Modern Liberalism Is A Judas Goat

Medium, my soapbox.

As a classical liberal I personally believe the term ‘Liberal’ is often measured on the popular ‘social liberalism’ more often so than with any-other group.
(It is also referred to as modern liberalism hence the title of this article.)
Bullying, gaslighting and blame-shifting aside I’d like to have an open discussion about some logical fallacies that are impacting the Modern Liberal Movement.

Progressive politicians are especially guilty of being social liberals, whom at the heart of their argument are developing a rhetoric of identity politics.
The basis of these arguments are simple;

What colour is your skin?
What is your gender?
Facts aside, what is your truth?
What is your original nation of birth?

But this is a dangerous narrative.
A narcissistic and covertly bigoted view of people.

Progress towards the future is not about clout based on ethnic identity.
It would be absolutely absurd if anything were suggested today about a Caucasian heritage cultural celebration, yet social liberals celebrate peoples diversities in the most unethical bigoted way, toting the person as a type of token to what is the desired person. Inclusion of one is exclusion of all others and therefor is bigoted, by their own standards.
That the value of a life is decided based on the colour of your skin and self-worth is reduced to what your sexual preference is or isn’t.

Didn’t you ever read about The Sneetches?
“…until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one… or that one was this one… or which one was what one… or what one was who.”

Like a Judas goat, the misinterpretation of the basis of the arguments stance in logic is the person whom perpetuates the fallacy then faulting others whom fail to adhere to their blatantly bias and covertly racists ideology.

Let me explain;

Social Liberalism is based on conjecture.
Simply describing something isn’t inherently racist, doing or saying something negative based solely on ethnicity, IS racist.
So therefor if pandering to the basic underlying aspects of human identity is an attempt to nurture an identity of the individual, then identity politics is an integral aspect of social liberalism.

The entire argument of social liberals is based on a logic trap, designed to ensnare those with-out the logical tools to dissect this potent deceptive tactic.
The average thinker doesn’t have the cognitive tools to dismantle an assault on the mind that powerful, albeit primitive logic traps impose on the human mind.

As a test of logic; we will dismantle a popular (controversial) talking point (the rhetoric) of progressive social liberals.

You can change your gender based on how you feel.

This also applies to the trans-age and trans-race argument.
In the law, most people are aware of the term of de-facto.
It means that in law and government, de facto describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws.
Whereas In law and government, de jure describes practices that are legally recognised, regardless whether the practice exists in reality.
To explain the process the Washington University of St Louis offered several sentences using both terms, one such example is;

“I know that, de jure, this is supposed to be a parking lot, but now that the flood has left four feet of water here, it’s a de facto swimming pool.”

If you can replace parts of this sentence with other words, you can begin to see the logical fallacy:

“I know that, de jure, I am a man, but now that I feel more feminine, I am a de facto woman.”

Or

“I know that, de jure, I am white man, but now that I feel I relate to black people more, I am a de facto Black man.”

It extends beyond self-identity and exposes the process of how humans solve their problems, or rather redefine their problems into non-issues.
In a sort-of-mental gymnastic move we attempt to ‘solve’ an issue by redefining it.

Stanford Gives a perfect analogy to this saying:

Many times in international relations non-recognition of a country or group of people is used in an attempt to solve a problem. The Chinese have always regarded Taiwan as part of the Chinese People’s Republic. … for long periods, they would not even permit discussion of the change of status of Taiwan. … by the Chinese definition, the problem does not exist. Most “non-negotiable demands” are attempts to solve a problem by definition. One side “solves” what is a major problem for the other side by “defining it out of existence.” Since we won’t discuss X and since we have told you that if you bring it up, we’ll walk out on you, X does not exist. It is not a problem.

I’m not equating “You have to use our preferred pronoun” to the solve it by defining it out of existence trap although it may not be such a stretch if you factor in the ferocity of which these ideologies are clung too.
Consider for a moment the ‘word magic’ involved in redefining all of humanity’s gender studies to fit a narrow view of a selected minority.
Assume I’m talking about non-binary groups redefining to males, what a male is.
What if I’m talking about cis males telling a non-binary person about their genetic make-up.
Perhaps we’re talking about 17th century autocrats in Russia writing about the roles of the male, female and third gender individuals.
The sentence offered above;

“Consider for a moment the ‘word magic’ involved in redefining all of humanities gender studies to fit a narrow view of a selected minority.”

This sentence would be inherently bigoted if presented by a cis-male to say the queer community. Yet this is exactly the type of rhetoric that the non-binary/third gender community seeks to employ.
These claims are not grounded in science, they are grounded within the mind. You cannot equate a ‘feeling’ to the broader aspect of what something is. The use of Occam’s razor in science is never a problem solving principle for logic, moreover it is a abductive heuristic that allows for these scenarios in order to move ideas closer or further from a falsifiability criterion.
These arguments rely on Ad hoc hypothesis to function, and therefor it is my conclusion that these ‘progressive’ arguments made by common-day politicians are not actually progressive, but regressive. That we are in the middle of a large and dodgy kin-to psychological experiment.
Not-to-say that these individuals are likely to be aware they are perpetuating a logical fallacy because they themselves are living a fallacy.

The assumption that people are prone to make up ad hoc hypotheses to defend their world views is criticized by a number of historians of science and philosophers of science as it can lead to allegations of any valid criticism being an attempt to justify a specific theory that is not there. Such allegations can stand in the way of important criticism of flawed methodologies, thus causing the flawed methods to remain in continued use, by allegations that anyone who points out flaws in the methods are doing it to defend a purported worldview. The allegations are made unfalsifiable and unable to self-correct by explaining away any criticism of the allegations as rationalization or self-deception

An astute student of the human mind can reduce an assumption of the accident or happenstance of why ideological issues are now at the heart of progressive politics. They Work.
Logical fallacies and rhetoric works, it’s called a logic trap for a reason.
Because you are trapped by the faults presented in the thought process and are therefore trapped to be defined as ____ blank.

The fallacy of accidental generalization lies with a topic being misconstrued as being linked by causation or correlation to something separate or outside the actual topic/subject.

Cutting people with knives is a crime. →
Surgeons cut people with knives. →
Surgeons are criminals.

Can we logically apply the same correlation to genetic studies and politics?

Adolf Hitler was a charismatic leader. →
Donald Trump is a charismatic leader. →
Donald Trump is Hitler.

or

Girls wear make-up. →
You wear make-up. →
You are a girl.

This is why modern liberalism is dangerous to any democracy or republic because it undermines true logic and reason with a narrative built on deceit.
The argument of self-deception or mental health aside.
This is an unpopular opinion on a very sensitive topic, that I realize.

But criticisms are necessary in science and an important part of either exposing a fallacy or re-opening the dialogue to eliminate Ad hoc hypothesis and make an argument more sound. Exposing an informal fallacy and destroying undue links for causation or correlation in the unassociated is the prime motive for scientific historians or critics thereof.

This is how modern liberalism is like a Judas goat.
(I’ll spare you the definition as you likely searched it when you clicked on this article)
Allowing minority groups to influence the crux of society as a whole is dangerous.
I don’t care if you’re talking about RWSM, Chinese or the LGBTQ+ community. No one group should completely dominate the narrative of history.
In modern liberalism part of this ‘grass-roots’ approach is changing definitions in schools, academic associations and more education on gender studies not just to college students, but to young children, ‘the younger the better’ they would say.
If we say we must not teach our youth logical fallacy then we should also do away with religious studies for youth in school.
Like lambs (or rather goats) to a slaughter, we are leading the next generation down a slippery slope of logic traps that the next generation is going to pay for dearly. Mainly with the growing mental health crisis in the west. And once third and second world nations adopt these measures, and the scope of diagnosis has peaked world-wide, the epidemically proportioned stature of the mental health crisis could properly be measured.

What if… There is no correlation between your sex and your gender.
Then we wouldn’t need to ‘solve’ anything by ‘redefining’ it.
Your Sex is linked to your genetics and your gender is linked to your mental state.
Try and explain it without running into a logic trap.