"Someone who chooses to get offended about what others write or say" would be my working definition. I don't think being offended is a reasonable thing to be, generally.

Is getting offended about someone insulting you or who starts discussions which make people angry unreasonable?

I'm genuinely curious, maybe I misunderstand what it means to be offended.

Yes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.

"Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice.

And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?

We have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want.

The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.

I cannot remember the last time I got offended by an insult. A little bit of stoicism goes a long way. It is up to you whether or not you get offended by an insult. I typically choose self-deprecating humor as a response to insults instead of wasting my energy getting angry.

Quite the opposite. Offense is taken usually by people that want power.

As someone said, reasonably, that we have a system of law and order. If someone threatens you with violence, call the police.

I can understand this reasoning when it comes to personal insults. I understand it less when it comes to tolerating baiting, which takes time and attention from the original reason (work, fun, etc.) of the social space. Why is being offended by not being able to communicate unreasonable?

I'm also interested in your take in the kind of communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation. I guess it's similar to the above example, but it's more personal and threatens group coherence. What's your take on being offended by that?

re: baiting, if you take the bait, it's on you. If you don't think someone is being genuine, you're free to disengage. No one is forcing anyone into a conversation, especially online.

> communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation

If a claim is false, that's the most damning thing that can be said about it. Whether it's "offensive" (or whether you're offended) or not is irrelevant.

I see where we differ now: I've experienced that when you are being barraged with mud, some will usually stick, with the exception of maybe groups of close friends.

As such, I don't mean that you are the one who takes the bait, but other members of the group. Bikeshedding is so popular it even has a special name, and it affects the performance of the group relative to the original goal even if you're not the one who took the bait.

So while I agree that baiting/insulting it's not something to be offended about, I think the response should be effectively the same as if it was.

> intended to falsely undermine your reputation

I did not know that insults are capable of doing that. If the insult is based on something accurate, then what is wrong with it? Just realize it is based on reality and improve. If it is not accurate, then why give a damn?