Bigfoot Logic

My single-minded aim is to give existence to fantasy.

– Claes Oldenburg

Ideological thought is unfalsifiable, due to the immense need for ideological preservation. Any thought that goes against the narrative is almost immediately reshaped into something that does. This usually means that an obtuse, unprovable explanation is given. I call this “Bigfoot logic”.

Imagine you are at a camp site and go away from the tent to go fishing. You come back to your tent destroyed and items broken. What could be the explanation? An animal attack might be logical and sensible. A thief or a bad wind storm might also make sense. The conspiracy theorist’s explanation: Bigfoot! This of course is not provable because there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot’s existence. There was no way of knowing what hit your campsite. A regular animal attack would be provable as it is logical, and footprints and bite marks would be present. But declaring Bigfoot would mean that the conspiracy theorist is correct, and reinforce the narrative.

As an example, Stanford’s rate of sexual assault were low. What could be the reasoning for this? The logical explanation might be that sexual assault is just not committed. Perhaps the sexual assault awareness programs are effective (never mind that the actually are not). What is their answer? The rates must be fixed! The university is clearly covering up the mass amount of rape! Women are reporting less frequently! These are of course, unprovable accusations. If the university was investigated for cover ups and they were found to have done so, it proves the narrative. If the investigation is inconclusive, then it is simply the university covering itself up again. There is no hard way to prove that students are reporting less frequently (and no, self-report surveys have massive problems, not to mention all of the issues that the 1 in 5 studies have on their own). If they do report less often, then the narrative is reinforced. If they do not report less often, it is still a cover up or they are still scared of reporting. There is no way out of the narrative.

Another great example is the one Gad Saad uses. A student wore a hijab for 2 weeks to seek out islamophobia and bigotry on campus. It turns out everyone was kind and accepting. The obvious conclusion is that everyone is not a bigot. The actual answer? It is just the students trying to make up for the fact that they really are bigoted! Not only is there no way out, there is no way to prove that the students are closet bigots, outside of secretly monitoring them.

Now, there is also no way to prove that students are always tolerant and accepting. But “proving” a theory is not necessarily the key point. A simple, straightforward, and logical example is all that should be considered. Assuming the unlikely does not work. An explanation that a normal person would accept should be enough. Ideologues are not normal people, as they are beholden to their narratives.

Ideological Thought

Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
– E. O. Wilson

Another interesting (and dangerous) part of ideologies and bias are the effects on thought. Ideological preservation implants itself into the mind quite easily. People obviously have their biases and read things how they want to, leading to blatant confirmation bias. However, ideologues go much farther, not allowing or giving any possible thought to alternate explanations most of the time. Otherwise, they risk their narrative being shattered. Thus, ideologues need to practice this far more than normal individuals.

Let’s take a simple example: the second amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The process goes something like this: the statement is read in the base language. Additional information such as context are thought of as well. This goes into the mind to be processed by the brain. Then, it hits the “ideological part” of the brain. An NRA member will read the 2nd amendment will focus on the “right of the People to keep and bear arms” segment. An gun control activist will focus on the “well regulated militia” segment. The other parts of the statement will most likely be ignored. Again, we read what we want, but ideologues have a bigger duty to preserve the narrative, and thus the typical bias is enhanced.

Another example is the controversy and narrative around the new Ghostbusters movie. The narrative is that anyone who does not want to see the movie is just a sexist. Any other explanation can be given, such as the movie is not funny or the special effects are bad, but this goes against the narrative. The narrative must be preserved at all costs.

On a different note, the narrative becomes pervasive when it is mixed with identity politics. The narrative needs to be preserved, even with non-arguments. For example, a male saying that the wage gap does not exist would be declared a sexist. One can point to a female saying that the wage gap does not exist, and the answer is usually “internalized misogyny” or they are “uneducated”, all of which are attacks on the individual instead of their position. The narrative implants itself in the brain. There is no possible way a female or a “true feminist” could argue against a feminist narrative or argument. So there has to be some kind of alternate explanation. It is difficult if not impossible to argue against non-arguments. Ideological preservation is the only thing that the ideologue cares about. It again goes deeper than bias, because the bias is necessary for the ideology’s survival. There is no possible way for an ideologue to think neutrally.

Argumentative Labelling

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.
– Dennis Prager

Ideologies pose a danger in that they not only limit their members, but outsiders as well. You obviously have to call your movement something. This is where things fall apart. All too often, the name of the ideology is used as a defense for it. Don’t approve of Black Lives Matter? You’re a racist! Don’t approve of a feminist idea? You must be a sexist! It is the ultimate non-argument, because it literally avoids any possible argument.

This is very important in opposing ideologies. For example, if you attack Democratic ideas, you must be a Republican. If you’re for Democratic ideas, you must be left-wing. This leaves the idea out of the question. You can’t debate the idea for what the idea is worth. You have to line yourself up with a particular ideology in order to debate it.

Another very important issue is “guilt by association” or just simple smearing. On Buzzfeed or other typical leftist sites, Republicans or conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots etc. So, if you are a Republican (or echo a conservative idea) you must be racist. The same thing happens to the alt-right and men’s rights activists. Yes, there are problems with these groups, but they do not give a true sense of the movement or ideas, as they are selected examples (new law: when media posts an article about trolls / “harassment” on the internet, and tweets are embedded, the tweets more often than not have 20 retweets/favorites or less). Of course, it still is ignoring the basis of the ideas. If the idea itself is bigoted, then why do you need to connect it to a movement? If the idea is so helpful and virtuous, can it not stand on its own?

It also leads to endless ad-hominems. “You are not a true conservative” or “you don’t understand the movement” is again ignoring the core idea. Why should I have to know everything about an ideology to criticize an idea that affects broad society? Of course, the person who claims to be a “true” part or that understands the movement, is the other person. It is a position that can not be argued against – because it is not an argument.

Outsiders are crucial , as the entire purpose of a movement or ideology is to attract those not in the movement, and create a positive perception (or so it would seem to an outsider). If someone not in your movement finds something off or generally does not agree, it can be used as a tool of recruitment. One can explain why their argument is flawed, or the movement could gain new insight for a problem. Of course, any internal or external disagreements lead to the collapse of an ideology, hence this behavior and the need for ideological preservation.

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

I’ll get back to the regular posts soon enough, but this case is just too good to pass up.

For those (somehow) unaware, Tyler Kissinger held a protest on May 30th, and is facing expulsion. The (failing) New York Times gave the following details:

  • He went in to Levi Hall without permission
  • He lied to security officers
  • He waited and let other unauthorized people in
  • He stormed the president’s office and staged a long-term sit-in

Of course, as someone who literally carries copies of the University of Chicago speech codes with me at all times, he did not comply with any of them. His behavior for sure disrupted the operations of the University. He also gained access to a building that he was not supposed to be in (why wold he wait and hide to let others in if that was not the case?). This is a private university. Any standard protections are gone. So, by all extents, he should be expelled. However, the “free speech activists” have come out of the woodwork to defend him.

This is a standard blatant leftist hypocrisy. If censorship or suppression of free speech goes to stop the violent and racist phrase “Trump 2016” or to shut down any other event, it’s perfectly fine! They’re all bigots! Yet, when a person breaks several rules in the name of a minimum wage, it is a problem. We should place contrived limits on freedom of speech, but when we literally break the actual limits of free speech, that’s perfectly great!

This thought process is incredibly dangerous. It is what leads to such things such as encouraging violence against Trump supporters and people saying that Black Lives Matter can’t lynch people (have we gone full regressive already?!). The “ends justify the means” mentality that is apparent here is despicable. You can’t be a half-activist of free speech. You can’t endorse free speech only when it helps your cause. Maybe I should denounce Trump and endorse Hillary. I can call anything I don’t like “hate speech”, and then commit literal crimes and be protected under the guise of progressiveness.

Bernie did endorse his behavior, but he’s just practicing endorsing criminals.

Why the DNC is screwed.

With Hillary’s indictment looming, the Democrats are in a pickle. Here is how things will most likely go down in every possible scenario.

Clinton is indicted, pardoned, and nominated: Complete disaster. Several FBI agents and other staff will resign. Obama will have his legacy tainted. Trump will be running against a literal criminal. It will be framed as if she wasn’t one, since she was not indicted (just like Bill Clinton is not considered impeached when he was not removed from office). Bernie supporters will all drop and never back her. Some of the Clinton voting block might stay home.

Bernie is nominated: Some of the Clinton camp will drop out and not support Bernie. Bernie is too far left for any reasonable person, and will alienate some of the Clinton block. He may revise some of his policies to be less socialist, but this will only alienate some of his voters. Trump destroys Bernie easily, regardless of polls. Just some reminders of Venezuela and that should be enough. It also depends who is VP. Elizabeth Warren is a death wish on any staff on the ticket.

Another candidate is nominated: The entire voting block is alienated due to feelings of disenfranchisement. Pathetically easily landslide for Trump. Biden is the safest option, but would have to make up for 1 year of lost time. Warren, again, is a death wish.

The Silent Mental Illness

I suspect that here theists and atheists would agree: Human beings have within them the ability to choose evil or good. We wake up each day facing the age-old struggle of good and evil. In some situations, mental illness clouds our judgment.

– Adam Hamilton

To say that leftism / feminism is a mental illness is politically incorrect, yet in some cases it really is true. Every possible explanation of the left’s behaviors can be determined by psychology and behavioral science. Obviously, not everyone who is a feminist / on the left is mentally unhealthy, but a decent majority of them may well be. Interestingly, feminism may be both the cause and the cure in these cases.

The “Coddled” Hypothesis

This is by far the most common explanation given. The overemphasis of danger causes parents to seek to remove all things that can be perceived as dangerous. Children are given strict representations of what is good. Anti-bullying efforts also go too far, citing that anything that makes kids “uncomfortable” is bullying. Obviously, insults are bullying. However, “uncomfortable” and “offensive” have very subjective meanings. Is anything “upsetting” bad? What if its an overreaction? When we teach kids to find anything uncomfortable to be hateful, we clearly end up with concepts such as “linguistic violence”. The stereotypical “participation trophy” complaint may actually also hold some weight.

The “Uncoddled” Hypothesis

It turns out going the complete opposite route also leads to similar results. The theory states that with the increase of child day care, aggression also increases. There are a limited number of day care employees, and to get their attention may require aggressive behavior or throwing tantrums because there is not one employee to look after every child. This teaches the child that aggression gets one attention and whatever the child wants. This theory is on shaky ground, as there are conflicting studies. However, it appears that more factors than just the amount of time in child care may play a factor. First, in Norway, child care is offered by the government. Ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency is top priority. In the United States, day cares range from the good to the mediocre to the bad. If it is a simple, one couple day care, there might be more issues that arise. The age when day care is started is another issue. Starting early can cause a whole host of issues for the child (and mother). This of course is doubly “problematic” as it indicates a biological need for women to be active mothers with their children (which there is, why do female mammals have breast milk to feed their children if they weren’t supposed to take care of them?).

The “Identity” Hypothesis

This is where things get interesting. One of the key aspects of ideology is the impact on identity. You can declare yourself a “rights activist” of any kind (except a men’s rights activist, that would be misogynistic). A threat to the ideology becomes a threat to identity. Of course, this means ideologies server as identities, especially for those who do not have one. Many people struggle with who they are, and are vulnerable to being manipulated. This is especially true of minority populations. They join the local activist group to find like minded people, and then think “this is what people like me are saying, so it must be true”. This is then ripe for blatant indoctrination. Sargon of Akkad has done two very interesting case studies, one on a Black Lives Matter Activist, and another on a Black Supremacist, which I have posted at the end of this post.

The “Paranoia / Victimhood” Hypothesis

Feminism paints people as constant victims of the patriarchy. Men are made out to be dangerous subjects. It also provides a convenient way of determining the cause of problems. Didn’t get the job? The manager is a sexist! A man bumps into you on the sidewalk? He’s a misogynist who wishes to dominate your female space! The problem is that most things are simple. It also leads to perpetual victimhood. One can not blame yourself for your faults. It’s society keeping you down. When you’re in a society that you perceive as putting you down, you can’t beat it, and you can’t better yourself. Everything that happens, good or bad, is because of the patriarchy and because you are a woman. Just ask Jess Phillips, who thinks not getting rape threats is bad because that means she is ugly. Rules 3: SJWs always project.

The “Bully” Hypothesis

The simplest argument is that they are bullies. They enjoy putting others down to their perceived societal level. Shouts of “white tears” are common among feminists. They simply get enjoyment out of putting others down, and hold the power to do so. This ends badly, as they become addicted to this power. But it is all ok, as long as you put down those evil white males!

The “Drug Addiction” Hypothesis

There’s also the simple explanation that hearing negative things about a political candidate causes the area in the brain to fire that also fires upon intake of cocaine and heroin. Ideological preservation makes it impossible to hear these negative thoughts. They are simply addicted to their ideology.