Diversity does not concern only different skin colors, religions, cultures, traditions, or ways of living and perceiving oneself, but also—and above all—the existence of different ideas. Now, simply because different ideas exist, some of them will inevitably end up offending some people. What, then, should we do? Should we all fall silent in order to avoid offending one another? If that were the case, we would build a society in which no one would any longer be able to defend an idea, take a stand, or fight for something they believe in.

Offense, therefore, is not something we must eliminate at all costs in the name of diversity. On the contrary, as the Canadian writer Irshad Manji points out with particular clarity, offense is the price to be paid for achieving authentic diversity: that of a truly pluralistic society, made up of individuals capable of taking clear positions on what they consider acceptable or unacceptable, while remaining aware that such positions can evolve over time through the exchange of ideas.

Understanding this aspect is particularly important in the current historical period, characterized by a progressive flattening of public debate, in which dissenting voices are increasingly silenced or even censored.

Preserving freedom of speech and ensuring space for dissent, without censorship, therefore becomes a matter of paramount importance.

The risk today, increasingly concrete, is that of a flattening of differences—ethnic, cultural, individual—functional to the creation of a “herd” dominated by a single vision. A sort of herd immunity, but against differences and freedom of thought.

This attempt to dissolve personal identities takes place within a society that is already deeply fragmented, in which a growing number of individuals experience a sense of separation, isolation, and a lack of authentic and satisfying human relationships.

This is accompanied by a widespread perception of meaninglessness, of an absence of meaning and purpose in existence, often tinged with a formless anxiety that is managed almost exclusively through a generalized reliance on psychotropic drugs.

It is important to grasp the level of structural fragility affecting such a society.

In such a context, it is enough for an ill-defined elite to promote a narrative capable of giving a name to that widespread anxiety and channeling it into a collective battle. Suddenly, the individual feels part of a community, no longer isolated, engaged in a struggle that gives meaning to an existence otherwise perceived as empty. This is how, in plain sight, a phenomenon of collective hypnosis can emerge, typical of the processes through which totalitarian regimes take shape.

The fundamental characteristic of such a herd, dominated by a single vision, is the progressive disappearance of individual differences, autonomy of thought, and critical capacity.

To keep the hypnotic state alive, it is naturally necessary to identify an enemy: someone to fight, defeat, and, when needed, recreate.

The greatest difficulty in awakening from this condition lies in the fact that some injunctions of groupthink take the form of good intentions.

An emblematic example is the imperative “do not offend.”

It is enough to observe how, during recent crises, people who express critical and constructive thinking with respect to the dominant single narrative—for example by questioning government directives that are often devoid of real meaning—are quickly silenced with the accusation of being disrespectful or offensive toward victims.

What would instead be necessary is to carefully reexamine the very notion of respect, which has nothing to do with the absence of confrontation. If anything, the opposite is true: denying another person an intellectually honest confrontation is, in itself, a form of disrespect.

In the deafening silence produced by the erasure of public debate, the most vulnerable minds gradually shut down, trapped in an ever-deepening cognitive dissonance that makes any possibility of emancipation difficult.

It is in moments like these that one must remember the central value of freedom: the only gift capable of guaranteeing individual and social progress.