Weaponizing Kindness: Woke Warriors and the Power of Cognitive Dissonance

The hypocrisy of social justice well-meaningness cuts off discussion and undermines progress

By Rebekah Wanic

Many are becoming increasingly frustrated by the devolution of public discourse to shouting matches, physical confrontations, vandalism and cancellations. From political rallies, to academic talks, to school board meetings, examples of aggressive, violent and childish behavior abound.

While it is true that members from all sides of the political spectrum have participated, engagement in and defense of such actions is often endorsed by those associated with purported social justice aims, hence the idea of the “social justice warrior.” Evidence demonstrates that those from the left are more frequently leading the charge to cancel others who disagree with their position. Of course, it is easy to find examples of ill behavior from those with all manner of political leanings but focusing on incidents and not ideology obscures understanding. An important difference, and part why to this point they have been so successful, is that woke warriors have weaponized kindness.

Claims Couched as Kindness

Using weaponized kindness is an ingenious technique. It harnesses the mighty hammer of supposed moral superiority to usefully cover up hypocrisy and protect mediocrity. It is a technique that masterfully creates cognitive dissonance in those who disagree with one’s agenda while simultaneously reducing cognitive dissonance for those who rely on it.

Consider these claims: We are told that we must promote diversity because it is kind to create inclusive spaces where people of all types can feel welcomed and appreciated. We are told that it is kind to offer gender-affirming care to children as this supports them and protects their mental well-being. We are told that it is kind to promote body positivity so people do not experience shame about their appearance.

As a consequence, those who advocate that some spaces might not be suitable for all because merit and not identity is a useful metric and not relying on it may result in less success, or who argue that potentially permanent and harmful procedures should not be advocated for for children, or suggest that obesity is a very real threat to physical health and should not be celebrated are labeled unkind or worse - as racists, transphobes, fat-shamers and the like.

Cognitive Dissonance and It’s Effects

Enter cognitive dissonance. Because many people want to be, and be perceived to be, good, they end up confused. Unpleasant dissonance is aroused when they notice the inconsistency between their reasoned belief (e.g., being obese is unhealthy and therefore should not be celebrated) and the message that their belief is unkind. Reduction of dissonance requires that one address this inconsistency by adjusting beliefs to create consistency or rationalizing the inconsistency away. Many who encounter these “kind” ideas opt for the former, adjusting their thinking to be in line with the voices telling them that to not do so makes them unkind, or worse a dreaded “ist” or “phobe.” This is also a strong incentive for those who do not adjust their beliefs to stay quiet, lest they become a target of attack or one of the canceled.

Perhaps now the perceptive reader is considering the hypocrisy in the weaponization of kindness. How is it permissible to shout down, to cancel, to vandalize, to exclude - actions often undertaken by woke warriors and activists - when these actions are condemnable when engaged in by anyone else? The answer can again be found in cognitive dissonance, as such individuals rely on the second option: they justify their hypocrisy with rationalizations. These warriors tell themselves they are fighting for something that is morally superior or imperative: they are promoting kindness, inclusivity, mental well-being and ultimately survival; therefore, the ends justify the means.

Speak Up and Speak Out, Questioning is Not Unkind

Of note, most of these arguments are often rooted in an unsophisticated view of mental health that prioritizes its purported preservation over other outcomes, such as physical health or personal growth. Being inclusive, gender-affirming, and body positive are all typically suggested to be protective of well-being because they are nice. They provide, in the moment, support for the individual’s immediate wants and needs. Society must service the individual, lest we create for them even the smallest amount of strain or stress, which we are told will invariably lead to clinical levels of depression and anxiety. This is not the way to support and sustain mental well-being. Resilient individuals go through challenges to develop their resiliency.

These arguments also often work to promote mediocrity at the expense of greatness and the risk of longer-term harm. Confronting hardship, which while in the immediate can be unpleasant, promotes growth. Reducing expectations to promote equity and inclusion impedes excellence. And promotion of an anti-resilience mindset along with continually rising rates of self-reported anxiety or increasing levels of diabetes is not kind or desirable for individuals or society. Neither is the use of weaponized kindness to shut off debate about these issues.

It is important that we adopt a more sophisticated understanding of disagreement, one that acknowledges the nuance of both positions and individuals. Discussion and seeking to understand alternative perspectives is important for making good decisions and considering the practical constraints associated with decision-making in the real world, where competing interests abound, the childish tendency to morally malign those with whom one disagrees should be frowned upon.

We must recognize that it is unkind to support someone in their delusion, no matter how well-meaning they may be. We must accept that it is not unkind to foster discussion even if someone’s feelings might get hurt or someone might feel uncomfortable. We must not let weaponized niceness become more important than reason, or logic, or evidence, or any other potentially useful tool of problem-solving in guiding discourse, or research, or policy.

It is possible to be supportive of others while still maintaining high standards. It is possible to simultaneously hold differing priorities without being unkind. It is possible to question and discuss and challenge without the need for canceling or resorting to violence. Pushing others to recognize these truths is what is kind. We need to work do so, lest we all become victims of weaponized kindness.

Book recommendations:

For more on self-justification, consider Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. And, for more on how harmful ideas can undermine common sense, consider The Parasitic Mind by Gad Saad.