https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...terson/550859/

I was watching the interview embedded in this article, and heard the interviewer talk about "the right to not be offended". I've heard a lot of things people need or want asserted as "rights", but this one seems especially odd to me. Offense being such a subjective experience, it would seem to be impossible to avoid it no matter how cautious or pandering we try to be. Basic civility, sure. But cringing before every ridiculous little cavil doesn't strike me as desirable or even possible in day-to-day life. Especially since we seem so intent on looking for new reasons to take offense.

I think there's a great deal of distance between deliberate insult and micro-aggression, cultural appropriation, etc. I think you can be civil toward people or ideas you despise. Gentlemen used to courteously kill each other in duels. There may even be a positive ethical duty to ignore certain styles of weaponized offense-taking lest it warp our discourse into meaninglessness.

Or am I being too sensitive?