Tolerance required on both sides

I'M CONFUSED. I need to know how to live without offending the easily offended.

It's important, apparently, that we tip-toe around the issues that may or may not cause people to be emotionally or spiritually wounded by our verbal clumsiness.

Religion, politics, health topics - any of these are liable to cause offence to someone, and if even one person is upset, aggrieved, insulted or slightly miffed, then I have failed as a tolerant human being.

Tolerance is no virtue in parts of this world where each and everyone needs to be sensitive and easily outraged. Of course, the rest of the planet has to be tolerant of the resulting puerile outbursts of indignation and must be understanding of such distress, adapting their own behaviour so as not to cause offence again.

Is that really how it has to be?

Some of us - and I use "us" to cover all of Homo sapiens - are entitled to be shocked and scandalised and react in any manner we consider commensurate with the perceived affront, especially if said affront casts aspersions on our religion, politics or culture.

In such cases, the rest of "us" are advised to be tolerant and understanding, even if the reaction is a direct attack on our own values and culture.

The lesson here is that tolerance is a one-way street. Sympathy and understanding are symptoms of a society prepared to put up with the tantrums of other societies suffering from severe insecurity. If such societies weren't so old, it could be compared with juvenile delinquency, not just the bad behaviour of the egocentric and narcissistic.

I know where we fit into this picture.

Our enlightened indulgence of others, our ability to accept criticism of our own culture and our capacity to find humour in all things serious and sacred, have, in themselves, caused offence.

We're never going to win.