One can cause offence
without intending offence.
Offence can be based on incorrect interpretation of intent
or it can be based on the problems and ignorance implicit in the content
of its Utterers
To be offended is neither noble nor ignoble... this extends to when I am legitimately offended by hateful or willfully ignorant remarks.
In these latter two senses, I say that my being offended is neither noble nor ignoble
because nobility arises dependent on how I respond to my own having been offended.
I can blame the Other who has offended me, and attribute 100% of responsibility upon them to change their behaviour, apologise to me, or express a deep remorse... And this may be a justifiable response to those of us who have been hurt by racist malice, privileged ignorance, and so on.
But I cannot pretend that this is noble:
My resilience cannot rely on others changing.
Misunderstandings are a necessary by-product of civic development, even as they are unpleasant and often, retrospectively, "unnecessary"...
They are necessary in that all action and orientation toward cultural innovation involves risks. Risks that are sometimes dangerous enough to warrant our expulsion from the very polities in which we took them, if we fail.
When our racist ignorance has cost people their jobs or their opportunity for home and food, this is unacceptable and must be held to account.
At the same time, this holding to account cannot detract the "holder" from a firm conviction in our own Wholeness, already... in particular, our inseparability from the Offender who is being held to account.