You may have heard this one before. Say I came up to you, glanced at the mop on your head and started going at length on how blue is a silly choice of hair colour. How ridiculous it looks with your skin tone and really, who even has blue hair at your age? Chances are, you would be more confused than upset, because you don’t, in fact, have blue hair (in this illustration, at least).

Now if the subject changed from hair colour to hair cut; perhaps your reaction may vary. Where does the difference lie? Is one aspect more objective than the other, or are both still opinion-based remarks? It’s why only jokes that resonate sting. Yet, it’s trendy to pin any offence we feel on the commenter, instead of reflecting on why we’re offended.

Somehow, the reins of our own emotions no longer belong to us.

We have freely surrendered them into the hands of the people around us; whose responsibility it is to make us feel better about ourselves. Sure, there are misguided souls out there spewing ill will. Like calling for death to an entire race, as opposed to condemnation of their government.

You could classify "anti-" statements as "hate speech", but what did we call it before the term was invented? Like hypothetical me insulting your hypothetical blue hair, the only emotion the situation would evoke is sympathy for my clearly impaired judgement. It’s almost a guarantee that if anyone speaks negatively to or about others in a way that’s not meant to be constructive, it’s a reflection of how they talk to themselves internally.

Whether you realise it or not, unkind words often stem from a desire to elevate ourselves by tearing others down …except we’ve muddled the lines of what constitutes feedback. Pushing it to the extreme where any sentiment that does not align with our chosen school of thought is deemed “hate speech”. Doesn’t matter if it is objectively beneficial and scientifically true.

Thought experiment ad break:

Your niece struggles with body image issues. She’s skeletal and her thinning hair is falling out in clumps, but she continues in bulimic behaviours because she thinks she could afford to lose a couple more pounds. It takes a madman to encourage or even celebrate her misguided self-perception. Or, an internet mob that does not genuinely care for her health. Or, corporations that stand to profit off her delusion.

Because funnily enough, speaking against body dysmorphia in the opposite direction is considered fat shaming. Obesity is a right. An entitlement to two seats on an airplane, if you will. See, we advocate for diversity from on-screen representation to hiring practices.

We endorse different body types, ethnicities, ages, and relationships. But we draw the line at perspectives. We are barely willing to listen to one we disagree with, even if we are not forced to accept it. In America, we quite literally shoot them down.

But the most dangerous folk to have in your corner are enablers.

Voices that have a stake in promoting an echo chamber over your personal well-being. That flatten the nuances of life into a one-dimensional Right VS Wrong side to pick. That earn off your screen time as you furiously scroll down the algorithm’s rabbit hole.

That—most detrimentally—dehumanise any community that does not conform to ours. To quote common Stoic thought: We don’t attain happiness by eliminating all triggers, but when we learn to deprive the triggers of their power to affect us.