I recently experienced two incidents that have made me once again return to the nature of offence. What is offence, why do we experience it, and when do (and should) we take it?

The importance of intent
The OED, the record of the English language, suggests that offence is as broad as 'wounding the feelings'. It is, in the widest definition, a subjective, personal experience bound by the rules of courtesy, and taking their place in the hierarchy of moral demands (if there is one).
On the other hand, someone's feelings can be hurt by the circumstances of life, with no moral implications whatsoever. A person's feelings might be wounded by failing to spear a fish whilst all alone on a desert island simply because life experience has demonstrated the person's lack of perfect skill. Yet it is only in a joking manner that anyone would suggest that life, or the fish, have offended the lone hunter.
Offence, to me, also involves deliberate intent. It requires another being to take aim at those feelings and launch a salvo.
Imagine that someone from the planet Zog, where the word 'reality' is a truly unacceptable dirty word, meets someone from La-la Land, where they typically use 'sanity' as their dirty word, and 'reality' is a perfectly acceptable description of their experiences. Neither has any familiarity with the culture of the other.
When the citizen of La-la Land uses 'reality' in conversation, who is at fault?

The assumption of intent?
I have been informed that saying things that are offensive to another is always blameworthy, but in this hypothetical situation (yes, 'hypothetical' is an adjective) I see no fault. If the citizen of Zog takes offence, surely it can be resolved by discovering their cultural differences? Personally, I would say that taking offence demonstrates a distinct lack of imagination, tolerance and openness, as the citizen of Zog is implicitly denying the possibility of any cultural differences despite knowing that La-la Land is far away and very different. Even when people are from more similar backgrounds, such as back here in reality, the point still holds: if another person otherwise seems inoffensive, why assume that something that you take to be grossly indecent is intended to be offensive?

But there's a second question. Once the two strangers have explained the differences, should there be offence if 'reality' is once again mentioned?
This disgustingly dirty word is so shocking that all Zog citizens have a Pavlovian emotional response; they have been conditioned to be ... what exactly? What words replace 'offence'? Are they hurt by a word, no matter the context? Are they angry and outraged that a taboo has been broken, and conformity lost?
I don't know. For me, offence comes from intent. If I were the citizen of Zog, I would need to consider whether my new acquaintance had said it deliberately, just to play on my dislike, or had used it the way he normally used it. It's offensive to me that someone would try to offend me, but the second option lacks the intent that I need in order to take offence.
But if he used the word in his normal way, there would still be a couple of options that some people might think are different. He might have temporarily forgotten about my dislike of the word, because he's so used to using the word normally, or he might have used it in its normal meaning despite remembering that I dislike it.

Where does responsibility lie for self-control?
Who should bear the burden of controlling themselves in order to avoid this arbitrary hurt to feelings? Should Zog expect La-la Land to change its speech, or should La-la Land expect Zog to understand its language?

Once again, I have been told that the burden is on the speaker. The speaker must make allowance for the emotions of the recipient.
I disagree. The problem arises from the hearer. It is the hearer's arbitrary response that is causing the problem. Furthermore, a speaker might have an intended target, but can be heard by many, who might have many different arbitrary emotional responses. A speaker cannot cater to them all.

In the language of Daniel Kahneman and his psychological studies, offence is a 'system 1' response: it is an intuitive shortcut that saves us time and the trouble of thinking things through to get to the right answer.
As he has extensively documented, we rely on such cognitive illusions extensively, often without realising that one exists. Just as when you see an optical illusion and cannot escape the appearance created by the circuitry of your optical system, so it is with offence and other mental shortcuts: the appearance of being right exists, no matter what logic seems to say.
But just as with optical illusions, intuitions must always give way to reasoned thought. We cannot base our morality on intuitions and shortcuts (even if that's how most modern philosophers do it nowadays).

By suggesting that the speaker must change, the hearer is effectively arguing that his own emotions are more the responsibility of someone else than himself! If the hearer is truly so devoid of self-control that his emotions simply follow sensory triggers with no interpretation or modulation then the hearer might be unable to take responsibility for anything (and belongs in a mental home for those incapable of taking responsibility for themselves).
But no matter how uncontrollable these emotions are, they remain the hearer's, and they remain subjective and arbitrary. They are arbitrary in the sense that although physical pain is universal (it follows painful actions for everyone except a few unfortunate people who lack the nerves but still suffer the physical harm), rude words mean nothing to people who speak other languages. Offence is a learned response; it is arbitrary in that is is dependent on our conditioning, just like Pavlov's dogs only drooled at the sound of a bell after being trained to associate the bell with food. Offence is built on notions of fairness and courtesy that we (mostly) have to learn or develop.

And yet when offence is taken at something another person does not intend to be offensive, it is distinctly unfair and discourteous. It implies malign intent when there was none; it places blame on someone for ignoring a responsibility the person did not agree to, nor possibly know he had. That seems to be to be completely at odds with the rational underpinning of offence, and is itself quite offensive because it says that an innocent person has transgressed; it labels a decent, honest person as ill-willed.

I can see no valid reason for giving other people responsibility for our own emotions directly. They can be responsible for nasty actions, that through their nastiness indirectly cause us bad feelings, but that's a very different situation. If we are to be responsible for each others' emotions, then I might meet you one day when I happen to feel grumpy, and respond to a cheerful greeting with a surge of anger. Your cheerfulness would highlight to me my own grumpiness, and make me feel bad about it, and so I could legitimately take offence at your negative effect on my emotions.
Yet actually, I would be the one being rude and surly; my own bad mood is my own business, and taking it out on others, especially those nice enough to greet me happily, is itself offensive because it is unfair and impolite.
I view emotions as, amongst other things, internal to the person who experiences them. As I mentioned in passing earlier, they are under the control of that person, who can learn to ignore them at worst, or learn to feel different emotions. But even if they are abstract influences on us, only manipulated by others, I do not think that they are a valid end measurement for morality. Morality and truth are not about the underlying emotions that people feel, but if they have any useful meaning at all it is in the fact that they are separate from our subjective whims.
A person's effect on your emotions is therefore not, in itself, any way to judge the morality of an action. The use of emotions to judge truth is a whole new subject which we'll leave for another time.

Examples of the wide-ranging impact of our notions of offence
This rather long discussion about something seemingly trivial, as it's relatively harmless compared to crimes and corruption, is actually very important. Notions of offence control all our dialogue, often in very problematic ways.
1. 'Fat-ism'
The fat crusade has taught us to avoid talking about obesity, or mentioning weight to fat people. It turns out that the truth is offensive; yet their emotional response, based on their own personal circumstances, ought to be thoroughly their own. If their emotional response is so detrimental to their health (panic-eating, or worse depression) that it really needs to be avoided, then such people need special homes where they can be safe from the truth. It is a big imposition to expect every other person to acknowledge, be permanently aware of, and careful to avoid all one's own insecurities and problems. On the other hand, it is much less rude to impute to a person the ability to behave rationally and be self-controlled, which is what a person does who speaks the truth.
For those of us who think that knowing the truth has intrinsic value, there's a further benefit to not having it censored.
The fat lobby has gone so far as to say that medical research is a conspiracy to make them feel bad (not all of them, I know). This demonstrates the extreme results that come from assuming that emotions trump truth. If emotions come first, then not only are 'everyday' conversations ruined (along with political and economic discourse), but emotions come before the progress of all humanity, as represented by research and the discovery of new truths.

2. Children
I recently had a brief exchange about the desirability of parents doing the best for their children at the expense of equality of opportunity. When I contrasted these two generally accepted ideas, and pointed out how they conflict, I managed to offend someone (on behalf of all parents) who found it unacceptable to label parents as immoral (because they destroy the chances of other children when they buy their own children advantages such as personal tutors in what should be a level, merit-based selection).
Just as with the unhealthiness of fat, or even the normal usage of the word 'reality' (or 'oriental' in the US and UK), the speaker is merely a messenger of truth as he perceives it. I am not insulting parents when I make a coherent argument from their individual actions to an overall undesirable result. The connection is real, and reality is no more offensive than the desert island was to our hunter all those paragraphs ago.
If parents really don't want to be connected to the undesirable result, with its moral connotations, they shouldn't shut down debate, or take offence to try to shut me up. A person is entitled to delusion, but is not entitled to have others support or partake in it. The parents should stop doing something that directly causes the problem.
The problem of children in public discourse is a wider one yet. It seems to be a universal assumption that children's lives are worth more than adults'. I assume that this comes from parents' devotion to their own children; their emotions for their own children make them sympathize with the loss of other parents. Yet this attitude that emotions can somehow dictate moral truth leads us to some deeply disturbing conclusions. If it's more of a tragedy when someone who is deeply loved dies, is it then acceptable to purge tramps and orphans from the world?
I have the view that human life is of equal moral worth. It might be offensive to people that I lack interest in the murder of a child, but it is not my fault that there is a deep hypocrisy in many people's opinions that my lack of interest demonstrates to them. The truth that valuing children highly necessarily implies valuing others less is uncomfortable to those who want the former without the latter, but it is not offensive of me to make them aware of this logical deduction.
If all this talk of child deaths is too much, consider the cases of corrupt dictators. It is commonly accepted that is right and proper for parents to do what they can for their children. Dictators' families often become millionaires or billionaires via the sale of national assets. Sometimes this is even done legally, as the dictator is able to make the laws. Yet the sale of a country's oil via shell companies in BVI for family profit is regarded as corruption.
We must accept that although it is right for parents to feel devoted to their children, it is also right for them to acknowledge a higher calling of behaving morally. Behaving morally is separate and distinct from any emotional drive or impact. In fact, many people would say that morality is a system specifically for controlling our emotional excesses.


3. Sexual advances:
the offence taken by women when men think that they might be interested in sex (or when men mention sex). A recent article in the Guardian was by a 'nerdy girl' who was annoyed when despite admitting her interest in sex and even hook-ups, she was told by nerdy men at a convention that women are not interested in sex. She pointed out that they were being stupid, as she had conclusively disproven that assertion.
As a comment on her article explained, the lifetime of being told you're sweet, the joys of being handsome only to family, and never having a woman make you feel attractive, contrast with the privilege of being a socially able, attractive woman. Hints that she thinks a man should take as obvious appear very different to someone who's experienced more practical jokes mocking him than genuine offers, or who has listened to a flirty woman complain about how another man mistook her friendship for something else.
I don't want to go too deeply into relationship and courtship issues, because there's far too much to say. The relevant problem here is that there are many women who not only show no interest in sex (possibly for social reasons, not because they really are uninterested), but who actively take offence when a man mentions it or thinks that they might be interested.
This is extra disincentive for a man to be open and honest with a woman who initially admits that she likes sex. Some women will say that at one moment, and yet be offended the next at the thought. Maybe they just feel like it gets too much too quickly, or they were dipping their toes in new attitudes that they don't really like, but by taking offence they create a barrier to other women, and men, having fulfilling relationships.
A man must be ever aware that assuming that a woman might want sex can lead not only to immediate rejection, but to unpleasant social consequences beyond that, even if he backs off as soon as she first tells him she's not interested. For a nerd, with limited social capital in the first place, that potential loss would be devastating. Social capital is a rare and precious thing that he cannot squander, unlike the popular men who can even rape their girlfriends and still have others keen to fill the vacancy.
Taking offence in this instance distorts a whole population's ability to achieve the relationships its members want, and communicate effectively about them.
As a side note, there are issues here about what one assumes about others. I have argued that one should not assume offensive intent, and yet here I am supporting the nerdy men who made an assumption. I think the assumptions are different; assuming offence is about expecting control of someone else, but assuming a lack of sexual interest is self-preservation and courtesy.
Nonetheless, it's worth noting that people do seem extraordinarily unable to deal with uncertainty, in all areas of thought (from scientific conclusions, through statistics, to ambiguous meanings and assumptions about meaning that should be delayed until proven through further enquiry).

4. New Atheism:
the fuss about Richard Dawkins' stupid tweet about Muslims. Wrong tweet, but I want to focus on some of the responses, which jumped straight to taking offence because he mentioned Muslims, without engaging with his arguments about how religion, and Islam especially at the moment, suppresses free thought, novel ideas and hence progress. Offence was a default response that bypassed the rational brain, and is so powerful that, like many cognitive delusions, the brain thinks it's right even after a little consideration. But you can't stop someone stating the truth as he sees it when so much is at stake by telling him that the truth is offensive. If religious people want Dawkins to shut up, they need to explain to Dawkins why it is not the truth; they need to engage and communicate as rational human beings, not preprogrammed automatons of offence.
Although if Dawkins were trumpeting obviously false statements he would be bigoted, no-one accepts the simple duty to explain why he's wrong. This is because it's a complex debate that Dawkins would stand a decent chance of winning; his statements are not obviously wrong.
Offence shuts down that enlightening and important debate, making atheists feel more marginalised and unaccepted, forcing them to adopt ever less nuanced and informative stances and thereby destroying useful public debate.


Whatever the emotional bubble is, it is not the responsibility of other people to leave it unpopped.
Offence can only ever prevent debate and discussion; it is, in most modern contexts, emotions taking the place of reason, rather than being guided by reason. Offence serves to hide the truth and censor speech.
I recognise that emotions are important in our personal lives. But if we make our emotions other people's responsibility, we accept the principles that underlie dystopian states. If I am responsible for your emotions, can I not feed you a new drug, called soma, that renders you permanently happy? And if we are all to bear responsibility for each others' emotions, should I not feed that drug to everyone? Having made you all happy and compliant, is there really any harm in directing your lives as I wish, splitting you into classes and otherwise dominating your lives, since your happiness remains completely assured?
For those who missed the reference to 1984, this is the basis of the fictional dystopian state that most people have roundly rejected as deeply disturbing. Of course, happiness does not have to come from drugs. Propaganda can control information, to make sure that you are happy. If offence, and therefore personal feelings, take precedence over truth, then it necessarily follows that censorship is completely desirable and necessary. Offence is censorship, but through social pressure and 'moral' implication, rather than physical or economic power. It is an attempt to control people.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19581
This article makes an interesting case that censorship and the restriction on what we say changes us for the worse. Censorship can come not only from deliberate restrictions on what is published, but also extreme consequences from misinterpretations of what we say.

There is only one reason we attempt to control people, and that's to prevent crime. We don't want people to commit physical actions that endanger others. That's what offence should be for. We don't want people to be malign or malicious: those things are offensive too.
It is possible for something to be rude even without intent; the lack of thought shows a lack of consideration for others and a selfishness that we cannot accept in society. But determining where the responsibility lies is a vital precursor to taking offence. There must be valid reasoning behind the emotion, or the emotion is false; it is an imposition on a completely innocent person, which is itself unjust.
So, is the truth offensive? Is injustice acceptable if driven by emotion? Are censorship and control necessary? Where do your priorities lie: truth, freedom and justice, or animalistic responses?