Performative Activism: Surf Writer’s “Six Bondi Mass Shootings a Day” Message

"It exemplifies performative outrage: jumping into a cause because it’s prominent, without depth or consideration for the raw grief involved."

After becoming outspoken about Muslim terrorism in the wake of the horrific terrorist mass shooting at Bondi Beach two weeks ago — which claimed 15 lives during a Hanukkah celebration — I have been attacked like never before in my life.

This has been a fascinating, if disturbing, experience.

I wondered what it was I had triggered in people, many that I know and many more that I don’t, that made them think it was okay to make so many irrational, mostly personal attacks so publicly.

But it was a Facebook direct message that I found the most striking. A message from a very well-known surfing journalist made me realise what we’re up against.

The message read: “Imagine six Bondi mass shootings a day, every day for two years.”

In my view, comparing the fresh trauma of a terrorist mass shooting at a peaceful religious gathering on a Sydney beach — in a country that has enjoyed relative peace — to an ongoing war in the Middle East feels remarkably tone-deaf and insensitive at this moment, especially so soon after the event.

Performative Outrage

To me, it exemplifies the kind of performative outrage I’ve been describing: jumping into a cause because it’s prominent, without apparent depth or consideration for the raw grief involved.

This seems to me like the poster child for the “I’m protesting the thing everyone else is protesting” meme — you know the ones: a person holding a blank sign or something generic like “I don’t know what we’re protesting but I’m here” or “I’m against whatever you’re against.”

In my opinion, this is bandwagon activism: joining trends or outrage cycles primarily because they’re popular, driven more by social pressure than by genuine understanding or care for the issue. It can look like activism from the outside, but it often lacks substance — more about the aesthetic of being on the “right” side than thoughtful engagement.

Most people remember the moment they wake up. It’s not something that’s easy to forget. I woke up one day about 10 years ago when I saw a woman on the news answering a reporter who asked her why she was protesting: “Because I’m a good person.”

The scales fell from my eyes. I heard what she was really saying, even if she didn’t quite know what an admission she was making. She didn’t answer the question, but ironically, she told the reporter what she was really doing.

She was showing everyone what side she was on: the side of goodness. It wasn’t about the issue; it was about being seen as good.There is a well-known idea that people who see themselves as “good,” or who desperately want to be seen as good, can sometimes become the most dangerous — not because they intend harm, but because they believe their actions are morally justified.

This idea appears across psychology, philosophy, and history under several related concepts.Moral self-licensing is when people view themselves as good and sometimes feel entitled to do harmful things because they believe their moral “credit” protects them. “I’m a good person, so this harsh action must be fine.”

Moral absolutism is when people who believe they are unquestionably on the “good” side may justify extreme actions because they think their cause is righteous. This is the classic “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” dynamic.

In The Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt argued that great harm is often done not by obvious villains but by ordinary people who think they’re just doing the right or normal thing.

Virtue signaling or moral grandstanding is when someone is more invested in appearing good than being good; they may attack others publicly to prove their own virtue, escalate moral conflicts, or behave aggressively while believing they’re morally superior.

Shadow projection, in Jungian psychology, refers to people who see themselves as purely good and often project their own flaws onto others, treating those others as dangerous or evil. This describes externalising one’s own darkness through moral scapegoating, which can lead to harsh actions while believing they’re defending goodness.

The “dangerous good person” paradox refers to those who believe they are unquestionably good, and who may ignore their own capacity for harm, justify cruelty as “necessary”, refuse to self-reflect, become rigid, punitive, or self-righteous, and display a moral infallibility mindset.

Another old surf media acquaintance messaged me: “What happened to you?”

I messaged back: “If you had to guess, what do you think it might have been?”

I was tempted to ask what happened to him, but I already knew the answer; he had gone to university thinking he was training to get a job when he was really just studying to be a bad actor in the dramatic arts.

(Disclaimer: This is a personal opinion piece reflecting my subjective thoughts and reactions to recent events and private messages I received. All critical statements about individuals or their words are expressions of my honest opinion, based on the specific quoted message and the extraordinary sensitivity of the terrorist mass shooting at Bondi Beach on December 14, 2025. Nothing in this piece is intended as a statement of fact beyond the direct quote I attribute, and I do not suggest any malice or ill intent on the part of anyone mentioned.)