Hold your tongue?

My friend Tomi called one morning to vent, and to tell me he might be on the verge of becoming an outcast, at least among a certain circle of friends.

Apparently he had been involved in some virtual debates with his friends on Facebook over the issue of Malaysia’s alleged “culture stealing”.

Instead of agreeing with the mainstream opinion that Indonesia should react strongly against its neighbor for using its claimed cultural icons in tourism advertisements, Tomi had tried to be a voice of reason. It did not go down well with some of his compatriots, however. This was at that time a few weeks ago when hating Malaysia was the sentiment du jour. Failing to express fury at their “thieving ways” ran the risk of being called un-nationalistic.

On a friend’s Facebook wall, people left comments spouting all manner of hostilities against Malaysia. Around the same time, a group of protesters rallied outside the Malaysian Embassy, declaring they would start expelling Malaysians from the country.

Tomi urged his friends to think of the consequences of a major diplomatic row between the two countries, including the fate of many Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia. Regardless of whether the allegations against Malaysia are grounded, he wrote, there was no need to overreact or resort to thuggish behavior.

To his annoyance, a friend insinuated that his standpoint was based on self-interest. Tomi lives in Kuala Lumpur, where he works as a TV producer for an international broadcasting network. When he wanted to write another comment on his friend’s wall, he found that he no longer had access to it.

He had been shut out for expressing his thoughts.

In a subsequent email to that friend, he wrote that hostile sentiments inflamed by people who should have known better – educated and informed people – were at the root of anarchy on the street. Those rowdy protesters have no access to better information, what with the local media happily churning out provocative reports tinged with jingoism. But his friends should at least be able to discern true nationalism from unconstructive chauvinism.

To this, his friend wrote a curt – not to mention demeaning – reply: “sip” (the Indonesian slang word for OK), accompanied by a smiley face.

“I am so sick of unguided nationalism, the ignorance and hostility,” he told me over the phone that morning.

I consoled him by saying there are many people who share his point of view, but who probably prefer to stay quiet because it is unpopular to be seen as not defending one’s country. But that didn’t mean he should keep quiet about something that bothers him that much.

Being different is hard. In a society that values conformity, people tend to side blindly with the majority opinion.

People like to be a part of something, so they often choose the side that has the most followers – safety in numbers – instead of gathering sufficient information to form their own judgments and opinions.

Another friend of mine was once repulsed by an email forwarded to her university alumni mailing list parroting the old story about a Jewish grand conspiracy involving the soft drink company Coca-Cola.

When she and someone else pointed out the potential inaccuracies in the report and criticized the rampant anti-Semitism and unabashed racism, they received a less than an enthusiastic response. Not even the person who forwarded the email said anything.

Instead, a member of the mailing list scolded them for taking the circulating email “too seriously”.

I have been in their shoes more than once, and every time it was a humbling experience. It reminded me that in general people do not like confrontation, especially encountering opinions different from their own.

The few times I took different stands from other people in a written forum, I found silence prevailed for a few moments as most people took a wait-and-see attitude before saying anything. When the braver of them started to respond, either to counter or to concede to or agree with my view, then little by little others started to express their own thoughts. Most, however, chose to stay in the middle, the safe zone.

It also reminds me that certain subjects, such as religion or personal politics, are better left alone most of the time, because it is impossible to find a middle ground.

A written forum on the Internet and mailing lists are the perfect mediums for passive-aggressive behavior. They encourage us to show our best and worst sides, making us unusually articulate and provocative, but also allowing us to retreat in silence or to become evasive (or, in the case of Tomi’s friend, demeaning) when our standpoint is called into question.

So now I’ve decided to be more restrained in expressing my thoughts in such forums. Only if something particularly bothers me, if it deals with a matter of principle to me, and if I know I have the stamina to back up my opinion and also to accept the consequences of having an unpopular view – only then will I give my two cents’ worth.

There’s nothing wiser than to think before you open your mouth or before you type in your remark. At the least it makes you a more tolerable person.

Because at the other end of the line there are also those who cannot resist having their thoughts known even if it means offending others.

I know someone who has been exasperating friends on Facebook with his hyper-defensive comments on anything related to religion. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is offensive (or perhaps he is intentionally annoying), he judges others by their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), while, in the same paragraph, using the qualifier that it is only fair and “democratic” for him to express his view.

Well, apparently his friendship wasn’t worth the exercise in democracy to some people, who eventually limited his access to their profiles.

Sometimes, silence truly is golden.

Back to The top page