I would counter that if you are at a networking function with your customers that you should consider yourself the face of your company and act accordingly.

I don't blame them for developing a dislike for Oracle after an Oracle representative mistreated them. Their whole purpose in being there was to put face time in with past and future customers and engender positive connections and they failed.

I would say two things were equally wrong in the OPs anecdote: one person was offensive, and one person was offended. While it seems just to entirely blame the offensive person, ego is a thing not good and taking offense is a choice. Unless physically striking someone, it is not possible to hurt someone's feelings. Feelings are important, no doubt, but feelings are entirely the responsibility of the feeler. One may have to think about where feelings come from and how they are actually caused to realize this. Every individual is responsible for their own actions and themselves, for their own body, and for their own body's releases of their own hormones, adrenaline, noradrenaline, cortisol, or whatever it is that is the actual functional cause of the feelings. Taking offense is just as bad as offending. Humility, ducks back, this is ideally what should occur when someone is offensive, but... of course, people should not be offensive, either, they should be kind and empathetic. No one is perfect, but if they have two cheeks, one always has the opportunity to emulate perfection. A lot of people are rude jerks sometimes, but rather than taking offense, we can choose to be awesome instead.

So if I call a Black person the N-word or address a Jewish person with an antisemitic slur, and this bothers them because it reminds them of how society has long dehumanised them and enslaved and murdered their peers simply for being born into that classification, etc, it is as much their fault for not having a handle on their hormones as it is mine for having said that thing?

It may be the case that some of us can choose whether or not to be offended in any kind of circumstance, but that doesn’t prove everybody can, just like many people not simply being able to think themselves out of major clinical depression. It would be strange to blame them for this.

Edit: grammar

I would say most theories are overly simplistic for classifying humans. However here are a few I've found helpful.

1. Your feelings typically say more about yourself than about another person. Use them for self reflection.

2. Feeling wronged when someone is an asshole is just. Learn to create boundaries and find ways to separate yourself from such people, both physically and emotionally.

3. Very few things are made better by being obsessively angry. Learn what is causing your anger, work through it and confront people you want to keep a relationship with.

Most of all, try to always give others the benefit of the doubt, and if they ask forgiveness grant it. If they prove themselves repeatedly unreliable than form the appropriate boundaries, but still treat them with the respect that any person deserves.

> Feeling wronged when someone is an asshole is just.

"When someone hurts you, be hurt."

This is not the way. Instead, be tough and say, nothing can hurt me.[1]

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/stick...

A wise man once told me (and others), never get offended. Being offended is just you with your dander up. It doesn't do anything other than ruin your day. So instead of getting offended, he said, get even. Work to make whatever was offending you stop or change. That's a good use of your energy. Spouting the vitriol of offense... isn't.

I've never seen taking offense the same way since hearing that.

> it is as much their fault for not having a handle on their hormones as it is mine for having said that thing?

Your comment is a loaded straw man, and you've confused being offensive and taking offense as a single event when it is two separate and distinct events. I never said anything about fault. I only referred to responsibility. Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own actions. Taking offense is an action. Even if an individual's emotional response is involuntary, that individual alone is responsible for their emotion.

I can tell you that being thin-skinned is just as much a symptom of mental illness as being offensive, and they usually go hand-in-hand: the most offensive individuals are usually also the most overly sensitive individuals.

> Taking offense is just as bad as offending

Why would you think that? If I, entirely by my own choice, take offense then I've only hurt myself. Hurting yourself should always be much less worse than hurting someone else.

Taking offence can certainly be weaponised.

True. I think we should not lack empathy, for sure, 'giving material offence' is much worse than feeling it obviously - but the aggrieved will weaponize it, and it's quite common.

> Unless physically striking someone, it is not possible to hurt someone's feelings. Feelings are important, no doubt, but feelings are entirely the responsibility of the feeler.

I get where you’re coming from, and in most cases there is a large amount of truth to this. But your statement, as absolutely as you have expressed it, is a bold claim and needs more backing up.

If people could simply choose to be free of sadness, depression, or anxiety, we would - we’d all just decide to be happy all the time. We have more agency over our feelings than we think, but still only some.

Perhaps you were making your statement with people of privilege in mind. People of privilege walk around with fewer open wounds, retain an accordingly larger capacity for resilience, and are much more able to take your advice to heart. However, it is also good of them to be mindful of their conduct for the sake of those who aren’t in that position.

I've heard it described as going through life with a battery that isn't 100% even when it charges to 100%. It's accurate.

Agency really doesn't matter to responsibility. "I didn't mean to step on your foot." We are responsible even for our own involuntary actions.

I feel like you skipped the core of his message and replied to something else entirely. It's the second sentence.

> because the CEO/Director of a massive multinational conglomerate with 100 000 employees didn't arbitrarily have time for you?

The whole point of inviting people to such an event is to make them feel that the CEO does have time for them. Why else would he even be there?