How to Call Yourself Open-Minded and Still Believe Whatever You Want (An Exercise in Philology)

I’ll actually (and uncharacteristically) cite my sources on this one. Don’t expect footnotes. First, CSL’s essay ‘Bulverism,’ from God in the Dock. Then, some general thought from Hegel and Marx. Also, 1984 (whose author and I share the same last name. Not the pseudonym’s last name.) And, most importantly, a guy by the name of S. Torres. Who is really smart. And knows some pretty good restaurants. Probably some other people I forgot too. Note: this is written as caricature. If you can’t read it with a sense of humor, don’t read it at all. After all, how seriously can you take anything written by somebody who thinks that spray paint and Fight Club style mischief should be legitimate tools of statecraft?

Subvert the Dominant Paradigm. The first step to being open-minded is to subvert the dominant paradigm. This means that you must determine what the over-represented viewpoint is, and advocate for the opposite view. Since the dominant viewpoint is over-represented anyways, you don’t have to try to understand it, or allow it to be considered in any arguments. You, as the open-minded one, represent the squelched viewpoints, and you have the license of a revolutionary in advocating them. Since the dominant paradigm is already presented, you only have to present your side. And here is the key. You get to decide what the dominant paradigm is. Therefore, you should decide that the dominant paradigm just happens to be the polar opposite of whatever you already happen to believe. That way, you get to be open-minded, and just believe whatever your prejudices and stereotypes are, without having to waste your time with any difficult and annoying counter-arguments. Note: you don’t have to base your dominant paradigm claim in any statistical data. This is particularly useful in remaining ’open-minded’ in fields which are already 90% ‘open-minded.’ The dominant paradigm can always be redefined at will and convenience. You can even redefine it, if your belief preferences happen to change.

Hypothesize a Future to Justify Present Actions. This is especially useful if you decide to use the term ‘progressive.’ The key is to imagine whatever future you want, and use that future to justify whatever actions you want right now. After all, in the light of a Utopian future, pretty much any actions are acceptable to bring it about. Once we all arrive at that future, we will understand that the sacrifices necessary to get there were worth it. You must remind yourself that history will vindicate you. Do not let yourself be encumbered by the thought that the term ‘progressive’ was applied to other ideas (I.e. Communism, Eugenics) that did not pan out. Also, make sure you blame the tremendous costs incurred in the pursuit of those futures on someone else. Ignoring the past is the best way to go about this. After all, their future was not your future. They were wrong, but you are right. Assure yourself that they did not think the same things. Label any opposing arguments as ‘reactionary,’ and dismiss them without consideration. After all, in the future where you are vindicated, these arguments will have long since passed away, and hence they are not worthy of your time.
Claim to Represent a Group. An individual can only speak for themselves, but a representative can bring the power of a group to bear. Therefore, claim to be speaking for a group. Note that you do not actually have to represent that group in any way to claim to represent it. If you happen to be already associated with a group, present your personal beliefs to others as the beliefs of the group. This usually works better if you are presenting it to non-group members. If a non-group member questions your credentials, then accuse them of not understanding, and being racist, or sexist, or whatever other -ist you want. If a group member questions you, then question their allegiance to the group, or even their membership in the group. It is right to marginalize someone who doesn’t understand what the group really wants. They are probably sell-outs anyways. After all, if they really cared about the group, they would have reached the same conclusions as you. If you are faced with statistics, then claim that the community just needs to be educated on the issues, and you are still equipped to speak for them, because you understand how things really are. If they knew what you know, or were as smart as you, they would all agree with you too. Remember, you represent what the people would want if they knew what they really wanted. You do not even need to be a group member in order to claim to represent them. This generally only works if you have some spurious connection to the group, such as having lived somewhere for a few weeks, or having attended a multi-cultural festival, or perhaps having watched a documentary on public television. If anyone questions the legitimacy of this connection, then call them imperialist, ethno-centric, or tell them that they just don’t understand other cultures. Beware of using this if actual members of the group are nearby. If members of the group are nearby and disagree with you, you may have to dismiss them as outliers (even if they are your entire sample size,) or you may have to remind yourself that you know what is best for them. After all, you are the enlightened one, and if they were smart like you, they would know what they wanted too.

Argue Correctly. You must always remember the correct technique for arguing. You must start with the assumption that you are right. You can let no data, no counter arguments, no new thoughts assail this assumption, for you represent the future, and the future cannot be stopped. Accordingly, you should gather all arguments that support your previous assumption and throw them shotgun-style at your adversary. Give no thought to coherence between arguments, nor attempt to create a logical stream of argumentation. Just say things that support your conclusion. If people aren’t coming around, they may just be slow to understand. Therefore, you must repeat your argument. Do not attempt to change or refine the argument, this may confuse the listener and impede your attempt to enlighten them. Also remember that you are smart, well informed, and well intentioned. Therefore, anyone who reaches different conclusions than you must be either unintelligent, poorly informed, or a bad person. If you have stated your shotgun arguments multiple times and they have not changed their mind, then they are not poorly informed, as you have just informed them. Perhaps they are unintelligent. You should then cite your various justifications (degrees work well here) for why you are qualified to think for them. If they do not accept this, and provide a seemingly cogent counter-argument, then only one option remains. They are bad people. Perhaps they are just looking out for the rich and powerful (you must forget that many of the rich and powerful may be on your side, which of course could not be the case, for you are subverting the dominant paradigm,) perhaps they don’t want to understand, perhaps they just hate other people. Regardless, they are bad people, and therefore you should not validate their actions at all, certainly not by hearing what they have to say. Remember, as well, that you define the ground rules for the argument, just as you define the future. Give your side the benefit of every doubt. If there is no doubt, create it. Conspiracies work well for this. Make sure the opposing side is held to account for all of its nefarious actions and intentions. Even if these accusations are little less than slander, remember that accusations make headlines and retractions are on buried on page five, and falsehood does little to detract from repeatability. After all, you must not concern yourself with outmoded absolute concepts of truth, but with the future. The future will bring its own truth, which will vindicate you.

Never Consider Close-minded Viewpoints. The most important thing you must remember is to remain truly open-minded, you must shut out all close-minded viewpoints. You may conveniently label all opposing viewpoints as close-minded. If you entertain close-minded thought, you will find that they spread. You may find yourself dismissing viewpoints that you may come to call ‘contradictory,’ ‘illogical,’ or ‘wrong.’ You must especially avoid this last word ‘wrong,’ as this implies some sort of absolute truth. Use the word ‘problematic’ instead. The only way to ensure that these close-minded thoughts do not fester is to block them out. You must absolutely and unequivocally state that there is no absolute truth. Remind yourself that the other side is totally illegitimate, as it is close-minded. Never learn about the close minded side. Never let yourself believe that they may have a point. Never try to understand their point of view. And certainly never learn to argue the issue from their side. Silence your opposition, drown them out, for their viewpoint is dangerous, and must not be allowed to infect the open minded. Finally, remember that your open-mindedness must be passed on to the next generation by keeping all close-minded thought out of any academic institutions. Reactionary, counter-revolutionary thoughts must not be welcome, for you own the future, and you must ensure that we get there, by any means necessary.

And this is where labor camps come from.