I’d argue that you’re being overly fatalistic. You call out actions you can take (talking to those close to you) and yet claim “you have no weapons to fight”. It’s just the degree of personal suffering you’re willing to risk.

I think part of the message of the writing is that thinking of what’s “feasible” is the trap that prolongs the ideology of the time.

Yep, society can crush you and there’s not much you can do about it. But it won’t get better unless you stand against it anyway.

That’s one the hardest things you can do, but countless humans have done it before you, and we praise and honour them (when we remember them). So much of commemoration and remembrance rites/ceremonies is is trying to prolong the memory of their hard, but correct choice.

We even honour those who fought against “us” when we recognise the costs they knowingly paid for their beliefs.

It’s our capacity to be noble that the essay calls out to. And sure enough, it has a cost and may not succeed.

If you are guaranteed to fail, and speak out anyway, all the more noble. And perversely enough, if enough people agree that it’s worth doing despite the certainty of failure, suddenly success isn’t impossible anymore