Is, Ought, and The Secret Third Thing

I'm on the record as saying that the is-ought problem is a significant driver of misunderstanding and animus in modern discourse.  Different people espouse both positive and normative statements in different situations for various reasons.  This means that true intention and meaning can be admittedly difficult to discern in real time, especially on social media platforms that by their nature explicitly dissuade such discernment.  Luckily, there seems to be growing awareness of this, to the point that popular pundits espouse this position to great fanfare:

And yet, I think there is something decidedly incomplete about this analysis.  Specifically, the "is" half of the equation is often treated as a given when it is anything but.  There exists near-infinite room within the description of reality itself for a completely separate set of misunderstandings, which should be an obvious truism in a world where QAnon exists and POW flags fly to this day.  One of the most reliable demonstrations of this slipperiness is the entire concept of "fact-checking," which in the Western sphere is often used to launder empire-friendly ideology and otherwise dubious interpretations of reality.  A notable implementation of this fact-checking ethos has been the "Community Notes" feature on Twitter, which allows users to add context to a given tweet when it is deemed necessary.  This feature has actually been a net positive in my eyes, likely because there is some semblance of democratic input in the proceedings.  That said, there has certainly been some manipulation and weaponization of this feature, especially now that we're approaching a much dreaded election cycle.

There are some relatively obvious problems with this dogged approach to such a strict positivism.  For one, "describing a political reality" to someone, especially an oppressed person who is more likely to be aware of that political reality, is patronizing and smarmy, often to an extreme degree.  Take the example above, where the community note essentially repeats the words the poster says in her tweet!  When it's this obvious that the person you're speaking to already knows what you're saying, what is the real purpose of your hectoring?  What's more is that simply calling something "political reality" does not make it so.  It is indeed the case that the Florida government has passed a number of regressive laws that effectively outlaw trans people.  But by limiting your version of "reality" to just that fact, you ignore that there is a good deal that the literal Most Powerful Man in the World could do to counter such a thing.  Seen this way, calling a simplistic understanding of the world "reality" functionally serves to launder conservative ideology through the smokescreen of seemingly neutral concepts such as "reasonableness" or even "facts."

Going a level deeper, an extreme commitment to the rhetoric of a particularly pessimistic realpolitik has the potential to rot one's brain.  I understand that the (admittedly terrifying) idea of a second Trump term has already rotted some brains, and that one way of dealing with this is by stifling all dissent to the seemingly only other alternative.  But while I am somewhat sympathetic to appeals to loss aversion, I think you do have to be at least a little idealistic, even in the worst of situations.  Additionally, it's fairly clear by now that the average Democratic voter is far more progressive than the party's presumptive nominee, which means that if we want any of those things to have a chance of happening, we have to be the ones who lead the way.  After all, saying what ought to happen is not merely a rhetorical device; rather, it's the first step in potentially making that thing happen.  If you instead decide to alchemize your fear into a categorical imperative that effectively forbids any demands of those in power then you have implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted defeat.  One of your most basic rights grants you the ability to ask for a more just world.  I recommend doing that, at the very least.