Subtle Rebellion

It’s quiet…

By Snarky LisaPublished 6 months ago • 3 min read

https://unsplash.com/photos/text-qKXEDAitSPM

When things don’t go right, people often rebel. They may shout, leave, threaten, or even use physical weapons to do so. These types of actions are often powerful statements, regardless of whether they actually work in the long run or not.

Some acts of rebellion, though, are more…subtle. They don’t involve obvious lines in the sand being drawn or overt aggression. Rather, the powers of internal psychology and systemic dynamics are used.

Instead of screaming, eloquent verbal takedowns use careful wording to destroy the enemy. Simple absences which increase little by little may replace the art of outright storming out of a heated argument or situation. Peaceful reminders of potential consequences could be practical tools for the purposes that threats frequently cover. The list goes on.

Don’t get me wrong, subdued rebellious acts are typically not as potent as their more unambiguous counterparts. By their very nature, they’re not intended to be so noticeable to the point of freaking perpetrators, their enablers, and general conformists out. As such, these sorts of people might not even catch on until the very end.

Still, there’s often something at least somewhat cathartic about rebelling against corrupt authorities no matter what. While it may backfire later on, the thrill of going against what those in power say should be done has a certain energy to it that just can’t be replaced by sticking to dull conventions and rules.

I still remember that fateful day long ago when a guy I cut off tried to message me back multiple times in a Discord server we both shared with multiple other people. Neither of us liked each other at the time, and I definitely didn’t want to hear back from him.

Did I reply to his desperate pleas for comment? Not to aggressively retaliate, that’s for sure. While I don’t remember if I ever did respond to him — as I am no longer in that Discord server he oh-so-desperately attempted to use to reestablish contact with me — I sure as hell did my best to ignore him as much as reasonably possible.

Without a response, he had less to piggyback off of. There was less material to use dramatically against me for him. Sure, it wasn’t as satisfying on my end as telling him off directly. But within the bounds of convention, it was likely as much closure as I could have gotten.

Of course, the energy of subtle rebellion can also turn dark if channeled by the wrong hands.

Many people in this world are amorally, dangerously, and/or immorally unruly, and they need others to rein them in. More assertive methods of rebelling like yelling, personally targeted verbal takedowns, and violence may not even be logically feasible — let alone ideal actions to partake in.

Being a subtle rebel, though? Perhaps one could get away with it. Quips, snarking, and refusing to act interested or conversely, provide any sort of reaction to getting called out regardless of the ethics are all potential tactics to prevent the enemy from gaining anything useful.

These are the kinds of strategies that could drive even the best of people up the walls. The inability to provide any type of change, justice, or closure can be maddening. Why be helpful or even just more honestly hurtful when one could simply be an absolute nuisance on top of one’s previous misdeeds?

In the end, though, subtle rebellion is neither inherently good or bad. Heck, it’s also not necessarily in between. It all depends on the situation and the person using these types of methods.

Any other thoughts on this? Let me know in the comments!