Standing up to unfair or controlling systems takes more than just voting or reading the right books. It means stepping out of our comfort zone, asking hard questions, and speaking up when something doesn’t add up - even if it comes from voices we admire. That’s what real critical thinking looks like.
___
When Heather Cox Richardson recently invoked the phrase “The only way out is through” in a short video about resisting controlling political movements, she was not engaging in literary attribution. She was using a widely recognized saying to highlight a moral truth: that getting through hard times, both politically and socially, requires resolve, collective effort, and a refusal to look away.
And yet, in response, a commentator took issue with her apparent misattribution of the quote to Harriet Tubman. The phrase, he explained, originated with Robert Frost, sort of, and Richardson, as a historian, should have known better. He called it an avoidable myth. He framed his correction as a defense of truth and an act of critical thinking in what he called a “post-truth society.”
But let’s be honest. This is not critical thinking. It is critical deflection.
Richardson’s message was about the spiritual and civic path through the rising dominance of concentrated wealth and political power. The phrase she used was simply a vehicle for that message, not the destination. Focusing on the exact source of the quote, especially in a 60-second video about resisting fascism, is like walking up to a group of people fighting a fire and saying, “Excuse me, there’s a typo on the laminated instructions for that extinguisher.”
It is not just tone deaf. It actively shifts the conversation away from what really matters.
The same commentator then went further, placing Richardson’s quote in a lineup of “heroic exemplars” that included Tubman, Frost, Jack Kornfield, and Winston Churchill. At first glance, this may seem generous or intellectually broad. But in context, the comparison reveals a deep misunderstanding.
Tubman risked her life to help dismantle a system of racial slavery. Churchill, though rightly credited for standing up to Hitler, was also a man who opposed independence for colonized people, enforced brutal colonial rule, and undermined democratic movements in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. He may have opposed fascism in Europe, but he often embodied authoritarianism, inequality and violence in the parts of the world Britain controlled.
To pair Tubman and Churchill as equally heroic defenders of democracy, and to tie them both to a misquoted inspirational phrase, misses the point completely. It reflects the very problem Richardson was warning about: a loss of moral clarity, a lack of historical perspective, and a casual rewriting of what real democratic resistance looks like.
This is where critical thinking actually matters. It is not about catching someone in a small mistake. It is about telling the difference between what is meaningful and what is not.
To think critically means asking questions like: What is the purpose of this message? What is really at stake? Whose version of the story is being told? What might be getting left out? And sometimes, yes - What the fuck is your point??
Getting hung up on quote attribution, even in a scholarly tone, becomes a kind of distraction. It creates the appearance of thoughtful critique while avoiding the harder truths underneath.
What we need right now is not nitpicking or intellectual point-scoring. We need clear thinking, honest dialogue, and the courage to confront power directly.
The only way out really is through, not by focusing on trivia or pretending all voices carry the same weight, but by facing the truth, calling out contradictions, and refusing to look away. That was Richardson’s message. And it is one we cannot afford to ignore.
Andrew Zajac is a healthcare professional, diatonic harmonica customizer, committed opponent of privilege, and hopelessly foulmouthed advocate for meaningful change.
Addendum:
When challenged about bringing up Churchill, the commentator eventually told me to "Forget about Churchill. He's an afterthought. I'm happy to stipulate...that he has next to nothing to do with the main point of my post"
That's hypocrisy.
Richardson’s misquote was a passing reference, not central to her message, yet it became the focus of critique. Meanwhile, Churchill was presented as a moral exemplar, but when challenged, he was dismissed as an “afterthought.” If we’re serious about truth and critical thinking, that scrutiny should be applied evenly. When it’s not, it becomes performative critique.