The missing book chapter

Fighting Fire with Fire

There’s one chapter that I wish I had included in my book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage—Lessons for the Silenced Majority. That bonus chapter would have focused on what happens to people when they start fighting against the outrage machine. How it affects them psychologically. How it changed them and how the interact with the world around them. There’s hints of that interwoven through the chapters, but it’s not explicit.

Obviously, I advocate for people to use their voices and push back against those who tolerate no dissent. But HOW we do it is critical.

Over the last few years, I’ve observed far more push-back against those who seek to silence others or drown them out with narratives that have little to do with reality. But I’ve also seen people become what it is that they criticize—including people I’ve respected in the past.

Those who have been following me for a while know that I tend to avoid focusing on “left” or “right” (or upside down) but rather the behaviors that I observe. Do people resort to personal attacks? How well do they listen? Can they steelman those they disagree with? Are they good faith? Are they willing to change their minds if presented with the appropriate evidence? Are their arguments based on facts? Are those facts cherry-picked or are they intellectually honest? Do they bully others? How do they treat those they don’t like?

Those are all things I look for when evaluating someone and determining my own levels of respect towards them.

Unfortunately, in fighting what they’ve designated as the “enemy,” I’ve seen so many lose their way. I’ve seen them become those they hate, painfully unaware. Or, if they are aware, they dismiss it with statements like: “we’re tired of losing,” “we are just giving them a taste of their own medicine,” “their tactics work, so we must use them for ourselves,” “once we gain control, we’ll be moral again,” etc, etc.

I guarantee the “other side” (whichever it is) has at one point or another thought or uttered just the same. How do you think we got here in the first place?

It’s that old “fighting fire with fire” expression. But, in the words of intellectual powerhouse Lemony Snicket: “If everyone fought fire with fire, the whole world would go up in smoke.”

And I get it, there’s a side of me that is rather idealistic. I am aware of that. I’m idealistic, but I’m not naive. You can’t take down power without using power, I suppose, but there are ways to do it that aren’t as bloody, not as morally compromised. There are legal tools. There’s persuasion. There’s just the simple act of telling people the truth, or supporting others when they do. And telling bullies to stop when they target someone. There’s power in all these things too. The road to good intentions does not have to be paved with landmines.

Otherwise, why should I support one side over another, if both behave in ways that are at odds with my own morals? Is it merely because I agree with one more than another? Well, as those very people drift further to the extremes, I cannot say that I share so many agreements.

These days, I strive to surround myself with people who don’t necessarily share my exact views. Rather, I look at whether we have the same values and principles.

“Do no harm” is often cited as a medical oath, but, I strive to do no harm as a general rule, as a member of the general population.

There was much that has been said of the “mind virus,” especially as it relates to the “woke” but people tend to fail to spot it when they themselves become infected with it. Single-minded obsessions tend to be a good indicator of transmission. But the symptoms are many.

I’ve seen people become just as intellectually dishonest as those that they are criticizing. Many have become unwilling to engage in good faith, or speak at all. They assume your beliefs based on basic identity markers. They classify everyone who holds a different opinion with some unkind label, and so on.

It has became apparent that for some this was less about a particular freedom—like speech or open intellectual engagement—but rather a disagreement on specific views.

Well, I want to live in a world where I can talk to a socialist, a conservative, a full-on right winger, someone a flag collection or pronouns in bio, or a MAGA statement and a cross, and still treat each other with respect and grace, and not assume the worst of each other just because we disagree on specifics. I want to be able to understand why someone believes what they do, without immediately vilifying them. Their beliefs might be rooted in a fundamentally different worldview, or missing facts. It could be rooted in experiences, or lack of such. They could very well be wrong in their thinking or misguided, but it does not mean that they are automatically bad people, nor does it give others the right to treat them as if they are.

We can figure this out through an incredibly innovative tool that’s available to us in the 21st century: conversation.

I often get accused of being a “fence sitter.” I can assure you there’s nothing comfortable about a position where one is attacked by all sides. Not only that, but fences tend to be sharp and even my own bottom is not sufficiently padded. But, from this unpleasant position, I’ve also gotten to know all sides…from the extreme fringes to the center. I’m not indifferent or undecided on various issues of the day. I have opinions. Sometimes strong ones. I just don’t align it with a particular “side.” I’m perfectly capable thinking for myself.

In fact, I think the world needs more of these so-called fence sitters, who take matters one by one, independently of what any side thinks. But we are tribal in nature, so without a strong foundation of principles, we lean towards tribal consensus. Even if that tribe is just the “anti-neo woke.” It’s still a tribe.

And for some people, it’s more basic than that. Their whole identity has become so “anti” something, that they are unable to escape it. Their followers only engage when they take strong stances against things or groups they don’t like, so they must feed the monster, so to speak. Call it audience capture, or attention-seeking behavior. Or call it more blatantly: narcissism.

In some cases, perhaps many, I also suspect that it is a form of trauma response too. Even in my own case, with some distance, I can see that in the beginning, as a consequence of being mobbed, I was far more obsessed with all sorts of heterodox topics and in particular, I wanted to fix EVERYTHING. That was MY way of dealing with trauma. Others get really angry, or obsessed. Some indulge in their newly-found victim status. But wherever one lands as result of trauma, self-reflection is the prescribed treatment, if one wants to move past it.

These days, I’m far more interested in fostering good conversations and doing what is within my reach than attacking people I disagree with or riding the wave of self-righteous virality.

It doesn’t mean that I don’t have strong views on subjects I’m well-informed on, but it does mean that I’m unwilling to compromise my own values—even when it comes to dealing with those who wish me death.

The true battleground lies not in the extremes, but in the nuanced spaces between them.

I hope the combatants in the wars of ideology will find their path to occupying those spaces again one day.

---

Order my book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage―Lessons for the Silenced Majority —speaking up today is more important than ever.

---

NOTE TO READERS:
Thank you for keeping me company. Although I try to make many posts public and available for free access, to ensure sustainability and future growth—if you can—please consider becoming a paid subscriber. In addition to supporting my work, it will also give you access to an archive of member-only posts. And if you’re already a paid subscriber, THANK YOU!

☕️ By popular request, you can also support my work by making a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee.

Enjoy FREE Premium Membership for a Week! Sign up.