Rebuttal of the Week # 20: How genuine issues of sexual harassment become just another media-induced fashion.

se

Here’s the background to this ‘incident’. Six months ago, a male Canadian MP for the Conservative Party, James Bezan,  was in a photo-op with a female MP from the governing Liberal Party,  Sherry Romanado, and another unnamed person. As the picture was being taken, Bezan made the off-the-cuff quip, “This isn’t my idea of a threesome” –  which Bezan intended as a joke about being in a photo with a Liberal member of caucus.

Har har, right? Well, no. Not in this day and age. We live in an era in which ‘progressive’, Leftist, politically correct feminism has brought society full circle to the point we find ourselves increasingly governed by a repressive prudishness that the average Victorian  would have regarded as ridiculously prissy. Believe it or not, Romanado filed an official complaint with the chief human resources officer. Bezan, responding as a typical spineless, submissive male Canadian politician, immediately offered to enter into mediation so that he could apologize.

The chief human resources officer launched a review of the incident. That review apparently concluded that the complaint “did not support a claim of sexual harassment”.

Despite this, Bezan prostrated himself even further before the guardians of other people’s feelings and willingly submitted to Orwellian government re-education programming… otherwise known as “sensitivity training”…  offered by the House of Commons.

In a final act of self-abasement, presumably designed to demonstrate the profundity of his willingness to appease the Goddesses of political correctness and spare himself their wrath , Bezan made another grovelling apology on Monday in the House of Commons:

“Earlier this year I made an inappropriate and insensitive comment in the presence of the member for Longueuil—Charles—LeMoyne. I have nothing but the greatest respect for this member, for this institution, and I sincerely apologize.”

But again, in this day and age, a grown man holding high office voluntarily relieving himself in public of any shred of dignity or self esteem isn’t good enough for the insatiable self-righteousness of a female colleague who recognises an advantage has been presented to her to  indulge her ample ego. So Romanado… who is actually paid by hard working taxpayers for this… rose in the Commons to announce her sense of her own victimisation:

“In May, the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman publicly made inappropriate, humiliating and unwanted comments to me that were sexual in nature. These comments have caused me great stress and have negatively affected my work environment.”

Yes folks, this is the quality of people whom we have elected to govern us. It’s basically  high school but with gold-plated retirement packages.

But as the comments from Liz, below, demonstrate… the real problem is that too many people in the public at large are currently endorsing this societal shift towards privileging the indulgence of  individual subjective sensitivities over objectivity,  reason and principles that cause us to transcend the impulse to indulge our self-serving, narcissistic drives and motivations.


Liz: It may have made her feel uncomfortable and offended her we have no right to criticize her feelings. But I will take this opportunity to discuss how disgusted and offended I AM by the way Trudeau has his lips and arms all over everyone like it’s his backyard Bbq. We should not be able.to pick and choose who we point the finger at when the example is blatantly set at the top.

Going to Getugly: “we have no right to criticize her feelings”. That… right there… is precisely the current problem. This insipid notion that if someone ‘feels’ something we are obliged to validate it. If an adult is displaying the emotional maturity of an infant… particularly if that adult is in a position of responsibility… and even more particularly if the indulgence of that person’s subjective emotional reactivity threatens the profession and reputation of another person… we have EVERY right to “criticize her feelings”.

In a few short years we have transformed from a society which privileged character, maturity and reason… to one that seems to operate by the maudlin values of your average kindergarten teacher: “James… you’ve upset little Sherry! I want you to apologize and then go sit in the corner of the House of Commons and think about what you’ve done!”

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #19: Your sense of self-righteousness doesn’t mean people who don’t agree are evil.

tran

Rob P: The advances that have been made in this area over the past decade are heartwarming – the prejudices so many people had being removed through education. Unfortunately there are still a few (such as Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby) who spread lies and misinformation, and campaign against the health and well-being of trans* people.

The deliberate ignorance of such people clearly demonstrates the harm they wish on others they see as “different” or not confirming to their narrow interpretation of what people should be, and how they should live their lives.

Going to Getugly : “The deliberate ignorance of such people clearly demonstrates the harm they wish on others they see as “different” or not confirming to their narrow interpretation of what people should be”.

So you mean exactly what you are expressing by labeling everyone who doesn’t conform to your interpretation as ‘ignorant’ and desiring to inflict ‘harm’ on people?

Rob P:  I’m guessing comprehension isn’t your strong point?

Being deliberately ignorant on gender dysphoria, ignoring the actual medical science in this area, and propagating debunked faux (religious based) “science” IS harming vulnerable people – particularly younger trans* identifying people.

It’s not a matter of “conforming” – it’s a matter of spreading lies and misinformation based on deliberate ignorance. Trans* people exist, gender dysphoria exists – that is scientific and medical reality and beyond dispute, unless you choose to ignore the evidence.

Women must stop telling boys there is something wrong with them.

fem

Another example of feminist narcissism abusing the self-conception of children.

The superficial sanctimonious rhetoric is this: “If we can stop boys growing into men that behave like jerks, we won’t have to teach our daughters how to deflect a man in power making a comment about her boobs – or much worse.”

The messaging cutting through that rhetoric is this: “Boys are intrinsically defective and need to be fixed. Girls are perfect just as they are.”

This is dangerously distorting the self-conception of BOTH boys and girls. And it’s being promoted by self-absorbed, narcissistic women more concerned with the gratification they feel from conforming to fashionable, ego-flattering ideological constructs than the psychological health of their children.

Rebuttals of the Week #18: ‘Waaaaa…!’

 

just

Claire S: Toxic masculinity is clearly defined by P45’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comment, especially if when combined with the many “what, yer gonna judge him for that?” responses. A better adjusted masculinity would see more men crying in public and fewer men leering and groping. If the phrase “toxic masculinity” offends you, is it because you practise and justify it?

Going to Getugly:  Claire, you demonstrate perfectly why these absurd, ‘progressive’ slogans are so odious. They offer a veneer of intellectual credibility for the indulgence in plain old pettiness, shallow thinking and bigotry.

You parrot the ridiculous “toxic masculinity” expression exactly as it was intended… as a vague catch-all term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean in order to justify their desire to collectively vilify men. The arrogant, self-aggrandizing chauvinism in your Orwellian phrase “A better adjusted masculinity” speaks volumes. And the anti-rational, circular reasoning of your conclusion… that the only explanation for men rejecting the validity of this vacuous slogan is that they want to indulge in the very premise they reject… displays the atrocious logic and self-serving rationalisations of the people who embrace this nonsense.

The mindset behind this is obvious: The standard for the norm of maleness is to be determined exclusively by feminist women. And that standard basically defines men as ‘adjusted’ to perfection when they mirror those women back to themselves. And apparently this includes infantile emotional self-indulgence and “crying in public”.

One of the pathologies in all of this of course is the schism between this currently fashionable feminist group-think conception of how women supposedly want men to be… and the characteristics of men that women actually tend to like, respond to and find attractive. So we have self-absorbed, narcissistic women raising a generation of boys to hate and disassociate from their own nature and to conform to a feminized version of the perfect man… who then will go out in the world and discover that women despise them for embodying the very characteristics they were trained to believe made them acceptable to women. Good job ladies.

Rebuttals of the Week! #17: Feminist bigotry and logical fallacies.

ageee

Kerry S: Cue all the men explaining why the gender pay gap isn’t a thing

Going to Getugly: Kerry, care to provide some kind of rational explanation for why men replying is a problem for you?

Kerry S: Ok. I’ll bite. Men replying is not a problem, per se. It’s just that soooo many of them spout the same old line despite the longitudinal evidence proving otherwise. I didn’t answer you because clearly you are spoiling for a fight and it is clear to me that rational argument would be wasted. You have made up your mind.

Going to Getugly: We could go on with the battling snarky comments… but I’d rather attempt a genuine conversation. Let me do a quick review of what has occurred and get your response:

The Age has posted an article.

– People have responded to the article by expressing their perspective in the comment section.

– You have started off this little thread… not by addressing anything raised in the article or responding to criticism or concerns raised by commentators… but by expressing generalised condescension towards anyone of a particular gender who may express disagreement with the article’s premise.

– Another commentator, Kelly, joined in on the generalised condescension towards people based solely on their gender and not their arguments:

Kelly :  “I’m just here to laugh at their bitter tears and tantrums”

– You replied in agreement with her and complained about the number of people of that gender expressing their perspective here:

Kerry S: “Kelly Anne yup. Skimming across the replies. Nearly all men…”

I think you have to agree that what I have described above is completely accurate and factual.

Now, my understanding of credible adult-level reasoned discussion and debate has always been that attacking anything other than the argument of the other person reflects incompetent reasoning. It’s fallacious. It signals someone who has a fixed conclusion to which they are very attached and are determined to protect… but which they can’t rationally and objectively support or justify. That’s why they deflect to complaining about anything OTHER than the arguments… things like the gender, race or age of the person who doesn’t share their convictions. Other deflection tactics include things like declaring themselves too far above the level of the other person to deign to engage them in rational debate.

It seems clear that you don’t share that understanding of what qualifies as credible reasoned discussion and debate. I’m curious, on what basis do you justify rejecting these basic, well established and essentially universally acknowledged standards? And why would you believe that demonstrating your rejection of those standards is not open to valid criticism and doesn’t disqualify you as being regarded as an informed and serious thinker?


Guess what… Kerry S never responded. I wonder why?

 

 

Rebuttals of the Week #16: ‘Progressive’-Left thinking = incompetent reasoning skills.

1a1b wente

(Link to the article: Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity )

Tracy H:  Who says diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive?

Going to Getugly: Tracy… you are the third person I’ve seen here who has indulged in the very same, unbelievably banal straw man:

Liam SO: Why do you think that diversity of thought or intellect is mutually exclusive to racial, gender, ethnic and sexual diversity???

Leslie M:  The article confuses different issues; excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive

To me, this is an example of the incapacitating effect that being captured by a generic, all-consuming ideology has on an individual’s ability to think: You reflexively go to preconceived ideological categories in your head to tell you how to interpret what you are looking at rather than identifying the genuine characteristics of the ‘thing’ you are (supposedly) trying to understand.

Nowhere in Wente’s column does she say “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”. Neither does she make that argument.

And yet you and at least two others here have asserted that she directly or indirectly made that claim.

So if it didn’t come from Wente…. how did it get in your head? The only answer to that question is that it got in your head because YOU put it there. Not her.

When you say she said “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”… you are not describing Wente! You are describing YOU! Only you can’t tell the difference between what you make up in your mind and the ‘thing’ out there in the world that you believe you are describing.

And in my experience… this is the foundational characteristic of people who are on the ‘progressive’-Left. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s a demonstrable justification for equating ‘progressivism’ with incompetent reasoning skills.

Rebuttals of the Week #15 Part 2: Lefty says Left-wing bigotry is okay because it doesn’t hurt anybody.

1a1a

Here’s a quick follow up to my exchange with James from Rebuttals of the Week # 15: Lefty tries desperately to believe racism okay if his side does it.

As is usual when you critique the position of someone captured by Left-wing ideology, James responded by ignoring the issues I raised in my argument and simply restated the same thing he’d said originally but with slightly different words (see below). Rather than supporting that position with facts, evidence or reasoned argument… notice how he offers only subjective expressions of the superior moral stature of his own opinion.

You see this over and over again when debating people on the Left. What James is revealing here, I believe, is the key to understanding what motivates people to identify with Leftist,  ‘progressive’ ideology: They are driven by an impulse for moral and social validation.

In short, they adopt opinions to fulfill ego-needs…. not to know something true about the objective world. And their use of language is a reflection of that.

This goes a long way to explaining why reason, argument and evidence that challenges or refutes their position rarely if ever influences their fixed opinion on these issues. They didn’t arrive at their conclusions as the result of an interest in what is ‘real’ to begin with. They settled on those conclusions because they find them personally satisfying. So it is rare that someone who focuses on ego-gratification by nature will suddenly exercise the willpower to make that sense of personal satisfaction subordinate to the pursuit of truth.


James: Dear Going to Getugly, standing in a different spot briefly would not hurt anybody. It might make people think. We shouldn’t turn our radar for sources of outrage up too high. If people will think about something I can move 30 feet or whatever for a couple of minutes. Let’s not major on the minors.

Going to Getugly:

Here’s the thing: What you think other people should feel about being told where to stand based on their race is irrelevant. You’re blind to the outrageous narcissism and self-aggrandizement of believing everyone needs to conform to your ideological concepts and see the deliberate humiliation of people at this concert based on their race as an opportunity to “make people think” about how collectively guilty they all are.

Again… this is what people out here in the real world keep trying to get people who are captured by this ideology to recognize: The fact that a self-identified “leftwinger” has “Left-wing” justifications for the bigotry he wants imposed on certain people doesn’t make him different to other bigots!

It makes the “leftwinger” exactly the same as every other bigot who ever walked the Earth. EVERY bigot believes he is doing ‘the right thing for the right reasons’ and that his critics are just not as aware and enlightened as himself.

The problem with “leftwingers” is that they lack principles. Basic principles tell you that unethical, deplorable behaviour…. like treating people differently or poorly based solely on their race… is ALWAYS unethical and deplorable… regardless of who is doing it and to whom.  But  “leftwingers”  indulge in the narcissistic conviction that the very same unethical and deplorable behaviour magically and conveniently transmutes into noble and justified as soon as they engage in it.

After all,  “leftwingers” are only doing it to “make people” who are clearly inferior to themselves “think” and behave the right way! Right James? And that’s nothing like the kind of justifications real bigots tell themselves!