This post and some of the comments seem to me to have got the wrong end of the stick. Sometimes offense is used as a rhetorical trick, in which case notions of ‘high status response’ and ‘manipulation’ are appropriate. However it normally occurs when one person—from callousness or ignorance—says or does something that does not accord another person’s the respect and dignity they are entitled to.
These aren’t so much a dichotomy as they are different descriptions of the same phenenemon said from the perspective of a (hypothetical) ally instead of a rival.
Point taken, but I think those different perspectives are meaningful.
Indeed. I find it useful to understand just what the social power move being made is and evaluating whether to support, ignore or oppose that move on the merits of the case in question. That keyword you mentioned—‘entitled’—makes all the difference. The person claiming offense clearly believes they are entitled to more power, respect or deference. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not. Sometimes it is beneficial for me to support or oppose the social move and sometimes it is not.
These aren’t so much a dichotomy as they are different descriptions of the same phenenemon said from the perspective of a (hypothetical) ally instead of a rival.
Point taken, but I think those different perspectives are meaningful.
Indeed. I find it useful to understand just what the social power move being made is and evaluating whether to support, ignore or oppose that move on the merits of the case in question. That keyword you mentioned—‘entitled’—makes all the difference. The person claiming offense clearly believes they are entitled to more power, respect or deference. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not. Sometimes it is beneficial for me to support or oppose the social move and sometimes it is not.