| > I think you are talking about the reactionaries' use of the word That's a fair point, yeah. > When you take that red pill, when you are open to the facts, it is shocking what has been happening right under our noses I think the problem there for me personally is, that "being red-pilled" was kinda adopted by the right wing, so I would never label myself red-pilled when I learn what kinds of things black people experience because of being who they are. But yeah, if we keep current politics out of our context, then I get what is meant with being red-pilled. So essentially, red-pilled means "I learned(or at least think so) something which the mainstream(god I hate that word in the political context) does not know." Furthermore, if what you think you've learned is objectively true, then you were red-pilled, if it's objectively wrong you just invented a new conspiracy theory. |
I think the definition is narrower. I think it's something that completely shifts your persecptive, that is relvelatory. I know things about certain policy issues that the mainstream doesn't - or about IT, but it's not the same.
> if what you think you've learned is objectively true, then you were red-pilled, if it's objectively wrong you just invented a new conspiracy theory.
This is the nature of all knowledge - there is no way around thinking critically, using all the skills (empiricism, post-modernism, etc.); it's never easy.