The Battle for Epistemic Control

Crisis in Common Sense and Objective Truth

A creeping infection has settled into Western discourse, one that wears the mask of rationality while functioning as an engine of intellectual control. It presents itself as reasoned, logical, and thoughtful, but its core mechanics are neither open nor engaged. Instead, they are rigid, scripted, and designed to preemptively define the boundaries of what can and cannot be questioned.

This is not about any one figure, Pierre Poilievre, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, Karoline Leavitt, or Ben Shapiro are not the source of this phenomenon. They are symptoms. They are the carriers, not the disease. The real issue is a fundamental shift in how many people understand truth, evidence, and discourse itself.

There is no clearer example of this shift than the rhetorical weaponization of common sense and objective truth. Facts. These words no longer function as genuine markers of rationality, but as tools of control. They serve as conversational barricades, preventing inquiry, neutralizing dissent, and ensuring that only predetermined conclusions can be reached.

The result is a culture where debate is not a process of discovery, but a performance of dominance. Those who engage in this mode of thought do not argue to understand, but to exert control over the very terms of engagement.

I. The Rhetorical Trap: The Weaponization of “Common Sense” and “Objective Truth”

The moment someone invokes common sense or objective truth in an argument, you are no longer in a conversation. You are in a controlled space where only one outcome is possible.

1. “Common Sense” as a Thought-Stopping Device

The phrase common sense has an unspoken implication:

• If you agree, you are rational.
• If you disagree, you are either deluded or intentionally deceptive.

This transforms the conversation into a binary of the reasonable and the unreasonable, where the speaker controls the definition of reason itself.

• “It’s just common sense that men and women are different.”
• “It’s common sense that hard work leads to success.”
• “It’s common sense that capitalism is the best system we have.”

Each of these statements assumes its own conclusion. They do not invite discussion; they demand compliance. To question them is to self-identify as irrational.

2. “Objective Truth” as a Bludgeon, Not a Standard

The phrase objective truth carries an implicit authority. But in these conversations, it's not used to refer to evidence-based conclusions. Instead, it is used to assert an unchallengeable ideological position.

• “This is just biological reality.”
• “It’s objectively true that Western civilization is superior.”
• “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

These statements are not invitations to explore evidence. They are declarations meant to end discussion before it begins. They don't operate through persuasion, but through submission—if you deny them, you are accused of rejecting truth itself.

3. The Rigged Game of “Rationality”

When someone wields common sense and objective truth in this way, they are playing a rigged game:

• Their beliefs are labeled “rational” and “logical.”
• Your counterarguments are dismissed as “subjective” or “emotional.”
• Any evidence you present is ignored, reframed, or ridiculed.

This creates an environment where disagreement is not met with discussion but with categorization, ,you are either part of the rational in-group or you are an irrational outsider.

In this mode of thinking, rationality is not a method. It's a status—something claimed rather than demonstrated.

II. The Psychological Appeal of Faux-Rationality

Why do so many people adopt this mode of thought? Why is it so effective?

Because it offers something deeply seductive: the illusion of intellectual mastery without the burden of intellectual humility.

1. Cognitive Simplicity Over Complexity
   • The world is complex, but faux-rationality simplifies it.
   • If you can dismiss an idea as “just feelings” or “postmodern nonsense,” you don’t have to engage with it.
   • This is a psychological shortcut—a way to avoid cognitive dissonance.
2. Social Identity and In-Group Belonging
   • Being “rational” becomes an identity, not a practice.
   • It provides membership in an intellectual elite—one that looks down on the “hysterical” and “irrational” masses.
   • This fosters a sense of superiority while avoiding actual engagement with opposing views.
3. The Safety of Pre-Defined Truths
   • In an uncertain world, it's comforting to believe that all truth is already known, and that those who question it are simply wrong.
   • This eliminates the anxiety of open-ended inquiry.

Faux-rationality is not about being right, it's about never feeling uncertain.

III. The Impact on Discourse and Society

The rise of this mode of thinking has profound consequences.

1. Conversation Becomes Impossible

Once someone has internalized this framework, genuine discussion is no longer possible.

• If their ideas are “objective” and yours are “subjective,” there is no reason to listen to you.
• If their worldview is “common sense” and yours is “ideological,” they do not need to engage with your reasoning.
• The only possible outcome is their victory or your submission.

2. Misinformation Thrives in This Environment

When “truth” is something claimed rather than proven, misinformation becomes indistinguishable from reality.

• If something feels true, it is accepted.
• If it contradicts one’s worldview, it is rejected as “fake news” or “propaganda.”
• Over time, this creates epistemic closure—a state where contradictory evidence is automatically dismissed.

3. Control Replaces Inquiry

At its core, this phenomenon is not about discovering truth. It's about controlling who gets to define truth.

• It's a mechanism of power, not knowledge.
• It ensures that only certain perspectives are considered “rational.”
• It turns discussion into a performance of dominance rather than an exchange of ideas.

This is why debates with people in this mindset feel so scripted. Their responses are not organic, but rehearsed. The goal is not to think, it's to win.

Breaking the Script

How do we counter this mode of thinking? How do we reintroduce actual discourse into spaces that have been overtaken by rhetorical control?

1. Refuse to Accept Their Premises
   • “Common sense is not evidence. Show me your reasoning.”
   • “Objective truth requires verification. What’s your source?”
2. Force Them to Define Their Terms
   • “What do you mean by ‘common sense’?”
   • “How do you distinguish ‘objective’ from ‘ideological’?”
3. Expose the Rigged Game
   • “Why is my evidence dismissed while yours is taken at face value?”
   • “Why do you demand proof from me but not from yourself?”
4. Shift the Frame from Winning to Understanding
   • Encourage intellectual humility.
   • Reward curiosity over certainty.
   • Challenge the assumption that truth is something we already possess rather than something we seek.

Ultimately, the battle isn't just against bad arguments, it's against an entire culture of intellectual rigidity.

If we want to reclaim meaningful discourse, we must break free from the illusion of reason, and return to the actual practice of thinking.

This is what I’m working on. Tell me what you think, I enjoy the conversation! Subscribe and follow the work in real time.

Thanks!

B

Proconsul 🇨🇦 (@proconsul.bsky.social)

Visionary Strategic Growth A guide for ambition, bridging strategy with implementation for modern business: clarity, structure, and sustainable impact. I listen. If it’s possible, I’ll show you how. proconsul.ghost.io

Bluesky Social

"Common sense" is not an argument. "Objective truth" is not a shield. If your ideas are strong, they can withstand scrutiny. If your truth is real, it doesn't need to be imposed. Conversation is not control. If you can't engage, you're just reciting dogma.

PS -