I try to morally improve myself every day, and part of that involves meeting and speaking with other men from 12-step meetings. I check in with them, reach out when I feel stressed or distracted, and seek advice.
One common piece of counsel is to disengage from political writing, and reading, and arguing, and thinking. ‘You cannot influence the course of these national issues',’ the argument goes ‘so you shouldn’t trouble yourself.’ I think there is wisdom here: allowing political debates to overwhelm your emotional wellness or mental stability helps no one. However, practicing acceptance (the Stoic & 12-step discipline of radically considering the conditions and events of your life with equanimity, without reacting or inflaming or trying to change things) well should lead one to NOT become emotionally impacted by the news. At least not overly so.
One can engage in political debate and discussion without becoming captive to one’s passions. I do it every day, although some days it’s harder than others.
There’s also a bit of a fallacy here: you CAN influence events… perhaps not greatly, or even significantly, but national opinion is simply the collective opinion of millions and national policy is affected by national opinion. People in the U.S. change their minds about things every day and any reform or improvement in a democracy will usually involve raising awareness and changing minds and building support (before and during the efforts to organize and promote change).
Lastly, I want to make my most important point: bad ideas overpower good much more easily in an environment when the majority is silent, or nervous, or cowed. How many institutions have been saturated by radical (and frankly, crazy) ideas and proposals simply because the vast majority of the workers or students or customers feared loss of status or position and so chose NOT to make their voice heard? We often hear about marginalized groups these days, but anyone who has values or beliefs and is afraid to express them at work or in class or online IS marginalized. If the word doesn’t include those people than it is truly meaningless.
I read a piece yesterday about an insane (and disgusting) media scandal-we see them literally every day now-about the BBC promoting the quality of male ‘milk’-like secretions to nourish infants. “Part of the problem is that a lot of the actual experts in breastfeeding, many of whom I’m chatting to online as I write this piece - are too scared of losing their jobs to speak on this issue.” wrote
. I’m sure that she’s correct, and I’m equally sure that college faculty have kept quiet in their masses during debates about policing statistics or colonialism, and journalists have almost entirely opted to studiously ignore stories and statistics relating to immigration or ‘gender affirming care’ for minors.
These people are all cowards, and they have betrayed their professional ethical principles in order to avoid trouble or personal risk. Yet all of the doctors and scientists and “experts in breastfeeding” who know that bad ideas are profusing and keep their head down are also cowards, and professional traitors. Courage is foremost among the virtues which build great societies, and cowardice is the fundamental building bloc of totalitarianism (along with dishonesty).
I do not claim to be a subject matter expert or a specialist but I do believe I’m minimally informed and I’m always open to contrary data or opinions. I recently asked an advisor (who counselled that I disengage from these debates) whether they might intervene if they saw someone online supporting racial discrimination or genocide. He said he would… and was then unable to distinguish those (hypothetical) cases from these. Ultimately I think that I convinced him that I feel that duty compels me to improve myself and my society, and learning/reading/debating/discussing is simply part of that. During our conversation I used dramatic examples to illuminate my point: bad ideas have real world consequences. They can easily and unintentionally cause the deaths or maiming of thousands, or the impoverishment of millions. We certainly need different styles of engagement and debate (more polite, more rational, more compassionate) but we do not need less. We need more.
And if you benefit from a college degree or a professional certification or a management position and you encounter ideas or proposals which you believe to be harmful and insane do not let fear of the mob or concern for your personal wealth or status dissuade you from participating in the discussion. That’s not politeness, or acceptance, or inclusion… it’s cowardice.
This is a thread, made as such so that you can easily add your own observations or criticisms or comments.
Thanks for reading! Please like, comment, subscribe, and SHARE.
I want to say "Damn you, James," for making me consider that perhaps some of my recent inclinations to not speak on certain topics is out of an abundance of understanding that I am limited in my knowledge on certain topics. "That's not what I'm known for, if I'm known at all," I have reasoned. "This is not my area of expertise."
But I read, A LOT, and I listen to a fair spread of commentary and news from as many sources as possible when a topic catches my attention. I refrain from comment usually because, frankly, someone else, an expert usually in that topic, has already commented, and I don't feel I can contribute further to the discussion.
But now, upon reading your piece, I'm left wondering: 'Am I simply being a coward?'
I don't think it's ever an absolute 'yes' or 'no'. Surely many people who demur also want to preserve personal relationships, or avoid upsetting others... and those are worthy goals. I tend to believe that only licensed professionals and subject matter experts have a DUTY to participate. All others are ethically free to weigh in, or not.
Participating in these debates really can burden you mental health, or affect your friendships, or distract from your obligations. I know all this and I choose to weigh in anyway, but I try to avoid becoming associated with my views or becoming angry with or dismissive of others. Most importantly: I have considered the risks, and the costs, and I am prepared to bear them. That kind of commitment gives life a purpose and a simplicity that is truly valuable... but I don't think it's for everyone (or even most) and I don't think it SHOULD be. Most people just want to live their lives.
My pleasure. As I've said in the past, I'm mostly just a dad, husband, and genre fiction storyteller. My only 'expertise' stems from years in martial arts, watching and analyzing football, and the art of narrative. Everything else? I'm functional, at best.
Another, usually unmentioned, aspect of this particular perversion is that breastfeeding not is an issue of milk, but of bonding, and a particular type of bonding. And it is NOT GOOD that a man would be involved in that kind of bonding.
I want to say "Damn you, James," for making me consider that perhaps some of my recent inclinations to not speak on certain topics is out of an abundance of understanding that I am limited in my knowledge on certain topics. "That's not what I'm known for, if I'm known at all," I have reasoned. "This is not my area of expertise."
But I read, A LOT, and I listen to a fair spread of commentary and news from as many sources as possible when a topic catches my attention. I refrain from comment usually because, frankly, someone else, an expert usually in that topic, has already commented, and I don't feel I can contribute further to the discussion.
But now, upon reading your piece, I'm left wondering: 'Am I simply being a coward?'
I don't think it's ever an absolute 'yes' or 'no'. Surely many people who demur also want to preserve personal relationships, or avoid upsetting others... and those are worthy goals. I tend to believe that only licensed professionals and subject matter experts have a DUTY to participate. All others are ethically free to weigh in, or not.
Participating in these debates really can burden you mental health, or affect your friendships, or distract from your obligations. I know all this and I choose to weigh in anyway, but I try to avoid becoming associated with my views or becoming angry with or dismissive of others. Most importantly: I have considered the risks, and the costs, and I am prepared to bear them. That kind of commitment gives life a purpose and a simplicity that is truly valuable... but I don't think it's for everyone (or even most) and I don't think it SHOULD be. Most people just want to live their lives.
Thanks for your response.
My pleasure. As I've said in the past, I'm mostly just a dad, husband, and genre fiction storyteller. My only 'expertise' stems from years in martial arts, watching and analyzing football, and the art of narrative. Everything else? I'm functional, at best.
Another, usually unmentioned, aspect of this particular perversion is that breastfeeding not is an issue of milk, but of bonding, and a particular type of bonding. And it is NOT GOOD that a man would be involved in that kind of bonding.