# Insights from Engaging with Reactionaries on Social Media
Written on
Engaging with opposing viewpoints can be challenging yet enlightening. As John Stuart Mill eloquently stated, understanding both sides of an argument is crucial for forming a balanced opinion. His words inspired me to converse openly with anyone, regardless of their stance, which has profoundly shaped my perspective.
Disclaimer: I do not presume that my dialogues will change the minds of those entrenched in racism. Many anti-racist activists believe that confronting racists will lead to significant change, but I remain doubtful of this notion. My motivations are not purely altruistic; they stem from a desire to explore the darker aspects of human nature without guilt.
In discussions with individuals like "HOUND," I often find myself indulging in the thrill of intellectual sparring. I take pleasure in dismantling anti-Semitic arguments, and I assure you that these individuals are indeed racist. I have investigated their beliefs and can confirm their prejudices. So, how do I reconcile this while still humanizing them?
I like to think of myself as a resilient presence in the turbulent environment of social media, much like the resilient bacterium Deinococcus Radiodurans, which thrives in extreme conditions. Alternatively, I could see myself as a modern-day Dexter, planting seeds of doubt in the minds of those who endorse race warfare.
Many anti-racists seem to believe there is a clear demarcation between their moral high ground and the racists they oppose. However, I contend that this divide is as superficial as skin deep. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn expressed, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart, and it shifts over time based on circumstances.
I find the desire to expose and eliminate racists tragically misguided. This urge often stems from a wish to alleviate white guilt rather than a commitment to advancing humanity. In Western society, many appear paralyzed by the fear of being labeled "racist," leading them to preemptively accuse others to avoid that label themselves.
To ease your conscience, let me share this: you cannot erase your complicity in injustice. So let's acknowledge it. As you read this on a device produced by exploited workers, take a moment to breathe and reflect.
Addressing the world's evils is far more complicated than it seems. Most simple issues have been resolved, leaving us with deeply rooted problems. Hate cannot be vanquished through hatred; that strategy simply does not work.
My Philosophy: Radical Humanism
A century ago, people fought fiercely in physical trenches; today, our battles unfold online. In this era of social media, we are all keyboard warriors. I believe that as a human being, every culture is my heritage, and every historical figure is a part of my identity.
From Socrates, I learned the importance of self-awareness. From Sun Tzu, the significance of understanding both oneself and one's adversary. From Jesus, the necessity of loving one's enemies. My approach combines these teachings.
While my methods may seem objectionable to some anti-racists, I focus on humanizing my "opponents." As I strive for the reunification of humanity after millennia of division, my intentions stand in stark contrast to the white identitarian reactionaries I engage with. Yet, they are still part of the broader human community, deserving of some level of empathy, even while I challenge their views.
I anticipate that these "race realists" will be outraged by my openness, as I often challenge their egos in ways they are unaccustomed to. The issues we face are far broader than the individuals involved. If you have not watched "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix, I urge you to do so; it reveals how technology is manipulating our minds for the benefit of platforms and advertisers.
Our technology is radicalizing individuals, compelling me to advocate for loving the sinner while opposing the sin. If you seek further insight into redemption for even the most problematic individuals, consider Christopher Piccolini's enlightening talk.
If my article fails to resonate, that's acceptable. Most whose opinions I value have long since passed. So, to those who feel righteous indignation, feel free to share your criticisms; I welcome them.
Now, let's delve into a recent dialogue I had on a public Facebook page, edited for privacy and clarity. The names have been altered to protect the not-so-innocent. I hope you find it as engaging as I did.
ORIGINAL POST — PAL:
“Neutrality is an admirable ideal that is no longer affordable.”
JESSE: What exactly is the plan for “making a stand”? Are we rounding up dissenters for re-education?
Just like antifa members seem to parallel fascists when they confront individuals, you remind me of communists plotting revolutions. It's ironic how people become what they profess to despise.
Isn't it a bit melodramatic to label others as “evil hordes”? Perhaps those “Marxists” you fear would settle for fair wages and reasonable hours?
PAL: Let me know when right-wing groups engage in sustained terror, vandalism, assaults, and looting.
When individuals start losing jobs for disagreeing with conservatives, then you may have a case for your claims of people evolving into what they despise.
MOPEY: Who is this “y’all” you accuse of being melodramatic? Where's your evidence?
JESSE: PAL, I think it's absurd for you to play the victim in this context. You either lack understanding or are intentionally misleading. The reality is that right-wing and white supremacist terrorism has been the predominant issue in 2020.
MOPEY: How did you connect “neutrality is unaffordable” with “rounding up dissenters”? That seems a stretch.
PAL: It’s not white supremacists who are causing chaos in major cities. They aren't the ones terrorizing or vandalizing.
MOPEY: It's astonishing that some genuinely believe that!
JESSE: MOPEY, read FRITTER's comment; it reveals a lot.
PAL: Is it really so shocking that incels are classified as terrorists?
MOPEY: So, one person's quotation makes it “y’all”?
JESSE: PAL, you don’t appear to have read the report or considered recent incidents. I’ll leave you to contemplate that, as it seems you prefer ignorance.
MOPEY: It’s unnecessary to mention camps or re-education. Your interpretation is melodramatic compared to “we can’t afford to be neutral.”
PAL: Isolated incidents, as noted in the link, are not comparable to the widespread terror committed by groups. Most of them are just internet trolls. Do you really think the NSM is burning down cities?
PAL: Your own source suggests that most extremist acts are tied to religious terrorism, which the left consistently defends.
MOPEY: Anyone who punctuates arguments with GIFs shouldn’t be taken seriously.
JESSE: MOPEY, given the glee expressed over leftist casualties in the Kyle Rittenhouse saga, perhaps “re-education” isn’t your real agenda.
VIKING: This guy sounds pretentious. Don’t waste your time on him, Avy. Focus on what matters.
DEARY: Jesse, the number of white hate groups is lower than black hate groups. Just saying.
DEARY: According to the Department of Homeland Security, black Americans are overrepresented in domestic extremist attacks, while white Americans are underrepresented.
DEARY: There are issues with how right-wing extremist attacks are recorded.
JESSE: DEARY, while I acknowledge the dangers posed by black hate groups, I maintain that all forms of hate feed into one another. It’s a vicious cycle.
JESSE: The overall scale of extremist violence is relatively low. For perspective, more Americans died yesterday from COVID-19 than were killed by extremists over fifteen years.
JESSE: I don’t see you as the primary threat; our issues run deeper. It’s not about race; it’s about humanity versus existential dangers.
SPARTAN: He’s a statist bootlicker; that discredits him.
JESSE: SPARTAN, I struggled to find common ground with you, but eventually, I did.
SPARTAN: That may be true.
JESSE: We could all use our time more constructively.
SPARTAN: The left eats its own when the tide turns.
JESSE: For a group of “intelligent people,” your best representatives are a sycophant and a wannabe Spartan with little substance. This is your army?
We’re all at the mercy of social media's whims, whether we realize it or not. Those who think they control the narrative might actually be more ensnared than they believe.
If you think you're not a product of the system, you might want to reevaluate. You’re part of the machine, whether you like it or not.
So, unless you plan to withdraw entirely and create your own isolated community, accept the reality: you’re being used, and your endeavors are largely illusory.