. . . assuming Trump doesn't win this year and end up more successful leading his next insurrection.
Yes, because his last presidency ended up with him as dictator for life in a fascist state as we all recall. Having an unarmed mob meander through the Capital building taking selfies was super effective in overthrowing the country.
Uh oh, you are about to be verbally attacked by an army of people on here who believe that only one side of the political aisle is brainwashed.
That is a classic projection but at least there is a twinge of self-conciousness here.
Projection of what? I’m not picking sides, you are. You think your team is great and the other team is bad. And more importantly you also lump in everyone who’s not part of a team with the one you think is bad. Most people choosing teams do that, i’m just pointing it out.
Appearing impartial, having the "objective perspective", is crucial to make the false equivalence deception work (in this case: both sides are brainwashed).
That is actually one of the things to look for when ferreting out false equivalence and you jumped right onto it.
And here we are, people saying that having an impartial or an objective perspective is really part of a grand plan to deceive others. Does anyone not see the problem when everyone is choosing a team and uttering nonsense such as this?
And moderators banning or warning people strictly because of their own biases and intolerance of other views, telling me they have no problem wielding the banhammer. Nothing that was said here is worthy of anyone receiving any warnings, let alone a ban. Congratulations, you earn the badge of accomplished authoritarian. Now go ahead use that banhammer of yours and prove me right.
There is a misunderstanding here.
I wrote that there might be an appearance of impartiality and I put "objective perspective" in quotation marks.
The issue is that the supposedly objective perspective, God´s view, Platonic view, or however you want to call it,
is not actually a thing.
Typically, the dominant perspective in a society tends to assume a normative role in the minds of those sharing the characteristics of those seeing themselves as part of the culturally/socially dominant group.
The dominant perspective that has taken on a normative character can easily perceived as the "objective" perspective thus devaluing non dominant perspectives.
This happens automatically and is unfortunately not exclusive to the dominant social group but is often assimilated by minority groups if not actively resisted.
So, when someone claims that they are speaking from an "objective" perspective, odds are that they are actually speaking from the dominant perspective.
In the particular case of the
false equivalence fallacy, there has to be at least the pretense of equi-distance from the positions that are supposedly equivalent and that implies the "objective" perspective - and that is why the equivalence supposedly demonstrated is actually a foregone conclusion.
In other words, it is the choice of perspective that makes positions appear equivalent and the perspective used is typically advertised as the "objective perspective", which is absurd:
Perspectivism
In his works, Nietzsche makes a number of statements on perspective which at times contrast each other throughout the development of his philosophy. Nietzsche's perspectivism begins by challenging the underlying notions of 'viewing from nowhere', 'viewing from everywhere', and 'viewing without interpreting' as being absurdities.[25] Instead, all viewing is attached to some perspective, and all viewers are limited in some sense to the perspectives at their command.[27] In The Genealogy of Morals he writes:
Let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject'; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as 'pure reason', 'absolute spirituality', 'knowledge in itself': these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective knowing; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept' of this thing, our 'objectivity' be.[28]
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals (1887; III:12), transl. Walter Kaufmann
In this, Nietzsche takes a contextualist approach which rejects any God's-eye view of the world.[29] This has been further linked to his notion of the death of God and the dangers of a resulting relativism. However, Nietzsche's perspectivism itself stands in sharp contrast to any such relativism.[3] In outlining his perspectivism, Nietzsche rejects those who claim everything to be subjective, by disassembling the notion of the subject as itself a mere invention and interpretation.[30] He further states that, since the two are mutually dependent on each other, the collapse of the God's-eye view causes also the notion of the thing-in-itself to fall apart with it. Nietzsche views this collapse to reveal, through his genealogical project, that all that has been considered non-perspectival knowledge, the entire tradition of Western metaphysics, has itself been only a perspective.[27][29] His perspectivism and genealogical project are further integrated into each other in addressing the psychological drives that underlie various philosophical programs and perspectives, as a form of critique.[4] Here, contemporary scholar Ken Gemes views Nietzsche's perspectivism to above all be a principle of moral psychology, rejecting interpretations of it as an epistemological thesis outrightly.[4] It is through this method of critique that the deficiencies of various perspectives can be alleviated—through a critical mediation of the differences between them rather than any appeals to the non-perspectival.[4][17] In a posthumously published aphorism from The Will to Power, Nietzsche writes:
"Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented and projected behind what there is.—Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis.
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism."
It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.[30]
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §481 (1883–1888), transl. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale
While Nietzsche does not plainly reject truth and objectivity, he does reject the notions of absolute truth, external facts, and non-perspectival objectivity.[4][25]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism
