[sinity]

> 3. They're ignorant enough not to know the name is already taken.

Overloads are a thing, you know?

> 4. They're ignorant enough not to know that the name means pretty much the opposite of what they believe.

String of characters doesn't mean anything by itself, it can point to meaning (or several).

> 5. They're ignorant enough not to know that 'rational' and 'irrational' are usually demarcate lines of social hierarchy, not lines of theoretical commitment.

By whom, and why is their use of the word supposed to be the default?

> I think the main thing that's nice about it is that no real work is called for.

Lol no. You might want to look back at your comment. Specifically, "I guess". You've done a lot of judging, without doing a shred of work to verify whether your insults are true.

"They're ignorant enough", repeated several times, despite utter ignorance about people you're talking about.

Anyway. "Rationalist" is aspirational, not a claim of one's own rationality.

Sure, this naming kinda sucks because it's unclear.

[pasabagi]

Lets say you want to contribute to military theory, you feel like you have some good ideas, but you think tactics means the broad goals you mean to obtain with your 'strategy', which is your low-level techniques you used to achieve these goals. How seriously do you think people in military circles would take you? How seriously do you think they should take you?

That's what the rationalist thing is, more or less. I think you can probably argue that the military guys should take you seriously because you have lots of clever ideas, but you can probably also understand it's kinda ridiculous and bonkers.