The author has a couple valid points. E.g. > But for the Logic Guys, the purpose of using these words — the sacred, magic words like “logic,” “objectivity,” “r

The author has a couple valid points. E.g. > But for the Logic Guys, the purpose of using these words — the sacred, magic words like “logic,” “objectivity,” “reason,” “rationality,” “fact” — is not to invoke the actual concepts themselves. It’s more a kind of incantation, whereby declaring your argument the single “logical” and “rational” one magically makes it so — and by extension, makes you both smart and correct, regardless of the actual rigor or sources of your beliefs. However, like other commenter noticed, it uses a bit of manipulative language making "guys" = "white males". Also it makes a disregarding assumption that those who criticise postmodern philosophers haven't read them. So here is a problem: one thing is being claiming that you are rational and your opponents are not, another thing is being openly opposed to the idea of reason which seems to be the common denominator amongst postmodernists (yes, I've read some of them).