While he is away from the group Boromir finds him. He repeatedly asks Frodo for the Ring, his requests growing more forceful and threatening as Frodo resists. Finally he moves to sieze the Ring from Frodo. Frodo puts on the Ring and runs away. Boromir returns to the rest of the Fellowship and confesses what he has done. Everyone splits up to find Frodo, though in a disorganized fashion. The chapter ends with Sam finding Frodo and the two of them leaving the other six behind to go to Mordor.
For this week's lesson, I'd like to call attention to something Boromir says when he first finds Frodo:
"May I stay now and talk for a while, since I have
found you? It would comfort me. Where there are
so many, all speech becomes a debate without end.
But two together may perhaps find wisdom."
While this is a ruse - Boromir is after power, not wisdom - there is truth in these words. We need look no further than Social media.
The conversations go on and on and everyone wants to have their voice heard. Truly 'a debate without end.' But being heard and contributing to the conversation aren't the same thing. I recently engaged in an online debate about how to change people who are racist. I am a strong believer in organizations like Life After Hate, who fight racism by helping those in hate group gets out of them.
Many people, understandably, don't have compassion for racists. They would prefer to shame them or make them feel unsafe. "Make Racists Afraid Again." And in our very divided culture, compassion for racists is seen as defense of racism. The way I see it, you can do both. Those on the left believe racism is a conscious choice someone makes, and so the only way to stop being racist is to, well, choose to stop being racist. But racism is taught, and it is difficult to just decide to unlearn what one has learned. You need a supportive community to assist you through the transition, which is where Life After Hate comes in.
Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine on Facebook and we were going back and forth, not really getting anywhere. Then someone else chimed in to say I was defending racists and shouldn't value how they feel. My friend agreed but we continued our debate. But this person kept butting in, and by the end, they were saying I was racist. My friend would not defend me.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, I was having a private conversation on messenger with a friend of mine who is a right-wing Christian. He had said, knowing how seriously I take my Judaism, that he was concerned at the increasing resentment the left has against religion. I challenged him on that and said it was really resentment against Christianity, and specifically right-wing Christianity. The left doesn't have an issue with other religions (the left's antisemitism is racial in nature. Their problem is with Jews, not "Judaism"). I then said LGBT voices are being heard and empowered on the left, and that right-wing Christians believe those people are sinners, so while he may not like the resentment, it isn't irrational. We went back and forth, with him saying some things that were homophobic, which I let slide for the sake of making a greater point. By the end of the conversation he said that if he had a neighbor who was LGBT, he wouldn't have a problem with it and would still be a good neighbor to them. I then advised him that if his coreligionists shared that approach, the resentment might be lessened.
We were only able to come to that conclusion because we had that conversation privately. If it had been public, two things would have happened differently. One, one of my left-wing friends would have chimed in and called him out for being homophobic. This would have inevitably changed the conversation into a defense of his character. Two, even before anyone else chimed in, I would have felt compelled to push back, in order to be seen as a good ally, rather than let him say his piece so that I could "meet him where he is". If I didn't, someone may have chimed in and said I was giving his views a platform, and that I shouldn't be empowering homophobia. Then the conversation would have changed into a defense of my character. Such a conversation cannot lead to wisdom, which involves honest investigation, experiencing discomfort, and being open to new ideas. Instead, the discussion would have become a performance, with everyone wanting to showcase which side they are on.
There is value in public social media conversations, but that value is in communal support (or shame), or in spreading information directly to the people. But if you want wisdom, you should not expect it from a Tweet or a Facebook status. There are simply too many people, and "all speech becomes a debate without end." Wisdom is best found in a frank discussion with one other person. The more people you add, the more difficult finding wisdom becomes.
The Lord of the Rings: An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project. Thank you to all those who have contributed.
Like this project? Want to learn more? Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content? Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!
And this week, if you commit to a monthly contribution to Life After Hate, show me the receipt and I'll make you a Patreon supporter of the equivalent monthly amount FOR FREE for a YEAR.