> Reality exists outside of our perception.

Also: our perception of reality exists within reality (which complicates things substantially, because it raises the question: just what is "reality"?).

> "Perception is reality" means "if I perceive something to be true, I will act as though it is true."

Agreed. It also typically means that the person considers their opinion of what is true to be synonymous with what is actually true.

Also: some people have much more powerful means of communicating their opinion about reality as if it is factual reality, confusing people further.

> This is a useful axiom for dealing with people, to be sure, but it's terrible whenever we need to deal with the real world. You might perceive an absence of cars on the road but that won't protect you from being struck and killed by one.

Agreed....so too with plenty of "facts" that spread throughout the memeplex. The Science has been on a big run for the last few years.

> Are you saying our "media, thought leaders, journalists, politicians, etc." have dominance over our society?

They have substantial persuasive power. Compare the general public's consensus take on affairs in Ukraine to what is broadcast as the state of affairs in Ukraine - I don't know about you, but I sense some pretty strong correlation between the two, enough that I think there may even be a causal relationship (which is further supported by the commonality of people linking to journalism stories as proof (in their minds) that something is necessarily true).

> Curious. I can see how that argument could be made but I think it's rather soft; that is, yes, certain persons on the internet have had a direct influence over me, personally, over the past few years; but I am not beholden to them.

Beholden: owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.

Perhaps. But would you go so far as to state as a fact that you have zero(!) bias as a consequence of the consumption of journalism or conversations on social media?

> Indeed, I no longer consume content from some influencers that, just a year ago, I would have considered high on my list of reliable sources.

Excellent - have you achieved perfect rationality?

> This isn't to say that they're not worth listening to, rather, that I don't see how this hegemony functions in practice. Further, I'm not convinced there is a hegemonic order (as the OP seems to think there is). I think there's a different kind of order, but it's certainly not hegemonic (though it is hierarchical, after a fashion, mostly because people tend to naturally organize themselves into groups with a hierarchy).

Do you form any particular conclusions as a consequence? Or: what epistemic status do you assign to the speculative proposition?

>> All humans view reality through various biased lenses

> True; but this fact has little bearing on the point I was making.

That your considerations here are biased by your lenses may have at least some relevance - "has little bearing" is your perception of what is true...but is it actually true?

> Unless you want to argue that a left-leaning bias is somehow equivalent to a right-leaning one . . . which is patently absurd, on its face, if we take the time to understand what the Left and Right (as political platforms go) actually believe.

The "both sides" algorithm seems to have been very broadly distributed - I often wonder if this is purely organic.

>> And if you are unable to explain it to a conservative thinker, do you know (as opposed to believe) that the problem is 100% on the receiving end?

> I do.

Excellent - please present your proof.

> Because I've been explaining these concepts to people for a long time. And I've found that, when someone refuses to understand the basics, it's usually because of a deeply held conviction (i.e. bias) about how the world works.

Ah, I see what's going on: your proof is your self-perception.