Recently, I forged a budding friendship on Medium, where a new acquaintance voiced concerns that my words might be "giving comfort" to those undermining America's social cohesion. She doesn't believe I intend this, yet she suggests that my language and priorities could inadvertently support harmful ideologies.

I can't help but wish I had such influence.

This kind of feedback is familiar to me. When I express an opinion or criticize those I oppose, people often highlight our shared experiences or traits, worried that I might be too lenient on those who need a firm reprimand. They fear that my lack of outrage could be misinterpreted as approval.

However, life is rarely that straightforward.

I critique without bias.

Just because someone shares my race, gender, or background doesn’t exempt them from my scrutiny if I find their views objectionable.

Liberal critics often challenge my use of terms like "hyperwoke" or "political correctness." They view leftist consensus as a defense against fascism and argue that my dissent might "give comfort" to extremists.

Conversely, conservative critics object when I acknowledge racial and ethnic nuances. They advocate for a "colorblind" approach and meritocracy, arguing that my recognition of these identities inherently supports racism.

These perspectives can be distilled into a simple notion:

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

You're either with us or against us—a sentiment that transcends racial or political divides.

On her advice blog, “The Friendship Doctor,” Dr. Irene S. Levine addresses a question from a reader named “Allie,” who worries about socializing with those who have harmed her friends. Levine suggests that such interactions are only "disloyal" in extreme circumstances, particularly if the harm was recent or severe. She differentiates between a personal encounter and a casual meeting in public.

Friendship dynamics can become complicated, especially in institutional settings, leading to feelings of betrayal when allies disagree on issues.

In a December 2022 article for CollegeRaptor, Allison Wignall discusses friends attending rival schools. While they may engage in playful banter, the competitive spirit often remains light-hearted, much like sports rivalries. The emotional distance created by time apart often outweighs any artificial divides.

However, politics is not merely a game. The implications of public policy decisions can have significant consequences.

Forming alliances can be essential and doesn't necessarily mean compromising one's values.

At a forum by The Sutherland Institute, Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) shared how he collaborated with Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA) to address drought issues affecting the Great Salt Lake. Despite their differing views, they found common ground to draft the Saline Lake Ecosystems Act, showing that bipartisan efforts can serve greater purposes beyond party lines.

Sometimes, individuals from marginalized communities face accusations of betrayal when their views diverge from those of influential gatekeepers who have shared similar experiences.

In a 2017 interview, novelist Maxine Hong Kingston discussed the complexities of identity in her work The Woman Warrior, which reflects her upbringing in a Chinese-American family. Critics, such as playwright Frank Chin, accused her of pandering to white audiences, which highlights the struggles of representing a community authentically.

Cheung, a writer influenced by Kingston's work, reflects on her own hesitations to write about her heritage due to fears of misrepresentation.

How can it be fair to expect Kingston or Cheung to represent all individuals of Chinese descent—or even all Asians? They face pressure to portray their communities positively in their work, a burden no one should bear.

I often write about the feelings of anger, shame, and self-consciousness stemming from my identities as a Millennial, gay, autistic, and centrist Independent. Does this mean my voice must represent all members of those groups? If my experiences don’t resonate with others, does that imply I provide comfort to those who perpetuate discrimination against us?

In a March 2019 interview, NYU professor Jonathan Haidt discussed the misalignment of emotion, morality, and objectivity. He and co-author Greg Lukianoff explore these themes in their book The Coddling of the American Mind. Haidt expresses concern about college environments fostering rigid binaries that categorize individuals as oppressors or victims.

He emphasizes that effective change requires a clear understanding of what we aim to transform. Haidt advocates for centrist views, suggesting that listening to various perspectives can lead to solutions that transcend ideological boundaries.

The increasing polarization in our society, coupled with the animosity between political factions, reinforces the idea that any perceived sympathy towards opposing views is unacceptable. This mentality stifles constructive dialogue and often leads to hostility.

The Greek-based Centre for Post-Capitalist Civilisation highlights a fallacy associated with "Cancel Culture," asserting that labeling others as enemies fosters mob mentality and discourages thoughtful discourse. They argue against the notion that suppressing opposing ideas will eliminate them entirely.

The flawed reasoning here creates an echo chamber that prioritizes hostility over understanding. To criticize without acknowledging any redeeming qualities in "the enemy" is to fall into a moral trap.

I reject this fallacy, regardless of its origin in any ideological camp.

Critical thinking is crucial. No individual possesses all the answers, nor can anyone fully understand the breadth of human experience.

We must validate others' pain while also seeking collaborative solutions. Instead of dismissing opposing viewpoints, we should engage in meaningful conversations aimed at healing and understanding.

Click here to subscribe to my stories.