Public Intellectual Masturbation

What does “intellectual masturbation” mean?

The phrase is vulgar, deliberately so. But sometimes a vulgar phrase is the only way to describe a vulgar habit.

Masturbation, in the ordinary sense, is a private act done for personal pleasure. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is private, self-contained, and largely harmless. But when a private act becomes a public performance, the reaction changes. What was once merely self-indulgent becomes embarrassing, grotesque, even offensive.

That is the metaphor I have in mind when I talk about public intellectual masturbation.

By it, I mean the performance of intelligence for vanity, power, and self-gratification rather than for truth, justice, or understanding. It happens when someone uses rhetorical skill, education, irony, technical language, or debating talent to defend what is plainly cruel, degrading, or indefensible. The point is not inquiry. The point is display. Not illumination, but exhibition. This is not the same as disagreement, or a serious debate, or as taking an unpopular position in good faith.

A healthy society needs free expression and constructive arguments. It needs people to test assumptions, challenge popular opinion, question sentimentality, and expose lazy thinking. It needs devil’s advocates at times. It needs people willing to ask difficult questions and present uncomfortable facts. But there is a difference between complexity and corruption, between argument and performance, between intellectual honesty and moral exhibitionism, and this difference matters.

When someone argues over tax policy, constitutional interpretation, migration levels, welfare design, or the limits of state power, they may be right or wrong, but they are at least operating within the normal field of political and moral disagreement. The same is true when people debate difficult ethical questions, legal doctrines, or wartime strategy in good faith.

But something else is happening when a person uses intelligence to sneer at victims of sexual violence, rationalize the killing of civilians, sanitize state brutality, or dress naked cruelty in the language of realism, order, civilization, deterrence, tradition, or law. At that point, what is being displayed is not intellectual courage or rigor. It is the public display of pleasure in cleverness detached from conscience.

Some people plainly enjoy showing that they can argue for anything. They enjoy demonstrating that no crime is too ugly to be reframed, and no victim too broken to be discredited. Their satisfaction comes from the performance itself: from sounding sharper than everyone else, colder than everyone else, more “rational” than everyone else. They mistake moral numbness for sophistication and verbal dexterity for depth, and in many cases, they are rewarded for it. News panels invite them because outrage drives attention. Social media promotes them because cruelty and contrarianism travel faster than nuanced kindness. Documentaries and public discussions feature them because every issue is now expected to have “two sides,” even when one side is simply manufacturing legitimacy for the sake of argument. Power welcomes them because every regime, institution, and ideological machine needs people who can make violence sound necessary, inequality sound natural, and abuse sound misunderstood. Propaganda needs to sound legitimate, and these intellectuals provide that channel.

This is why the phenomenon feels increasingly visible. The public sphere no longer merely tolerates these performances; it often incentivizes them. The person defending the indefensible is rarely doing so in a vacuum. There is almost always an audience, a platform, and a reward structure. Airtime, attention, notoriety, invitations, patronage, access, influence, online fame, the approval of ideological tribes, the favor of the powerful: these are all forms of compensation. Some do it for money. Some for proximity to power. Some for relevance. Some for the thrill of being seen as fearless thinkers. And some, perhaps most disturbingly, do it for the private pleasure of domination disguised as public reasoning.

This is why I call it masturbation rather than argument or debate.

The act is self-serving. What matters is the performer’s own gratification: the delight of saying what others recoil from, the thrill of demonstrating superior detachment, the ego-stroking satisfaction of turning intellect into spectacle. 

You can see it when sexual violence becomes an occasion for “nuance” that somehow always lands against the victim. You can see it when mass death is translated into abstractions about strategy and inevitability. You can see it when human suffering is treated not as suffering, but as raw material for someone’s career in contrarian posturing. You can see it when the language of reason is used not to reduce harm, but to anesthetize the conscience. It imitates seriousness. It uses the vocabulary of philosophy, law, history, realism, skepticism, and free inquiry. It presents itself as brave truth-telling against emotional mobs. But in reality, it is often little more than vanity wearing academic clothing.

That is what makes it vulgar and dangerous.

People assume that intelligence makes a person more trustworthy, more humane, or more responsible. But intellect by itself guarantees none of these things. Intelligence can clarify, but it can also obscure. It can liberate, but it can also rationalize domination. It can expose lies, but it can just as easily become a highly sophisticated instrument for producing them. The clever person is often more capable of justifying evil than the stupid one. The stupid person may simply repeat a slogan. The clever person can build an architecture around it and convert it into effective propaganda. 

That is why public intellectual masturbation deserves contempt, not admiration.

Not because the argument itself is bad. Not because difficult questions should be banned. Not because every controversial position is morally corrupt. But because there are moments when the issue is not complex at all. The issue is whether a person has decided to turn intelligence into a tool of degradation.

When that happens, we should stop pretending we are watching a brave debate. Often, we are watching moral cowardice disguised as sophistication. Often, we are watching someone derive personal pleasure from defending the indefensible. A society that confuses this with seriousness will eventually lose its ability to distinguish intelligence from wisdom, argument from manipulation, and analysis from cruelty.

Public intellectual masturbation does not merely insult the victims whose suffering it trivializes. It also degrades public thought itself. It turns discourse into spectacle, and intellect into a grotesque performance for applause, access, and self-satisfaction. Remember, some things are not made better by being argued more cleverly; they are merely made uglier.   

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic. 

The Way Hate Politics Works

Hate politics is on the rise across the world. To illustrate this disturbing trend, I often point to two large democracies, India and the United States, where political polarization is not accidental but carefully manufactured. Political parties and leaders actively cultivate division because fear and resentment are easier to mobilize than reason, empathy, or long-term vision.

What amazes me most is how easily people fall for this blatantly misleading rhetoric, especially in an era where information is readily available and facts can be verified within seconds. Yet, truth has become secondary to emotion. Hate-driven narratives are repeated so often and so loudly that many stop questioning them altogether.

One striking pattern I have consistently observed is this: people who subscribe to hate politics almost always hate groups of people they do not personally know. Ask someone who claims to hate Muslims whether they have a Muslim friend, and more often than not, the response will be, “Yes, but they are different; they are not like the others.” Ask a racist white person about a Black or Hispanic friend, and you will hear the same justification. Ask someone who harbors antisemitic views about a Jewish acquaintance, and suddenly that individual becomes an “exception.”

This pattern exposes the fundamental dishonesty of hate. People instinctively recognize the humanity, complexity, and decency of individuals they personally know, yet they willingly dehumanize millions of others they have never met. Entire communities are reduced to caricatures, stereotypes, or worst-case examples, while personal acquaintances are conveniently excluded from that same judgment. This is not logic; it is prejudice dressed up as reasoning.

The truth is simple and uncomfortable: no society, religion, country, or identity group is monolithic. There is no such thing as a uniform culture or a homogeneous community. Every group, without exception, contains a wide spectrum of people: kind and cruel, ethical and corrupt, generous and selfish. To take the worst examples from any group and apply them universally is intellectual laziness at best and moral failure at worst.

Diversity is not a threat to any society; it is the very fabric that makes societies resilient, creative, and humane. Differences in belief, culture, language, and identity are not weaknesses to be feared but strengths to be protected and celebrated. A society that demands uniformity eventually suffocates itself, while one that embraces diversity learns, adapts, and grows.

Politicians understand the power of hate all too well. They know it is a potent weapon, one that can be deployed quickly for short-term political gains. Winning elections “at any cost” has become so normalized that the cost itself - social trust, communal harmony, and even human lives - is treated as collateral damage. Politicians behaving like vultures is nothing new, and frankly, it does not surprise me anymore. What truly troubles me are the people who enable and amplify this kind of politics. Ordinary individuals become foot soldiers for hate, repeating slogans, justifying cruelty, and defending leaders who thrive on division. I do not say this from a place of moral superiority; I was once guilty of this myself during a highly ignorant phase of my teenage years. But learning, unlearning, and growing out of hate is possible. I know this because I have lived it.

Unfortunately, many do not stop at passive support. They actively empower hate-mongering leaders and help create a volatile, hostile environment for anyone who refuses to conform to the dominant narrative. This is how democracies erode, not overnight, but gradually, as empathy is replaced with suspicion and disagreement is treated as betrayal.

Hate is a slow poison or wildfire; it does not discriminate, and it does not stop at its intended targets. It corrodes everything it touches, including those who propagate it. History has shown us this lesson repeatedly. We have seen where unchecked hate leads, and we have paid a horrifying price in the past, including during the two World Wars. One would hope that humanity has learned something from those tragedies. If not, we risk repeating them yet again. 

Despite this bleak reality, I remain an optimist. I sincerely hope that those participating in hate-driven movements will eventually recognize the futility and danger of their actions. My hope is simple: that people will begin to see how hate operates, how it manipulates fear, and how it destroys trust, compassion, and love, the very foundations on which societies are built. When that realization comes, perhaps we will finally choose leaders who unite rather than divide, and values that heal rather than harm.

Until then, the responsibility lies with each of us to resist hate, question narratives, and protect the diversity that makes us human.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.