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.
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?
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?