I will use the title “Ms.” here as I am unaware of Ms. Chawla’s preferred title and she did not complete a level of education to be titled as “Doctor.” Ms. Chawla is known for being provocative. Her quotes have often been taken out of context which can make them seem even more provocative than intended.
Her overall stance is that we need a “values reset” in society, that we have come to a place where people are too quick to press their opinions on others or claim that only one point of view is valid.
In that light I would say Ms. Chawla certainly expresses one point of view with her opinion here. Of course, another notable quote of hers is the quote that “even if something is objectively right we cannot force people to think it….” This is also true- you can’t make someone who believes Earth is flat think Earth is round unless they choose to make that change themselves. It isn’t my place to convince Ms. Chawla or anyone else this opinion is wrong-
- though in the fields of cognition, physiological anthropology, and related disciplines of behavior and thought tend to hold that opinion as the minority. The body of evidence suggests that feelings of offense, like most feelings, evolved for reasons relating to survival. It can be said that taking offense is at its core a form of aggression- or “counter aggression” that likely results when a person feels something violates an established survival imperative or threatens their sense of what is just or due. I suppose the concept of “weakness” is subjective enough and Ill defined enough that we could write papers (and people have) on what weakness is or what constitutes weakness- but in a survival sense the desire for more or a feeling one is due more would be the opposite- in that sense those who are hardest to offend could be considered weak as those are people who’s natural tendency is to accept legal life gives them or feel they are only worth what is given and thusly…
… could be inherently less likely to posses a drive or ability to assert change on the world. In other words- a person who is almost impossible to offend is more likely to be ok with poor treatment, or less likely to see treatment as poor because they simply don’t expect as much from others or the world. Of course- I don’t believe this is true either personally- it’s merely another viewpoint on the issue. The truth is more complex and to what degree a person takes offense may be some part biological and some part environmental. Several studies indicate that those who have more privilege or an “easier life” are less likely to be offended. Does having an “easier life” make one weaker? That’s another topic. However those who simply don’t have to deal with certain problems or who those problems aren’t chronic or severe for seem to be less likely to take offense easily. One theory being that they simply cannot relate or feel insulated from the things that are perceived as a threat to..
.. others who aren’t in their positions. In that sense we COULD say that being more easily offended isn’t a sign of weakness, but that being more difficult to offend could be able effect of having more power. As mentioned “weakness” is a broad term, but a “powerful” person in one regard can be weak in another- we’ve seen the fragility of the egos of some of the worlds most powerful politicians and leaders or business people for example, or the inability of these same powerful people to control their various urges and behaviors. It may seem paradoxical but a “powerful” person can still be weak mentally, morally, etc. Of course this is just another view point and not a definitive answer. There are too many variables for me to make or endorse such broad statements….
… consider this thought: if someone close to us dies, are we “stronger” people if we don’t feel emotional about it? If we don’t cry or miss them? If we don’t feel any “pain” from their passing- that doesn’t really take any strength does it? I mean- while you read this at least 10 people that you never knew existed died somewhere in the world. How much strength is it taking you to carry on knowing a random stranger died? Probably not more than it was taking you a moment ago right? So that’s another perspective.
Of course, another theory is that something like 20% of the population have a sort of increased feeling of empathy which may contribute to their being easily offended. It gets very philosophical if we ask wether empathy is a weakness or a strength, but of course each person and conflicting research and views define that for themselves.
Now, to Ms. Chawla’s point- there are numerous opinions and research papers that suggest that those who are particularly easily offended may not be so “altruistic” but are in fact expressing a self centered desire to feel validation. The same way that many people reject concepts like “social justice” because their world view and ability to feel “in their place” in society don’t allow them to reconcile those things, the opposite can be true. People who are able to see the world can be cruel or unfair but in their own lives don’t have those experiences can often latch on to causes or offenses because they have a psychological need to justify their place of comfort and security while seeing others suffer. By being “part of the cause” in their mind they can alleviate guilt or other emotions they feel for essentially living a charmed life while others don’t; and certainly this sort of faux activism is also sometimes a form of justification for people who don’t want to actually do anything…
… or sacrifice anything even though they are wrong in the world. That’s still a type of reconciliation of self image- most of not all people want to or on some level believe themselves to be “good.” We’ve all met patiently ignorant people who believed or held themselves up to be “smart,” people who will tell you how great they are at something when objectively they are not, or in your experience subjectively they are not. Humans who have perpetrated mass genocides and crimes against humanity generally didn’t go to bed feeling they were the “bad guys.” Histories defacto bad guys- the Nazis- did most Nazis and their leadership wake up everyday saying “another day of being the bad guy. Good life. Let’s spread evil.” No. Most believed they were ultimately “good” and that they were opposing “evil” from the communists or the allies….
… we tend to more easily forgive the “wrongs” we do and heavily credit ourselves off the “goods” we do or intentions we have regardless of deeds. In this sense, some percentage of people who seem “easily offended” may likely just be trying to create an internal or external narrative where they can get credit for “goods” to offset what they see as the “bads” in themselves. It’s a sort of defense mechanism most people have where we need to find a way which at the least allows ourselves to frame ourselves as “good people” and generally we want to be able to defend ourselves as “good people” or have others perceive is that way. So another point of view is that the easily offended may be essentially “acting out” their internal conflicts and using whatever issue as a means to resolve their own feelings.
Of course there are many more possibilities and theories. There are many papers and studies and such. Being that I am not a doctor of such matters I am probably not the best authority on the subject- I’m just a guy with life experience and some learned information who didn’t specialize enough in any particular field of the mind to be labeled as a doctor.
Like many things the “truth” of the matter is probably some combination and highly contextual without a broad answer that can be said to be universally right. As Ms. Chawla would say- even if I had the objective truth I could t make you believe it.
So in that regard your opinion is your own. If one believes Ms. Chawla’s message one also should recognize her view that forcing that opinion isn’t the way to go. Others will believe differently and that’s just life.
Her overall stance is that we need a “values reset” in society, that we have come to a place where people are too quick to press their opinions on others or claim that only one point of view is valid.
In that light I would say Ms. Chawla certainly expresses one point of view with her opinion here. Of course, another notable quote of hers is the quote that “even if something is objectively right we cannot force people to think it….” This is also true- you can’t make someone who believes Earth is flat think Earth is round unless they choose to make that change themselves. It isn’t my place to convince Ms. Chawla or anyone else this opinion is wrong-
Of course, another theory is that something like 20% of the population have a sort of increased feeling of empathy which may contribute to their being easily offended. It gets very philosophical if we ask wether empathy is a weakness or a strength, but of course each person and conflicting research and views define that for themselves.
Like many things the “truth” of the matter is probably some combination and highly contextual without a broad answer that can be said to be universally right. As Ms. Chawla would say- even if I had the objective truth I could t make you believe it.
So in that regard your opinion is your own. If one believes Ms. Chawla’s message one also should recognize her view that forcing that opinion isn’t the way to go. Others will believe differently and that’s just life.