Lefty Logic

Getting the Story Straight

The Greatest Leftist Ideas

Question For Leftist Trump Derangement Victims

Watters Dismisses New Trump Book: If He Didn't Want to Win, 'Why'd He Collude With Russia?'

Well, that's a logic issue so it doesn't apply to Leftists AT ALL.

For This To Make Sense, How Stupid Do You Have To Be?

Culture of Constant Contradictions

Ladies, Remember Men Are Dangerous. Now Share A Bathroom With Them And Don't Carry A Gun.

It's important, I'm told, to be respectful of opposing beliefs. We mustn't be dismissive of viewpoints that differ from our own. We mustn't condescend.

What about viewpoints that differ from ... themselves? For the Left that's OK because Shut UP!

Others by Matt Walsh:

WALSH: This Transgender Person Allegedly Raped A Girl In A Bathroom. Leftists Still Want Men In The Women's Room.

WALSH: We're Still Funding The Abortion Industry, But Let's Be Mad About Trophy Hunting Instead

WALSH: If Kids Can't Consent, Stop Pushing Sex And Birth Control On Them In Grade School

Well, the only absolute principles that the Left adheres to are 1) that rape is OK if it's done by a Leftist who supports women's rights, or a Leftist Victimhood Class member; 2) Abortion is a First Principle of Leftist eradicationalism; 3) kids and sex - Yum - when does the plane to pedophile island leave? 4) Contradictions are a Right Wing Conspiracy Theory.

More Leftist Logic Lockouts

1. Nancy Sinatra:

Because: They're all murderers because I say so and I Hate Them and Guns. Except for government firing squad.

2. White Prof who wants "white genocide" blames LV shooting on whites and men. And BTW everyone is racist as f.

3. Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi: ‘I Certainly Hope’ Bump-Stock Ban Is the Beginning of a Slippery Slope on Gun Control.

4. Jerry Brown signs bill making it "legal" for California to flaunt Federal Law by making CA a "Sanctuary State" for illegal aliens.

This Week's Leftist Logic Lockouts

1. Trump's a Fascist, so take away everyone's guns by government force.
2. Police are evil, so have them take away everyone's guns.
3. We need a rational conversation about guns, on how to take away everyone's guns.
4. The Las Vegas shooter apparently used illegal automatic-fire weapons, so we need laws to take away everyone's guns.
5. Silencers kill people, so we need to take away everyone's guns.
6. Both the concert and the hotel are gun-free zones; we need more of those.
7. The NRA is responsible; so the NRA is a terrorist organization.
8. Jimmy Kimmel wept; Jimmy Kimmel for president.
9. The shooter bought his guns legally, therefore we must close the gun show loophole, sez Kimmel.
10. A shooter; therefore all Republicans should be killed/shot/eradicated.

What If The Left Loses The Pronoun Diktat Offensive?

Principles of Enforced Compassion and the Confiscation of Human Rights.

Transgender pronouns are specifically NOT the issue; pronouns are the skirt behind which the real issue is hidden. The real issue is forcing others into compliance, using "compassion" as the bludgeon of enforcement. We must comply out of compassion in order to avoid damaging the "Victim" with the "violence of unkind words". The "Victim" is, by Leftist definition, too fragile and helpless to withstand common language usage, especially when referring to biological reality instead of obvious mental disorientation (disorder).

The "Victim's" phantasmagorical non-reality (implemented by drugs and surgery) reigns supreme over actual physical, biological reality. This non-reality must be maintained by all whom the "Victim" encounters - out of enforced "compassion".

There is no such thing as legitimate enforced compassion. The closest analog is taxation without representation, which is confiscation.

Enforced compassion is merely confiscation of human rights.

Forcing absurd pronoun usage onto the Other is pure conquest. If you can force me to say Xe or Xamo or Xap or any other non-word, then you can force me to do anything, and I am your ideological slave. Thus is invented: Compassionate Slavery. Only the very evil could conceive of, and implement such a program.

In Canada, it is now law. Compassionate Slavery to the whims of ill individuals is a legal requirement, punishable by law if not performed properly according to the whim of the individual "Victim".

Not so (yet) in the USA. One is a Compassionate Slave only voluntarily, either by complicity or by cowardice in the face of certain oppression by the Left.

The confiscation of human rights by the means of Enforced Compassion (Compassionate Slavery) is the easiest place to take a stand, if the rational faction of the USA ever wishes to do so. The Transgender Pronoun Issue is so absurd that it would seem that no rational person could choke it down unless buckling under Leftist enforcement.

Third person pronouns are normally not even used in the presence of first persons in normal conversation any way, so the issue cannot actually affect the "Victim" at all. So there is no actual need or use for this faux compassion. This rational failure is the logical death knell for the issue. But force alone is keeping it alive and even legal, at least in Canada.

This is the simplest issue to resist. Refusal to do as told is all it takes. And if the Left loses this attempt to induce Ideological Slavery in this particular instance it will be easier to defeat their inevitable subsequent attempts at confiscating human rights as well.

As an aside, the new gender-fluid spectrum of "gender choice" is fatal to homosexuality, as well. If all gender is merely a matter of choice and not birth-genetics, then homosexuality is purely a choice as well - as is pedophilia and pederasty. So the refrain, "I was born this way", does not comport with this new principle, and therefore homosexual regret is a real issue all of a sudden, whereas it was a forbidden concept before. But homosexuality is now completely under the Leftist bus, replaced first by Islam and now by transsexuality. Logical absurdity and non-coherence is never an issue for Leftists.

Paglia: Androgyny as a Signal of Cultural Collapse

Post-Modern Deconstruction Replaces Critical Thinking in Humanities

Why College Graduates Still Can’t Think

...I found that puzzling, until one helpful reader clued me in: “I share your view of what critical thinking should mean,” he wrote. “But a quite different operative definition has a strong hold in academia. In this view, the key characteristic of critical thinking is opposition to the existing ‘system,’ encompassing political, economic, and social orders, deemed to privilege some and penalize others. In essence, critical thinking is equated with political, economic, and social critique.”

Suddenly, it occurred to me that the disconnect between the way most people (including employers) define critical thinking and the way many of today’s academics define it can be traced back to the post-structuralist critical theories that invaded our English departments about the time I was leaving grad school, in the late 1980s. I’m referring to deconstruction and its poorer cousin, reader response criticism.

Both theories hold that texts have no inherent meaning; rather, meaning, to the extent it exists at all, is entirely subjective, based on the experiences and mindset of the reader.

Thomas Harrison of UCLA, in his essay “Deconstruction and Reader Response,” refers to this as “the rather simple idea that the significance of the text is governed by reading.”

That idea has been profoundly influential, not only on English faculty but also on their colleagues in the other humanities and even the social sciences. (Consider, for example, the current popularity of ethnography, a form of social science “research” that combines fieldwork with subjective story-telling.)

Unfortunately, those disciplines are also where most critical thinking instruction supposedly occurs in our universities. (Actually, other fields, such as the hard sciences and engineering, probably do a better job of teaching true thinking skills—compiling and evaluating evidence, formulating hypotheses based on that evidence, testing those hypotheses for accuracy before arriving at firm conclusions. They just don’t brag about it as much.)

The result is that, although faculty in the humanities and social sciences claim to be teaching critical thinking, often they’re not. Instead, they’re teaching students to “deconstruct”—to privilege their own subjective emotions or experiences over empirical evidence in the false belief that objective truth is relative, or at least unknowable.

That view runs contrary to the purposes of a “liberal arts” education, which undertakes the search for truth as the academy’s highest aim. Indeed, the urge to deconstruct everything is fundamentally illiberal. Heritage Foundation’s Bruce Edwards calls it “liberal education’s suicide note” in that it suggests the only valid response to any idea or situation is the individual’s own—how he or she “feels” about it.

Unfortunately, such internalization of meaning does not culminate in open-mindedness and willingness to examine the facts and logic of differing views. Rather, it leads to the narrow-minded, self-centered assumption that there is a “right” way to feel, which automatically delegitimizes the responses of any and all who may feel differently.

All of this has a profound impact on students and explains a great deal of what is happening on colleges campuses today, from the dis-invitation (and sometimes violent disruption) of certain speakers to the creation of “safe spaces” complete with Play-Doh and “adult coloring books” (whatever those are—I shudder to think). Today’s students are increasingly incapable of processing conflicting viewpoints intellectually; they can only respond to them emotionally.

More to the point, that explains why employers keep complaining that college graduates can’t think. They’re not being taught to think. They’re being taught, in too many of their courses, to “oppose existing systems”—without regard for any objective appraisal of those systems’ efficacy—and to demonstrate their opposition by emoting.

That may go over just fine on the quad, but it does not translate well to the workplace.

When feminism gets its fingers into STEM, civilization will collapse on rubble of civil systems designed by privileged emotions... if it doesn't collapse into tribal wars based on privileged emotions first.

Everyone: Have Sex With Gaia (That Slut).

‘Ecosexual’ professor spurs movement: Have sex with Earth to save it
Earth as lover, not mother

Four years ago, when art Professor Elizabeth Stephens filmed the documentary “Ecosexual Love Story,” in which she and her partner licked trees, played with mud, and made love with the environment while naked, the term “ecosexuality” was still somewhat unknown.

But a lot has happened since then, and ecosexuality isn’t such a mystery anymore — Google trends show interest in the term has increased exponentially over the last 12 months, seemingly exploding.

That interest can be traced in part back to Stephens, a UC Santa Cruz professor and one leader in the movement that melds art, sex and environmentalism, a la having sex with a tree or marrying the ocean.

Stephens, chair of the art department at the public university, is set to debut her latest documentary “Water Makes Us Wet.” Its premiere is slated for this week in Germany as part of a large art exhibition.

Over the summer, Stephens also co-led an “Ecosex Walking Tour” in Germany that offered “25 ways to make love to the Earth, raise awareness of environmental issues, learn ecosexercises, find E-spots, and climax with the planetary clitoris,” according to a description of the event on UC Santa Cruz’s website.

In May, she helped lead a two-day “Ecosex Symposium” at the public university. The event included workshops given by professors such as “Decolonizing Settler Sexuality” and “Academic Freedom In An Ecosexphobic World.”

Earlier this year, she also co-authored the book “The Explorer’s Guide to Planet Orgasm: for every body,” which explores various types of orgasms and how to “discover” them, its online description states.

All this has not gone unnoticed. The concept was recently featured in Teen Vogue, for example, which told its young readers about a concept called “Grassilingus,” which was accompanied by a description of a musician laying facedown in grass and licking it.

A new take on "pounding sand"...

The Age of Muggeridge

Muggeridge's Law

We live in an age in which it is no longer possible to be funny. There is nothing you can imagine, no matter how ludicrous, that will not promptly be enacted before your very eyes, probably by someone well known.

The rush to appear "Progressive" leads to evermore absurdity, purely because cis-normality must be attacked by attempting to normalize absolutely everything BUT cis-normality. The logical absurdity is guaranteed, meaning that internal contradiction (noncoherence) is normalized. That will fix those cis-normals!

So reaching into the realm of contradictions to be normalized not only produces laughably stupid assertions which cannot possibly be true (Aristotelian speaking), it also ties the minds of the Progressives in irrational knots. Cognitive knots of the Gordian class, not solvable or untie-able, but only released by severing. Believing in logical incoherences is equivalent to insanity - if an internally contradictory principle doesn't work, then double down on it.

The question remains, how many of the irreparably demented class actually exist, outside the obvious Donk Party? How much work must be done to straighten them out? And what type of work would that entail?

Cis-normality involves rules, which is what Progressives hate and fight. There are rules of logic, rules of civility, rules for ascending to power, rules for exercise of power. None of these appeal to Progressives. They are above those trivial mundanities, which are useful only for shaming cis-normals both for having such rules, and especially if they step outside those rules. Which is congruent with the Progressive cis-noncoherence.

On the other hand, because the Progressives have only non-coherence as their grounding, they are without any capacity for shame since they believe both X and NOT X simultaneously, and can use either as the situation seems to demand. This capacity, they believe, places them on a higher plane both intellectually and morally. Intellectually one cannot lose an argument if one believes that both sides of the argument are true and false, depending on the situation. Morally, they cannot be immoral since they make up the principles of morality as they see are beneficial to themselves - and again depending on the situation the moral principles may be changed and even reversed in an instant. Nonetheless, morality is theirs to manipulate, and they cannot be immoral, period. Effectively, they are cis-moral: bubble-gods in their domains.

There are not many absurdities remaining that the Left hasn't already asserted, including denying humanness to humans in the embryonic state, worshiping cop killers, whites hating whites because of whiteness, living in the luxury of western culture which they intend to kill in order to produce equality of thought in utopia, revisionist history to eradicate the racism/slavery/Jim Crow/KKK history of the Donkocrats, the obvious human rights and economic failures of EVERY socialist utopian scheme, the obvious Nietzschean hunger for total power that has seized their psyches while proclaiming "love" and spouting hate.

There are a few absurdities remaining to be normalized, such as pedophilia (a Clintonian passtime), non-governmental theft, rape ( a Muslim passtime), non-governmental murder (again, Clintonian and DNC passtimes). So we'll see. We'll see.

Meantime, we descend deeper into the Muggeridgeocene Era.

More Leftist Internal Contradictions

Democrat Who Compared Jews To ‘Termites’ Says Trump Is Too Polarizing
The same Democratic lawmaker also fretted during a congressional hearing that the island of Guam might "tip over" if too many people visited it.


A Frail Looking Hillary Hits Trump for Calling NYC Attack ‘Bombings’ — After Doing the Same
‘I’ve been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey’

Mizzou Again: Race Baiter Rants: Jealous of LGBTQLHFON Vigil

WATCH: Mizzou race activist hijacks Orlando vigil as gay community rebukes her

Latinos/Latinas/Translatinxs get no respect! When will they get their very own slaughter and their very own vigil??? Blacks and Gays get their very own slaughters, but Latinos just have Trump Riots and don't even get slaughtered!

NOT FAIR!

She's doing it wrong. She should be rioting at a mosque for full equality of outcome.

My Favorite Photo

Taken at the 2015 "People's Climate Rally" in Oakland, CA:

The Left provides ample opportunity to demonstrate the First Principle of Non-contradiction being violated. This photo is a prime example, the Animal Liberation dude with his fully bound-up animal straining at his bindings.

Leftist Class War On Truth

Dr Ablow is right. The transgender issue is a legal, moral and intellectual war for the definition of truth.

The real reason why the North Carolina 'bathroom bill' debate is center stage

The use of bathrooms by transgender individuals has come center stage in the U.S. presidential campaign for a reason: The bathroom debate is really a debate about the fundamental way we Americans will define any truth—whether as something deeply felt by an individual, or something scientifically demonstrable and verifiable.

Whether or not one believes gender reassignment therapy or surgery is wise, the cultural acceptance of biological/genetic females as male and vice-versa is tied to whether our species is willing to abandon genetics and biology as fact, in favor of considering a person’s desired self-image to be fact. But, even more, I believe that that fundamental question is tied, in the minds of millions of people, to whether any evidence or data should ever be considered more sacred than closely-held opinion.

If I maintain that my self-concept is that of a black person (and Rachel Donezal does so assert, for herself) and I tattoo myself black, head-to-foot, should our culture accept me as a black man? If I apply to law school as African-American, should I be given any preference that is allowed a minority applicant?

If I maintain that my entire being tells me I am not 54-years-old, but 75-years-old (in my tastes and friendships and energy level), should I be entitled to receive Medicare? Because attorneys I have asked have told me that case law related to transgender issues would make the argument that I ought to be eligible for Medicare carry weight.

If a 25-year-old man maintains that his maturity level and sense of self make him a 13-year-old, should he be allowed to be involved sexually with “other 13-year-olds?”

See, if we believe that transgender individuals must use the restrooms they choose, one could argue that many of our cultural institutions must flex away from fact. And one could argue that cultural chaos will result.

These questions, after all, extend to other realms than race and age. If I were a male member of ISIS, and jailed for terrorist acts, but then insisted while incarcerated that I were a 15-year-old, female American citizen who not only has changed my opinions, but am no longer in any way the person who was convicted of terrorist acts, should I then be released?

If the German people were to vote overwhelmingly, even unanimously, to assert that the Holocaust never happened, and then were to remove any reference to it or evidence of it from their culture, should we be required to not offend them by asserting that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen?

Some readers may think that my questions are preposterous, but they make this point: Many people unconsciously recoil at the potential slippery slope that transgenderism and the bathroom bill represent.

We aren’t simply debating who will use which bathrooms.

Because taken to its extreme, the slippery slope I have described really could have us embracing what is asserted, rather than what is evidenced scientifically, or is historically known to be fact.

Because the Left operates under the Hegelian thesis/antithesis/sythesis strategy as renewed in the Frankfort School and the "march through the institutions", the slippery slope is built into the concept of "Progress"; it is the very definition of Progress. And because the Left operates under the Alinsky tactical methodologies, they will always claim that there is no slippery slope, despite their blatant history of just that.

The Left will always need more and more Victimhood Class members to replace those which have been normalized and put in charge; for example homosexuals now can destroy anyone who looks crossways at them, and they frothingly do so. So the Left's Victimhood Classes will necessarily become ever more aberrant, until either the Left has full and total control, or runs out of aberrants to classify as Victims in need of messiahs to save them.

Truth was long ago jettisoned by the Left, who now create their own truth as the march through the institutions. And their truths frequently conflict with each other, as with feminism vs. transgender women for example. However the idea that truth, when it is true, does not have internal inconsistency is a lost concept, because it is not useful to the Left, and in fact is an encumbrance. Which is why it was jettisoned long ago under postmodernism.

I have noticed that virtually all of the boycotters of North Carolina cheerfully do business with the most abominable and discriminatory regimes in the world, including the Saudis, China, and anyone with money. Their boycott of North Carolina demonstrates the vast hypocrisy which infests the Left. But that is the net result of abandoning truth in favor of phony issues "cloaked in morals", as Alinsky famously directed. The Leftist narrative of "Progress" as they define taking control is more important to them than any truth which they do not define themselves for the world and its concept of reality.

If You Stand For Nothing, Then You'll Fall For Anything

Paul Krugman: The Venn Diagram

Ya gotta change when the narrative requires it... or you're out of the tribe.

The Alternate Socialist Universe of Bernie Sanders

Sanders: if we can rebuild Iraq, we can rebuild Flint

Yep. Obama rebuilt Iraq the same way a bonfire in the garage rebuilds a house.

Leftist Logic

Just redefine the problem, and Zap: it's gone.

Rep. Conyers: Illegal Aliens ‘Are Not Engaging in an Illegal Act’

In a new and interesting twist on the ever-escalating immigration crisis, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) alleged during a House Judiciary Committee meeting Thursday that many illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border unlawfully “are not engaging in an illegal act” at all, but are actually following federal law.

Huh?

They are "refugees", doncha know, so they can come in anytime they want.