Refer to rule number one.

Rule Number Three:

• Whoever is deemed offended by rules one and two, the other person is required to have some common decency and help the offended person right whatever wrong is causing them to be offended.

In the Case of an Infinite Loop:

• If you made it to this step, one of you is not sincere in your being offended. Start over, maybe with a lie detector test this time.

The Right To Be Offended (and when you're just being a dick)

There is a difference between being offended and searching for the opportunity to be offended. It is not even a fine line. It is very distinct! A great example is the cotton fiasco. The initial event (or at least the most recent one) where a group of people became offended by a cotton plant display occurred at the house of the president of David Lipscomb University [2]. Randy Lowry invited a group of African American students to his house for dinner to discuss issues they face as a minority at a predominantly white school. According to their accounts, the president did not offer seats, served what was described as "black meals", and had a cotton plant as a center piece. To me, their being offended was well-founded. This event received a lot of news and social media coverage.

Four days later, an African American woman was "triggered" by a cotton display in a Texas Hobby Lobby [3]. For those of you that do not know, cotton is one of the main agricultural products in Texas [4]. It seems to me that this woman took offense for no reason other than to hop on the notoriety train.  She was just being a dick. 

Conclusion

It is ok to get offended. It is your right and, frankly, sometimes it takes a person or group of people getting offended to make people aware of significant issues in our society. Just make sure your offense, or someone else's offense, is well founded.

Tweet