But when someone finally does, they think they’ve gone crazy for not agreeing with their politics.
TLDR less than a year ago I decided to get real serious about researching what communism actually is. Now that I’m a communist (Because doing the real research opened my eyes to a better system than capitalism, and ML seemed to be the best way to go about that), my family is questioning whether I’m like, in a cult or not? I dunno, they aren’t saying anything specific, just pushing back hard any time I prove their liberal media bubble lies to them.
I’ve opened up a politics channel on our family chat, and every time I post something about media bias, anything questioning the status quo about China, Cuba, or North Korea, it get’s scrutinized to the level of a pseudo-journalist combing every “media bias” website looking for any reason whatsoever to prove that my source is wrong (Besides, you know, just actually finding the evidence or anything). Last week a family member shared the NK story about censoring jeans… I did push back, and immediately they caved about the story and pivoted to moving the goal posts with “Well North Korea is just a dictatorship so whatever they say can’t be trusted”, then when I asked if they knew anything about NK they said “How can we? It’s so suppressive they won’t tell us anything”, which there are resources out there, they are genuinely hard to find, but I ended with “Welp they are opening up soon so you can see for yourself”. Not a single one of them knows what a politburo or peoples congress is… I have told them too, they seem to have selective memory sometimes.
If anyone posts anything from the BBC, CNN, the guardian, whatever, they give a nod and a “true true”. But second thought? Nah, that’s tankie bullshit, he’s biased, can’t be trusted… Like guys, WE’VE TALKED ABOUT MEDIA BUBBLES, YOU ARE IN ONE RIGHT NOW, I’M SHOWING YOU, I WAS WITH YOU A YEAR AGO, I GOT OUT, YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME.
It’s as if “media bubble” to them meant Fox news, or ONLY conservative news. But they watch the “real news” like NPR, CNN, MSNBC, BBC. So they are fine, it’s not their media bubble that was the problem. One of them admits they ONLY READ HEADLINES (Well, 95% headlines anyway), and claim that “reading news is their hobby”. Like… dude, you don’t read the news, you said it yourself, YOU READ HEADLINES. I sent them Second thoughts video about biased headlines and they’re like “But all sources do that”. And I’m like "YES THEY DO, PLEASE BE CONSCIOUS OF THIS FACT AS YOU ONLY READ HEADLINES THEN CLAIM YOU KNOW THE STORY FROM IT. AHHHHHHHH I feel like I’m going crazy :( I even tried offering my ground news subscription. I know it’s baby steps but I figured they would be interested, no bites yet.
I can’t push too hard or I just won’t ever see them again, but at this point, is it worth it? I’m nearing 40 btw, not young. We are all grown adults. I spent so long going through this transition of learning/growing, so I know it’s not fast. The older you are, the harder it is to change, especially your biases. But still, I did it, I hoped they would too. Right now they are truly practicing the backlash effect.
Thanks for listening to my rant comrades. May your propaganda efforts not be in vein!
I’ve experienced similar. There is this very distinctive character of the liberal who views themself as a discerning, well-informed individual, but takes imperialist news for granted as true while only applying the discerning and skeptical part to things that fall outside of that framework. I can still remember to an extent, in my own learning, the stark difference that it made understanding imperialism vs. not.
And I mean imperialism as we talk about it in these spaces and as defined through observation by communists, rather than the empty colloquial meaning people throw about that means something like “a nation that has a lot of territory and/or power/influence and wants more.” Under that meaningless other definition, you get people saying China is imperialist because it’s influential and powerful or something. And it’s like, no, we are talking about a very specific development of systems, interests, and power here.
I find this to be the case with multiple terms. “Authoritarian” is another one. I try to get people to read On Authority sometimes, in those moments. As is “dictatorship”. In communist theory and practice, we distinguish between a dictatorship of capital and a dictatorship of the proletariat. To many liberals, dictator simply means “person who makes everyone do what they say” and “democracy” is contrasted against that. Or how about capitalism vs. business and the people who think that capitalism just means having any kind of commerce.
We could probably compile a whole list of terms like this that are oversimplifications or outright distortions, and contribute to the binary thinking liberals tend to be spinning on.
Edit: slight change on wording
When I was a teenager, I remember being explicitly taught “critical thinking” at school and to read the news using lenses.
Who was speaking? What is their motivation? How do they want me to feel after reading what they wrote? Etc those “the medium is the message” questions that should come before you even read the news itself.
Now I’m called insane because I don’t believe the New York Times and if I point out the entire news media is controlled by billionaires I’m a conspiracist.
Yeah, it’s funny, I bet if I linked an NPR article that said the exact same things, they would be fine with it.
Except for the pro palestinian edge that second thought has. One person took issue with that the most.
I was talking with them one time and I said, do you really read about imperialism at all? And they said, nope, just in talking with you.
That was one point recently where I said, you know what, I’m not going to be able to teach them everything. They’re going to have to learn this on their own too.