As an example of what i mean, it's been joked about for a while that arthur, the protagonist of the video game red dead redemption 2, is unreasonably "woke" "Progressive" and leftist, or in one word, marxist, for a man of his background, during that time. We are talking about an outlaw in the late 1800s who virtue signals about how he's friends with everyone of every race, drops everything he's doing to help a black doctor who got his wagon stolen while mumbling to himself about how unjust it all is, helps a feminist rally, etc. American krogan made a fantastic video on it that i believe is still on youtube, a great takedown of what is widely talked about as one of the "Greatest video games ever" if you wish to see more.
Now most people on the actual right have correctly called this out and the fact that it is obviously just a case of the writers self inserting and introducing their own 21st century political views into the character. Yet the answer to that from enjoyers of the game and leftists is that the leader of the outlaw gang taught them to be cultural marxist "progressives", colorblind feminists, etc because that is the leader's ideology.
It is like they cannot view the message from beyond the game's scope, and they think this character is a real person and a product of his environment, not a work of fiction and a vehicle for the writer's views and opinions. What causes this?
That is to say, people want to think of themselves as logical, rational beings that arrive at intellectual “truth” or conclusion based on logical inputs and rationalization.
But in fact, people dont do that. Instead people draw a conclusion based on how something makes them feel, their initial visceral reaction to said input/ into/experience. And then based on that initial response, we rationalize ourselves towards the conclusion output we’ve already established in our mind. Women are especially vulnerable to this.
For example, let’s say you are driving, you are approaching a green light at an intersection. A car approaches dangerously fast from behind in your blind spot, and as you turn your head to see where he is you don’t realize the light has turned to red, just as you cross the limit line of the intersection. You run through the red light, and a cop pulls you over and you receive a ticket.
Using the example above, Whatever conclusion you come to, you are going to rationalize backwards from that conclusion. I think 90% of people would conclude that running the red wasn’t explicitly their fault, and therefore cite traffic around them, the timing of the infraction etc. so in a way you can only prescribe fault and from the perspective of a third party. In the first person, the goal of your rationalization becomes to vindicate your worldview. Are you a negligent driver? No, you are an “observant driver” as you were paying extra special attention to a dangerous driving situation, and now, your brain is working backwards from that conclusion.
Now, smarter people recognize this tendency and can use abstraction to “break” that cycle a bit. But ultimately when normies defend obviously retarded stuff like RD2, what their rationalizing is why it’s “ok for them to like the game”
And yes there’s a Brain washing element too