Rebuttals of the Week #32: Australian ‘progressives’ happy to see children used to advance political agendas

The eyes of Australian ‘progressives’ were moist and lumps rose in their throats at the sight of thousands of school children skipping class and mouthing the political views  of adults back at them in the streets of the country’s major cities last week.

The kiddies were engaging in an act of mass civil protest you see. They had “demands” don’t you know.

What did they want? “Urgent action on climate change!” When did they want it? “Now!” Or at least before 9 o’clock. That’s their bedtime.

That’s not all. As stated in the apparently irony-free headline from the daily newspaper The Age : “the students ‘demand’ climate talks with PM.”

“Demand climate talks” with the Prime Minister no less.

Have a look at two of the hard-nosed political activists in the picture below who are issuing ‘demands’ and insisting on a tête-à-tête with the leader of the country to hash out policy initiatives.

1 aaa kids

Granted, they’ve got the steely-eyed stare into the camera thing going… but I find the gravitas is undermined somewhat by the barrettes and rosy-red apple cheeks.

So what happened here?

Well it seems that the phenomenon highlighted by renegade academics like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Janice Fiamengo, Bret Weinstein and others whereby the explicit purpose of ‘social justice’ programs at the university level to produce  ideologically ‘progressive’ political activists has made its way down to the earliest levels of the public educational/indoctrination system.

Very young school children who have had catastrophic man-made climate change taught to them less like a theory of physics than a theological absolute and moral crusade have been encouraged, rewarded and otherwise manipulated by the  adults around them into perceiving themselves as enlightened warriors for the ‘truth’. Any distinction between themselves as children and the adults in the highest positions of authority to whom they feel entitled to  issue “demands” and lecture seems not to have been impressed upon them.

Chillingly, the ability to distinguish between child and adult appears to be absent from a fairly wide swath of alleged grown ups in the general population as well. The willingness to perceive this as some spontaneous, self-directed expression of preternaturally enlightened 12 year olds bestowing their authoritative personal insights about the issue of planetary climate science as it relates to political and economic policy is simply surreal.

The AGE’s broadsheet competitor The Australian presented a decidedly less gushing and sentimental take on the ‘protest’ by visiting UK Left-wing  contrarian and commentator Brendan O’Neill.

 

1 aA children

 

My interaction with Linda M below is a pretty revealing overview of the mindset of people who rationalized this use of children to advance a political agenda into a glorious stirring of the nation’s youth leading us to our ‘progressive’ green Utopian future.

Notice how quickly  Linda reduces the subject to a moral binary in which everything that is ‘admirable’ and to do with ‘hope for the future’ and which is in the interests of ‘democracy’ is 100 percent located with her and those who agree with her… and anyone who fails to conform to her views is identified as ‘conservative’ and immediately associated with everything unscrupulous and corrupt.

At a point in my rebuttal I zero in on this reflex to bypass critical thinking in favour of reducing the world to a hyper-simplistic categorization of  “All of the good people think these things over here and anything other than that is evil and wrong by definition.” That’s the basic pattern of ideological thinking and it is the definitive form of reasoning relied on by those on the ‘progressive’ Left.

And it should probably come as no surprise…. Linda is a teacher.


 

Linda M: Double whammy for the Murdoch gutter hacks. They get to attack children and get in their daily hysterical attack on the ABC in the one go.

Going to Getugly: Was that easier for you than addressing the actual concerns and criticisms that people have about this Linda?

Linda M:  As a teacher of 30 years I can assure you that many of these children, who will be voters in a few years, are admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy. As opposed to a foreign media baron, who pays no tax in Australia and is able to arrange his affairs in order to get an $870 million tax refund, being able to fly in and organise the toppling of our Prime Minister. Not to mention the daily attacks on our independent broadcaster and any alternative to their extreme conservative tame pollies.

Going to Getugly: They are “admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy.” That’s very interesting. Whose hope are they demonstrating Linda? Their own? Or are they merely the vehicles for the political “hopes” of the adults around them?

Linda M:  As I have pointed out: As a 30 year teacher, I can attest to the ability of these young adults and adolescents to think for themselves. I and everyone of my acquaintance are grateful that there are future generations with the intellect to understand that we can’t sell the future of our grandchildren for the interests of mega rich miners.

Going to Getugly: It’s quite disturbing actually to see a “teacher of 30 years” being an apologist for using children to advance a political agenda because she personally likes the agenda. These are little CHILDREN who are too intellectually and emotionally immature and are lacking the life experience and the personal autonomy to fully cognise the concepts they are regurgitating and what it means to be participating in this ‘protest’.

These are not autonomous adults expressing ideas and convictions they have cultivated on their own who are engaging in self-directed activity. These are children who are behaving in a certain fashion because they are being encouraged and validated to do so by adults who are using them to advance a political agenda.

Linda M:  What utter arrogance!!!! To claim that young adults and adolescents are incapable of rational thought just because they do not subscribe to the Alt Right agenda of propping up the mega rich miners/political donors in their disastrous pursuit of profit before people.

Going to Getugly: So you’ve been teaching for 30 years (!) and yet you have no idea what logical fallacy is or how to make a rational argument? “You aren’t telling me my enthusiasm for using children to advance a political agenda I like is a sign of how enlightened I am because “alt-right agenda” and “rich miners” and stuff!”

No wonder parents are turning to home schooling.

Linda M:  These rational thinkers are our future. Thank goodness. Most of us understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Not the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks.

Going to Getugly:  And for how many of these “rational thinkers” is the other primary concern at the moment what Santa Claus will bring them for Christmas in two weeks?

Here’s the thing Linda… you can’t include yourself in the category of “us” who “understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition” when you immediately do the opposite of that.

Writing the words “the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks” is not an argument. It’s just a bunch of words in a row that are not connected to anything.

Linda M: “Here’s the thing”. Again with the condescending and arrogant tone. Do you even listen to yourself? To dismiss young adults and adolescents as Santa pining babies is to write alienate all the potential future voters. Conservatives shooting them selves in the foot as usual these days. If I was going to use the attack tactics of the right I’d point out that a troll group with the moniker “Going to Getugly” is self explanatory as a bunch of wreckers in the world with no worthy agenda.

Going to Getugly: Complaining about the “tone” isn’t an argument either Linda.

Identifying the actual intellectual and emotional stage of development of these children… as well as identifying their lack of individual autonomy isn’t ‘alienating’ them. But adults romanticising and idealising young children and projecting their own political aspirations onto them is unethical, abusive and grotesquely self-indulgent.

That’s why until very very recently all thoughtful ethical adults regarded the use of children to promote and advance political agendas… as was common under authoritarian regimes… to be a prime illustration of how indifferent those regimes were to any moral and ethical constraints. This was considered self-evident to normal people because… they are CHILDREN.

As someone who was just pontificating about logic and the structure of a properly reasoned argument you should notice that you don’t address any specific points that challenge your opinion. Being intellectually mature means you can defend your ideas against criticism directly because your perspective is the result of a complex process of reasoning which generates genuine insight. So there is a lot behind your perspective which you can draw on to validate and justify it.

Contrast that to what you do…which is to reduce everything to a hyper-simplistic binary categorisation:

Category 1 is a set of fixed opinions and interpretations which you’ve adopted because they appeal to you personally and which you accept as universal truths that reflect moral excellence.

Category 2 is anything that doesn’t conform to Category 1. Which by definition is the opposite of universal truth and moral excellence.

That’s why when your unexamined assumption about the excellence of your opinion is challenged your reflex is to simply slot the other person into Category 2…. “The only plausible explanation for anyone not telling me I’m right and how enlightened and wonderful I am is that they’re EVIL “wreckers in the world” and they’re “Conservatives” and “alt-right” and other generic self-confirming slogans and clichés!”

That being a  ‘wrecker of the world’ and arguing against children being used to promote the political agenda of adults are mutually exclusive motivations is conveniently overlooked.

That’s because at no point does conscious, adult-level rational thinking play any part whatsoever in how you process this.

And so it’s not surprising that when you have adults whose own reasoning and ethical development hasn’t matured past the stage of adolescence that the distinction between the child and the fully developed autonomous adult remains opaque them.

Advertisements

Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just repeating propaganda.

 

nedia

This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.by virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Rebuttals of the Week #31: Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just a mouthpiece for propaganda.

 

nedia

This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.by virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Rebuttals of the Week #30: “Men are intimidated by smart women” and other self-flattering feminist fallacies.


‘Boys don’t like smart girls’. How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?

age

From the article: “This friend works in the science field and was involved in a discussion around the ABC story, and how it fits into a Women in STEM decadal plan she’s involved in looking at ways to increase women’s STEM participation and retention from school through careers over the next 10 years.

She told me about a colleague who was talking to a teenage girl, one who had just won a STEM award, about the biggest hurdles preventing young women from pursuing STEM studies and careers.

The young girl’s answer was, “Boys don’t like smart girls”.

How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?”


The old cliche about how “men are intimidated by smart women” that feminists seem so fond of repeating has never wrung true to me.  It’s just a little too convenient and self-flattering for a woman to use it as the explanation for why men aren’t attracted to her. Don’t you think?

“It can’t be that I’m doing anything wrong! In fact… it must be that I’m just too fantastic and that there’s something inherently wrong with all men!”

Besides,  if  it is true that girls are not pursuing certain careers because they think it will make boys less attracted to them as the article suggests…. then shouldn’t we be identifying girls as the ones with the issue that needs addressing rather than disparaging boys?

Of course, not all women buy into this nonsense as the selection of responses to this column from The AGE that I’ve included below my rebuttal makes clear.


Going to Getugly: How are you meant to ‘deal with an answer like that’? You tell the “young girl” who said it the truth… that she’s wrong and that she’s been brainwashed by feminists who want to manipulate the perceptions of females to believe that men are their enemies and that if anything doesn’t go their way in life then it’s men who are to blame.

Several women commenting had a similar response:

Helen S:  Not true.

Sally B: Rubbish

Ange Dav: Utter BS

Raewyn McC : If you believe that, you are not a ‘smart girl’ .

Daisy Ma: Since when?? Men love me and my intelligence is one of my most attractive features..

Lynne Os: Lazy journalism, let’s just fire another salvo in the gender wars.

Video – Brett Kavanaugh: Do Women Want Justice or Revenge?

In this Going to Getugly video: A lot of women these days appear to be suggesting that we sacrifice principles like presumption of innocence and due process in order to get results that are personally satisfying to them. That’s a very dangerous philosophy. It’s essentially inverting the long established principle of “It is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted” and saying it’s worth ruining the lives of 100 innocent men to ensure a guilty man doesn’t get away with it.

Video: Maxime Bernier vs Canadian Conformity

In this new Going to Getugly video:

We live in an era in which people are denounced as racists not because they believe certain things about other races but because they don’t believe certain things about particular political policies. Canada is a country in which any deviation from the ‘One Permissible Opinion’ on policies that are deeply grounded in ideology like multiculturalism and the fetishization of ‘diversity‘ is strictly forbidden.

In a short series of eloquent and concise tweets Quebec MP Maxime Bernier brushed aside the ultimate Canadian taboo: He criticized official multiculturalism and the “cult of diversity”.

Rebuttals of the Week! #29: Um… Too much information!

dug

Background: The Progress Conservative Party gets elected in Ontario, the largest province in Canada, replacing 18 years of rule by an ideologically far Left and much loathed Liberal Party. The Conservatives ran on a platform that included repealing a very controversial, very ideologically grounded and in many parents’ eyes age-inappropriate sex-ed curriculum that was imposed on public schoolchildren by the Liberals under the leadership of Kathleen Wynne (whom Jordan Peterson once described as “the most dangerous woman in Canada”!) only three years ago. It replaced a curriculum that had been in place since 1998.

To the shock and horror of Liberals and Leftists,  PC party leader and new Premier Doug Ford announces within a couple of weeks of assuming power that the contentious curriculum is now officially revoked… thus keeping one of the promises that got him elected.

Liberals and Leftists in Ontario respond as expected by lighting their hair on fire and running around screaming that life as we know it is about to come to an end and that children’s lives are now in imminent danger.

The ‘hair on fire’ thing is a slight exaggeration. Claims that the lives of children are threatened as a result of getting rid of this course that’s been around for three years is actually real. You can’t make this stuff up.

1 lkk2lll2ll

Speaking of stuff you couldn’t make up… have a look at the exchange below. Ray W who launches the interaction seems to be a first year University student in his 20’s who is probably just mouthing the fashionable opinion of his peer group and the group-think pumped into him by whatever ‘Social Justice’ course his parents are wasting thousands of dollars on in place of a useful education for their son. But it’s Carrie B who wins the “Didn’t See That One Coming” award with her… let’s call it, explicit point!


Ray W: Your children are gonna grow up without knowing about lgbt people, consent and cyber safety all because some people clearly didn’t read the curriculum but threw a fit anyway, good job Ontario

Going to Getugly: Funny Ray… somehow everyone who lived before you were born a couple of decades ago managed to ‘grow up knowing’ about all of this stuff without this curriculum. You might want to stop telling yourself that everything began the moment you were old enough to be aware of it.

Carrie B:  Oh, you mean like my 53 year old coworker who didn’t know the difference between a vulva and a vagina?

Going to Getugly: Oh well then! That changes everything! Someone call the Premier of Ontario and inform him that Carrie B had a weirdly inappropriate conversation with her coworker and discovered he was something less than an expert on female anatomy!

Thanks for alerting us to that Carrie. Please let us know if you ever had a disturbing chat with someone on the bus at any point in your life and we’ll make sure government policy is rewritten to reflect whatever it is you found out.