For years, the Left been trying to fathom how people could possibly disagree with them.

I mean, they're morally superior, that much is obvious, but isn't it equally obvious that they are more intelligent and sophisticated and so should be believed uncritically?

And in case you're wondering, no, it has never occurred to them that you simply hold different, if still valid, opinions, or bring to an argument an unfamiliar perspective as informed by life experiences wholly unfamiliar to them.

No, that can't be it. These people went to all the right colleges.

Of course, they've explained most of it already:

But that doesn't explain everything, so they have come up with a new term, a new way to try to better understand your point of view that in no way threatens their own.

"Cinematic epistemology."

This theory has great appeal to them in part because it incorporates the word "epistemology," which is super smart sounding, and it's a word most of them vaguely remember coming across in their Marxist studies classes.

"Cinematic" has similar appeal in that people who desperately need to appear to be sophisticated don't want to be caught dead using a word like "movie." Movies are for the mouth breathers. Movies are Marvel blockbusters and anything starring Kevin Sorbo.

"Cinema," on the other hand, is reserved for the smart set and the art house films they all pretend to watch but instead read the reviews in The New Yorker and then discuss it among themselves in the shallowest terms possible.

The full term, "cinematic epistemology," as used in this context, is credited to Julian Sanchez, who came upon this revelation while pondering how anybody could possibly hold an opinion different from his own.

I saw this nonsense floating around a conspiracy nut board, and it made something click for me: These folks are basically operating on cinematic epistemology. They believe what would be true if the news were a Hollywood movie.

In short, it means you're an idiot who thinks life is like the stupid movies you watch.

For decades Hollywood has fed us the appealing fantasy that YOU—seemingly average viewer—may secretly be the World's Most Special Boy (or, less often, Girl).

That's not condescension, by the way.

That's caring.

You're not the Chosen One, or otherwise terribly remarkable.

...there are conspiracy communities eager to provide you with a way to be the Specialest Boy after all.

Maybe a little bit of projection there.

How much did the smart set like this explanation?

A lot!

First were the blue checks, eager to seize on this new and novel way to dismiss those with whom they disagree.

I have a new term to explain the majority of lab leak origin stories that I see getting floated over and over here.

Covid-19 leaked from a Chinese bioweapons lab in the same city where a bat, or a pangolin, or some other Chinese entree is purported to have been the original source of the virus?

This raises obvious questions, like, what is the exchange rate of the yuan right now, and has the wire for her latest research grant come through yet?

It only took a few days for the media to latch on to the term, including The Washington Post.

For the audience, the thrill is being part of the elite few who see behind the curtain. In an insightful Twitter thread,...

Insightful!

...writer Julian Sanchez labeled this "cinematic epistemology," a belief system rooted in the assumption that the world works the way action movies do. That, in other words, Berenson is the protagonist who will soon reveal that the heavy machinery of government has long been up to no good, deceiving the public.

Let's not forget bad motives, because that is not at all like a movie.

In reality, of course, Berenson and those like him are simply leveraging this impulse for attention and money.

Because Alex Berenson wasn't already making a good living writing thrillers.

It only took The Daily Kos about a half an hour to seize on the concept.

The news is not a Hollywood movie, but dissonance and disinformation reign in a noisy minority that is being manipulated by one political party. It is the ultimate test of a libertarianism guided by cognitive dissonance rather than science.

That last link they provide takes you to a psychological explanation that casts leftist as uniquely less likely to fall prey to such partisan blinders because of course.

Liberals are somewhat more likely to share cross-ideological content on social media (i.e., information posted by people with different ideological beliefs).

So there you have it. An explanation for why you are so wrong.

Now go put your mask on, get your booster, and await further instructions.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇