In my experience, people who say that they are being harsh for someone's own good are generally just being jerks. On the other hand, people who are actually able to be harsh for someone's own good are generally people who try very hard to be nice.

It's sort of like the saying that luck favors those who don't expect luck.

To be clear: I don't mean to say that I think you are a jerk. I realize that you are just explaining the principle that good and nice are not necessarily the same thing; not saying how you would or wouldn't act in a given situation.

It's basically a philosophical method of being a little less self-centered. It also suggests that while objective offensiveness is possible (calling someone a harsh name, etc.), most of the time offense is taken rather than given.

It is one of my favorite principles from a religion that most who practice said religion almost entirely ignore. Puzzling.

There's nothing puzzling about this. Most people who practice any religion with written principles almost entirely ignore almost all of those principles. The official principles of a religion don't really have anything to do with why people affiliate to one or another.

It is perfectly fine to be super-nice as often as possible. But, the culture is "do not offend" dominate and almost void of "do not take offense".

This imbalance of cultural enforcement is likely a driving factor behind the younger generations view on enforcing standards of political correctness, social justice, etc. If you are offended then you are in the right, always, and without question.

Events where people get offended end up being reported online or in the media. Events where no one gets offended get no coverage, though that mind set is also very common. Additionally, extreme examples of "offensive behavior" are used by poth sides for political propaganda.

Take that with a grain of salt, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that suggests overlooking offenses (things like Proverbs 19:11) and obviously forgiveness is part of it. But I'm not sure "take no offense" is quite the main component of that creed.

For example suppose that a trans person takes offense at someone refusing to use their preferred pronoun. The issue may not actually be about the importance of the pronoun so much as it is about whether they have the social right to define the pronoun that is associated with them.

I think that the failure to understand this dynamic could be one of the causes of polarization in America. For example:

- Conservatives often criticize "political correctness" by mocking what they perceive to be overreactions to minor slights. However, that may be missing the point if the issue is not the magnitude of the slight but whether someone has the right to take offense at all.

- Anger over removing the Confederate flag may not be about the flag itself so much as it is about asserting that Southerners have a right to be treated with respect.

This seems extremely generous, and doesn’t match my impression of supporters of the confederate flag I have seen or heard about, many of whom live outside the former confederate states and have nothing to do with the South culturally.

There is a demand to be heard/respected involved, but the demand as far as I can tell is for recognition of white racial superiority and white social hegemony as a legitimate political ideology (which goes hand-in-hand with an implicit threat to non-whites), rather than anything about geography per se.

There’s also a strong element of defiance of what is seen as a subversive culture of pluralism and mutual respect, along the lines of: “I know this symbol is offensive to you, but I declare my right to wave it in your face because you can’t stop me.” This kind of militant offensiveness is attractive to the same sorts of people who “roll coal” to stick it to environmentalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal