Gay Logic: How In the World Did You Ever Believe This?

Contents:

• GAY LOGIC: HOW IN THE WORLD DID YOU EVER BELIEVE THIS?
• WHY LOGIC CHOSE A GAY BLACK TEEN'S STGGLE FOR '1-800-273-8255' MIC VIO (EXCLIVE)
• GAY LOGIC
• THE MAGIL THKG OF GUYS WHO LOVE LOGIC WHY SO MANY MEN ONLE LOVE TO E “LOGIC” TO W AN ARGUMENT, AND THEN DISAPPEAR BEFORE THEY N FD OUT THEY'RE WRONG. AISLG MCCREA FEB—15—2019 09:38AM EST IAN DANSK, WHO MAK VIOS UNR THE MONIKER INNUENDO STUDS, HAS MA A NAME FOR HIMSELF ON THE TER FOR HIS YOUTUBE SERI ON THE TECHNIQU AND BELIEFS OF THE ALT-RIGHT. HIS MOST RECENT VIO, “THE CARD SAYS MOOPS,” IS WORTH WATCHG FULL, BUT THERE WAS ONE PARTICULAR LE THAT STCK ME. DANSK POTS OUT THAT, EVEN WHEN THEIR BELIEFS SKEW TOWARDS THE BIZARRE AND NSPIRATORIAL, PEOPLE ON THE ONLE RIGHT OFTEN INTIFY AS “RATNALISTS.”THIS WILL BE UNSURPRISG TO THOSE WHO OFTEN ENGAGE WH THE WIR ONLE RIGHT, WHETHER IS WH SOMEONE WHO INTIFI AS ALT-RIGHT, LIBERTARIAN, NSERVATIVE, AS A FAN OF THE “INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB,” OR EVEN “MORATE” OR “CENTRIST” (TURNS OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ONLE ARE SELF-INTIFYG AS MORATE WHILE ALSO BELIEVG NSPIRACI ABOUT “WHE GENOCI”). ALTHOUGH THEIR BELIEFS MAY NOT BE INTIL, THERE ARE MON, DISTCT PATTERNS THE WAY THEY SPEAK (OR TYPE) THAT ONE N’T HELP BUT NOTICE.SPECIFILLY, THE GUYS — AND THEY ARE UALLY GUYS — LOVE G TERMS LIKE “LOGIC.” THEY WILL TELL YOU, OVER AND OVER, HOW THEY LOVE TO E LOGIC, AND HOW THE PEOPLE THEY FOLLOW ONLE ALSO E LOGIC. THEY ARE ALSO MASSIVE FANS OF CLARG THAT THEY HAVE “FACTS,” THAT THEIR ANALYSIS IS “UNBIASED,” THAT THEY ONLY E “‘REASON” AND “LOGIC” AND NOT “EMOTNS” TO MAKE CISNS. THE HOSTS OF THE POPULAR LEFTIST PODST CHAPO TRAP HOE EVEN TLED THEIR BOOK THE CHAPO GUI TO REVOLUTN: A MANIFTO AGAST LOGIC, FACTS AND REASON AS A WK AND NOD TO THIS TENNCY.THE WORDS ARE UALLY ED TERCHANGEABLY AND WHOUT REGARD TO THEIR PROPER AGE, SQUISHED TOGETHER A VAGUE PLAY-DOH BALL OF SMUG SUPERRY, TO BE THROWN WHEREVER POSSIBLE AT THEIR “EMOTNAL” AND “IRRATNAL” ENEMI: FEMISTS, MARXISTS, LIBERALS, SJWS, AND FELY THE FEMIST MARXIST LIBERAL SJWS. YOU ULD LL THE MEN’S WAY OF VIEWG THE WORLD SIMPLE “ME SMART, YOU DUMB” DICHOTOMI MANICHEAN, OR EVEN DERRIAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO UPSET THEM BY REFERENCG A PHILOSOPHER THAT THEY’VE HEARD IS VERY BAD.A GOOD ILLTRATN OF THIS PHENOMENON RECENTLY APPEARED A PIECE FOR MEL MAGAZE ABOUT AN CREASGLY DISTURBG TREND — WOMEN WHOSE ONCE-PROMISG ROMANTIC RELATNSHIPS IMPLO AFTER THEIR BOYIENDS BEE “REDPILLED.” FOR THE BENEF OF THE BLISSFULLY UNIATED: TO BE “REDPILLED” MEANS TO TERNALIZE A SET OF MISOGYNISTIC FAR-RIGHT BELIEFS POPULAR WH CERTA RNERS OF THE TER; THE PRODUCT OF A NOX BLEND OF JUNK SCIENCE, NSPIRACY THEORY, AND A PATHOLOGIL FEAR OF SOCIAL PROGRS.THE MEN WILL TELL YOU, OVER AND OVER, HOW THEY LOVE TO E LOGIC, AND HOW THE PEOPLE THEY FOLLOW ONLE ALSO E LOGIC. THEY ARE ALSO MASSIVE FANS OF CLARG THAT THEY HAVE “FACTS” AND THAT THEIR ANALYSIS IS “UNBIASED.”THE MEN TERVIEWED THE PIECE, ONCE SWEET AND RG, STARTED CHANGG AFTER GOG DOWN A RABB HOLE OF EXTREMIST POLIL NTENT ON YOUTUBE AND VOLVG THEMSELV RADIL RIGHT-WG ONLE MUNI. CONVCED OF THEIR ABSOLUTE RRECTNS, THE MEN BEME AT FIRST TRATED, THEN VERBALLY ABIVE ONCE THEY REALIZED THEIR FEMALE PARTNERS DID NOT ALWAYS AGREE WH THEIR NEW VIEWS. ANY DIALOGUE ATTEMPTED BY THE MEN WAS NOT MA — AT LEAST AS FAR AS THEIR PARTNERS ULD TELL — WH THE GOAL OF EXCHANGG VIEWS AND OPENG THEMSELV TO BEG CHALLENGED. THEIR GOAL WAS TO ASSERT THEIR BELIEFS AS FACT; TO TEACH THEIR PARTNER THE TTH, AS A CHRISTIAN MISSNARY MIGHT PUT . EVERY WOMAN TERVIEWED THE ARTICLE — CLUDG THOSE WHO WERE MORE FORMALLY TED THAN THEIR BOYIENDS — MAK REFERENCE TO THEIR FORMER PARTNERS BELTLG THEIR TELLIGENCE AND RATNALY. THE MEN WERE CERTA THAT THEY WERE THE SMART ON, THAT THEY HAD RRECTLY ASSSED THE “FACTS” WH “LOGIC,” AND THAT IF THEIR WOMENFOLK DID NOT ACCEPT THIS WHOUT QUTN, THEY WERE SIMPLY TOO DUMB TO UNRSTAND.THIS MIGHT NOT SEEM SURPRISG AT FIRST — WHEN TO NTENT BELIEFS, ’S NOT UNMON FOR PEOPLE TO ACT AS THOUGH THEIR VIEW IS THE HERENTLY SUPERR ONE. BUT WHAT’S REMARKABLE IS HOW RIDICULOLY NFINT THE MEN BEME, A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME, THEIR UNIQUE PHILOSOPHER-KG-LIKE POSSSN OF OBJECTIVE TTH AND SUPERR ANALYSIS… ALL WHILE PYG THEIR ARGUMENTS OM AN ECHO-CHAMBER OF POORLY CED WEBM VIOS AND ANONYMO TER MENTS.THE MAGIC WORDS DO HAVE ACTUAL FNS, AS HAPPENS, AND THEY’RE QUE PLITED. THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY IS A MONLY ED GO-TO SE FOR AMIC SUMMARI OF PHILOSOPHIL TOPICS, AND DON’T EVEN HAVE A SGLE UNIFIED ARTICLE FOR “LOGIC,” “REASON” OR “RATNALY”; STEAD THEY HAVE A PLETHORA OF ARTICL ABOUT ALL THE MYRIAD SUBTYP AND BAT AROUND THE TOPIC, MOST OF WHICH I SPECT WOULD MYSTIFY THE AVERAGE SELF-INTIFIED LOGIC FAN (ALTHOUGH FAIRNS, THEY WOULD MYSTIFY MOST OF ).THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY DON’T EVEN HAVE A SGLE UNIFIED ARTICLE FOR “LOGIC,” “REASON” OR “RATNALY.”IF YOU’RE LOOKG FOR A MORE ACCSIBLE REFERENCE, WIKIPEDIA ALSO BREAKS THE TERMS DOWN TO SUBTYP. “LOGIC,” FOR EXAMPLE, N REFER TO SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC, A SYSTEM WHICH PROPOSNS NTAG TERMS WH EXPLIC RELATNS TO EACH OTHER N BE ED TO FER A FIVELY VALID NCLN (SOCRAT IS A HORSE, ALL HORS TERRIFY ME, THEREFORE SOCRAT TERRIFI ME — THAT SORT OF THG). RELATED TO THIS TYPE OF LOGIC ARE OTHER “FORMAL” TYP SUCH AS PROPOSNAL, MATHEMATIL, AND PUTATNAL LOGICS, BUT ’S RARE TO E ACROSS THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF LOGIC ONLE AS RELAT TO REAL-LIFE POLIL ISSU; MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TALKG ABOUT SOME OTHER “RMAL” LOGIC (TO PUT MASSIVELY OVERSIMPLIFIED TERMS, A SYSTEM THAT SEEKS TO ADHERE TO SOME STANDARD OF ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENTATN, WHICH IS NOT CLOSED, FIXED OR PRONE TO FIVE NCLNS THE WAY FORMAL LOGIC IS).THE BOUNDARI AND FNS VOLVED THE TERMS, AND HOW WE E TO INTIFY THEM, ARE HOTLY BATED. “RATNALY” IS THE QUALY OF “BEG BASED ON AND AGREEABLE TO REASON,” WHICH IS ALSO A LOSSAL N OF WORMS — WHAT IS REASONABLE PENDG ON THE QUTN AND NTEXT, ONE’S TERPRETATN OF THE SYSTEM, ONE’S VALU AND SO ON. THE BATTL OVER FN ARE NOT TAKG PLACE THE SAME UNIVERSE AS THE ONE WHICH MEN THROW AROUND THE TERMS ONLE. BUT FOR THE LOGIC GUYS, THE PURPOSE OF G THE WORDS — THE SACRED, MAGIC WORDS LIKE “LOGIC,” “OBJECTIVY,” “REASON,” “RATNALY,” “FACT” — IS NOT TO VOKE THE ACTUAL NCEPTS THEMSELV. IT’S MORE A KD OF NTATN, WHEREBY CLARG YOUR ARGUMENT THE SGLE “LOGIL” AND “RATNAL” ONE MAGILLY MAK SO — AND BY EXTENSN, MAK YOU BOTH SMART AND RRECT, REGARDLS OF THE ACTUAL RIGOR OR SOURC OF YOUR BELIEFS.FOR MEN, PECIALLY SECURE AND SOCIALLY DISLOTED MEN, THE IA OF “RATNALY” N BE A KD OF FORT BLANKET. RAISED OM BIRTH WH THE STEREOTYPE THAT THEY ARE MORE “ANALYTILLY TELLIGENT” ( NTRAST TO WOMEN, WHO ARE “EMOTNALLY TELLIGENT”), AND WH POP CULTURE THAT VENERAT “LOGIL” CHARACTERS (ON A JT BARELY RELATED NOTE, PLEASE ENJOY THIS NOVELTY LEONARD NIMOY SONG), ’S NO WONR THAT MANY YOUNG MEN SEE “LOGIC” AS A SORT OF PERSONALY TRA TO ACHIEVE — ONE WHICH TOMATILLY IMBU ALL ONE’S OPNS WH RRECTNS — RATHER THAN A SYSTEM THAT ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE FOLLOWG AT ANY ONE TIME.THE “REDPILL” METAPHOR HERE IS TELLG, BEE IMPLI THAT OBTAG KNOWLEDGE AND ARGUG WELL IS NOT A SKILL THAT IS SLOWLY AND FELY IMPROVED UPON, BUT AN ACHIEVEMENT TO BE UNLOCKED A SGLE MOMENT: ONCE YOU’VE SWALLOWED THE PILL, YOU TURN TO A SMART PERSON, AND OM THEN ON, ALL YOUR OPNS ARE RRECT. (I DON’T THK ’S A CINCE THAT A LOT OF FIGUR POPULAR THE “REDPILL” MUNY ALSO HAWK NOOTROPIC SUPPLEMENTS.)AN TERTG PARALLEL IS THE E OF THE TERM “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” TO REFER TO AN HISTORIL PERD OF DISVERY PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENC — A PERD THAT IS OFTEN REFERENCED BY SELF-INTIFIED LOGIC LOVERS AS A SORT OF SGLE-E POWER-UP BY SOCIETY: FIRST WE WERE ALL LYG AROUND MUD LIKE THE SERFS MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, THEN WE DID THE ENLIGHTENMENT (AND BY “WE,” OF URSE, THEY MEAN WHE EUROPEAN MEN), AND THEN EVERYTHG WAS SMART UNTIL MARXISTS AND FEMISTS AND POSTSTCTURALISTS MSED ALL UP.IT’S NO WONR THAT MANY YOUNG MEN SEE “LOGIC” AS A SORT OF PERSONALY TRA TO ACHIEVE RATHER THAN A SYSTEM THAT ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE FOLLOWG AT ANY ONE TIME. IN REALY, “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” WAS POSED OF A LOOSE, MSY ASSORTMENT OF PEOPLE WH VERY DIFFERENT IAS (YOU N EVEN CLU MARX AS AN ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHER, IF YOU LIKE ). ROSE HAS VERY LTLE MON WH LOCKE, AND OUTRIGHT HATED VOLTAIRE. IN ADDN, MANY ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHERS HAD DOWNRIGHT SILLY VIEWS ON WOMEN, MORI AND THE LIKE (AS SILVIA FERICI POTS OUT HER SEMAL WORK CALIBAN AND THE WCH: WOMEN, THE BODY AND PRIMIVE ACCUMULATN, MANY OF THE BRILLIANT PHILOSOPHERS STRAIGHT-UP BELIEVED EXECUTG WCH). THIS DO NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO THROW OUT THE BABY WH THE BATHWATER, BUT DO MEAN THAT “PHILOSOPHY HAD ONE GOOD SCHOOL AND THEN STOPPED BEG GOOD THE 19TH CENTURY” IS… NOT A TERRIBLY SOPHISTITED TAKE, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS MORE BASED WANTG TO FD A SHORTCUT TO SUPERRY THAN GOOD-FAH QUIRY.A SIAR LE OF THKG N BE SEEN THE NEW ATHEIST MOVEMENT, WHICH GREW OUT OF A REACTN TO THE DOMANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT DURG THE GEE W. BH ERA, AS WELL AS POST-9/11 FEARS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. WHILE THERE WERE GENUE NCERNS TO BE RAISED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF RELIG BELIEFS ON PUBLIC POLICY, WHAT ULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD-NATURED MOVEMENT FOR SECULARISM BEME A LIGHTNG ROD FOR TRATED YOUNG MEN WHO WANTED TO SULT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED “SKY-GODS,” TO THE POT WHERE A LOT OF ATHEISTS BEGAN TO LABEL THE MOVEMENT TOXIC AND TRIED TO DISTANCE THEMSELV OM .PERHAPS THE NADIR OF THE MOVEMENT WAS 2011’S “ELEVATATE,” WHICH A PROMENT NEW ATHEIST WOMAN MENTNED THAT A MAN HAD BEHAVED APPROPRIATELY TO HER AT AN ATHEIST NVENTN AND ADVISED OTHER WOMEN TO AVOID THIS SUATN FUTURE, AND LOTS OF ATHEIST MEN PROMPTLY LOST THEIR SH. AN OVER-THE-TOP REACTN TO WOMEN SPEAKG OUT AGAST HARASSMENT IS NOT UNIQUE TO THIS MOVEMENT; FOR EVERY ARTICLE PRAISG #METOO, THERE SEEMS TO BE ANOTHER OM A VERY CONCERNED MAN WHO WORRI THAT EVERYTHG IS GOG TOO FAR AND HE’S AAID TO EVEN TALK TO WOMEN NOW!BUT I SPECT THE REASON THE REACTN TO ELEVATATE WAS SO VRLIC WAS NOT JT ABOUT GENERAL SEXISM, BUT ALSO ABOUT THE THREAT POSED TO THE NEW ATHEIST SENSE OF MORAL SUPERRY. IT WAS MUCH LS FUN FOR THEM TO RECKON WH SAY, THE PLEX SOCIAL STCTUR WH THE SKEPTIC MUNY, AND THE WAY THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE MOVEMENT, THAN WAS TO MAKE FUN OF SOME HICK WHO ULDN’T GET HIS HEAD ROUND EVOLUTN. THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO HAD SOME LEARNG TO DO — FOR THE NEW ATHEISTS THEMSELV, THERE WAS NOTHG MORE TO LEARN. IF PEOPLE OM MARGALISED GROUPS WH THE MOVEMENT STARTED SPEAKG ABOUT ISSU WHICH VOLVED LISTENG AND LEARNG, OR SELF-REFLECTG ON ONE’S BIAS… WELL, THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE, SCE WOULD REQUIRE WIR READG AND UNRSTANDG OF ISSU THAT WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCSIBLE OR ATHETILLY PLEASG TO MANY NEW ATHEIST MEN.IN RETROSPECT, ’S UNSURPRISG THAT A LOT OF NEW ATHEISM VOLVED TO REACTNARY, ANTIFEMIST, AND EVEN WHE SUPREMACIST THOUGHT, BEE WAS NEVER REALLY ABOUT THE THGS CLAIMED TO BE ABOUT. THE DOMANT AFFECT OF NEW ATHEISM WASN’T HUY, OR REFLEXIVY, OR CURSY, ALL THE THGS ONE TLY NEEDS TO IMPROVE TELLECTUALLY. IT WAS SMUGNS.ANOTHER MON CHARACTERISTIC OF THE “LOGICKIER THAN THOU” MOVEMENTS IS A NARROW FOC ON THE TYPE OF SKILL THAT N BE CLASSED AS “TELLIGENCE.” AFFY FOR THGS LIKE SOCIAL TERACTN, LANGUAG, OR THE ARTS (OR AT LEAST CERTA TYP OF ART) OFTEN DON’T GET A LOOK-. EVERYTHG MT BE RCIBLE TO NUMBERS, HENCE THE TYPIL LOGIC LOVER’S OBSSN WH IQ.IN THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN CRIQU OF TELLIGENCE REARCH, STEPHEN JAY GOULD NOT THE DANGERS OF SCIENTISTS’ BIAS TOWARD REIFITN — THE SIRE TO FD A FIVE THG THAT IS TELLIGENCE — AND QUANTIFITN, THE SIRE TO SLAP NUMBERS ON STUFF. WHILE THIS IS UNRSTANDABLE TO AN EXTENT — THGS AND NUMBERS ARE EASY TO UNRSTAND AT-A-GLANCE — GOULD WARNS THAT THIS HAS LED TO BAD SCIENCE AND PERVERSE OUT THE PAST, AND THREATENS TO MISLEAD TO POOR UNRSTANDGS OF TELLIGENCE, AT THE EXPENSE OF NUANCE AND PLEXY. THIS IS ALL OF LTLE NCERN TO THE LOGIC LOVER, WHO WISH NOT TO UNRSTAND, BUT TO E AGA AND AGA THEIR FAVORE MAGIC WORDS, AS A SHIELD AGAST CRICISM AND AS A WEAPON AGAST OTHERS.A GOOD, NTEMPORARY EXAMPLE OF THE LOGIC NTATN AT WORK N BE FOUND THE REER OF BEN SHAPIRO. SHAPIRO, A POPULAR NSERVATIVE PUND WH HALF A LN YOUTUBE SUBSCRIBERS AND 1.86 LN TWTER FOLLOWERS, IS KNOWN FOR HIS MANTRA “FACTS DON’T RE ABOUT YOUR FEELGS.” YOUTUBE IS FULL OF VIOS TLED THGS LIKE “BRILLIANT BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS LLEGE FEMIST WH REASON AND INTELLIGENCE.” (THE PREVALENCE OF THE TERM “STROY” IS TERTG — IF YOU STROY SOMETHG, ’S NOT THERE TO BOTHER YOU ANYMORE, SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY LONGER. HMM.) A NEW YORK TIM PROFILE LLED SHAPIRO “THE OL KID’S PHILOSOPHER.” THE RIGHT-LEANG RNERS OF THE TER ARE FULL OF ADMIRATN FOR JT HOW LOGIL HE IS.THE LOGIC LOVER WISH TO E AGA AND AGA THEIR FAVORE MAGIC WORDS AS A SHIELD AGAST CRICISM AND AS A WEAPON AGAST OTHERS. THIS IS A TTAMENT TO THE POWER OF BRANDG, BEE ON CLOSER SPECTN, SHAPIRO ISN’T A VERY LOGIL PERSON AT ALL. IN CURRENT AFFAIRS, NATHAN ROBSON LAID OUT A LENGTHY TAKEDOWN HOW SHAPIRO’S ADMTEDLY SHARP LAW-SCHOOL SKILLS BELIE THE FACT THAT HALF THE TIME HE SPEAKS, HE SULTS RATHER THAN ARGUMENTS, AND THE OTHER HALF, THE ARGUMENTS ARE UALLY FALLAC (IF YOU SUPPORT A HIGHER TAX RATE ON RPORATNS, “WHY NOT MAKE TAX RAT 100 PERCENT”?) AND/OR BASED ON HEAVILY IOLOGIL AND EMOTNAL PRUPPOSNS.SHAPIRO MATAS THAT GAY PARENTS SHOULDN’T ADOPT CHILDREN BEE “A MAN AND A WOMAN DO A BETTER JOB OF RAISG A CHILD THAN TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN,” RELYG ON AN OLD REACTNARY TROPE RATHER THAN A PREPONRANCE OF THE EVINCE THAT SHOWS CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX UPL DO AS WELL AS THOSE ADOPTED BY DIFFERENT-SEX UPL. HE SISTS ON MISGENRG TRANS PEOPLE BEE HE BELIEV THAT PRONOUNS SHOULD BE ED BASED ON A PERSON’S CHROMOSOM, A POSN THAT WOULD GET YOU LGHED OUT OF A ROOM EHER OF MEDIL PROFSNALS OR OF LGUISTS. HIS POSN ON THE UNLAWFUL ACTNS OF THE ISRAELI ERNMENT, AS ROBSON ILLTRAT HIS TAKEDOWN, SEEMS TO BE ENTIRELY BASED ON A BATN OF HIS PERSONAL RELIG BELIEFS AND AN SISTENCE THAT PALTIAN ARAB CIVILIANS ARE “EVIL” (A POSN WHICH HAS LED HIM TO SUPPORT ETHNIC CLEANSG THE OCCUPIED TERRORI).NONE OF THIS SEEMS LIKE “LOGIC” TO ME. IT SEEMS LIKE A PERSON WHO HAS VERY STRONGLY HELD PRUPPOSNS THAT THEY SIST ON HOLDG ONTO THE WAY A CHILD HOLDS ONTO THEIR STUFFED ANIMAL — STUBBORNLY, AND WH A ILLY OWNY FACE YOU KD OF WANT TO TICKLE UNR THE CH.“AND STILL THE BRAND ENDUR,” AS @DRIL WOULD PUT . ACRDG TO HIS SUPPORTERS, AND EVEN MANY WHO MIGHT NOT SUPPORT HIM, BEN SHAPIRO LOV FACTS. WHY? WELL, BEE HE SAYS HE LOV FACTS. HE’S NOT BASG HIS ASSERTNS ON FEELGS, AND WE KNOW THIS BEE HE SAYS THAT HE ISN’T. (OF URSE, TO ASSERT THIS AS A POSIVE THG REQUIR THE PRUPPOSN THAT FEELGS ARE HERENTLY BAD AND IRRELEVANT TO POLIL DISURSE, WHICH IS NOT NECSARILY TE. BUT TO TALK ABOUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN -PTH KNOWLEDGE OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND POLIL PHILOSOPHY, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SPE OF THIS PIECE. ENOUGH OF THIS BLABBER ABOUT “THE MEANG OF KNOWLEDGE,” PLEASE. JT THE FACTS, MA’AM. ) BY SISTG ON THIS TERPRETATN OF HIS OWN CHARACTER, OVER AND OVER, BUOYED BY THE IDOLATRO SUPPORT OF HIS LOYAL FANS AND THE SNARKY TL OF HIS CLICKBA VIOS, SHAPIRO NJUR TO BEG AN IMAGE OF HIMSELF AS THE RATNAL MAN. SAY THE MAGIC WORDS ENOUGH TIM, AND THE SPELL WILL BE ST OVER YOUR DIENCE.TO BE HONT, EVEN THOUGH I’M NOT A MAN, THIS IS A TENNCY I UNRSTAND. PEOPLE WANT TO FEEL SMART. CALLG YOUR OPNS AND FEELGS “RATNAL,” AS OPPOSED TO THE “IRRATNAL” OPNS AND FEELGS OF OTHERS, IS A SHORTCUT TO BOOSTG YOUR SELF-TEEM. AND ’S CERTALY NOT AS THOUGH THIS TENNCY IS UNIQUE TO REACTNARI; I THK WE’RE ALL PRONE TO THIS SOMETIM. THE KEY IS TO REGNIZE THIS FOR WHAT IS — NOTHG MORE THAN A BIAS THAT WE MT OVERE, ORR TO CLEARLY INTIFY HOW EXACTLY WE ME TO A VIEWPOT, AND WHETHER TLY HOLDS UP TO SCTY. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY RECENT NVERT, WHETHER ’S TO THE INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB, OR MUNISM, OR CROSSF. WE MT NOT MISTAKE OUR IMAGED TRANSFIGURATN OM REGULAR PERSON TO OMNISCIENT WIZARD FOR REALY.CALLG YOUR OPNS AND FEELGS “RATNAL,” AS OPPOSED TO THE “IRRATNAL” OPNS AND FEELGS OF OTHERS, IS A SHORTCUT TO BOOSTG YOUR SELF-TEEM. THIS IS MY ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE SPELL, I GUS. REPEAT AFTER ME: LLG SOMETHG LOGIC DON’T MAKE SO. CALLG SOMEONE RATNAL DON’T MAKE SO. OPNS OM YOUTUBE MEN ARE NOT FACTS. GETTG MAD ABOUT PHILOSOPHERS YOU HAVEN’T READ ISN’T REASON. INSULTG YOUR GIRLIEND BEE SHE QUTNS YOUR SUDN POLIL SHIFT ISN’T LOGIC. FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO HATE THE SUPPOSED REFN OF WORDS WHEN TO GENR AND RACE; FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MAD ABOUT THE POSTMORN TENNCY TO SAY NOTHG MEANS ANYTHG (OR AT LEAST THIS IS AN ASPECT OF POSTMORNISM THEY SEEM TO HAVE GLEANED OM THEIR FAVORE SUBREDDS), THE NEW YOUNG REACTNARI ARE REMARKABLY VIL-MAY-RE ABOUT CERTA WORDS WHEN THEY SEEM TO LEND CREDIBILY AND STRENGTH TO THEIR OPNS.BY REPEATG THE MAGIC WORDS, THEY AVOID HAVG TO AL WH A GOME FACT, ONE THAT REALLY DON’T RE ABOUT THEIR FEELGS: THAT THEY ARE JT A PERSON ON A PUTER WH AN OPN, TALKG TO OTHER PEOPLE ON PUTERS WH OPNS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THE GUYS. BUT I DO WISH THEY’D STOP PLAYG WH THEIR MAGIC WANDS.THE FUTURETHE “INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB” IS JT A BUNCH OF WHY RICH PEOPLETHE HOSTS AND PERSONALI WH DIENC THE SIZE OF RACHEL MADDOW'S HAVE MOIZED A PERSECUTN NARRATIVE. READ MORE CULTUREDEAR FUCK-UP: SHOULD I APOLOGIZE TO THE WOMEN I HURT?WILL BRG THEM CLOSURE OR SIMPLY REOPEN OLD WOUNDS? READ MORE THE FUTURETHE RACIST LANGUAGE OF SPACE EXPLORATNTHE LANGUAGE OF LONIALISM IS FECTG OUTER SPACE, THANKS TO DOMANCE BY RICH WHE BSMEN AND POLICIANS. READ MORE AISLG MCCREA IS A EELANCE WRER, REARCHER, AND GRADUATE STUNT WH A BACKGROUND LAW AND TERNATNAL RELATNS. SHE LAST WROTE FOR THE OUTLE ABOUT HOW BATE IS VERY STUPID. THE OUTLE

GAY LOGIC: HOW IN THE WORLD DID YOU EVER BELIEVE THIS?

The clip, which stars Don Cheadle and Matthew Mode, centers around a gay black teen wh a whe boyiend g to grips wh his sexualy and his fay’s reactn to .

Dear Gay Friend, as you read this or listen to the podst, I appeal to you to differentiate between my affectn for you and my opn about your life choic. It’s “Okay” to Be Gay, and You Need to Know Why.

Rpondg to the Gay Guy Said, “I Was Born This Way”. Gay Logic Is Not Logil. I do not adhere to the “gay logic” that says there is only their view and they will not stop until I believe as they do.

WHY LOGIC CHOSE A GAY BLACK TEEN'S STGGLE FOR '1-800-273-8255' MIC VIO (EXCLIVE)

Usg “gay logic, ” any person uld twist scripture to jtify their practic while admonishg anyone who is agast them.

I say that homosexualy is a s; you say ’s not. I’m no more willg to ndone homosexualy as I am eager to tolerate my list of offens agast God.

For example, they had won over the Amerin Psychiatric Associatn when the DSM-4 revised s prr unrstandg of the gay liftyle. Homosexualy ed to be lled viant behavr. The new “viant” practice is the person who is agast the gay liftyle.

GAY LOGIC

The label for their ma-up disorr is homophobic. This kd of polil, evangelistic advancement has done a lot our untry to brg the gay muny to a better light. I wrote about this transn my article, It’s “Okay” to be Gay, and You Need to Know Why.

There are three ma dmbeats that some gay folks nsistently sound as part of their evangelistic outreach to change the culture. This worldview means Jerry Sandky is not wrong for explog people wh his gay practic—we should accept him and judge not.

THE MAGIL THKG OF GUYS WHO LOVE LOGIC WHY SO MANY MEN ONLE LOVE TO E “LOGIC” TO W AN ARGUMENT, AND THEN DISAPPEAR BEFORE THEY N FD OUT THEY'RE WRONG. AISLG MCCREA FEB—15—2019 09:38AM EST IAN DANSK, WHO MAK VIOS UNR THE MONIKER INNUENDO STUDS, HAS MA A NAME FOR HIMSELF ON THE TER FOR HIS YOUTUBE SERI ON THE TECHNIQU AND BELIEFS OF THE ALT-RIGHT. HIS MOST RECENT VIO, “THE CARD SAYS MOOPS,” IS WORTH WATCHG FULL, BUT THERE WAS ONE PARTICULAR LE THAT STCK ME. DANSK POTS OUT THAT, EVEN WHEN THEIR BELIEFS SKEW TOWARDS THE BIZARRE AND NSPIRATORIAL, PEOPLE ON THE ONLE RIGHT OFTEN INTIFY AS “RATNALISTS.”THIS WILL BE UNSURPRISG TO THOSE WHO OFTEN ENGAGE WH THE WIR ONLE RIGHT, WHETHER IS WH SOMEONE WHO INTIFI AS ALT-RIGHT, LIBERTARIAN, NSERVATIVE, AS A FAN OF THE “INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB,” OR EVEN “MORATE” OR “CENTRIST” (TURNS OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ONLE ARE SELF-INTIFYG AS MORATE WHILE ALSO BELIEVG NSPIRACI ABOUT “WHE GENOCI”). ALTHOUGH THEIR BELIEFS MAY NOT BE INTIL, THERE ARE MON, DISTCT PATTERNS THE WAY THEY SPEAK (OR TYPE) THAT ONE N’T HELP BUT NOTICE.SPECIFILLY, THE GUYS — AND THEY ARE UALLY GUYS — LOVE G TERMS LIKE “LOGIC.” THEY WILL TELL YOU, OVER AND OVER, HOW THEY LOVE TO E LOGIC, AND HOW THE PEOPLE THEY FOLLOW ONLE ALSO E LOGIC. THEY ARE ALSO MASSIVE FANS OF CLARG THAT THEY HAVE “FACTS,” THAT THEIR ANALYSIS IS “UNBIASED,” THAT THEY ONLY E “‘REASON” AND “LOGIC” AND NOT “EMOTNS” TO MAKE CISNS. THE HOSTS OF THE POPULAR LEFTIST PODST CHAPO TRAP HOE EVEN TLED THEIR BOOK THE CHAPO GUI TO REVOLUTN: A MANIFTO AGAST LOGIC, FACTS AND REASON AS A WK AND NOD TO THIS TENNCY.THE WORDS ARE UALLY ED TERCHANGEABLY AND WHOUT REGARD TO THEIR PROPER AGE, SQUISHED TOGETHER A VAGUE PLAY-DOH BALL OF SMUG SUPERRY, TO BE THROWN WHEREVER POSSIBLE AT THEIR “EMOTNAL” AND “IRRATNAL” ENEMI: FEMISTS, MARXISTS, LIBERALS, SJWS, AND FELY THE FEMIST MARXIST LIBERAL SJWS. YOU ULD LL THE MEN’S WAY OF VIEWG THE WORLD SIMPLE “ME SMART, YOU DUMB” DICHOTOMI MANICHEAN, OR EVEN DERRIAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO UPSET THEM BY REFERENCG A PHILOSOPHER THAT THEY’VE HEARD IS VERY BAD.A GOOD ILLTRATN OF THIS PHENOMENON RECENTLY APPEARED A PIECE FOR MEL MAGAZE ABOUT AN CREASGLY DISTURBG TREND — WOMEN WHOSE ONCE-PROMISG ROMANTIC RELATNSHIPS IMPLO AFTER THEIR BOYIENDS BEE “REDPILLED.” FOR THE BENEF OF THE BLISSFULLY UNIATED: TO BE “REDPILLED” MEANS TO TERNALIZE A SET OF MISOGYNISTIC FAR-RIGHT BELIEFS POPULAR WH CERTA RNERS OF THE TER; THE PRODUCT OF A NOX BLEND OF JUNK SCIENCE, NSPIRACY THEORY, AND A PATHOLOGIL FEAR OF SOCIAL PROGRS.THE MEN WILL TELL YOU, OVER AND OVER, HOW THEY LOVE TO E LOGIC, AND HOW THE PEOPLE THEY FOLLOW ONLE ALSO E LOGIC. THEY ARE ALSO MASSIVE FANS OF CLARG THAT THEY HAVE “FACTS” AND THAT THEIR ANALYSIS IS “UNBIASED.”THE MEN TERVIEWED THE PIECE, ONCE SWEET AND RG, STARTED CHANGG AFTER GOG DOWN A RABB HOLE OF EXTREMIST POLIL NTENT ON YOUTUBE AND VOLVG THEMSELV RADIL RIGHT-WG ONLE MUNI. CONVCED OF THEIR ABSOLUTE RRECTNS, THE MEN BEME AT FIRST TRATED, THEN VERBALLY ABIVE ONCE THEY REALIZED THEIR FEMALE PARTNERS DID NOT ALWAYS AGREE WH THEIR NEW VIEWS. ANY DIALOGUE ATTEMPTED BY THE MEN WAS NOT MA — AT LEAST AS FAR AS THEIR PARTNERS ULD TELL — WH THE GOAL OF EXCHANGG VIEWS AND OPENG THEMSELV TO BEG CHALLENGED. THEIR GOAL WAS TO ASSERT THEIR BELIEFS AS FACT; TO TEACH THEIR PARTNER THE TTH, AS A CHRISTIAN MISSNARY MIGHT PUT . EVERY WOMAN TERVIEWED THE ARTICLE — CLUDG THOSE WHO WERE MORE FORMALLY TED THAN THEIR BOYIENDS — MAK REFERENCE TO THEIR FORMER PARTNERS BELTLG THEIR TELLIGENCE AND RATNALY. THE MEN WERE CERTA THAT THEY WERE THE SMART ON, THAT THEY HAD RRECTLY ASSSED THE “FACTS” WH “LOGIC,” AND THAT IF THEIR WOMENFOLK DID NOT ACCEPT THIS WHOUT QUTN, THEY WERE SIMPLY TOO DUMB TO UNRSTAND.THIS MIGHT NOT SEEM SURPRISG AT FIRST — WHEN TO NTENT BELIEFS, ’S NOT UNMON FOR PEOPLE TO ACT AS THOUGH THEIR VIEW IS THE HERENTLY SUPERR ONE. BUT WHAT’S REMARKABLE IS HOW RIDICULOLY NFINT THE MEN BEME, A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME, THEIR UNIQUE PHILOSOPHER-KG-LIKE POSSSN OF OBJECTIVE TTH AND SUPERR ANALYSIS… ALL WHILE PYG THEIR ARGUMENTS OM AN ECHO-CHAMBER OF POORLY CED WEBM VIOS AND ANONYMO TER MENTS.THE MAGIC WORDS DO HAVE ACTUAL FNS, AS HAPPENS, AND THEY’RE QUE PLITED. THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY IS A MONLY ED GO-TO SE FOR AMIC SUMMARI OF PHILOSOPHIL TOPICS, AND DON’T EVEN HAVE A SGLE UNIFIED ARTICLE FOR “LOGIC,” “REASON” OR “RATNALY”; STEAD THEY HAVE A PLETHORA OF ARTICL ABOUT ALL THE MYRIAD SUBTYP AND BAT AROUND THE TOPIC, MOST OF WHICH I SPECT WOULD MYSTIFY THE AVERAGE SELF-INTIFIED LOGIC FAN (ALTHOUGH FAIRNS, THEY WOULD MYSTIFY MOST OF ).THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY DON’T EVEN HAVE A SGLE UNIFIED ARTICLE FOR “LOGIC,” “REASON” OR “RATNALY.”IF YOU’RE LOOKG FOR A MORE ACCSIBLE REFERENCE, WIKIPEDIA ALSO BREAKS THE TERMS DOWN TO SUBTYP. “LOGIC,” FOR EXAMPLE, N REFER TO SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC, A SYSTEM WHICH PROPOSNS NTAG TERMS WH EXPLIC RELATNS TO EACH OTHER N BE ED TO FER A FIVELY VALID NCLN (SOCRAT IS A HORSE, ALL HORS TERRIFY ME, THEREFORE SOCRAT TERRIFI ME — THAT SORT OF THG). RELATED TO THIS TYPE OF LOGIC ARE OTHER “FORMAL” TYP SUCH AS PROPOSNAL, MATHEMATIL, AND PUTATNAL LOGICS, BUT ’S RARE TO E ACROSS THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF LOGIC ONLE AS RELAT TO REAL-LIFE POLIL ISSU; MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TALKG ABOUT SOME OTHER “RMAL” LOGIC (TO PUT MASSIVELY OVERSIMPLIFIED TERMS, A SYSTEM THAT SEEKS TO ADHERE TO SOME STANDARD OF ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENTATN, WHICH IS NOT CLOSED, FIXED OR PRONE TO FIVE NCLNS THE WAY FORMAL LOGIC IS).THE BOUNDARI AND FNS VOLVED THE TERMS, AND HOW WE E TO INTIFY THEM, ARE HOTLY BATED. “RATNALY” IS THE QUALY OF “BEG BASED ON AND AGREEABLE TO REASON,” WHICH IS ALSO A LOSSAL N OF WORMS — WHAT IS REASONABLE PENDG ON THE QUTN AND NTEXT, ONE’S TERPRETATN OF THE SYSTEM, ONE’S VALU AND SO ON. THE BATTL OVER FN ARE NOT TAKG PLACE THE SAME UNIVERSE AS THE ONE WHICH MEN THROW AROUND THE TERMS ONLE. BUT FOR THE LOGIC GUYS, THE PURPOSE OF G THE WORDS — THE SACRED, MAGIC WORDS LIKE “LOGIC,” “OBJECTIVY,” “REASON,” “RATNALY,” “FACT” — IS NOT TO VOKE THE ACTUAL NCEPTS THEMSELV. IT’S MORE A KD OF NTATN, WHEREBY CLARG YOUR ARGUMENT THE SGLE “LOGIL” AND “RATNAL” ONE MAGILLY MAK SO — AND BY EXTENSN, MAK YOU BOTH SMART AND RRECT, REGARDLS OF THE ACTUAL RIGOR OR SOURC OF YOUR BELIEFS.FOR MEN, PECIALLY SECURE AND SOCIALLY DISLOTED MEN, THE IA OF “RATNALY” N BE A KD OF FORT BLANKET. RAISED OM BIRTH WH THE STEREOTYPE THAT THEY ARE MORE “ANALYTILLY TELLIGENT” ( NTRAST TO WOMEN, WHO ARE “EMOTNALLY TELLIGENT”), AND WH POP CULTURE THAT VENERAT “LOGIL” CHARACTERS (ON A JT BARELY RELATED NOTE, PLEASE ENJOY THIS NOVELTY LEONARD NIMOY SONG), ’S NO WONR THAT MANY YOUNG MEN SEE “LOGIC” AS A SORT OF PERSONALY TRA TO ACHIEVE — ONE WHICH TOMATILLY IMBU ALL ONE’S OPNS WH RRECTNS — RATHER THAN A SYSTEM THAT ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE FOLLOWG AT ANY ONE TIME.THE “REDPILL” METAPHOR HERE IS TELLG, BEE IMPLI THAT OBTAG KNOWLEDGE AND ARGUG WELL IS NOT A SKILL THAT IS SLOWLY AND FELY IMPROVED UPON, BUT AN ACHIEVEMENT TO BE UNLOCKED A SGLE MOMENT: ONCE YOU’VE SWALLOWED THE PILL, YOU TURN TO A SMART PERSON, AND OM THEN ON, ALL YOUR OPNS ARE RRECT. (I DON’T THK ’S A CINCE THAT A LOT OF FIGUR POPULAR THE “REDPILL” MUNY ALSO HAWK NOOTROPIC SUPPLEMENTS.)AN TERTG PARALLEL IS THE E OF THE TERM “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” TO REFER TO AN HISTORIL PERD OF DISVERY PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENC — A PERD THAT IS OFTEN REFERENCED BY SELF-INTIFIED LOGIC LOVERS AS A SORT OF SGLE-E POWER-UP BY SOCIETY: FIRST WE WERE ALL LYG AROUND MUD LIKE THE SERFS MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, THEN WE DID THE ENLIGHTENMENT (AND BY “WE,” OF URSE, THEY MEAN WHE EUROPEAN MEN), AND THEN EVERYTHG WAS SMART UNTIL MARXISTS AND FEMISTS AND POSTSTCTURALISTS MSED ALL UP.IT’S NO WONR THAT MANY YOUNG MEN SEE “LOGIC” AS A SORT OF PERSONALY TRA TO ACHIEVE RATHER THAN A SYSTEM THAT ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE FOLLOWG AT ANY ONE TIME. IN REALY, “THE ENLIGHTENMENT” WAS POSED OF A LOOSE, MSY ASSORTMENT OF PEOPLE WH VERY DIFFERENT IAS (YOU N EVEN CLU MARX AS AN ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHER, IF YOU LIKE ). ROSE HAS VERY LTLE MON WH LOCKE, AND OUTRIGHT HATED VOLTAIRE. IN ADDN, MANY ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHERS HAD DOWNRIGHT SILLY VIEWS ON WOMEN, MORI AND THE LIKE (AS SILVIA FERICI POTS OUT HER SEMAL WORK CALIBAN AND THE WCH: WOMEN, THE BODY AND PRIMIVE ACCUMULATN, MANY OF THE BRILLIANT PHILOSOPHERS STRAIGHT-UP BELIEVED EXECUTG WCH). THIS DO NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO THROW OUT THE BABY WH THE BATHWATER, BUT DO MEAN THAT “PHILOSOPHY HAD ONE GOOD SCHOOL AND THEN STOPPED BEG GOOD THE 19TH CENTURY” IS… NOT A TERRIBLY SOPHISTITED TAKE, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS MORE BASED WANTG TO FD A SHORTCUT TO SUPERRY THAN GOOD-FAH QUIRY.A SIAR LE OF THKG N BE SEEN THE NEW ATHEIST MOVEMENT, WHICH GREW OUT OF A REACTN TO THE DOMANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT DURG THE GEE W. BH ERA, AS WELL AS POST-9/11 FEARS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM. WHILE THERE WERE GENUE NCERNS TO BE RAISED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF RELIG BELIEFS ON PUBLIC POLICY, WHAT ULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD-NATURED MOVEMENT FOR SECULARISM BEME A LIGHTNG ROD FOR TRATED YOUNG MEN WHO WANTED TO SULT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED “SKY-GODS,” TO THE POT WHERE A LOT OF ATHEISTS BEGAN TO LABEL THE MOVEMENT TOXIC AND TRIED TO DISTANCE THEMSELV OM .PERHAPS THE NADIR OF THE MOVEMENT WAS 2011’S “ELEVATATE,” WHICH A PROMENT NEW ATHEIST WOMAN MENTNED THAT A MAN HAD BEHAVED APPROPRIATELY TO HER AT AN ATHEIST NVENTN AND ADVISED OTHER WOMEN TO AVOID THIS SUATN FUTURE, AND LOTS OF ATHEIST MEN PROMPTLY LOST THEIR SH. AN OVER-THE-TOP REACTN TO WOMEN SPEAKG OUT AGAST HARASSMENT IS NOT UNIQUE TO THIS MOVEMENT; FOR EVERY ARTICLE PRAISG #METOO, THERE SEEMS TO BE ANOTHER OM A VERY CONCERNED MAN WHO WORRI THAT EVERYTHG IS GOG TOO FAR AND HE’S AAID TO EVEN TALK TO WOMEN NOW!BUT I SPECT THE REASON THE REACTN TO ELEVATATE WAS SO VRLIC WAS NOT JT ABOUT GENERAL SEXISM, BUT ALSO ABOUT THE THREAT POSED TO THE NEW ATHEIST SENSE OF MORAL SUPERRY. IT WAS MUCH LS FUN FOR THEM TO RECKON WH SAY, THE PLEX SOCIAL STCTUR WH THE SKEPTIC MUNY, AND THE WAY THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE MOVEMENT, THAN WAS TO MAKE FUN OF SOME HICK WHO ULDN’T GET HIS HEAD ROUND EVOLUTN. THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO HAD SOME LEARNG TO DO — FOR THE NEW ATHEISTS THEMSELV, THERE WAS NOTHG MORE TO LEARN. IF PEOPLE OM MARGALISED GROUPS WH THE MOVEMENT STARTED SPEAKG ABOUT ISSU WHICH VOLVED LISTENG AND LEARNG, OR SELF-REFLECTG ON ONE’S BIAS… WELL, THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE, SCE WOULD REQUIRE WIR READG AND UNRSTANDG OF ISSU THAT WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCSIBLE OR ATHETILLY PLEASG TO MANY NEW ATHEIST MEN.IN RETROSPECT, ’S UNSURPRISG THAT A LOT OF NEW ATHEISM VOLVED TO REACTNARY, ANTIFEMIST, AND EVEN WHE SUPREMACIST THOUGHT, BEE WAS NEVER REALLY ABOUT THE THGS CLAIMED TO BE ABOUT. THE DOMANT AFFECT OF NEW ATHEISM WASN’T HUY, OR REFLEXIVY, OR CURSY, ALL THE THGS ONE TLY NEEDS TO IMPROVE TELLECTUALLY. IT WAS SMUGNS.ANOTHER MON CHARACTERISTIC OF THE “LOGICKIER THAN THOU” MOVEMENTS IS A NARROW FOC ON THE TYPE OF SKILL THAT N BE CLASSED AS “TELLIGENCE.” AFFY FOR THGS LIKE SOCIAL TERACTN, LANGUAG, OR THE ARTS (OR AT LEAST CERTA TYP OF ART) OFTEN DON’T GET A LOOK-. EVERYTHG MT BE RCIBLE TO NUMBERS, HENCE THE TYPIL LOGIC LOVER’S OBSSN WH IQ.IN THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, ONE OF THE MOST WELL-KNOWN CRIQU OF TELLIGENCE REARCH, STEPHEN JAY GOULD NOT THE DANGERS OF SCIENTISTS’ BIAS TOWARD REIFITN — THE SIRE TO FD A FIVE THG THAT IS TELLIGENCE — AND QUANTIFITN, THE SIRE TO SLAP NUMBERS ON STUFF. WHILE THIS IS UNRSTANDABLE TO AN EXTENT — THGS AND NUMBERS ARE EASY TO UNRSTAND AT-A-GLANCE — GOULD WARNS THAT THIS HAS LED TO BAD SCIENCE AND PERVERSE OUT THE PAST, AND THREATENS TO MISLEAD TO POOR UNRSTANDGS OF TELLIGENCE, AT THE EXPENSE OF NUANCE AND PLEXY. THIS IS ALL OF LTLE NCERN TO THE LOGIC LOVER, WHO WISH NOT TO UNRSTAND, BUT TO E AGA AND AGA THEIR FAVORE MAGIC WORDS, AS A SHIELD AGAST CRICISM AND AS A WEAPON AGAST OTHERS.A GOOD, NTEMPORARY EXAMPLE OF THE LOGIC NTATN AT WORK N BE FOUND THE REER OF BEN SHAPIRO. SHAPIRO, A POPULAR NSERVATIVE PUND WH HALF A LN YOUTUBE SUBSCRIBERS AND 1.86 LN TWTER FOLLOWERS, IS KNOWN FOR HIS MANTRA “FACTS DON’T RE ABOUT YOUR FEELGS.” YOUTUBE IS FULL OF VIOS TLED THGS LIKE “BRILLIANT BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS LLEGE FEMIST WH REASON AND INTELLIGENCE.” (THE PREVALENCE OF THE TERM “STROY” IS TERTG — IF YOU STROY SOMETHG, ’S NOT THERE TO BOTHER YOU ANYMORE, SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY LONGER. HMM.) A NEW YORK TIM PROFILE LLED SHAPIRO “THE OL KID’S PHILOSOPHER.” THE RIGHT-LEANG RNERS OF THE TER ARE FULL OF ADMIRATN FOR JT HOW LOGIL HE IS.THE LOGIC LOVER WISH TO E AGA AND AGA THEIR FAVORE MAGIC WORDS AS A SHIELD AGAST CRICISM AND AS A WEAPON AGAST OTHERS. THIS IS A TTAMENT TO THE POWER OF BRANDG, BEE ON CLOSER SPECTN, SHAPIRO ISN’T A VERY LOGIL PERSON AT ALL. IN CURRENT AFFAIRS, NATHAN ROBSON LAID OUT A LENGTHY TAKEDOWN HOW SHAPIRO’S ADMTEDLY SHARP LAW-SCHOOL SKILLS BELIE THE FACT THAT HALF THE TIME HE SPEAKS, HE SULTS RATHER THAN ARGUMENTS, AND THE OTHER HALF, THE ARGUMENTS ARE UALLY FALLAC (IF YOU SUPPORT A HIGHER TAX RATE ON RPORATNS, “WHY NOT MAKE TAX RAT 100 PERCENT”?) AND/OR BASED ON HEAVILY IOLOGIL AND EMOTNAL PRUPPOSNS.SHAPIRO MATAS THAT GAY PARENTS SHOULDN’T ADOPT CHILDREN BEE “A MAN AND A WOMAN DO A BETTER JOB OF RAISG A CHILD THAN TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN,” RELYG ON AN OLD REACTNARY TROPE RATHER THAN A PREPONRANCE OF THE EVINCE THAT SHOWS CHILDREN ADOPTED BY SAME-SEX UPL DO AS WELL AS THOSE ADOPTED BY DIFFERENT-SEX UPL. HE SISTS ON MISGENRG TRANS PEOPLE BEE HE BELIEV THAT PRONOUNS SHOULD BE ED BASED ON A PERSON’S CHROMOSOM, A POSN THAT WOULD GET YOU LGHED OUT OF A ROOM EHER OF MEDIL PROFSNALS OR OF LGUISTS. HIS POSN ON THE UNLAWFUL ACTNS OF THE ISRAELI ERNMENT, AS ROBSON ILLTRAT HIS TAKEDOWN, SEEMS TO BE ENTIRELY BASED ON A BATN OF HIS PERSONAL RELIG BELIEFS AND AN SISTENCE THAT PALTIAN ARAB CIVILIANS ARE “EVIL” (A POSN WHICH HAS LED HIM TO SUPPORT ETHNIC CLEANSG THE OCCUPIED TERRORI).NONE OF THIS SEEMS LIKE “LOGIC” TO ME. IT SEEMS LIKE A PERSON WHO HAS VERY STRONGLY HELD PRUPPOSNS THAT THEY SIST ON HOLDG ONTO THE WAY A CHILD HOLDS ONTO THEIR STUFFED ANIMAL — STUBBORNLY, AND WH A ILLY OWNY FACE YOU KD OF WANT TO TICKLE UNR THE CH.“AND STILL THE BRAND ENDUR,” AS @DRIL WOULD PUT . ACRDG TO HIS SUPPORTERS, AND EVEN MANY WHO MIGHT NOT SUPPORT HIM, BEN SHAPIRO LOV FACTS. WHY? WELL, BEE HE SAYS HE LOV FACTS. HE’S NOT BASG HIS ASSERTNS ON FEELGS, AND WE KNOW THIS BEE HE SAYS THAT HE ISN’T. (OF URSE, TO ASSERT THIS AS A POSIVE THG REQUIR THE PRUPPOSN THAT FEELGS ARE HERENTLY BAD AND IRRELEVANT TO POLIL DISURSE, WHICH IS NOT NECSARILY TE. BUT TO TALK ABOUT THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN -PTH KNOWLEDGE OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND POLIL PHILOSOPHY, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SPE OF THIS PIECE. ENOUGH OF THIS BLABBER ABOUT “THE MEANG OF KNOWLEDGE,” PLEASE. JT THE FACTS, MA’AM. ) BY SISTG ON THIS TERPRETATN OF HIS OWN CHARACTER, OVER AND OVER, BUOYED BY THE IDOLATRO SUPPORT OF HIS LOYAL FANS AND THE SNARKY TL OF HIS CLICKBA VIOS, SHAPIRO NJUR TO BEG AN IMAGE OF HIMSELF AS THE RATNAL MAN. SAY THE MAGIC WORDS ENOUGH TIM, AND THE SPELL WILL BE ST OVER YOUR DIENCE.TO BE HONT, EVEN THOUGH I’M NOT A MAN, THIS IS A TENNCY I UNRSTAND. PEOPLE WANT TO FEEL SMART. CALLG YOUR OPNS AND FEELGS “RATNAL,” AS OPPOSED TO THE “IRRATNAL” OPNS AND FEELGS OF OTHERS, IS A SHORTCUT TO BOOSTG YOUR SELF-TEEM. AND ’S CERTALY NOT AS THOUGH THIS TENNCY IS UNIQUE TO REACTNARI; I THK WE’RE ALL PRONE TO THIS SOMETIM. THE KEY IS TO REGNIZE THIS FOR WHAT IS — NOTHG MORE THAN A BIAS THAT WE MT OVERE, ORR TO CLEARLY INTIFY HOW EXACTLY WE ME TO A VIEWPOT, AND WHETHER TLY HOLDS UP TO SCTY. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY RECENT NVERT, WHETHER ’S TO THE INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB, OR MUNISM, OR CROSSF. WE MT NOT MISTAKE OUR IMAGED TRANSFIGURATN OM REGULAR PERSON TO OMNISCIENT WIZARD FOR REALY.CALLG YOUR OPNS AND FEELGS “RATNAL,” AS OPPOSED TO THE “IRRATNAL” OPNS AND FEELGS OF OTHERS, IS A SHORTCUT TO BOOSTG YOUR SELF-TEEM. THIS IS MY ATTEMPT TO BREAK THE SPELL, I GUS. REPEAT AFTER ME: LLG SOMETHG LOGIC DON’T MAKE SO. CALLG SOMEONE RATNAL DON’T MAKE SO. OPNS OM YOUTUBE MEN ARE NOT FACTS. GETTG MAD ABOUT PHILOSOPHERS YOU HAVEN’T READ ISN’T REASON. INSULTG YOUR GIRLIEND BEE SHE QUTNS YOUR SUDN POLIL SHIFT ISN’T LOGIC. FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO HATE THE SUPPOSED REFN OF WORDS WHEN TO GENR AND RACE; FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY MAD ABOUT THE POSTMORN TENNCY TO SAY NOTHG MEANS ANYTHG (OR AT LEAST THIS IS AN ASPECT OF POSTMORNISM THEY SEEM TO HAVE GLEANED OM THEIR FAVORE SUBREDDS), THE NEW YOUNG REACTNARI ARE REMARKABLY VIL-MAY-RE ABOUT CERTA WORDS WHEN THEY SEEM TO LEND CREDIBILY AND STRENGTH TO THEIR OPNS.BY REPEATG THE MAGIC WORDS, THEY AVOID HAVG TO AL WH A GOME FACT, ONE THAT REALLY DON’T RE ABOUT THEIR FEELGS: THAT THEY ARE JT A PERSON ON A PUTER WH AN OPN, TALKG TO OTHER PEOPLE ON PUTERS WH OPNS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THE GUYS. BUT I DO WISH THEY’D STOP PLAYG WH THEIR MAGIC WANDS.THE FUTURETHE “INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB” IS JT A BUNCH OF WHY RICH PEOPLETHE HOSTS AND PERSONALI WH DIENC THE SIZE OF RACHEL MADDOW'S HAVE MOIZED A PERSECUTN NARRATIVE. READ MORE CULTUREDEAR FUCK-UP: SHOULD I APOLOGIZE TO THE WOMEN I HURT?WILL BRG THEM CLOSURE OR SIMPLY REOPEN OLD WOUNDS? READ MORE THE FUTURETHE RACIST LANGUAGE OF SPACE EXPLORATNTHE LANGUAGE OF LONIALISM IS FECTG OUTER SPACE, THANKS TO DOMANCE BY RICH WHE BSMEN AND POLICIANS. READ MORE AISLG MCCREA IS A EELANCE WRER, REARCHER, AND GRADUATE STUNT WH A BACKGROUND LAW AND TERNATNAL RELATNS. SHE LAST WROTE FOR THE OUTLE ABOUT HOW BATE IS VERY STUPID. THE OUTLE

I want my gay iends to know that I am not angry wh them and have no sire for harm to e to them. The gay muny has experienced legimate hurt om a few mean-spired Christians, who were more s-centered than gospel-centered.

” When my gay iends talk about our harshns, ’s not the time for me to argue wh them as though ’s not te. My gay iends uld not be clearer.

Some of the people are Christians, and they stggle wh beg gay.