the myth of neutrality

dad asked where in taiwan my friend who's visiting us comes from

then based on her origin he suggested her political leaning, which i agree. and then i said i'm as well more for the same political party than the other. he responded by saying that he's neutral

NEUTRAL
NEUTRALITY

i consider neutrality a myth
'Neutrality is a euphemism for privileged truth. Feminists like Haraway have been pointing at this issue since the ‘80s.' (Eyestone 2015 - I haven't even read the whole piece)

neutrality is a stance, a positioning in itself

by opting 'neutrallity', left or right, for or against, or the likes, are rejected

and 'rejection' is a stance

it's bold to be assertive

it takes courage to take sides

that's why 'neutrality' seems like the wiser, safer bet

- but to a certain degree it's cowardice

it's a disclaimer, almost irresponsibleness in disguise

nothing is irrelevant

the thing is - 

taking sides doesn't mean that you are forever grounded to that side

while taking sides takes courage, changing sides manifests even more encourage

it means that even after having made a decision, you don't stop evaluating. introspection is constant and your brain doesn't stop moving. you are critical towards yourself and your side, as well as the issue of discussion and the external environment

being unassertive is understandable. sometimes, it may be the result of prolonged calculation of the convoluted matter the complicated reality by someone who is particularly careful, who strives to avoid rash decisions

but after you've indeed took some time to map things out, to untangle your strands of thoughts (like it's possible), why is it wrong to take sides per your thought-through analysis?

true that it's never ever 'through', but as long as you keep going back to it and remain open and curious to new perspectives and ready to be convinced when you hear sensible persuasion the next second, what's wrong with taking the leap that brings you to a next level where new views await?

surely neither of the parties, and similarly most of the time neither of a particular side is absolutely right (or wrong), but not taking sides doesn't put him on moral high ground.

***
skimmed through the piece i referenced -
it's less about taking sides but, as i've understood it, more about the infeasibility of self-claimed 'neutrality', or 'objectivity' within subjectivity
when you are not cosmo and external to your mind and body, what's the talk about objectivity?
reflexivity substitutes i guess?