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.