Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What examples of people being offended, for being called out for what, did you have in mind? Just very simple things, like if you were to suggest to someone evidently overweight to perhaps move around a little more or watch their diet, they (or other people for that matter) are likely to call you judgemental and be offended.
Which is a totally understandable reaction, since you overstepped a line and pretended you have the right to judge others. In my book, you only have the right to do this with your children, until they are 18 or something. After that, you are just being a dick.
1. Nobody has a right to judge others. 2. I judge everybody who disagrees with me to be dicks.
Either your own rulebook applies to everyone except you (hypocrisy) or your premise is false (selfcontradction). If you hold that people should not pretend they have the right to think at others, then you should stop doing so yourself. Or is it not the freedom of thinking but the freedom of speech you dislike? Of course because you yourself enjoy your right to judge others (and have done so here) it follows that your premise is false. Thus, everyone has a right to judge others. QED
The opposite claim is less wrong: nobody has a right to be free of judgement from others. To argue otherwise reduces to: I don't like shame, so I deny its validity by blaming others. Being shameless is some kind of behavior disorder predicate, not a virtue! For example here is some random guy in Arkansas who writes about these topics:
"when disturbed characters do perceive that someone is judging them in a negative manner, they easily think that it’s the other person who has the problem."
Source: https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/shameless-and-guiltless-thinki...
The social implications topic came up centuries ago in the Federalist v Antifederalist debate. Where IIRC there was a line of reasoning that the new USA didn't need certain organs of power (law enforcement?) because the 'coercive force of shame' within communities was sufficient to self regulate. I haven't read this stuff for decades but as I recall the counter argument went like: yeah maybe for you guys up north but that only works in your homogeneous post-puritan monoculture... down here in the south we have slave revolts to suppress, er property rights to enforce.
On a lighter note, this whole topic reminds me of:"oh you strenuously object?" from A Few Good Men: