This is about Palestine mainly but dealing with the idea in general is good too. I'd recommend Blackshirts and Reds but I'm looking for something quick so books aren't an option
You don't need to "shatter" the idea, that's very aspirational and rarely works. When has someone said something to you that unexpectedly "shattered" an idea for you? I assume that you, me, and our comrades are more willing to have our ideas broken down and [self-]criticized than most, since that's how you end up on a communist forum like this at all.
Liberal hegemony over Western ideology is strong, and if you want to be effective, you need to approach people in good faith and chip away at ideas like neutrality and objectivity. That isn't to say that you approach every conversation in good faith, of course. Know when to call foolishness or bad faith "boring" and walk out after you've laid down a couple of points. Average liberals that aren't extremely online will hear what you have to say, especially if you can avoid buzzwords and hot topics (jumping into the middle of the Palestinian conflict and going wild isn't going to be productive, even if you are correct imo). If you can keep a finely honed tone of smugness they love that shit, it helps a lot.
Anyway, to get a bit specific, the roots of this topic were first loosened for me when we read The Things They Carried in high school. A common part of the teaching curriculum is discussing how the book uses some embellishments of its stories that are often presented as fact. It spins into an easy discussion about the meaning of truth and the difference between perspective and reality. Took a few years for things to come along, but it was an easy transition after making even a simple acknowledgment that perspective and reality are not the same thing, and perspective often matters even more than reality. It only played a small part in my current understanding of the world and complex topics (which continues to develop), but it was foundational to many of the stepping stones along the way.
I didn't really answer your question very directly, but I hope some part of that might be useful.
I didn't really mean shatter and I agree with you that it's very aspirational... I'm just trying to deal with the real problem which is their not wanting to engage with a website like https://decolonizepalestine.com/ because it's created by Palestinians and they want neutral sources
I've shared Abby Martin's documentary about Gaza and hopefully they watch it
Ya i get ya, if you're already in it give them this: https://101.visualizingpalestine.org/
"look I can't say it's 'neutral' cause that's not really a thing, but this is the data. It tells a story. Not sure how much I can really say" would be my approach. Good luck fighting the good fight comrade.
How can it exist? Which of the following statements would be objective and neutral, considering 2/3 of population read only headlines.
200 palestinians dead after clashes.
200 palestinians killed by idf.
5 israelis killed after thousands rockets launched.
5 israelis killed by hamas attacks.
Hundred of dead on both sides of israel/palestine conflict.
In short, ask a person for objective and neutral headline, which can describe the situation
Problem is they don't actually know much and didn't engage with the recent events but now they're trying to learn, you guessed it, thru "neutral" sources and gonna use Google :agony:
yeah it sounds like they are well-meaning, but just need to develop media criticism skills (which isn't easy)
Maybe pointing out how because Isreal is one of the Us’s biggest allies and the US press is biases towards it and then recommending some better sources will help them educate themselves without making it seem like you are telling them to read crazy conspiracy stuff
...there can be no “impartial” social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.
Not posting this to suggest that this is definitive, but to show that this is how Lenin thought, which is to show how the social sciences (and by extension, the press) have a class character
It's pretty simple, there is just no such thing as neutrality. Being "neutral" on an issue only supports the status quo, or at the very least the stronger of the parties involved in the issue. "Neutrality" on the issue of Israel/Palestine is just support for Israel and there isn't any other reasonable way to look at it.
The thing that's worked for me, specifically in person, is just keep asking why/how. If someone makes a claim that most people would see as common sense, just say "really?" And keep it going. Force them to confront their internal assumptions. Make them realize that they don't actually have as much solid ground beneath them as they think they do.
No promises that they'll suddenly be like "my life is a lie, I'm communist now", but they'll at least start to understand their biases. With my sister, it was about 2 months of asking why/how followed by me buying her BSAR and she flipped.
BSAR is a good one because it's easy to understand and short, but once you get someone in a state where they're starting to confront their biases, anything works. Anything that presents an alternative viewpoint. Articles, memes, posts, etc.
After a while, if you can get people to keep confronting their internal contradictions, it will all eventually click. It's actually easier for us because ya know, we have reality on our side, but this tactic is what the conspiracy theorists and fascists use too. They just use their alternative thought in place of dialectical materialism and class consciousness.
Also, it kinda reveals that the ones recruiting and driving conspiratorial/fascist thought are well aware of class consciousness, but just on the other side.
"On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense" ?
Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.
https://archive.org/details/NietzscheOnTruthAndLying/page/n1/mode/2up
Well there is objectivity and neutrality, but we don't have access to it because experience is filtered through our senses and shaped by our mind (mood, past experiences etc.)
I think the more relevant issue is the lack of objective morality. What is good or bad is shaped by subjective experience and is often contradictory. I might experience taking your home as good or justice or necessary while you will almost certainly experience it as bad or unfair or whatever. If you are a peasant farmer maybe you will find the cultural revolution empowering, but if you are an urban intellectual you are going to find it disempowering perhaps.
