Because of the idea of pyrrhic victory, if you're not gaining anything from a win, why engage in the first place?
That notion doesnt apply to non-physical interactions. I dont lose brain troops. Combine humanities knack for the irrational and culpability to short-term memory, and there is no such thing as picking your battles except actually picking to engage in battle.
The mere act of battle is a victory because if you have cause and dont engage, its a guaranteed loss whether you "lose" in battle(lose in quotations because you can always continue the fight till death or irrelevance because you arent losing anything physical)
IMO pick your battles is just cowardly obedience to authority rather than a statement of making a rational choice to emgage. To the 3rd party coward, what is an important battle to you where merely clashing is in itself a success, is to them "unnecessary" because they are too afraid to do so or dont care(but if they didnt care, why do they step in as attempted arbitrators?)
This is a failed case of trying to apply shit to human interactions and thought by using physical occurences. Like how the "no true scotsman" fallacy is claimed for things like ideologies, which can themselves be lacking a concrete definition where all adherents are "scotsman" to their own community of followers.
These things are deemed petty not by some natural fact but by uninvested observers. What they mean by pick your battle is to either "wait till we feel angry enough to fight" or "do it where Im not around". Otherwise resistance is a battle that doesnt need to be "picked" because the goal isnt so much to win as it is it to "be". If you can guess the consequences of your battles, you have already picked em. Whether that means possibly getting fired or on bad grounds with a person.
"Creepy crazy fucking idiot Nr. 873894532"-aCol
the most well written and verbose shitposter on the internet