To describe the specific incident that inspired this headline would only distract from the point of the essay, so lets break it down to its essential parts. An event that I did not take part in that I was very much in support of and only observed remotely had amongst its component parts an element that I paid not much attention to at the time but which garnered considerable attention immediately thereafter. The attention to me seemed unwarranted, or not in line with the level of quality I conceived the component part to have.
As I went on with my day, distracted from work by the significance of the event that had happened that day, I continued to consume analysis and commentary on the significance and quality of the event, even though I had no strong opinions on the event, and mostly perceived it to be satisfactory and professional. Though one might think this kind of reaction to the event would have allowed me to move on from the event and return to my workday, my life, all of the other important business that could have and did await me, the frenzy of the week, and weeks, and month and months, and even years of shocking and ominous events that preceded this event left me in an anticipatory state of underlying dread, worry or concern, that another terrible event might occur related to the event that would upend all other events. I told myself this was unlikely, but after spending what had accumulated into years of telling myself and others that the destabilizing events were coming, and then in the past year, having them arrive, in forms both worse and less impactful than expected, I had come to an understanding that I would monitor this event as the final event, that if this event were able to be held without interruption or disruption from the eruption of competing or counter events, then I would no longer need to keep monitoring current events to see if I was right about the threats I perceived and might need to warn others about. Only subtly though, as my circle of influence was tiny.
The analysis of the event seemed in all other ways to mirror the event itself, being anodyne, uncontroversial, and largely pleasant. The only controversy arose around that component which some to most described as remarkable, and or transcendent, but which I had found lackluster or largely unremarkable. A little silly maybe, or silly maybe was how I perceived the enthusiasm for the component of the event. But silly moved quickly to irritating, and then confounding, and I suddenly found myself in fighting mode online and with loved ones in my attempt to convince others that the extraordinary component was in fact subpar. Or that I had the right to believe and to express that the extraordinary component was not extraordinary despite the opinion expressed by others that that the expression of such an opinion was a sign of low moral character and not aesthetics.
For the rest of the day I became consumed with a notion to prove the moral character of some of the people suggesting that I might have a poor moral character was also poor. Or low. I’d loaded up terms like infantilizing, tokenizing, and othering into the bomb bays. But I didn’t ultimately deploy them. More stewed on them. Stewed on the whole commentary surrounding the entirely concocted commentary of this otherwise not extraordinary component of a largely unremarkable event.
My fervor now seems ridiculous. And I am glad my participation in the online fracas about the component event was brief and unsatisfactory. Because there was nothing to be gained. The event was fine, the component part was fine, or better than fine. In hindsight it was a wonderful addition, and much appreciated for by those it was intended for. What the component part triggered in me was a dispute I did not have about the component itself, or the event itself, but a broader issue that was also minor and insular and not worth fighting about either, or at least not in this instance.
Which brings me to the point of this exercise. It’s too easy to pick fights with friends. It’s easy because they’re accessible, because they will respond, because they are likely to be vulnerable to an attack.
An enemy, a true enemy, in this case say a committed or even casual proponent of white nationalism, is much harder to engage in battle. To engage them would mean leaving the comforting bubble of one’s relations, and risking the return of that attention. But risking the return of their attention doesn’t only mean risking a response from them, but risking their interest in who you are, what you do, where you live, and who you associate with. And if they are the enemy you perceive them to be, this could mean risking a lot.
This, of course, assumes you are able to engage the enemy at all. A likely possibility is that the enemy will not engage with you at all, will in fact dismiss you and your opinions outright, much as you do theirs. Or the engagement may confirm only that each of you regard the others as fools who are not worth engaging with.
Also, leaving the comfort bubble to enter into enemy territory is likely to be an unpleasant experience. How much time do you really want to spend on the Daily Stormer, or the Daily Caller, or the Daily Wire? Do you even know what those sites are? How much easier is it to make a cutting remark on a mainstream social media platform about the comments of someone you know and generally share a similar worldview with. How much easier is it to passionately and even bitterly split hairs? Or just to take pot shots with the equivalent of verbal nerf guns?
I’m not trying to pass judgement. I’m trying to understand my own unproductive urges. The enemy of this post is wasted effort. The goal is to try and be a better thinker and writer.