I was recently discussing the whole Joe Rogan/Neil Young/Spotify controversy on a friend’s Facebook page.
Ultimately after explaining and explaining my position and going on and around in circles, I just blocked her and walked away. I never used to do this. I used to believe that the remedy to speech I disagreed with was more and more counter-speech, but after a number of years of experience and observation (and a lot of time spent online getting angry and being miserable), I have changed.
I am totally at peace with blocking and walking away.
As my friend, Mark Greene told me, so it he: “Pretty much my philosophy. I’m a firm believer in QuickBlock™” But not everyone is, and many have reservations or bad feelings about walking away or blocking. I used to. But not anymore.
Here are the three reasons why:
1. I have a limited amount of bandwidth.
I enjoy sharing and listening and speaking but going round and round with a stranger on the Internet for days is kind of pointless.
It also detracts from my ability to use my bandwidth on myself friends and loved ones in my real life.
As a result, its bad for my mental health.
2. Certain people aren’t worth it, and your disagreeing with them, doesn’t change that.
I’m pretty sure I don’t want to be friends with or waste time “educating” someone who demands more context to a guy using the N word fifty times before judging whether it’s okay or not.
It’s not.
Do your own work. Be a decent person who is open to listening to valid criticisms of what you believe or feel.
Or you’re not worth talking about it.
3. Only the pig ends up happy when you both get dragged into the mud
I paraphrase an old expression that someone once shared with me:
Don’t jump into the mud with pigs, because all that happen is you’ll get filthy and they will love it.
There’s a reason that Ben Shapiro is always screaming ‘DEBATE ME’ but smart people don’t take him up on it. It’s not because “they’re afraid.” It’s because debating him doesn’t change anything and it only gives him and his “ideas” a degree of undeserved legitimacy and a larger platform/reach.
Endless debate isn’t the solution to this.
Sometimes debate can be constructive. But not always. It depends on the context.
—
If you liked this article, you may also be interested in the following articles, also by Michael Kasdan on The Good Men Project:
Point/Counterpoint: Is It OK for Liberal White Men to De-Friend Over Politics?
Jude Mikal and Michael Kasdan present competing views on how to navigate politics on Facebook.
Facts, Shmacts: How to Spin Truth in Support of Your ‘ism’ (In Four Easy Steps!)
Mike Kasdan breaks down the playbook repeatedly employed by those who deny racism, sexism, climate change, and even the Holocaust.
Online trolling by way of the ‘Sealioning’ technique, as discussed in We Know. You Think You’ve Already Read All There Is To Read About Joe Rogan, Neil Young, and Spotify. Read This Mega-Issue Explainer Op-Ed Rant Anyway.
—
This Post is republished on Medium.
—
Photo Credit: ShutterStock
Do you worry about becoming too ‘knee-jerk’ with the blocking? Now granted, typically there’s not much too be gained where one or more positions are so deeply entrenched as to become completely inflexible; but do you worry that, over time, the easy availability of a ‘block’ function will erode both a measure of tolerance, and of mental agility? I mean, like junk food, bad habits are easy to develop if the sources are easier to reach for. If we never have to defend our ideas or reasoning (even to ourselves) doesn’t our mental agility suffer, like a muscle that atrophies… Read more »