I don't assume that a slight "lean left" bias in a media outlet *isn't* a bias. However, I don't think the political center implies a lack of bias. On the contrary, the right side of the spectrum seems to have little idea, collectively, about how to dismantle its own thought process and identify biases. The left side of the spectrum is hardly great at this, *but* they genuinely try to take it seriously.

I think creationists fighting evolution are doing the intellectual version of smoking bath salts. They're well off their rockers, or maybe they don't have rockers.

By comparison, criticizing trans people for being protective of their threatened human rights is pretty unfair. Yes, everyone is biased, and I've heard (what I consider) biased takes from many trans people and trans supporters. But I am a trans supporter myself; it's very important. Just because some biased things are said doesn't mean the entire perspective should be thrown out. That's especially true when we're talking about a threatened group. No one avoids some kind of boost in bias when perpetually threatened.

Does this mean that those on the alt-right are even more perpetually threatened, as they can't seem to see straight - or argue with intellectual honesty - on many issues? Maybe. But I think it's more in their culture to avoid asking themselves certain kinds of hard questions. Their worldview has seen too little competition (which doesn't mean the people weren't experiencing adversity), and now that it's being attacked from all sides, these people can't stand it. But the problem is their worldview really is backwards, however impolite it might be to say so out loud.

So no, left and right aren't equal, and the center isn't the absence of wrongness.

To me, a bit of a left lean is, more likely than not, the most accurate.

And I say that not as a moderate left kind of person, so there's give and take here. My point of view is: in two hundred years, the US Constitution should have been replaced, rewritten, or heavily modified. This isn't something I expect this year, obviously. But if we're going to fix a thing eventually, why not fix it sooner, before the problems get worse?

If I spent all my time campaigning for a US Constitution rewrite, I'd put a majority of people off, and they might not listen to the rest of what I say.

It isn't my top priority, either. But if you want my opinion on that, I'm very open to starting at the top and rewriting it. I'm also very open to getting rid of the notion of countries, if and when it's practical. I'm open to almost anything that could work - without preconceptions about whether it would work - depending on the evidence that it would indeed (or would not) work. You know? That is genuinely radical - in what I believe is a good way. But it isn't radical in a "let's set fire to the seat of government" way. It isn't radical in a "calling for violence" way. It isn't radical in a "everyone who's opposed is an idiot" way. It isn't radical in a "now or never" way.

It's just radical in that I'm fucking open-minded, and I'll think about whatever neat idea you have.

It's radical in that I'm constantly frustrated that - what I just said? - is not how I'm received myself.

People who think outside the box enough go through life observing a great stubbornness, from most, to even begin thinking. Everyone shoots down new ideas just because. Why? They're sure it can't work. Some feeling. And they have something better to do right now. Oh, if pressed, they'll present a rationalization, but that's the thing - you listen to the argument, you take it seriously, but it's just very half-assed. It's almost as if the person really *wants* to believe that thing you suggest won't work. They have no energy investment at all in reflecting beyond their knee-jerk reaction and rationalization.

That's the way of the world. That's what we get used to.

And it's radical not to be like that.

And it's wonderful not to be like that.