As a self-identified misanthrope I've always prioritized quality over quantity
when it comes to relationships. Combined with being an Internet user since
before the birth of the web, it's always felt to me like just being on social
media is the equivalent of dropping a ball of sodium in a bucket of water: For
whatever reason, regardless of how diplomatic and neutral I tried to be, my
very nature apparently made violent reactions inevitable. Small wonder that
I've basically abandoned the online sphere in favor of other forms of
interaction - I don't like the false dichotomies of 'real world' or 'real
life', and I've always viewed the term 'meatspace' with distaste regardless of
who was saying it. And yet here I am again, sharing my unsolicited opinion,
throwing it out into the waters. Paddle to the sea. Why bother in this
particular forum? Why ask why?
Most of us don't go around offering unsolicited opinions, let alone shoving
other people's faces into them like disobedient dogs. Certainly at this point
in my life I'm no exception; I have a small remaining handful of trusted
individuals, and whether I'm talking to one of them or the rest of the world,
I'm as harmless as a kitten up a tree. Just as I avoid a great deal of violent
crime by avoiding places and situations where it's more likely to happen, I
avoid conflict of any kind as much as possible. In the old days of the
eighties and nineties people would say, "I just don't let myself get sucked
into drama." Which is fine and dandy - until you notice that a good number of
these people have little to no qualms about starting what they supposedly try
to avoid getting sucked into. And unlike a lot of other false equivalences, I
can attest from personal experience as well as worldly observation that this
indeed happens on all sides. No matter where a person stands, sits or lies on
the political and cultural spectrums, as economist Carlo Cipolla noted, there
is an equal chance of being stupid - and of going through life with a chip on
one's shoulder and a challenging, confronting statement at the ready to
brandish as proof of identity and superiority. If it's supposed to put an end
to the discussion, it does that all too well.
A dear friend of many years, one of those few and precious trusted
individuals, like me bemoans the loss of so many friends and comrades whose
bodies have seemingly been snatched, who now recoil from us in fear and
loathing while hurling up virtual crosses and pointing fingers of accusation.
Unlike me, he's still angry and confrontational enough - and optimistic,
though he might scoff at that label - to try to communicate with the rest of
the world. And unlike most of the rest of the world, I know that he has a lot
more to say than just being angry.
Problem: If you speak and no one else listens or hears, if you write and no
one else reads, it won't make a difference to anyone but you. The question
becomes: Are you interested in throwing virtual Molotov cocktails, or in
mending fences and building bridges? I know my friend is one of those who can
do both. I think that increasing despair is part of the reason he leans more
toward the Molotovs, and I certainly understand and sympathize. But for many
reasons, I'm inclined more toward fences and bridges; at most now and then a
sharp but good-natured pinprick, from a porcupine who's uninclined to back up
any further. My anger is silent and bitter cold, a tiny cube of ice that stays
locked away in an insulated compartment. It keeps the rest of me cool,
tempering my empathy by making sure it's in tune and in balance with all my
other values. It informs every statement I make in every form; it is the
silent and reflective pause of careful thought beforehand, in my ever more
common choice to refrain altogether from speaking, typing or hitting SEND.
Since what I want is to actually communicate - to be understood, and to
understand - this obviously tends to cut down on a great deal of potential
human interaction. I could wish we lived in a different world, but you can
only be the change that you want to see to a certain point, and everyone has
to determine that point for themselves - I've determined mine according to my
desire for physical safety and social harmony. The discussions I do have are a
joy and a balm to my soul, broad and far-reaching and in-depth beyond words;
no matter what label these individuals give themselves, no matter what they
deem sacred or taboo, no matter what supposed disagreements they think they
have with me, they all continue to give me - as far as I can tell - nothing
but honesty and love.
At one point over the last decade, I was told by someone who subsequently
ghosted me, "You weren't expressing political opinions. You were pissing
people off. There's a difference." Regardless of intent, while mulling over
these and other issues, I asked this friend above what he wanted to accomplish
Was it to piss people off, or was it actually - genuinely and honestly - to
start a conversation? And despite his anger and despair, for the most part
he still just wants to have intelligent conversation with actual normal
reasonable people who use at least a few percent of the brain God or Nature's
God gave them. So the next reasonable question I asked was, why do you think
you're going to get that in any of these venues that are designed to do
nothing more than suck up all your personal data, sell you shit and set us all
at each other's throats?
Because, and this is where most technical people would have started the
discussion, he's also concerned about privacy. Aren't we all! But from who?
And a million other questions that spring to mind. Personally I think most
people today who live in one of the Five Eyes countries have a lot more to
fear from corporations than from government, even if their politics are of a
dissident flavor. Being a good leftist (so he says), my friend naturally does
see a danger from corporations, but (in my opinion) is still stuck in the past
in that he sees a generally greater threat from the state. But as I pointed
out, it's all about your threat model . When he said that most of his
incendiary critique would be aimed at his fellow leftists who he feels have
betrayed their principles, I pointed out the obvious, that his greatest
potential threat would be from those camps.
This has gone on more than long enough, but in closing: It doesn't just matter
what you say, and how you say it, and how you present yourself. It also
matters where you say it. If my friend goes onto some random message board
that allows anonymous posting, or a heavily partisan forum known for fomenting
lunatic thought and action, he's going to get a certain type of response.
Assuming that he presents his case in a diplomatic fashion that makes it clear
to any reasonable person his goals are positive and not destructive, he would
be far better served and serving if he were to present that case to a group of
people like himself - who for whatever reason, from whatever perspective, are
tired of the insanity. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to answer why
it might be difficult to find such people, and why they might be reluctant to
make their opinions known.
