Apparently, I'm an arrogant twerp, "hiding behind the mask of 'intellectual honesty.'"
How does one hide behind a mask of honesty? Does PJ therefore endorse intellectual dishonesty? And what precisely am I hiding?
I think PJ is conflating "rationality" with "sanity". Of course I don't think she's insane, and she has a right to hold whatever beliefs she wants—rational or irrational.
The real question is: What is a matter of truth, and what is a matter of opinion? If truth is a matter of opinion, there is no truth, and "rationality" becomes vacuous. When can we civilly call a belief false? Is everything a matter of merely propaganda and negotiation? Are all opinions—whatever they may be—on the laws of physics objectively equal in the same way that all opinions are objectively equal on the beauty or ugliness of much of what passes for modern art?
I have had many of my cherished beliefs overturned in the light of reason. They proved to be false beliefs, and it would have been irrational to retain them. Since I actually believe that rationality is descriptive, I hold it as normative. Apparently PJ, unconcerned with actual truth, considers "irrational" only pejorative, in the same sense that "twerp" (or "egregious stupidity") is only pejorative.