Specifically, these guys — and they are usually guys — love using terms like “logic.” They will tell you, over and over, how they love to use logic, and how the people they follow online also use logic. They are also massive fans of declaring that they have “facts,” that their analysis is “unbiased,” that they only use “‘reason” and “logic” and not “emotions” to make decisions.

Ironically enough, they are also very quick to anger, and will start throwing "SJW" and "cuck" at you when you start to press them on: when you point out that their analysis is not as unbiased as they think, that their conclusions are flawed, that their premises and what they call facts often flat-out wrong (e.g., every single time I talk with them re: gender & transgender people).

They also don't like being told that "are you triggered, lol" does not an argument make, or that throwing around the word "fallacy", without even bothering to explain what the fallacy would be, is pointless.

But what’s remarkable is how ridiculously confident these men became, in a relatively short time, in their unique philosopher-king-like possession of objective truth and superior analysis…

I see it as an example of their logic in action. "I am a good, clever man; good men are not discriminatory; clever men are rational; therefore I am not discriminatory and rational; therefore, if I am called out as some sort of -ist or -phobic, it must be because my counterpart is irrational - I am not discriminatory, after all, and very rational".

The article touches on this afterwards, mentioning Ben Shapiro - boo, hiss! - and how people use "I'm rational" as a way to boost their self-esteem.

It's the same sort of thinking where saying "stop being so emotional" means that you automatically win the argument, whatever it is.

People who talk with me have started to unlearn that, but that's because I'm stubborn and not kind, and willing to find a way to make them regret saying that. It's doubly infuriating - a "rational" person should know better than even ever thinking "you got emotional, therefore your arguments will be wrong", and I shouldn't have to be an asshole back at them to get them to stop.

This isn't helped by the fact that many of their facts tend to be cherrypicked dictionary definitions. It's utterly infuriating, and rightfully so - debating the definition of "forest" is pointless if you end up forgetting about the trees.

Badging this because it was therapeutic to read. I've recently started my first job out of college working as a full-time software developer. This is something I wish I could send my coworkers and have them really think about. In my mind, this speaks to the lack of introspection that some men develop when they feel overly confident in their own conclusion-forming powers.

Maybe this is a post for another time, but I can't count the number of times my opinion has been dismissed in a meeting only for the Intellectuals(tm) to wind their way towards the same conclusion. Don't even get me started on how they treat women.

Thanks for sharing, it was a good read.

The "new rationalists" have two fundamental problems that make them unconvincing and insufferable to everyone else:

1) They don't know how to debate

2) They don't know how to think.

As to the former, classical rhetoric takes the form of ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos - "believe me because I am a morally upstanding person of character and this argument is just and ethical." Pathos - "believe me because think of the children!" Logos - "believe me because here are 99 facts that support my position. The "new rationalists" use all three, but claim they're only using logic. Ethos - "My facts are the best because they are facts and everyone believes my facts." Pathos - "You are a doodyhead because you dispute my facts when we all know that my facts are the purest of facts." Logos - "I have some facts." While they might think they're deploying only logic, they generally hide behind facts to make ethical or emotional arguments and then when they're called on their ethical or emotional plays they say "but I haz factz!" at which point people ignore them because they're fucking dumb and they're all butt-hurt because no one will argue with them on their terms. Exhibit A: Ben Fucking Shapiro.

As to the latter, "atheism" is in opposition to theism. That's just etymology. Thing about theism, though, is it is "a belief in god or gods." Atheism then should be "no belief in god or gods" but for the neoatheism movement it's become "a belief in no god or gods." It's a minor semantic difference with major philosophical implications; whereas agnostics acknowledge that they either haven't considered the implications of religion or haven't formed strong opinions, neoatheists have formed very strong opinions and a legitimate belief system that is every bit as pinned to dogma and inherited knowledge as Mormonism or Catholicism. Their god is "no god", their bible is Sam Harris, their church is /r/atheism.

In the end, people who want to be told what to believe have been told what to believe and now they're telling everyone else what to believe. They wear "rationalism" like a cloak but they don't practice it.

This is my attempt to break the spell, I guess. Repeat after me: calling something logic doesn’t make it so. Calling someone rational doesn’t make it so. Opinions from Youtube men are not facts. Getting mad about philosophers you haven’t read isn’t reason. Insulting your girlfriend because she questions your sudden political shift isn’t logic. For a group of people who claim to hate the supposed redefinition of words when it comes to gender and race; for a group of people who are very mad about the postmodern tendency to say nothing means anything (or at least this is an aspect of postmodernism they seem to have gleaned from their favorite subreddits), the new young reactionaries are remarkably devil-may-care about certain words when they seem to lend credibility and strength to their opinions.

Just because others have thought through the arguments doesn't mean they don't need to be made anymore. A^2 plus B^2 might very well equal C^2 but unless you can show someone else you won't convince them it's true.

Sometimes I can never figure out if alt-right types are just trolling or if they genuinely believe what they're saying makes perfect logical sense. If it's the latter, their brains must be wired in such a way that A implies B in their ideology, even when it doesn't. I doubt there's a cure for that.

Interesting share. In all honesty, the article wasn't at all what I thought it was gonna be about going in, but it does have some good points.

If I were to speak in more general terms, like "feelings" versus "logic," I think there's quite a few things to consider, most importantly being that they're complimentary to each other.

For example, when we're navigating through life, assessing situations, and making decisions (especially on an immediate and short term basis) we can't always rely on an internalized flow chart full of if/then statements to help us out. Using emotion and intuition help us make decisions quickly and effectively.

Similarly, sometimes a certain scenario seems one way on paper, but in real life seems completely different. While it's important to approach and analyze situations with care and consideration, we can't forget how we feel about a situation is important information to keep in mind. Our feelings might be off, sure, but if they don't line up with logic then that's a sure sign that whatever we're looking at deserves further consideration.

Lastly, strong feelings of any type, whether they're positive or negative, can be taken as kind of warning signs. If your living situation or work situation are making you unhappy for example, and you don't know why, that feeling of unhappiness needs to be recognized and then you need to go about figuring out what's causing those feelings and how you can go about changing things to alleviate them.

In regards to this article, one of the things I find most interesting about people with very strong thoughts on subjects, left and right, and want to appeal to logic and reason is that they often say that appeals to emotion in discussions are invalid. This strikes me as interesting for two reasons. One, a lot of them won't hesitate to express anger, indignation, or use emotionally charged words. If appeals to emotions aren't valid, then why do they let themselves get so overwhelmed with negative emotions when making arguments? Secondly though, is that sometimes appeals to emotions, especially positive emotions, are the best way to drive points home. There are so many speeches out there that touch on subjects such as dignity, compassion and sympathy, a sense of justice and fair mindedness, hope and joy and inspiration, all to drive points home and motivate and inspire people. There's nothing wrong with using appeals of emotion to make arguments, because emotions are a central part of the human experience. What is important though, is that when we look at emotional appeals, is that we consider the emotional content involved and whether or not it lines up with logic, and ultimately, reality.