#neutralism

Kurt Cobain in dresses to liven your day

To live my life by.

How can you not know misery? :O

Have you ever had one of those epiphanies on a topic you’re already familiar with? One of those statements where you’re already familiar with the thought behind it, but never quite put in the full articulation behind it? This essay is one of those moments and the title is the statement. I’m not to go into detail about who, what, when, where and why because that isn’t important. The important part is the statement itself. I don’t know why or how it came to be, and what cultural phenomenon made this happen; but in recent years there has been this movement, particularly amongst youth, to call for Neutralism in citizens. This call is mostly in regards to social, political, issues, but the push also wants to extend to... well everything. There has also been this call for a third party system in the United States, and while it is a topic relevant to this one, it’s what I’m here to discuss. A third party system is problematic for reasons I will link to (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638). Superficially this sounds like a good idea. There’s this idea that the truth is somewhere in the middle and that both sides have valid and equal footing and should be accounted for in forging the truest path. This idea that the truth lies in no singular side but somewhere in the between all of it. It’s not a bad idea by any means, but for reasons I’m about to discuss, it is woefully misguided. Many have even taken to wearing “neutral” as a badge of honor and authority. Even exclaiming they’re “unbiased”, “objective”, and “honest” because they are neutral. Before I continue any further, because someone is going to be a smart ass, and try to “counter argue” by using one of my own essays. Yes, there is no objectivity when it comes to these types of things, I’m not about to make any claims about something being objective, or that this isn’t subjective. More along the lines of what isn’t objective. Yes, truth is a nebulous, subjective, multifaceted concept; but, if we always abided by that principle in every way then it will always result in a debate of “what is truth?” and something could ever be said. And yes you’re so clever for pointing out something so trite, that pointing out how trite it is, is almost trite. See, Neutralism, at least in the context it is most often seen in, is still a partisan, just a multifaceted partisan. The idea that the truth is not partisan and is a midpoint between ideas is laughable. Neutralism is still locking the idea of truth in a single direction. It’s true that the truth is neutral; “liberal”, “conservative”, “democratic”, and “republican” are all arbitrary labels of ideas. But the truth isn’t neutral by being bipartisan, multi-partisan, or solely middle, because, again, that would suggest the truth is in a singular stance. The truth is neutral in the sense that it is free flowing; not bound by labels that humans give it. Truth has the infinite potential to be anything; whether that may be neutral, a combination of things, multiple, truths, or sometimes the truth can be very polarizing. How, you might ask? Well, let’s look at some examples: Look whether or not accelerated climate change is a result of human activity is about as much of a debate as whether or not you should kick a dog. It’s happening, it’s real, and science and facts show it. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree on it. Hell, even the Vatican’s scientists (yes they’re real) are in agreeance. This isn’t just “like my opinion man”, it’s real, it’s factual, it’s a thing. So with all this basically said and done, you would think that both parties would be in agreement right? No, instead the party mostly pushing for environmental protection is the Democratic party. But by naturalistic logic, isn’t Republican denial of climate change just as valid? No, it isn’t. Or what about slavery? It’s abhorrent, repugnant, vile and any other synonyms. Which party pushed for the emancipation of African Americans in the United States? The Republican party. And don’t even try to make a neutralist stance on that. Author’s side note: during the 60’s and 70’s the two parties made an ideological witch. So yesterday's republicans are today’s democrats, and yesterday’s democrats are today’s republicans. I want to clarify this to avoid any off topic, stupid ass, comments from smart asses. Look I can go on all day with examples, but I think you get the point. The truth is free flowing, never existing in a single partisan always in every situation. Hats off to people for seeking truth and realizing the truth isn’t solely in one ballpark. But by taking a neutral stance on all topics, you are creating a party and attempting to force truth in that area.