The Age of "Offence, On Demand"

Lately, I have begun to feel that we are all living inside a giant comments section. Politics, art, fashion, food, language, someone's haircut -- everything is now an invitation to be offended. And social media has made criticism so convenient that it has become our collective default setting. Scroll, spot, react, outrage, repost. 

Constructive criticism is valuable, of course. It keeps power accountable, points out harm, and occasionally stops us from wearing socks with sandals. But somewhere along the way, criticism stopped being a tool for correction and became a sport for public execution.

The algorithm, naturally, is the smug referee. It does not care whether we become wiser; it cares whether we stay longer. Nuance does not trend. Context has poor engagement. But a furious "How dare she?" versus an equally furious "How dare you be offended?" - Wah, full paisa vasool.

Every eyeball becomes a tiny vote for more conflict.

Recently, a friend wore a dress that offended a community. I know her: free-spirited, slightly dramatic, guilty of questionable playlists -- but not malicious. There was no ill intent, no agenda, no manifesto stitched into the hemline. Yet the internet assembled its usual emergency committee, and an apology was extracted. Case closed. Humanity saved. Somebody please alert the Nobel committee.

This is not to say that people's hurt is always imaginary. It isn't. Symbols can carry history; expression can cause real pain. But intention, context, scale and proportionality must still matter. If every discomfort becomes an offence, every disagreement becomes an attack, and every mistake demands a public surrender, we do not create a more sensitive society. We create a more frightened one.

And fear is terrible fuel for creativity.

Art has always walked ahead of approval. It asks uncomfortable questions, mixes the sacred with the silly, changes the familiar shape of things. A creative person cannot constantly work with an invisible tribunal seated in their head: "Will this offend someone, somewhere, at some time, perhaps in a 14-second clip taken out of context?"

That is not freedom. That is emotional VAT on imagination!

We are building a digital prison where the bars are made of anticipated outrage. Soon, before speaking, dressing, painting, writing or joking, we will all perform a mental risk assessment. "Is this safe?" will replace "Is this true?" And "Will this trend badly?" will replace "Is this worth making?"

The way forward is not to become insensitive. It is to become intelligent about sensitivity. We need to relearn the lost art of charitable interpretation: assume imperfection before assuming malice. Ask before accusing. Explain before cancelling. And, occasionally, close the app before declaring civilisation over.

We must hold people accountable for genuine harm -- but not turn every awkward moment into a moral apocalypse. Not everyone who offends us is evil; sometimes they are simply human, confused, careless, learning, or wearing a dress.

The corrective course is simple, though not easy: less instant outrage, more curiosity; less performance, more conversation; less "cancel," more "consider." We need thicker skin, softer hearts, and algorithms that are not permanently high on chaos.

Because a society that cannot tolerate being occasionally unsettled will eventually be unable to create anything original. And frankly, if we let fear dictate every brushstroke, every outfit and every idea, then creativity will not die with a bang.

It will die in the comments, with 4.7K angry reacts and someone typing: "This is problematic."