In case anyone wants to tackle this in the future, you may want to talk about the editorial process. Or rather, the lack thereof. Because somebody looked at this shit and thought, "No, we're completely fine with batshit insane opinions that won't in any way make our website look bad."
I feel stupider for having read that. The mentally retarded lunatic who wrote that clearly has no idea what "rational" means and used it in Generic Leftist Revolution Emotional Appeal #29384902384 as a synonym for so many words he rendered his point incoherent.
Probably the worst thing about this article is the author went out of his way to blunder into saying, "Why yes, Ayn Rand was entirely right about me and all of my ilk. Here's what she said from the other side."
I mean it's almost uncanny.
the world's saddest clown wrote:
The truth is, this constant emphasis on rationalism is a load of toxic garbage (and this is me being gentle with my words). It reeks of the rancid odor that develops when we squeeze our vast imaginations into tiny boxes labeled “pragmatic,” “rational,” and “reasonable.” Being rational can often mean being willing to accept some aspects of oppression and watering down my politics.
When we restrict ourselves in the name of being rational, we create barriers for ourselves — we place the world we want to live in farther from reach.
Since what’s rational is subjective, it is thus indefinable. The only reason why rationalism is believed to have inherent value is because it echoes the oppressor’s way of thinking.
We should be constantly interrogating why being rational has been presumed to hold inherent value, and we should be asking ourselves where we got that idea in the first place. The institutions that taught us what we know should be placed under suspicion.
... and whether or not you agree with Ayn Rand, it's damned eerie she wrote the following almost 60 years ago...
Ayn Rand wrote:
Let us define our terms. What is reason? Reason is the faculty which perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic -- and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation,' or any form of "just knowing."
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality -- other than the one in which we live -- whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.
Unfortunately we can't review that article, since it's not a comic. That would have been amazing to see in a comic. Maybe I'll edit it into one, Dril Pencils style.