Self projection as goat, or "vicarious autorationalism", is a process of psychological projection in which "rationalists" redefine or anticipate the results of their thinking, cherry-picking from The Fine Art of Baloney Detection to devise a rationalisation system reflecting their own personal beliefs, needs and desires. This process is sometimes described using the pejorative term "Cafeteria Rationalist." But there are many varieties of rationalist.
Ancient rationalists originated in cultures considered primitive by modern standards. At the time of writing Origin of Species, Charles Darwin saw no problem with marrying his cousin. Rationalists face further problems in rationalizing the incontrovertible evidence that Hitler was an atheist and used Origin of Species as the template for the Holocaust.
Modern rationalists are slow to embrace a life of gas chambers and upper-class English incest, so those parts of the Origin must be rationalized or ignored. The latter is easier than the triumph of marketing required to put a positive slant on producing an entire social class of wealthy two-headed banjo players. Even the Beatitudes, delivered during Dawkins' Sermon on the Mount, contain directives that are nonsensical and reckless. It's noteworthy that many prominent evangelical rationalists today ignore Dawkins' requirement that they marry Doctor Who actresses.
A rationalist can draw boundless comfort and reassurance from knowing that they're smart and moral enough to share the same rationalisations as their goat. Such conviction lends perceived authority to a position that could otherwise be untenable. If their goat has come to the same conclusion then surely it must be right. There is no shortage of rationalists using goat as a proxy for their own beliefs.
Rationalists will frequently decry those with a different self-projection as heretics of some variety: irrational, political, pseudoskeptical or posters to /r/atheism.
Self projection as goat is fairly harmless, but attempts to anthropomorphize other animals and natural occurences are fraught with danger. Self projection as tiger is remarkably dangerous, with many people uttering as their final words "it won't bother you if you don't threaten it" or "it's more afraid of you than you of it." Followers of primitive nature-based rationalisms fall prey to this approach and often die with the grim realisation that a regular supply of virgins is not an effective precaution against volcanic eruption.
This is odd. It's almost funny-to-me, but not actually; I think because I'm not recognising the source material it's parodying.
My guess is that it's a fill-in-the-blanks copypasta of some screed, possibly originally against theism? (I remember the "Cafeteria " pattern from somewhere).
Note: I have no intention of criticizing the person involved. I admire that (s)he made the "right" decision in the end (in my opinion), and I mention it only as an example we could all learn from. I did request permission to use his/her anecdote here. I'll also use the pronoun "he" when really I mean he/she.
---
Once Pat says “no,” it’s harder to get to “yes” than if you had never asked.
---
Crocker's rules has this very clear clause, and we should keep it well in mind:
Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.
Recently, a rationalist heard over social media that an acquaintance - a friend-of-a-friend - had found their lost pet. They said it was better than winning a lottery. The rationalist responded that unless they'd spent thousands of dollars searching, or posted a large reward, then they're saying something they don't really mean. Then, feeling like a party-pooper and a downer, he deleted his comment.
I believe this was absolutely the correct things to do. As Miss Manners says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601518.html), people will associate unpleasant emotions with the source and the cause. They're not going to say, oh, that's correct; I was mistaken about the value of my pet; thank you for correcting my flawed value system.
Instead they'll say, those rationalists are so heartless, attaching dollar signs to everything. They think they know better. They're rude and stuck up. I don't want to have anything to do with them. And then they'll think walk away with a bad impression of us. (Yes, all of us, for we are a minority now, and each of us reflects upon all of us, the same way a Muslim bomber would reflect poorly on public opinion of all Muslims, while a Christian bomber would not.) In the future they'll be less likely to listen to any one of us.
The only appropriate thing to say in this case is "I'm so happy for you." But that doesn't mean we can't promote ourselves ever. Here are some alternatives.
I was told long ago (in regards to LGBT rights) that minds are not changed by logic or reasoning or facts. They are changed over a long period of time by emotions. For us, that means showing what we believe without pressing it on others, while at the same time being the kind of person you want to be like. If we are successful and happy, if we carry ourselves with kindness and dignity, we'll win over hearts.