The failsafe of human is human.
That is to say, the failsafe of human failing is human not failing.
So the question before us is not whether or not a failsafe is or is not human; the question before us is whether or not human not failing exists.
On Mirages
Everyone is asking questions.
On its face, this is good.
Because on its face, asking questions is good.
But when questions are mirages... then what.
What?
When (i) people ask questions that are mirages (ii) because material differences between believed fictions and uncomfortable realities are trivial (iii) because a mirage of the truth is equivalent to the truth (iv) then what.
*
That "then what" is what we're living.
Now.
*
Let's state clearly: not only are fictions and realities not at all equal, they're not at all the same.
Thought experiments that ask us to compare them, as if we are deciding whether to consume one ambrosia apple or an other, rely on a kind of assumed equivalence like so: choosing between such apple and a broomcorn broom is really a choice between two ambrosia apples.
Such ask inevitably arrives at one welcome conclusion: what is palatable is what is fair; as if every effort to validate what people believe never mind what is real, isn't human failing.
*
What's wrong with sympathetic conclusions?
On its face, nothing.
Because on its face, never minding what is real is neither here nor there.
But when what people believe... becomes how people act... becomes wrongdoers wrongdoing... then what.
What?
When (i) people scorn what is honest (ii) because self-evident differences between loyalty and what's right are immaterial (iii) because fidelity without obedience is sacrilege that is not suffered without retaliation and reprisal (iv) then what.
*
That "then what" is what we're living.
Now.
*
Does it matter what aspirers to monetized engagement say? What paid mouthpieces in generous employ say? What pretenders serving an objective to destabilize and splinter discourse say? What campaigners for one for power for life say?
Yet we opine speech thus exercised, trustworthy, as if our expressions of speech are incorruptible, pshaw. Case in point: the exploitation of "to be fair" to validate what people know never mind what they don't.
Because a single fact isn't the whole truth.
Yet we opine narratives thus circulated and tractional are not only what credibly matters but all that definitively matters; as if conviction without integrity isn't human failing.
*
Notwithstanding the role of good faith; or rather, the role of its absence.
Which begs putting a fine point on it and asking: what does good faith have to do with expressions of speech or conclusions or questions or mirages?
*
On its face, nothing.
Because on its face, people are decent and good.
But when what people want... becomes what people believe is rightfully theirs... becomes echoing and inciting and praising what is wrongful... then what.
What?
When (i) "good people from a good place" means self-rulers governed by self-serving self-interest (ii) because impartiality rubber-stamps assumed equivalence (iii) because opinions and facts are fungible and transactional (iv) then what.
*
Then:
expressions of speech that are opinions are compared to facts, because grave differences between facts and opinions are beside the point because being nonpartisan means assuming equivalence;
broad conclusions decided from single kernels of truth are compared to uncomfortable realities, because consequential differences between what's real and what's informed by lies of omission are beside the point because to be unbiased means to assume equivalence;
questions that are smoke and mirror fictions are compared to rational publications, because utile differences between bona fides and pretenses are beside the point because being fair-minded means assuming equivalence;
until:
assumed equivalence means ambrosia apples and broomcorn brooms are of course equal because ambrosia apples and broomcorn brooms are of course the same.
What? Why?
Because good faith means, from questions to conclusions to expressions of speech, the mirage of "good people from a good place" is the played promise of human not failing never mind any harm.
*
In the end:
when neutrality sacrifices the whole uncomfortable unwelcome truth for assumed equivalence,
neutrality is transparent human failing.
To wit:
what are we preserving to the the last breath when what is not equal and what is not the same are compared like two ambrosia apples?
Not a failsafe;
a mirage.
