I can still remember somewhat when I thought like them (maybe not as egoistically as some, but still…). There’s this noticeable blind spot in it that relates to what people are saying about state department talking points. “I do research and check sources” means little if your inherent assumption is that US and allied sources are reliable and anywhere the US calls an enemy is unreliable and suspicious. The US has crafted this narrative that impartiality and neutrality is possible if you simply decouple emotional tone from what you’re saying, wear a suit while saying it, and outsource the narrative to someone who isn’t a direct elected official of the government.
But… though there are elements of reality that are observably true with consistency, there is no such thing as being neutral. Every narrative has to choose what information to include or not include and how to include it. You can’t include things on “both sides” and now you are impartial. For example, if one group has power and another has none, speaking about them as if they are on equal footing in a mutually-instigated conflict is not neutrality, it’s implicitly taking the side of the group that has power.
Conscious fascists understand this and they choose to side with dehumanization, with systemic violence. Many a well-meaning liberal does not understand this and acts like they can rise above, extract themself from the fray, stand apart, and be clearer of mind for it. But the real clarity comes from understanding what the factions are, the sides there are, and choosing sides. When I thought like a liberal, I had to rely on forced attempts at universalizing complex situations and reducing them to vulgarized oversimplifications about “human nature” or “cultural trends” or some such vague thing. When I started thinking like a dialectical and historical materialist and learning about the movements and events that have come before, even with only a bare bones understanding of it, I got way more clarity than I ever got out of “do research and check sources” liberalism.
I think of that satirical idea, Last Thursdayism, that the universe was created last thursday, in such a way that it would seem like it has been around for a long time. That is what I would compare liberal “free thinker” thought process to. It behaves as if history began only a few days ago, as if everything runs on simplistic, unchanging universal themes, and if you just point at the themes and laugh, you’ll be above the fray and can be content with knowing you’re not falling for the tricks that those not-free-thinkers do.
I can still remember somewhat when I thought like them (maybe not as egoistically as some, but still…). There’s this noticeable blind spot in it that relates to what people are saying about state department talking points. “I do research and check sources” means little if your inherent assumption is that US and allied sources are reliable and anywhere the US calls an enemy is unreliable and suspicious. The US has crafted this narrative that impartiality and neutrality is possible if you simply decouple emotional tone from what you’re saying, wear a suit while saying it, and outsource the narrative to someone who isn’t a direct elected official of the government.
But… though there are elements of reality that are observably true with consistency, there is no such thing as being neutral. Every narrative has to choose what information to include or not include and how to include it. You can’t include things on “both sides” and now you are impartial. For example, if one group has power and another has none, speaking about them as if they are on equal footing in a mutually-instigated conflict is not neutrality, it’s implicitly taking the side of the group that has power.
Conscious fascists understand this and they choose to side with dehumanization, with systemic violence. Many a well-meaning liberal does not understand this and acts like they can rise above, extract themself from the fray, stand apart, and be clearer of mind for it. But the real clarity comes from understanding what the factions are, the sides there are, and choosing sides. When I thought like a liberal, I had to rely on forced attempts at universalizing complex situations and reducing them to vulgarized oversimplifications about “human nature” or “cultural trends” or some such vague thing. When I started thinking like a dialectical and historical materialist and learning about the movements and events that have come before, even with only a bare bones understanding of it, I got way more clarity than I ever got out of “do research and check sources” liberalism.
I think of that satirical idea, Last Thursdayism, that the universe was created last thursday, in such a way that it would seem like it has been around for a long time. That is what I would compare liberal “free thinker” thought process to. It behaves as if history began only a few days ago, as if everything runs on simplistic, unchanging universal themes, and if you just point at the themes and laugh, you’ll be above the fray and can be content with knowing you’re not falling for the tricks that those not-free-thinkers do.