Who Is The Master of Mansplaining And Why Does The Left Love Him?

Mansplaining is an invention of and complaint made primarily by the left. This is not to suggest it isn't real, though the validity of irritation can be obvious or disputable, depending:

The area of controversy is in situations where an explanation is asked for and then given. A woman may feel insulted by the condescending tone of the explanation, while the man may feel entrapped since he was asked and merely answered the question. I consider such situations to be resistant to simple answers, since it comes down to tone and degree. But there are areas where we can all agree.

It is irritating when an explanation is given where none is asked for. It is especially irritating when the explanation given is either wrong or is really just an opinion.

Enter the master mansplainer. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Feel free to take a break from this blog post and go to Neil deGrasse Tyson's twitter feed:

Not all his posts are mansplains, some are just facts:

Feb 18, 1930, Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto. The little ice-ball is so far away, it has barely finished 1/3 of its 248-year orbit around the Sun

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 18, 2018

But of his most recent four posts, two are classic mansplains:

Evidence collected over many years, obtained from many locations, indicates that the power of Prayer is insufficient to stop bullets from killing school children.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 16, 2018

AND

Just an FYI: The proper word for someone from Venus, -- the planet of love, beauty, and its consequences — is “Venereal.” But medical doctors took the word before astrophysicists did. So we’re stuck with “Venusians”.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 14, 2018

I will dismiss this last one as NDT trying to be saucy and playful and take it as given that nobody really takes what he is saying as anything more than an opinion.

The one before this is really awful with many mansplaining problems packed into such a short statement:

1. The Straw man logical fallacy: When people offer prayer, they are not claiming it will save the victims of the latest outrage, they are trying to show their concern. This is especially bad when NDT holds himself out as a champion of logic.

2. It is just an opinion packaged as if it's a fact. There is no such study and if you think about it, you will quickly come to the conclusion that no such study is possible.

3. Condescending and superior: There are people who naturally, because of empathy, feel bad for the total strangers who have had such pain and violence visited upon them. They are just expressing that feeling.

4. One cannot help but note that while there are two general kinds of response to school shooting: Thoughts & prayers, Ban guns now! NDT did not go after the second type. Why? The second type, in contrast to the first, is claiming an answer to the problem rather than offering empathy. But here is the thing, there is no evidence that posting tweets in the wake of a tragedy has any effect on the law nor that, even if it did, that the new laws would have any positive effect.

But let's get back to the claim about prayer not being able to stop bullets. Did the football coach who shielded kids with his body have a character shaped by religion and prayer? I don't know and neither does Neil deGrasse Tyson. He might not admit it but I will say it: It doesn't take a wildly overactive imagination to consider that it is at least possible.

Ah yes, why does the left love Neil deGrasse Tyson? They say that don't like mansplaining, but when the butt of it is a conservative, well, you know, it is just a tool and is good tool when used for good things.

You should be careful though--the same thing could be said about guns.