You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it. That’s not cognitive dissonance, that’s just basic philosophy. Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition. There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of. That’s not contradictory. It’s literally the human condition.
Empirical data doesn’t magically escape that filter either. Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity. It’s intersubjective, not absolute.
And I never said you have to believe in relativism to understand lying or manipulation. What I am saying is that the right understands the power of framing and narrative, and the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over. That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.
The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct. Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.
And as for the right thriving on chaos, sure, but that doesn’t mean the left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception. Understanding those methods doesn’t make you immoral. It makes you strategic. There’s a difference between manipulation and persuasion. The right bends narratives to serve their goals; the left tends to just call them out, assuming reason will win on its own. It doesn’t.
So yeah, the point isn’t to become dishonest. It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it.
No, you’re just not being consistent with your own claim. You’ve gone as far as to say that the existence of the sun is a subjective matter. Now you’re predicating your claim with “direct access”.
Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition.
Right, but none of them argue that the biases in perception means we cannot come to a consensus in objectivity.
There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of.
And how do you know that the thing itself exist? Couldn’t it just be a hallucination…?
Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity.
Again, you are falsely defining truth or reality to be a state devoid of any subjectivity. Just because there is subjectivity in perception and observation does not mean we cannot come to a consensus of what an objective truth or reality is.
the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over
Again… Maybe they just believe that “truths” (human construct) like human rights should be self evident and not up for debate.
That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.
That is not consistent with your previous claims, you are moving the goal post.
The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct.
You can, but there’s no inherent reason to if it isn’t consistent with your “version of truth”.
Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.
Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.
“Suffering matters” is a self evident claim reliant on metaphysical certainty…
left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception
Who says they don’t? The left is a pretty big spectrum, most of which is largely absent in North America. I think the problem you’re having is confusing leftist with liberals, as liberals only want to preserve the status quo, and are thus less likely to engage in more manipulative tactics.
It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.
Again, I think liberals in this country are walking a tight rope of dispelling the fascist regime without dispelling the suprestructure that allows it to be successful in the first place. It’s hard to call out fascist without also disparaging the capitalistic system that the liberals are trying to preserve.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it. That’s not cognitive dissonance, that’s just basic philosophy. Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition. There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of. That’s not contradictory. It’s literally the human condition.
Empirical data doesn’t magically escape that filter either. Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity. It’s intersubjective, not absolute.
And I never said you have to believe in relativism to understand lying or manipulation. What I am saying is that the right understands the power of framing and narrative, and the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over. That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.
The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct. Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.
And as for the right thriving on chaos, sure, but that doesn’t mean the left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception. Understanding those methods doesn’t make you immoral. It makes you strategic. There’s a difference between manipulation and persuasion. The right bends narratives to serve their goals; the left tends to just call them out, assuming reason will win on its own. It doesn’t.
So yeah, the point isn’t to become dishonest. It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.
No, you’re just not being consistent with your own claim. You’ve gone as far as to say that the existence of the sun is a subjective matter. Now you’re predicating your claim with “direct access”.
Right, but none of them argue that the biases in perception means we cannot come to a consensus in objectivity.
And how do you know that the thing itself exist? Couldn’t it just be a hallucination…?
Again, you are falsely defining truth or reality to be a state devoid of any subjectivity. Just because there is subjectivity in perception and observation does not mean we cannot come to a consensus of what an objective truth or reality is.
Again… Maybe they just believe that “truths” (human construct) like human rights should be self evident and not up for debate.
That is not consistent with your previous claims, you are moving the goal post.
You can, but there’s no inherent reason to if it isn’t consistent with your “version of truth”.
“Suffering matters” is a self evident claim reliant on metaphysical certainty…
Who says they don’t? The left is a pretty big spectrum, most of which is largely absent in North America. I think the problem you’re having is confusing leftist with liberals, as liberals only want to preserve the status quo, and are thus less likely to engage in more manipulative tactics.
Again, I think liberals in this country are walking a tight rope of dispelling the fascist regime without dispelling the suprestructure that allows it to be successful in the first place. It’s hard to call out fascist without also disparaging the capitalistic system that the liberals are trying to preserve.