As I acknowledged earlier, personal investment and objectivity are at odds with one another, and I can see merit in the idea that total objectivity is impossible without compromising investment. However, this does not justify the all or nothing conclusion that you've presented. There is still a meaningful difference in sincerity/rationality between someone who actively attempts to resist, reject, and correct for this (built in) influence and someone who actively attempts to embrace, promote, and double down on this influence. The latter comes at a major expense in objectivity and sincerity that the former does not.
I am really enjoying your well thought out, some would say, intelligent argument.
Kind of a fun discussion, but mods will probably eventually clean all of thee posts out as this is the Juolevi thread, but until then...
I agree with so much of your point of view, but then you take this leap here. I think that, as humans, we get entrenched in our perspective and we seek an echo chamber or confirmation in what we read and look at. Most of the people wanting to be positive "Fanatics" don't want to hear the negativity- I agree that it is inherent for a fanatic to follow his/her bias. They, instead, want to feel good about their team/past-time. However, the people who "actively attempts to resist, reject" are just as emotionally attached to confirming their bias. They want change, a new direction, and they actually are motivated to feel frustration and anger on the topic.
Oddly, I am not sure that many positive fanatic is interested in becoming a critic, even to effect positive change, but I am equally not sure that many of the critics (I intentionally don't use the word haters) on here want to become positive fans. It is likely that each of us has our own personal motivation and triggers that make us act and feel that way.
This entrenched behaviour is the reason that, for example, a Trump supporter will support a Hillary Clinton statement if it is believed Trump said it, or a Hillary supporter will support a Trump position if she thinks Hillary said it (regardless of what the position is). For me, this is confirmation bias.
We all have a tendency to be drawn to one perspective, more and more as we become more entrenched in our bias. On here, this is on display every day, to varying degrees, by all posters, based on their own lense and the topic they are viewing.
IMO, one can not successfully argue that one bias has more merit than the other without subjectively imposing their own bias.
Yours is a great argument, using great words and an attempt at logic, but it unfortunately arrives at a place where we make a judgement on which position has more merit. In the end, both perspectives are reasonable behaviours and both are motivated by our own experiences. Which one is more reasonable is simply opinion.
Listening to those extreme views at either end is very frustrating- and that is my bias. But I am a sucker for frustration so I keep reading.
