Why slippery slope fallacies are not so crazy after all

“If the text and the discourse is all, then the Earth is flat if you say so.” – Øyvind Østerud The left constantly uses straw-man arguments to make you...

“If the text and the discourse is all, then the Earth is flat if you say so.” – Øyvind Østerud

The left constantly uses straw-man arguments to make you believe that you are falling into a crazy slippery slope fantasy world and that we should relax and just let the world progress towards change. But I will not fall for that silencing and shaming strategy and neither should anyone. A slippery slope is a very real thing no matter how crazy it sounds to your few remaining liberal friends. Scholar Øyvind Østerud while observing the mood change at the University of Oslo called out what he believed was a slippery slope towards the liberation of scientific standards. He argued that this was a result of what postmodernists referred to as the postmodern mood: a new march that proceeded through professional circles like University departments with remarkable speed.  Fast forward the image and more than two decades today his horrendous premonition is becoming true as smug professors and smelly activists all over the world claim race and gender are social constructs and—worse—no one can refute them.

Besides defying common sense, observable facts and plain biology, Constructivism has practically rendered science obsolete. As a result, conservatives have become the counterculture to the now crazy establishment. Conventional science has been thrown away beyond the realm of normal discussion to give space to multiculturalism and political correctness. And this is what I see reflected on what was reported April 4 by Fox News contributor Madison Gesiotto. Madison brought up to the table the story of Rachel Dolezal, a controversial figure who posed for years as a black woman and who now claims to be trans-racial. I argue that transraciality, transgenderism and other postmodern concepts based on social construction are the result of what Østerud observed to be a slippery slope towards the liberation of scientific standards. This is related to my particular ontology being that I perceive, like many, that there is a real world and that not everything is a social construct. Even if everything was a social construct, the destruction of those ‘social canons’ is rather harmful for science and for any ‘social science’ to ever be taken seriously as well.

Rachel Dolezal is back. The NAACP Spokane chapter president became famous back in 2015 when a journalist and her parents ousted her as a fake. She was posing to be black when indeed she was a blonde haired, blue eyed woman. She came back, however, with the best alibi: she is transblack. Microsoft Word was autocorrecting the word transblack and I had to retype it again and again as this word does not exist. This word is indeed a social construct. We live in a society in which today you are a woman if you say so. So why cannot Rachel say she is a black woman? If I was a liar I would do the same if I was caught red-handed taking credit for pretending to be someone I am not. That is a great strategy of hers, she understands that we live in the slippery slope world that Østerud described where words are a social construct and somehow do not matter. Or actually matter? It is all very confusing. And it is confusing because postmodernists want it to be confusing. For Østerud, Postmodernism is a mood, a spirit, and therefore it “…is hard to pinpoint, as theory, as method, or as strategy of research.” And it is rather impossible to argue with a mood. Since today race and gender are social constructs, and people can choose their “gender identities”, then Rachel Dolezal’s defense is in fact unarguable. She won. No one can argue against her now. Her Earth is flat so our Earth must be flat too.

The Norwegian scholar very concisely paraphrases political commentator Gergen with the argument that “[i]f the implication is that anything goes, then Truth is in Trouble.” I argue that one can in fact observe physical patterns different in blacks, whites, etc. I also argue that one can see differences between males and females. Furthermore, I argue that life begins at conception. This is not something that can be reconstructed as these are scientific facts. This is also argued by doctors, scientists and others now considered ‘conservatives’. We agree that when relativism is given carte blanche to favor individual feelings and political correctness, then science and inquiry are unable to advance. But I will advance inquiry and say that either these people are absolutely crazy or just con artists as Gesiotto said on her appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight’s ‘Top That’—a  segment were Tucker challenges the guests to present the most baffling story of the day. Transracialism, trangenderism, transexuality or whatever term the postmodernists are constructing is indeed crazy news and Gesiotto evidently deserves recognition for the most baffling story.

In the end, it is necessary to never lose hope and keep standing strong against the destruction of conservative science that has really eroded any credibility and even arguing power that the social sciences might have had before. The destruction of natural science is being wagered by postmodernists—a group that now includes feminists and queer “theorists”. They do this through the extreme version of Constructivism, where meaning is everything, in an almost Marxist effort to blindly fight what they call the white male hetero-patriarchy. I hereby will top Østerud’s slippery slope ‘fallacy’ or—really—very well substantiated premonition and say that in a few years there will also be transracial postmodernist activists trying to translate their delusion into law and indoctrinate university students into their particular construction of the real world that goes against nature, humanity and basic common sense. Hopefully, like Tucker and Gesiotto, we will laugh it all out.





– Gesiotto, Madison. “Madison Gesiotto on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Fox News 04/04/2017”.

– Østerud, Øyvind. 1996. Antinomies of Postmodernism in International Studies. Journal of Peace Research 33, no. 4 (November):385-390.