People like to think they're objective. I get it; it's a good thing to strive to be. As a white dude, I know firsthand that it's easy to assume that you're coming from the "default" perspective, and thus, are more capable of being rationally objective than other, non-white dudes.
But that's wrong. Because if you're brainwashed into seeing your popular mainstream status quo assumptions as "default," then you're actually not objectively considering every possible factor. And this tweet might be the best, most succinct example to explain this:
Disclosing that a reporter has had family in prison, shows among other things how deeply "objectivity" is intertwined w/ race & class. Which reinforces lack of diversity in journalism
If not having parent in prison means you're objective & disclosure-free, guess who benefits… https://t.co/fX99ypgUNB
— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) November 4, 2019
In other words: we assume that someone can't be objective about prison reform if their own parent has been incarcerated. But what about the other way around? How can you be objective about prison reform if you don't have a parent that's been incarcerated? How can you rationally examine all of the evidence to form a conclusion, if you don't actually have firsthand knowledge of the social, financial, and emotional toll of incarceration? What biases might you be missing that you never even thought to consider because you assumed that your "default" position was automatically normal or correct?
In both situations, your objectivity will be tainted by your emotional response; the difference is that, as a society, we've arbitrarily decided that certain emotions are either proper or negligible when it comes to attaining our idealist objectivity. And usually, those emotions that get a "pass" are the same ones that WASP-y white dudes have been hiding behind their stiff upper lips for centuries.
Makes you think, huh?
Further reading: "The Magical Thinking of Guys Who Love 'Logic'" by Aisling McCrea for The Outline