Know When Not To Defend

I like the over-hated thing. The corny thing. The mall thing. The movie with bad lighting and a decent heart. The local commercial with too much jingle and not enough budget. The chain restaurant that fed a tired family without demanding anyone pronounce foam correctly. I like the strange, useful, unfashionable item everybody kicked into the cultural basement and then forgot to examine.

Fine. Guilty.

Somebody has to take those cases. Some things need a lawyer, a character witness, a cousin in the back row saying, "No, wait, I know how this looks, but hear me out." That is the whole joy of the In Defense Of shelf. It is not about proving perfection. Perfection does not need my little cardboard podium. It has publicists, awards, white tablecloths, and people who say "curated" without giggling. I am more interested in the thing that got flattened by lazy opinion.

But even a defense attorney needs a door they can close. There are names we are not saying here. This is the Sopranos ending. Cut to black. You fill in the blank with your own personal dumpster fire. I have mine. You have yours. We do not need to compare lists at brunch, especially if somebody has ordered pancakes and the morning still has a chance.

That silence is not cowardice. It is policy. The premise has limits. It has to. If every accused thing gets a defense, then the defense stops meaning anything. It turns into reflex. A twitch. A dinner-party disease. Somebody says, "That person seems terrible," and before the fork reaches the salad, here comes the Contrarian in Residence: "Okay, but have we considered..."

No.

Sometimes we have considered plenty. We considered the facts, the pattern, the aftermath, the apology tour, the second apology tour, the thing in the interview, the thing in the emails, the thing everybody tried to pretend was context, the thing that was not context at all but just smoke from the same old barrel.

Some hills are not hills. Some hills are landfills with grass sprayed on top. The trick is not generosity. The trick is discernment. Generosity says, "Maybe there is more here." Discernment says, "Maybe there is, and maybe there is not, and maybe I do not need to spend my credibility digging through wet cardboard to find out."

A good defense starts with curiosity. It asks why people hate the thing. It asks who benefits from the joke. It asks whether the thing failed, or whether it succeeded in a way tastemakers found embarrassing. It asks whether corny means bad, whether popular means stupid, whether sincere means weak. Good questions. Useful questions. Beautiful little flashlights.

Then the flashlight hits a wall. And on that wall, in big letters, maybe written by someone with a marker and a migraine, it says: no need to continue.

Not everything misunderstood is secretly valuable. Not everything criticized has been unfairly treated. Sometimes the public got it right. Sometimes the room did not miss the nuance. Sometimes the nuance is a folding card table with one wobbly leg and a candle on it.

I know. Disappointing. We live in a time when every opinion tries to become a trial. Every song, person, show, food, childhood memory, app, shoe, celebrity, snack, franchise, haircut, and mildly embarrassing affection gets dragged into the courtroom. The prosecution wears black. The defense brings screenshots. The gallery has comments turned on. Somebody yells "problematic." Somebody else yells "iconic." Nobody has eaten lunch.

The internet trained us to defend our taste like a war crime. Defend your playlist. Defend your childhood. Defend the actor you liked before the interview got weird. Defend the movie that was funny in seventh grade. Defend the band shirt. Defend the cereal. Defend the old joke. Defend the thing you half remember and mostly miss because your life was smaller then, and so were your bills.

No wonder everybody is tired. Here is the grown-up move, and it is not nearly as dramatic as the online courtroom wants it to be: you can like one piece and decline the whole package. You can say, "That one song still slaps. I am not adopting the empire." You can say, "That movie gave me a great Saturday in 1998. It does not need a monument." You can say, "I had affection for this once, and the affection can stay in the past where it has cheaper rent." You can say, "I laughed then. I would not argue for it now." That is not betrayal. That is filing.

The old affection goes into the weird cultural lost-and-found. It sits between the scratched CD case, the restaurant matchbook, the youth group T-shirt you cannot explain, the radio hit you still know all the words to, and the VHS tape somebody labeled in handwriting that looks like an emergency. Not everything from the past needs to come upstairs and meet your current guests.

Some things can stay in the box. People confuse this with becoming humorless. They think a boundary around defense means you have turned into a joyless little clerk with a clipboard and a tiny moral gavel. It does not. Knowing when not to defend something can be hilarious. A closed briefcase has comic timing. A clean refusal can land better than a speech.

"Your Honor, after reviewing the material, we decline." That is funny because everyone knows what happened. No one needs the slideshow. No one needs the redemption arc. The courtroom can go home early. The stenographer can have soup.

Restraint has style. A defense costs something. It costs attention. It costs trust. It costs the small but real dignity of putting your name next to the thing and saying, "I believe this deserves another look." That sentence should not be handed out like mints near the hostess stand.

Defending something because it annoys the right people can be fun once in a while. Spiritually petty, sure. Recreationally petty, even. But if that becomes the whole method, the method rots. Then you are not seeing the thing. You are performing independence. You are letting other people's dislike pick your position for you, which is just conformity wearing a fake mustache and a trench coat.

Contrarianism can feel brave because it walks against traffic. Sometimes it is brave. Sometimes it is just walking into traffic because the sidewalk felt too mainstream.

There is also nuance cosplay, another miserable little hobby. That is when somebody mistakes the ability to make an argument for the presence of a point. You can make an argument for almost anything if nobody checks the invoices too closely. You can bring in background, context, motive, industry pressure, childhood, market forces, editing choices, misunderstanding, satire, fandom, backlash, overcorrection, and the weather. A clever person can build a gazebo over a sinkhole.

Still a sinkhole. The defense has to retain the right to refuse service. That right keeps the whole shelf honest. It says we are not here to be difficult for sport. We are here to look again. Big difference. Looking again means sometimes the thing improves under inspection. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes it gets worse the closer you stand.

Move back, then. Put the gloves down. The unfairly maligned still deserve us. The weird thing. The sincere thing. The thing your cool friend mocked because it had too much suburb in it. The broad joke. The power ballad. The emotional support beverage. The local ad. The mall. The chain restaurant. The B-movie with a tiny budget and a huge commitment to the bit. The popular thing everyone dismissed because ordinary people got there first. Those cases still matter.

They matter because lazy contempt is cheap, and cheap contempt has ruined a lot of good rooms. But accuracy matters too. The goal is not to defend the indefensible until the word loses shape. The goal is to separate the unfair verdict from the fair one. To know when the crowd got lazy, and when the crowd actually saw the smoke. To know when a thing deserves a second look, and when the second look only confirms the first grim little squint.

That judgment will not always be clean. It should not be. A living person has mixed shelves. You can keep the song and throw out the mythology. Keep the joke and reject the pattern. Keep the memory and decline the movement. Keep the casserole and skip the sermon. Keep the childhood glow while admitting the grown-up evidence has a point.

Messy? Yes. Human taste usually is. The cleaner story would be easier: defend everything weird, reject everything rotten, never confuse the two. Lovely. Put it on a tea towel. Real life does not work that neatly. Things come tangled. A favorite has a dent. A villain made one good point. A beloved artifact carries a stain. A stupid thing turns out to be useful. A respectable thing turns out to be hollow. A person can miss something and still know not to bring it back. That last sentence does a lot of work.

You can miss something and still not defend it. That may be the mature position nobody puts on merch. Nostalgia does not get unlimited diplomatic immunity. Affection does not erase evidence. A laugh from twenty years ago does not obligate a closing argument today. The past can be loved, mourned, teased, archived, forgiven, or left alone. It does not automatically get representation.

There is mercy in leaving some things unrescued. Mercy for yourself, mostly. You do not have to spend your life dragging every old affection through the present, washing it, dressing it, handing it index cards, and asking it to explain itself under fluorescent lights.

Let the cabinet stay locked. The cabinet is not shame. The cabinet is order. It holds the things you do not need to revisit, the things that did their strange little job once and should not be invited to the reunion, the things that might have been funny in a specific year under specific lighting with specific people and a lower collective standard for consequences. Fine. Thank you for your service. Please remain boxed.

Knowing when not to defend is not cynicism. Cynicism would say nothing deserves defense. Snobbery would say only respectable things deserve defense. Reflexive contrarianism would say everything hated deserves a cape. Discernment says: case by case. That is less flashy. It is also harder.

Case by case means you cannot hide inside a brand position. You cannot say, "I defend the unpopular," and call that a worldview. You have to look. You have to listen. You have to admit when the evidence ruins your bit. You have to stop yourself before the raccoon grabs the ladle and starts stirring because the room gave you an opening. Tempting, though. Very tempting.

The best defenses do not rescue everything. They rescue the part worth rescuing. Sometimes that is the craft. Sometimes the feeling. Sometimes the audience. Sometimes the social function. Sometimes the joke underneath the bad reputation. Sometimes the human need the thing met before somebody with better shoes declared it embarrassing. And sometimes there is no part worth rescuing. No craft. No charm. No misunderstood heart. No unfairly mocked audience. No useful context. No hidden load-bearing beam. Just a tire fire with a marketing budget.

In those cases, silence can be the cleanest argument. Not timid silence. Not fearful silence. Not the kind that avoids a fight because dinner might get awkward. I mean the good silence. The briefcase silence. The professional nod. The look over the file, the long breath, the pen clicked closed.

We decline. No further witnesses. The defense rests.