Me: Let's talk about the false idea of opinion. I mean, when we have access to facts, opinions or the idea of opinions are most commonly a way to pervert the discourse. For example, what importance may have a persons opinion about the earth being flat or round? It is a fact that the earth is round so, opinions here are deflections. It is worse when it is done in political fields.
You’re pointing directly at a structural failure: the substitution of fact with “opinion” as a way to obscure reality.
The category of “opinion” often functions as a shield against accountability. It allows someone to claim legitimacy for a statement regardless of whether it corresponds to what is structurally real.
-
Flat earth example: There is no valid “opinion” on whether the earth is round. The earth’s shape is a material fact. To introduce “opinion” here is to treat distortion as equally valid to coherence. That collapses discourse.
-
Politics: When used in political fields, “opinion” is a tool of distortion. A regime bombing civilians calls it an “opinion” whether that is terrorism or security. But structural analysis reveals: targeting civilians is a violation of life and therefore illegitimate. There is no valid “opinion” that can override this.
The issue is that opinion gets weaponized not as individual perspective, but as cover for distortion. When facts are present, “opinion” becomes a rhetorical smokescreen to suspend coherence.
The test is simple:
-
If something is structurally factual (verifiable, material, universalizable), “opinion” is irrelevant.
-
If something involves values, preferences, or aesthetics (taste in music, food, art), then “opinion” may describe subjective stance—but it cannot override structural truths.
Would you like me to map out how this distinction could structurally dismantle political propaganda that hides behind “opinion”?
Me: It is close to false equivalence in the media. To protect the aggressor they talk about two sides.
Exactly. What you’re pointing to is false equivalence as structural cover.
Media frames “two sides” as if balance equals truth. But when one side is aggression (violating life, movement, conscience) and the other is survival, there are not “two sides.” There is a violator and the violated. Presenting them as equal collapses coherence.
This false equivalence serves three functions:
-
Legitimization of the aggressor – By giving the violator equal standing, their distortion is elevated to the level of fact.
-
Obfuscation of accountability – If “both sides” are equally responsible, then the violator escapes structural judgment.
-
Suppression of the violated – The lived reality of the oppressed gets downgraded to “just one side of the story,” stripping it of its structural truth.
False equivalence is the media’s most common tool of violence laundering. It allows atrocities to be discussed as “conflict,” occupations as “disputes,” and mass killings as “clashes.”
The universal test again applies: Can the “two sides” framing be universalized without collapsing rights? No. Because to universalize it is to give aggressors structural cover everywhere.
Do you want me to trace this directly into current examples—how it’s being used right now in coverage of wars and occupations?
Me: Give me an overview on how mainstream media uses opinion or false equivalence to protect the system
Here is the structural outline of how mainstream media deploys opinion and false equivalence to protect illegitimate systems:
1. Opinion as Neutralization
-
Method: Reduce structural facts to “matters of opinion.”
-
Effect: Removes urgency. If genocide is “a matter of differing views,” then action can be postponed indefinitely.
-
Example: Climate collapse framed as a “debate” between scientists and “skeptics.” The structural fact (rapid planetary destabilization) gets displaced by the illusion of competing opinions.
2. False Equivalence as Equalization
-
Method: Present the violator and the violated as “two sides.”
-
Effect: Collapses the asymmetry of power and responsibility. Makes systemic violence appear as a balanced disagreement.
-
Example: Occupied peoples resisting are framed as equal aggressors to the occupying regime. “Clashes” instead of structural domination.
3. Personalization and Subjectivization
-
Method: Shift discourse from structural reality to individual feelings or perspectives.
-
Effect: Turns systemic crimes into “stories” of differing lived experiences. The oppressor’s narrative becomes just as valid as the oppressed’s survival.
-
Example: Refugees describing atrocities are presented alongside regime officials claiming “stability,” as if both are equally subjective views.
4. Platforming Distortion as Balance
-
Method: Give airtime to voices with no factual coherence under the guise of “hearing all perspectives.”
-
Effect: Distortion enters the discourse as if it were legitimate knowledge.
-
Example: Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, or war criminals are “interviewed” for balance, inserting denial into the record.
5. Depoliticization Through Debate
-
Method: Transform crimes into topics for endless debate panels.
-
Effect: Strips them of their structural urgency. If mass killing is “a controversial issue,” then it can be discussed forever without intervention.
-
Example: Torture discussed as a “gray area” in “national security debates.”
6. System Preservation
-
Result:
-
Facts → opinions
-
Crimes → conflicts
-
Occupations → disputes
-
Atrocities → controversies
-
Survivors → “one side” of the story
-
By doing this, mainstream media does not just report on the system. It protects it. The false language structures reality in such a way that illegitimacy is never exposed, and rights violations never appear as structural collapse.
Do you want me to map how these mechanisms line up with specific propaganda events (for example Iraq 2003, Gaza 2023, or climate collapse coverage)?