Mostly Stakeless
Tags: musings
One of the social conventions I still have trouble understanding is the tacit requirement to have opinions on everything, in particular complex socio-political conflicts. While I am not apolitical in the sense that I do have political opinions on some issues, I feel no need to know the relevant talking points or assume a position in every conflict. I also do not feel the urge to discuss or state my political views publicly because I am just some random person and cannot possibly contribute anything useful. This is not your standard case of politics is the mind-killer,1 but a protection against my tendency to become ultracrepidarian,2 especially when I lack knowledge of the issue at hand.
For instance, I find it hard to form substantiated opinions on global conflicts in which I do not have a direct ‘stake.’ I am empathising with those that are displaced, wounded, or even killed in such conflicts, but I find it hard to think about such conflicts in terms of right or wrong, when, historically speaking, ’everyone sucks here’ would be a smarter position to take. However, since I have not been trained as a historian and/or as a political scientist, I often do not know who the ‘good guys’ are.3 In some conflicts—the recent fall of the Assad regime comes to mind—it even seems to me that a devil has been replaced by some demons and I honestly do not know where things are going…
Ever the optimist, I hope for good to prevail in the world, and I find some solace in the words of Maimonides:
Men frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea. […] Not only common people make this mistake, but even many who think they are wise.
Much to my chagrin, though, there is a tendency of people in social media to make assumptions about my political views or, in some cases, chiding me anonymously for not taking their preferred stance. While I appreciate the feedback I receive anonymously, I want to gently caution people: Please do not assume that I do not care. Having no stake in most conflicts, I just do not want to add to the noise and I would rather prefer a nuanced discussion.
I feel reminded of a running gag in Terry Pratchett, viz. the Muntab question:
[…] “For example, what about the Muntab question?” Nanny Ogg asked the Muntab question. “Where the hell’s Muntab?” she said. “Several thousand miles away, Mrs. Ogg. But it has ambitions Hubward, and if there’s war with Borogravia we will certainly have to adopt a position.” “This one several thousand miles away looks fine by me,” said Nanny.
You could say that I am mostly stakeless and aware of it, so like Nanny, I am not sure what to say. This is not so much cowardice as it is an acute awareness of my own limitations. Please do not hold it against me.
PS: I got several interesting anonymous comments about this article and wanted to elaborate that this is not a lack of empathy but rather a lack of understanding of large-scale geopolitical conflicts. I do not believe that every conflict affords a simple good–evil dichotomy, hence while I empathise with the suffering of all those afflicted, I often do not know enough about the ramifications of picking one side over the other. Even in situations where this is possible, I believe my public opinion on these conflicts to be largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things: I get the impression that I can only contribute to either a very strong signal or increase the noise. The first action strikes me as redundant, the second one as too chaotic.