RE: Making a Case for Reason Over Outrage
When I've been faced with someone saying something outrageous (subjective, of course), I've found that shutting my mouth or sitting on my hands (if it's online) is the best course of action to assess the situation. For me, it's fight or flight combined with the amount of time I might have to invest in the argument. Is it worth it or do I write the person off? I'm not easily offended. I prefer to live and let live but I also say do no harm.
I refuse to be bothered by ignorance. Someone once said I needed to go back to my own country. I'm half-Korean. Apparently my slanty eyes bothered them. And when I said, "Is that the best you've got? I thought you were trying to hurt my feelings or something." Okay... maybe I was being passive aggressive LOL. They managed to turn a bright shade of red.
Thank you @merej99, both for your comment and your upvote.
Also, again, for organizing the Community Engagement Challenge. I cannot believe that I missed the announcement post (that I was waiting for to thank you personally for the rewards). It may be too late but I will find appropriate fora within which to do so! :c)
To get back on subject, choosing to stay one's tongue (or fingers) while another is making their case puts you ahead of the curve, in my opinion. People who seek to 'talk over' others act with the purpose of stifling the message of the individual concerned.
The written medium is generally more resilient to this but there are other means that can be abused to achieve a similar effect (flagging or similar). Such used irresponsibly can denote one who objects but who also doesn't feel confident about their ability to form a refutation to another's view. Thus they resort to the cheap and nasty.
Should you be offended by somebody taking offense to what you are (race, features, religion, nationality, cultural background, health status, gender, political outlook, etc.)?
Yes... yes you should. Because somebody deriding you for 'being' something is 'at best' vastly inferior to questioning an action or claim made by yourself.
Yes, since I am a student of consistency, I also apply this to identifiers traditionally universally reviled.
Example. If I were a National Socialist (or Nazi) then would it be appropriate to revile me? Should all National Socialists be derided because Hitler happened? Likewise with Communism and Stalin? Would it not make more sense to go through the dozens or hundreds of policies that I would personally harbor (which would likely significantly differ from those I'd consider my peers in the field) and take aim at those policies that are more questionable (than myself as a person)?
You have Korean features? Making an issue of that is about as low as a detractor can go. I'd still have "fun" asking questions as to why the individual feels that "slanty eyes" are a bother. Easier to do on a text medium where we have time to think and craft our replies.
Thank you again for the thought provoking comment! Shine on. :c)