Leftwing logic

by T.J. Nelson

Leftwing logic (LWL) is the type of logic that leftwingers use.
It is a highly advanced, nonEuclidean type of logic, used only by beings of
superior intellect. Superficially, it is similar to the normal logic that we
use here on Earth, but it follows different rules. Further study of it
should be invaluable when NASA makes contact with extraterrestrial life forms.

In LWL, truth value is determined by the position of the subjects in the Official
Status Hierarchy. Example: All minorities are are oppressed by definition.
∀(M) := Oppressed(M)
Nonminorities cannot be oppressed:
¬∃(NM) : Oppressed(NM)
Symbol  Original meaning  Leftwing meaning 
¬ or !  Not  Racism 
⊥  Not true  Racism 
∧  And  Racism 
∀  For all  According To Need 
∃  There exists  From Each 
∄  Doesn't exist  Genocide Victim 
∅ or {}  Nothingness  Racism 
⇒  Implies  Patriarchal Oppression 
∞  Infinity  All The World As One 
⇔  Equivalent  Wealth Redistribution 
∑  Sum  Racism 
=  Equal to  Equality 
<  Less than  Oppressed Minority 
>  Greater than  Privileged Oppressor 
>=  Greater or equal to  More Equal Than 
♞  Chess  Rape 
If viewing on a cell phone, drag table left or right to scroll.
If B is a minority (never use 'A', because the letter A already has hegemony
over the others), then all Bs are oppressed and you are racist for even talking about
it, because talking about something implies that it might not be true, which
would be racist; you would then be a racism denier.
The Official Status Hierarchy is a secret. Mentioning its existence is racist.
Mentioning that mentioning its existence is racist is racist.
The OSH is enforced by defining a list of forbidden words. Anyone who dares use
one, or a word that sounds vaguely like one, is by definition a racist. The
list is a closely held secret. Saying that there is a list is racist.
Denying there's a list is also racist.

LWL cannot be understood without accounting for the
probative value of emotion. The appeal to emotion is an integral part of LWL.
Emotional value is a subset of truth value. For example, if B and C are
different minorities, and 50 Bs have been discriminated against but only 49
Cs have been discriminated against, then B >= C. That is, B is more equal than C.
Discriminated(B) > Discriminated(C) ⇒ B >= C
Asking how one decides who is discriminated against more implies that the
questioner is unsure about the answer and is therefore a racist.

Diversity does not mean that there are equal numbers of each group:
Diversity(x) != =(x)
However, diversity equals equality.
Diversity :⇔ =
This apparent glaring contradiction can be explained by the fact that
diversity does not mean diversity. It means the minority is more than
the majority. That is, when
(<) > (>)
then things are more equal.
In other words,
(<) > (>) ⇒ >=
Stated in English (or, at least, in words), the above statement is read:
“Less is more than more implies more equal.” or in English:
“When there are more minorities than majorities, there is more equality.”
It is racist to point out that when there are more minorities than majorities,
minority and majority are switched. Therefore, equality is itself racist.
Inequality is also racist. Complaining about it makes you a hegemonic colonialist
oppressor and a racist.
Perfect diversity (and therefore perfect equality) occurs when only minorities
are present:
(> ⇒ 0) ⇒ (Diversity ⇒ ∞)
From this, one can deduce that equality does not equal equality.
⊥ (= = =)
That is, not equals equals equals.
¬= = =
It has been objected that this line of reasoning also can be used to prove
that 0 = 1, which is a little inconvenient. However, this line of thought would
be homophobic, and anyway, math is a heteronormative narrative of the patriarchal
hegemonic privilege.
∃0 = ∃1 ⇒ Homophobic
1 = 0 is also patriarchal and heteronormative because 1 = penis and 0 = ovary.

The number of races and genders increases to infinity. (∑R → ∞)
∧ (∑G → ∞). Therefore,
R = G.
Race equals gender.
In practice, however, this is not really true
because R and G cannot exceed the population of the Earth (7,244,000,000).
Moreover, race and gender are social constructs, and therefore neither of them exist.
∄R = ∄G = ∀R = ∀G = { } = ∅.
But since each person can be one or more of the 58 known genders, this means
there are actually 7,244,000,000 × 58! =
7,244,000,000 × 2.35056133128228×10^{78} =
1.70274662838×10^{88} differently gendered individuals.
Since it has not yet been determined how many different races a person
can be at one time, it is still not 100% certain that R = G. Calculating
it would be patriarchal.
Since gender does not exist, 1.70274662838×10^{88} = 0.
The bumper sticker at right says that equality means equal
(“= = =”).
This is racist, sexist and homophobic because, in the name of equality,
if A is to be made equal to B, then as demonstrated earlier A must be more equal
than B.
A = B ⇒ A >= B;
Therefore the car with the racist, sexist, islamophobic bumper sticker
must be keyed in the interests of social justice.

Syllogisms
LWL has developed a new type of syllogism whose purpose is to immunize LWLers
from the accusations they make toward others. It's based partly on equivocation
between groups and individuals, and partly on terms that are defined in such a
way that LWLers are exempt from them. This requires great ingenuity.
First, the argument that would be used by normal people:
Racism means hating other races.
Therefore anyone who hates other races is a racist.
Here is the nonEuclidean LWL version:
Violence and racism are inherent in The System.
Therefore only members of The System can be racist.
Leftists are opposed to The System and are not part of The
System, by definition, even
if they are elected officials.
Therefore leftwingers can never be violent or racist,
no matter how much they hate other races.
These syllogisms are far too sophisticated to be understood by normal
people. Only enlightened people of superior intellect can understand them.
Using the term ‘superior’ is racist. Using the term ‘intellect’
is a racist microaggression. Stating that LWL is different from normal
logic is racist.

Hispanic logic goes like this: Q: Is the car red? A: Chess!
∃x: Red(x) ?
♞!
We are still a little confused about this one; all we know for sure is that
mentioning it is racist. This is not surprising, since based on the above,
everything is racist:
∀x : Racist(x)
Speaking of chess, we all know chess is imperialistic and colonialist. But it
is also sexist: the goal is to mate by force, i.e. rape. The pawns are oppressed
and have little income equality. Chess players speak of
‘taking’ the queen (also by force). Therefore, playing chess is rape.
♞ = 😢
The rightwinger's response to this kind of logic—“Get a damn job, hippie!”—is
not sufficient. We must study and master this nonEuclidean logic so that we too
might hope, someday, to become enlightened superior beings.