When Irrationalists Retreat Behind Calls For Respect

A rationalist could probably find with ease other people who talk as if whatever random, irrationalistic ideas they have are objectively true and demonstrable--up until they are pressured to prove their ideas and they talk as if truth is subjective or totally unknowable on every level.  Pretending like everything is metaphysically and epistemologically subjective only when they are cornered, and when they are too irrational to even understand just how philosophically incompetent they are, is a hallmark of many non-rationalists.  Moreover, they might suddenly talk as if what "really matters" is that people intellectually respect ideas and other people even when those ideas are false or when the people are shallow, hypocritical, assumption-driven fools.

As long as they are not made to rightly feel stupid or uncomfortable with their philosophical ideas (or lack thereof), they will vaguely call for "respect" when they are criticized, only to criticize others based on slander, misperceptions, or logically impossible ideological foundations.  When the last of the three is their motivation, they are even less interested in truth than would be the case if they were reacting solely to slander and misperceptions.  No one believes in logically impossible ideas (like the general relativism most people suddenly adopt in part when they are cornered) if they are rational or truth-oriented.  At least with misperceptions or slander, someone might be willing to evaluate the assumptions that drove them to these irrational but avoidable conclusions.  Someone who cares about philosophical ideas only when they make their lives more convenient will settle for believing outright impossibilities and not be open to correction.

This is one way to tell, as much as someone can without telepathically looking into the minds of others, if someone is even attempting to be consistent and otherwise rational.  A rational person will not emotionalistically appeal to some random level of intellectual respect they say they are owed no matter how incoherent, assumption-based, and arbitrary their worldview is.  Of course, a thoroughly rational person does not have an assumption-based or contradictory worldview; the point is that a rational person would not try to avoid the actual issue at hand by retreating behind an utterly vague and emotionalistic desire for tolerance.  Their focus is on truth and epistemology rather than comforting themselves, comforting others, or trying to come across as subjectively winsome when they need to express their rationalistic ideas with non-rationalists (one can be winsome and rational, but rationality is more foundational, vital, and all-encompassing, while appealing tactics are petty distractions from the truth in most cases).

People who are concerned about knowing truth will first and foremost look to reason and introspection, the only sources of absolute certainty, and thus do not need others to prompt at least some philosophical stances.  They will certainly not treat assumptions as epistemologically valid or contradictions as metaphysically possible when no one is pressing them and then dismiss the very idea of certainty and objectivity the moment someone corners them, correctly identifying and challenging their errors.  This is totally contrary to reason: logical axioms and what follows from them are true by necessity and they do not change as the whims of individuals and groups do.  No one would think or say otherwise unless they were only trying to justify believing and doing whatever they want simply because they want to.  No one would even think they are entitled to intellectual respect by default except based upon mere assumptions.