per·pet·u·al
pərˈpeCH(əw)əl/
adjective
1. never ending or changing.
synonyms:
everlasting,
never-ending,
eternal,
permanent,
unending,
endless,without end,
lasting,
long-lasting,
constant,
abiding,
enduring,
perennial,
timeless,
ageless,
deathless,
undying,
immortal
2. occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.
synonyms:
interminable,
incessant,
ceaseless,
endless, without respite,
relentless,
unrelenting,
persistent,
continual,
continuous,
nonstop,
never-ending,
recurrent,
repeated,
unremitting,
sustained, around/round-the-clock,
chronic,
unabating; informal
eternal
of·fend·ed
əˈfendid/
adjective
1. resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult.
synonyms:
upset, insulted, affronted,
aggrieved, displeased,
hurt, wounded,
disgruntled, put out,
annoyed,
angry,
cross, exasperated,
indignant,
irritated, piqued,
vexed, irked,
stung, galled, nettled,
resentful, in a huff,
huffy, in high dudgeon.
********************
As the definitions seem to bear out, there isn't much wiggle room for defining the "perpetually offended" as anything other than being in a state of permanent offence. One has to believe that to exist in this state of perpetual anger must expend a butt load of valuable energy that might be better used exercising peaceful tranquility and ignoring all else. I would think one would be walking around like a loaded weapon, with the hammer pulled back and a finger on the trigger at all times, just waiting for the knee jerk reaction that will unlock some euphoric, antisocial, sense of self satisfaction. How sad that must be for people caught up in this personality disorder. Mike Huckabee, in his book "God, Guns, and Gravy," says this about it:
"Being offended is a full-time job for many. It's a tedious task, for it requires enormous amounts of imagination and creativity, relentless pursuit of an audience willing to swallow the notion of the offense, and then a never-let-go nursing of the manufactured hurt until the protagonist actually begins to believe his or her own grievance."
The good minister, ex-governor, and presidential wannabe, goes on to address the targets of these "protagonists" (whom I'd like to refer to as "the majority"). "The majority" of us, most often, don't agree with the perpetually offended. There are times when I have to wonder if we really don't agree with them or if we've just grown so tired of listening to their incessant bullshit we tune them out, even if we do agree. As stated, Mr. Huckabee continues with:
"Sadder than the proliferation of the perpetually offended is the reaction from what should be a sane and rational public. Wouldn't it be great if they could simply laugh out loud at the absurdity of it all and refuse to be cowered into a catalog of words that will placate the whining class? But it's impossible to satisfy the whiners. People who live off their self-inflicted emotional wounds don't want a resolution, or even a true conversation to help them understand the feelings of another. So the attempt to accommodate them creates a never-ending retreat on the part of common sense and a surrender to irrational demands."
I'm not so sure they are necessarily victims of "self-inflicted emotional wounds." I think there very well may be a good many of them that have been created, by accident or design, through the actions of parents, the educational system, and/or society as a whole. We tend to produce damaged goods in our current quest for mediocrity, but this is a topic best left for the political arena. As to Mr. Huckabee's statement, how many times in the very recent past have we witnessed this "surrender to irrational demands," and how many times have you wondered why?
I run into these folks time and time again with my blog and those posts I write for the express purpose of trying to make people think; to make people create an opinion of their own. In doing so I accept the risk of unintentionally (or, maybe intentionally) opening the cage of the perpetually offended. They are fairly easy to spot as they seem to totally miss the point of the post and go off on some tangent of their own making. Moreover they start out their comment angry, fuel their own anger as they write, and end their comment even more pissed off than they started. Tolerance dictates that we hear them out, as we all have an opinion. So, I let them have their opinion. I don't have to agree or accept what they say in order to be peacefully tolerant, nor do I have to grace them with any recognition for all the reasons Mr. Huckabee so eloquently states above. What would it accomplish? If they are reading this I'm sure they have already formed their attack based on Huckabee being a minister, a Christian, a conservative, etc., etc., etc. The point that we should all just try to get along and stop finding reasons to be perpetually offended will escape them, and that is just sad.
That we have a label for them is a sad reflection on society. Probably sadder than the fact that offended people find the need to always find a reason, need a reason, any reason, to attack. We tend to label those that keep throwing themselves into the limelight, especially if they constantly find need to get right up in our collective grill. They become, for better or worse, an annoying joke we find ourselves having to tolerate. I have fallen victim to labeling them, as I have in this post. I have succumbed to tirade of bullshit in an "attempt to accommodate them" and, in doing so, created for myself "a never-ending retreat on the part of common sense and a surrender to irrational demands."
Proverbs 29:11 says, "A fool expresses all his emotions, but a wise person controls them." My dad used to tell me, "The man who controls his voice controls the argument." It amounts to the same advice. My uncle would say, "Don't get into a braying contest with a jackass." All three statements are chock full of great advice. In my blog, I tend to go with my uncle's advice because, since I'm not face to face with the protagonist, they can't see the control I would be exhibiting for everyone else's benefit, even though this control would be totally lost on them. I opt to ignore them as best I can, knowing that there is nothing I can say, no cogent argument,
that would satisfy them. Try agreeing with them? They would find some reason why this would also be unacceptable. Anything one does would be pouring water on a fire that feeds on water. Why fuel a fire you can't put out? Why buy into their misery?
Some people are like clouds.
when they disappear,
it's a brighter day.
I really hate to think that I ever need to get shed of some people around me in order to have a "brighter day," but sometimes it just makes good since. I mean, really, why get into a braying contest with a jackass just so you both sound like jackasses to those listening? Someone has to take the high road and sometimes that requires just ignoring argument for argument's sake. Being tolerant of other opinions is a tough row to hoe. The perpetually offended would have you believe you are at fault for not being respectful of their opinion when you are simply refusing to buy into the fight their looking for. The trick is to not take anything too personally or you'll find yourself in the same pit the offended wallow in, and you'll end up feeling offended for the rest of your life (i.e., perpetually).
Nobody is responsible for your happiness, only you can be responsible for you. The best tact for people to take with the perpetually offended is to ignore them. Sooner or later they will go away when they discover there is no fun in being ignored. The downside is they will soon find another target for their insatiable appetite. Certainly we cannot allow them to win frivolous, self-serving, lawsuits that only benefit their questionable agendas. It might bode the question, are perpetually offended people sociopaths? Well, by definition, a sociopath is defined as someone who is suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder. Sociopaths show a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights and feelings of others. Gee, then if we, the majority, disregard the rights and feelings of sociopaths, doesn't it then follow that we, ourselves, are sociopathic? One of the bright spots of being in "the majority" as opposed to "perpetually offended" is that the majority get to make the rules and definitions while the perpetually offended, by choice, just go on being miserably offended.
Personally, I try to be tolerant of all opinions so we can try to reach middle ground where everyone can be happy. For instance, I think gays should have the right to marry, but that right must be voted on nationally and made a federal mandate or gays will never have what they want. The problem arises when the majority is constantly beat over the head with the issue of gay marriage. This behavior just pisses off conservative straights and hurts the gay cause. This is typical behavior for the perpetually offended. They know what they're going to do is going to be controversial and piss people off, but they just don't care. It is all about them and what they want. The rights and feelings of the majority are immaterial, and this is where the majority and the "league" part company.
As a nation we pride ourselves on a person's right to their pursuit of happiness. What we ask is that this pursuit does not affect the rights of others to their own happiness. To that end we have a system of rules and laws. When dissatisfaction with those rules and laws starts to negatively effect the "majority," and when the people voicing this dissatisfaction do so with total disregard for the majority rule of law, over and over again, you may very well be looking at the "League of the Perpetually Dissatisfied."
In fact, some people actively go out of their way to sniff out opportunities to take offence. They willingly expose themselves to the very thing that enrages and antagonises them, just so they can enjoy that warm feeling of self-righteous indignation, that special glow you only get when your most deeply held prejudices are confirmed.
-- Fionola Meredith, "A question of taste: celebrating St Patrick’s Day in Armagh this year"
Because of the "league," we are slowly losing holidays that celebrate who we are; Halloween, St. Patrick's Day, and Christmas are all under constant attack along with symbols of our diverse faiths and spirituality. Where does it all end, and when did a country ruled by the majority decide it was okay to fold in the court of law at the whim of a few whiners, time and time again, over the same issues? If a law is bad, change it. If it isn't, you've had your day in court. Let it go so we can all get back to living life and not wasting money on frivolous court cases better spent on the hungry and the homeless. Better yet, get a life and stop destroying everyone else's.
People need a hobby, but that hobby should not be infringing on the legal rights of other people. If you feel you don't have the same rights, convince the majority and change the law, don't just constantly go out of your way to piss people off as this attitude does not help your cause. All good things come with time, but perpetual offense does nothing to forward a cause but make one look like a selfish, self-serving, idiot with little regard for society (aka, a joke). Sociopath? How fine is the line of separation? I wonder.
Maybe it's time for us to start ignoring the perpetually offended. Maybe it's time, like the governor says, to "simply laugh out loud at the absurdity of it all and refuse to be cowered into a catalog of words that will placate the whining class."
My only wish for this Sunday is that my post doesn't offend anyone. The sad truth is that it probably will. How absurd?
It is a matter of opinion.
********************
Note to my loyal readers: Some of you from the monastery that follow my posts on "The Path" have asked why this post wasn't also posted on the monastery site's blog, as I am prone to do. I wasn't originally planning to post this to themonastery.org website, of which I am also a member. I found myself in fear of the inevitable diatribe I knew would be launched against me by those few of whom would take it as a personal affront and, in doing so, identify themselves as members of the "League." But, was it really my fear or just that I have also grown tired of listening to the constant whining. I want to tune them out, but the incessant drone is oft times just deafening. I'd like to use the excuse that I was trying to save them the embarrassment of being identified, but, for them, that ship set sail and they have yet to realize they left their luggage on the dock.
********************
(re: disclaimer, cum "get out of jail free" card)
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
Frank Anthony Villari (aka, Pastor Tony)
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.
.jpg)
