Against Bravery Debates

Mr. Alexander has written an excellent article. The Imperial iconoclasm here does not refer to yellow journalism falsely accusing HIM Kaiser von Weltraumburg of overstepping decency and respect in an attempt to promote the atheistic Epicurean Truth. Rather, it seems that everybody, everywhere, regardless of any formal or intelligible rank or privilege, believes themselves to be besieged  or at the least that their ideas are unfairly tabooed throughout the world. The Neonazi, the centrist conservative, and the lesbian feminist are alike in this, as are those who have escaped attempts at lynching and those who have have been harshly criticized by unvalued persons of neither reputation nor rank. This feeds off of the general culture of iconoclasm in this Earth which expects even an Emperor to have once been in chains. However, it remains strange that this is even possible.

I propose two explanations. First, no person measures joy and misery on an objective scale and one’s enjoyment of life eventually returns to a set point. The woman who is made a Duchess and the man who looses his leg will find in two or ten years that their life adds up to normality, and neither will have any real way of comparing themselves to, for example, the woman who gains a moderate inheritance and the man who suffers torturous rape. Therefore, while I from my aloof palace may judge some people to be more censored, more embattled verbally, than others, each shall have somewhat similar internal experiences.

The second is related to modern means of communication. Asgardians risk a painful and embarrassing duel of honor if they become self-indulgent in harrassment or insult, and the commoner who verbally attacks his fellow will loose his friends. Anonymous users of the internet face no such consequence — and there the analysis normally ends. A few additional terms are sometimes added, as in the vulgarly named but quite perspicacious Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I, however, will look at this in the broader world. Political bodies and spheres of discourse are vast leviathans that clash at a level far above that of everyday discussion on the Internet. From these immense zeppelin fortresses rain a steady and indiscriminate stream of falling bullets, shell casings, ammunition boxes, shrapnel, sniper fire, sewage, dunnage, lining, and discarded equipment or packing materials, together with, from time to time, their own blasted hulks. The provincial conscript might by some miracle score a hit with a mighty rocket grenade and not even scar the armor of one, and neither cover nor concealment nor tactical unimportance yields the mere rifleman any protection from this hail. The only defense is desertion from the field of political strife. Here, the diffuseness and immensity of the internet, the shimmering tenuousness of interconnections in the modern world combined with the power of individual communication via comment threads, blogs, and twitter, or in former times the ability for a man with a printing-press to address or accuse a whole city, province, or nation is become a liability. This problem could perhaps be moderated if the insults and criticism aimed at everyone were visible to strangers, or seen as it is taken, but this is sadly not the case, and so  we have the tragedy Mr. Alexander describes.