Resistance Twitter can make any news event sound like the end of the world.

S ocial media is a strange place, and not only because of the recent influx of sombrero-themed political memes. (If you understand what this means, and you don’t do punditry or reporting for a living, then I’d advise taking a break from the internet to hug your kids or walk the dog; they probably miss you.)

It’s a place where relatively noteworthy or even humdrum news events are repackaged by chronically histrionic users as five-alarm fires — shocking, terrible, unprecedented affairs that prove that the fate of the republic, nay, our core democracy, now hangs in the balance.

Consider, for example, the overwrought responses to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s address last week to senior U.S. military officials. Judging by the hand-wringing and shrieking, you’d think that Hegseth had performed a human sacrifice live on stage.

He didn’t, by the way. The speech was fine. People have just lost their grip on reality.

“From this moment forward,” Hegseth said, “the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: war-fighting, preparing for war and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit.” 

Therefore, he continued, his department will reevaluate and overhaul what he described as detrimental and politically motivated policies, some of which are decades old and were implemented by previous administrations, including changes to physical fitness and combat-readiness tests. Hegseth focused specifically on policies he claimed ignore merit in favor of other immutable qualities, such as race and gender, and policies that undermine unit cohesion and combat readiness.

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts,” Hegseth said. “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. . . . We are done with that sh**.” 

The reactions in the press were predictable, ranging from New York magazine’s declaring that the speech revealed Hegseth’s “dark side” and his “deep, disturbing insecurities,” to CNN’s accusing the secretary of defense of attempting to “remake the military in his preferred image,” to former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s alleging in a column for MSNBC that the address “crossed an ominous line.” 

The real magic, however, was on Twitter/X, where users accused Hegseth of everything from sexism to racism to being a Kremlin stooge.

“If Vladimir Putin had been able to put a Manchurian candidate in as our secretary of defense, he could not have done better than Pete Hegseth,” said Atlantic contributing editor Norman Ornstein.

Added yet another Atlantic staffer, David Frum: “It was important that generals and admirals attend this speech in person. If allowed to watch on livestream, they’d be able to text each other during the speech about what an infantile egomaniac the Secretary of Defense is.”

“Smirking like a 7th-grade boy,” wrote former CNN reporter John Harwood. “Is Pete ‘good look’ Hegseth giving those generals his make-up secrets?”

Harwood added, “Pete Hegseth, bringing back the old sh**: peacock-strutting, drunkenness, racism, adultery. . . . The Hegseth era of unprofessional, buffoonish, bigoted, inept DoD leadership [is] alive and well.”

Is everything okay over there, guys?

In his speech, Hegseth announced that the U.S. Department of War would reinstate the exact physical fitness requirements it demanded in 1990, with no exceptions or carve-outs allowed for race, gender, or creed.

“Each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat [Military Occupational Specialty], for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest male standard only,” Hegseth announced. “If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women for some combat jobs, so be it. . . . It will also mean that weak men won’t qualify because we’re not playing games. This is combat. This is life or death.” 

He added: “Any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms standards were changed to ensure females could qualify, must be returned to their original standard. Other standards have been manipulated to hit racial quotas as well, which is just as unacceptable. This too must end; merit only.”

The reason for reverting to previous standards is simple, he explained:

Because war does not care if you’re a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack, the size of an artillery round or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This — and I want to be very clear about this —  this is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world.

But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender-neutral.

The reactions on social media were, again, utterly disproportionate to the instigating event.

“Not only is Hegseth in way over his head,” warned former Biden State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, “but [it’s] clear he doesn’t have a seasoned team to guide him and help mitigate his deficiencies. Continue to worry greatly about what will happen if we face an actual national security crisis where judgment and temperament can’t be faked.”

Then, in response to Hegseth saying, “We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy,” and “We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement,” historian and frequent MSNBC guest Tim Snyder remarked, “It’s not just that this is puerile and lawless. It’s that it is completely out of touch with the issues relevant to contemporary warfare. Russia fights like this. It makes Russians criminals. But it doesn’t make them winners.”

Said Kellyanne Conway’s ex-husband, “This current American presidential administration is run by people who are quite obviously mentally ill, and we need to start talking about that.”

We’re looking at the same speech, right? Social media is such a strange place.

In real life, a news event like this typically raises an eyebrow, prompts a few back-and-forth texts, and maybe even inspires a lively conversation among friends or family. You’d log away what you saw, contemplating the potential short- and long-term consequences. But you would not be filled with existential dread. Like your neighbor or friend who is not terminally online, you’d be curious. You’d probably even have follow-up questions before returning to your daily life.

On social media, however, people react to everything as if they had just witnessed the Hindenburg explosion. “Oh! The humanity!” may just as well be the official slogan of social media.

Failed GOP consultant Mike Murphy even claimed that Hegseth’s audience was “clearly embarrassed” by the address. “A helluva lot of medals of valor in that room,” he added, “and not the kind you get for fake bone spurs.”

But perhaps the best and most unintentionally funny reaction to Hegseth’s address came from John Harwood (again!), whom the old pre-Trump GOP types once allowed to moderate a Republican Party presidential debate.

“Pete Hegseth has made clear that, if he had his way, the U.S. military would have no blacks in leadership positions and no women at all,” Harwood complained.

That Hegseth said “fat” and “unfit” and Harwood heard “blacks” and “women” seems more like a personal issue for Harwood. You’d think he’d keep that one to himself and not blurt it out in public. 

Then again, social media is a weird place.