Mass Indifferency: Is Converting A Bad Idea?

(an excerpt of “Me and The Internet”, on the section “Politics: Both Prevalent and Taboo”)

There's a more neutral approach of handling conflicting opinions; neutral enough that it's used by almost everyone, with them either knowing it or not. What's that approach? Be indifferent. Saying anything would only cause more harm than good, so don't say a word on it. Making others convert their beliefs (for the lack of a better term) isn't worth your effort, and so does fighting to defend yours.

As I see it, there are two types of indifferency:

• Aggressive indifferency, that is complete denial of opinion. You do not care if their opinions are right or wrong. They would only steer their beliefs into yours, for better or worse; that is not okay.

  This is the most coercive way of “thinking" about other's opinions, and also the most common one that people use on the Internet, it seems like; popularized with the terms “no u" and the earlier “ur mom gay" (which fell out of favor for obvious reasons). I wrote thinking in quotes there because it's not even thinking, instead you just put their statements in the bin to be shredded later.

  Aggressive indifferency preserves their own beliefs well, however it can be perceived as, well, aggressive. They felt ignored. All the things they perceive as right for them is nullified or even rejected by this one individual/group. This is what drives people to fight for their beliefs.

• Permissive indifferency, which involves consideration of one's opinion, eventual or immediate. You acknowledge the possibility of coming up with that opinion, but you don't want to put or exert your position about it.

  Unlike aggressive indifferency, this school of thought is more lax in terms of thinking about opinions, and also the approach I've used when encountering statements that opposes my beliefs. Other than that, permissive indifferency is mostly used on statements they knew they couldn't do much with, such as worldwide conflicts or something similar.

  Permissive indifferency is a much more forgiving indifferency, however it could make people naïve at perceiving opinions. They're easy to lose grip on their beliefs. All it takes is the thought “hmm, maybe they're not wrong" for their stance to start shifting away. When untreated, this would turn into heresy.

One being indifferent of a certain topic of discussion―one way or the other―gives little reason for the other to exert their opinions on them. I mean, if they don't react even a little bit to what's being said, why bother? So, if the way people handle opposing opinions is by indifferency, is it bad to convert someone? Are any attempts to preach or persuade someone to follow your stances merely an exercise in futility? And if you somehow did, should you feel guilty?

Unfortunately, we as social beings can't cope well with indifferency, one way or another. We are made to interact with each other, be it to help or to hurt. Both are valid ways to exert their opinion. Sure, hurting others is discouraged, but that's not gonna stop people from doing it. World War II is one extreme example.

And it's not just limited to hurting either. Helping someone is also a form of giving attention, both for the helper, the one being helped, and others who witness them. Sympathy and empathy are also one reason why people stand their reasoning on a topic. These actions―conflicts, major or minor; assistance, sympathy, and empathy―are not entirely physical. Verbal abuse like threats, gaslighting, and bullying is a thing, and so does verbal support like appreciation and recognition. All of those are ways to show their way of reasoning.

But okay. Let's suppose that indifferency is the common mindset of the people. People wouldn't exert their opinions because it's not worth their time; they would just ignore what they say. What would that society look like? Here's my take on it:

Everyone would quickly turn asocial. The number of interactions between people would significantly reduce to none, mainly because any form of attention is considered lewd to these people in concept. Even suggestions would be considered taboo. As such, freedom of speech becomes unnecessary. Freedom of will takes over it.

Morality would also be phased out. No one cares what the others are thinking. It's not their business. Instead, they replace it with their ego. And a really grayscale one as well. No one wants or even tolerates boasts here. Because of this, life of the people would be very inert.

Eventually, social integrations, from families to nations, would cease to exist. In this society, if we can call it that, people only care for themselves. Isolation is absolute. Those that couldn't take care of themselves cannot survive on this imaginary world; others wouldn't care if they need help.

It's kinda grim, isn't it? Now I would like to see a novelist illustrating such world. Or at least their interpretation of it.