Rebuttals of the Week#11: Why ‘progressives’ hate reality

ta

Poor old Tony Abbott just can’t catch a break it seems. He makes some completely benign, not uncommon, absolutely reasonable pro-marriage comment and all the tolerant, compassionate, accepting, non-judgemental, empathetic, morally righteous ‘progressives’ and feminists take it as an opportunity to unleash upon him any vile, cruel, dehumanizing accusation and epithet their corrupt little minds can generate.

Abbott’s comment inspired the above nasty, predictably anti-male and anti-Western civilization screed by Jenny Noyes in the radical feminist propaganda pamphlet The Age. As usual, this was an invitation to all the exemplars of virtue and goodness on the ‘progressive’/feminist Left among the general public to weigh in with their own wise and insightful observations in the comment section. In other words, there was a lot of this sort of thing:

Sharon F: “Cockhead”

Sezzy: “Being a woman myself, I feel like I need protection from idiots like him. Bloody ignorant fool!”

Bubba: “the irony is that marriage has not protected his missus or kids from having a complete dickhead as a husband and father.”

Stephen: “The man is just a delusional fool. I cannot wait to see the look on his hideous head when we finally receive true equality.”

Faye W: “Abbott you are a dickhead and an embarrassment.”

So a contributor to the comment section, Carl  L, tried to raise the quality of the discourse by injecting some factual evidence into the discussion:

Carl L: Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

ta a

Mum’s boyfriend – the worst sexual risk to children

Which provoked quite a few responses like these from folks who won’t let truth get between them and their preferred version of reality:

Kirsten A: “So, not a peer reviewed piece of literature.”

Lisa B: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”

My rebuttal, directed primarily at Lisa, is a breakdown of an extremely common thinking pattern which a lot of bad thinkers default to when they are confronted with evidence and argument that refutes their self-confirming, subjective beliefs. It’s the “Truth or Concept Pattern”. It highlights the distinction between people who have an attachment to a belief or concept which they find personally gratifying in some way,  and those who have an attachment to truth. When you become aware of the pattern, you’ll see it all of the time…. particularly when debating ‘progressives’, feminists, Leftists etc..


Going to Getugly: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”. Just like Kirsten Alys above. I’ll tell you how your mind is working here Lisa so you can improve your reasoning in the future:

Lisa’s mind: “I have a specific perception of this issue and  I’m really attached to it because  it’s very satisfying to my ego.  And I’ve never bothered to look into it because I just assume I’m right if a particular belief appeals to me.

Now I’m presented with credible information that completely invalidates my preferred assumptions and which gives me insight into actual, objective truth.

But I’m not interested in objective TRUTH! MY priority is preserving my preferred but false perception… because the satisfaction I derive from believing it is WAY more important to me than having an authentic appreciation of reality.

Problem: I refuse to update my understanding of this issue based on this new information (like a mature thinker would do)…. but I need some excuse that appears to justify my irrational denial of reality.

Solution: Oh, look! This was published in 2012.  I’ll assert that because the study was published FIVE WHOLE YEARS ago… that makes it invalid somehow! Sure, that makes no sense…. it’s a completely arbitrary proclamation…. and if I’m asked to explain why that invalidates it I’ll have to make something else up on the spot. But it’s all I’ve got! Oh yeah…. and I’ll put a condescending ‘lol’ at the end (even though that’s the sort of thing 14 year olds do) to convey that I’m so much more ‘aware’ and ‘clever’ than the dummy who provided the information.”

Do you see how transparent this flawed thinking process is, Lisa? Hopefully now that it’s been pointed out, you and Kirsten… as well as a lot of other women posting here…. will catch yourselves before you default to this pattern of inadequate reasoning in the future.

 

 

Poor from Middle East used as election props by Justin Trudeau now languishing?

bs

According to the article, Mr.Sharbaji spent 4 YEARS in EGYPT before being dragged here by Trudeau in his attempt to win the ‘Canadian leader with the most refugees in the shortest time’ contest! ‘You’ll bring in 20,000 over the coming year? Well, WE will bring in 25,000 in the next two months! And that’s just for starters!’ 

Mr.Sharbaji wasn’t fleeing Syria! We took a guy who was safe from the war in Syria and established for years in Egypt… a country that is culturally, religiously, linguistically and geographically very similar to his own… and bribed him with Canadian taxpayer’s money into moving to bloody New Brunswick for God’s sake! A half-frozen, underpopulated piece of real estate on the edge of the North Atlantic with an Anglo-Celtic/Acadian cultural identity… a place that he’d never heard of in his life. In other words, a spot on the globe that couldn’t be less similar to where he’s from.

Surprise! Despite all the lobster, fiddleheads and dulce he can eat, he’s not very happy there!

Hurriedly importing people like Mr. Sharbaji and his family was not an act of benevolence or generosity on behalf of Trudeau’s Liberals. It was a deeply cynical political calculation to bolster Justin’s persona during an election campaign as the new loving, caring, compassionate, ‘progressive’ Canadian leadership choice. They used poor people who had left Syria (as in Sharbaji’s case, often years prior) and were living in other Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, Turkey) as props…. whose participation they bought with taxpayers money…. shipped them over and dispersed them around the country to impress the kind of naive, sentimental, easily manipulated Canadians who don’t distinguish feeling good about themselves from actually doing what’s best.

And guess what? It worked! At least it did for Trudeau. For Mr.Sharbaji…. not so much.

How dare they assume they can decide what is ‘true’ for Donald Trump!

don

Where is the intellectual consistency? On the one hand they’re supporting the premise that what is ‘true’ and ‘real’ is whatever transgendered people subjectively ‘feel‘ is true for them….and no one has the right to question that or impose their standards for truth on them.

And yet when they say Donald Trump’s support for LGBT rights was a “con”…. they are imposing their personal ideas of ‘true’ and ‘real’ onto him. What makes them think they have the right to determine what is ‘true’ for someone else?

 

 

Excuse me, mainstream media! Your anti white male prejudice is showing.

qa

So if politicians respond to the legitimate concerns of “middle aged white men”…. it’s characterised as “charismatic” politicians exploiting white male anger. Sounds scary. Kind of brings to mind scenarios that are vaguely Hitlerian.

Why then when “progressive” politicians pander to the demands and alleged grievances of women and feminists (or any other identifiable group in society pushing issues of identity politics or other ‘social justice’ causes) is that never characterised as “charismatic” politicians ‘exploiting’ (primarily white) female anger (or transgender anger? Or racial minority anger? Or aboriginal anger? Or youth anger? etc.) Why are we to think of that as nothing other than responsible, engaged politicians addressing the needs of their constituents?

Could it be that this is a vivid example of a pervasive but socially acceptable ideological prejudice embedded in the media that is being propagandised to the public at large?

Let’s see…You have one group in society identified by race and gender whose suffering and genuine grievances are characterised in the mainstream media as vaguely ominous and sinister (why are they so “angry”?). Politicians who attempt to address the grievances of that identified group are characterised as extremely sinister… even invoking not particularly subtle allusions to authoritarian dictators.

At the same time, every other identifiable group with a grievance in society almost always receives unqualified affirmation, empathy and validation from that same mainstream media. Politicians who take up the causes of those classes of aggrieved people are lauded for their ‘progressive’ outlook and their moral and ethical excellence.

Hmmmm.

Is the propaganda working? Ask yourself how often you’ve heard or read some variant of the expression “old white men” used as a pejorative to deride and invalidate the perspective of people who fall into that combined category of age, race and gender.

Here is a sample I pulled from a quick glance at just a single thread on a major newspaper’s online comment section recently:

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

Kevin C: I would however like to reduce the unreasonable influence some rich old men have over the overall system.

That isn’t individual insight, folks. That’s group-think.

Rebuttals of the week #10: Dear all feminists… The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t happening to you.

It seems the new TV version of Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale  is severing what remaining threads once linked ‘progressives’ and feminists in Australia to reality.

hnttHMT


Emma : To all the men thinking the story is far fetched; it isn’t. Women have not had rights for that long a period of time, we are still fighting for equal rights. In a lot of countries still women are oppressed. It is scary to us women, for if the government really wanted they could take – and are trying to take away the rights to our own bodies – our rights any time they want. Men would not understand that fear.

Going to Getugly: Emma, what do you mean “Women have not had rights for that long a period of time”? Do you think they were kept in cages or something until just before you were born? If you actually believe that in this era of gender equity quotas, calls for laws requiring gender parity in boardrooms, an era in which condemning men collectively for their ‘male privilege’ is common and acceptable, an era in which dozens of people on this thread alone don’t hesitate to parrot the fashionable slogan ‘old white men’ as a pejorative because it’s perfectly acceptable in our society to single out people based on their race and gender for collective denunciation and social shunning as long a they belong to this one category….

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

… If in an era where all of that is commonplace and in which mainstream politicians are terrified of appearing to be out of step with fashionable identity politics… if you can still believe that governments are targeting women to remove their rights and doing so strictly for the sheer malevolent pleasure of it …. then you have bought into an extraordinarily irrational delusion.


 

 

Justin C: If we keep voting for politicians who put the super-wealthy elite before ordinary citizens, a scenario as dark as The Handmaid’s Tale is inevitable. Probably in our lifetime.

Jewel D: It’s already happening- instead of hanging people (as per The Handmaids Tale) , the pollies in the “Land of Oz”, “Murica” and “Yeh Olde England” are offing the poor/elderly/disabled/ugly etc etc by cutting off any form of social security and treating any of those who dare squawk “please sir may I have more” in a manner that befits Dickensian times. 😒

Justin C: Like the bath that gets hotter & hotter until we suddenly realise we’re cooked.

Going to Getugly: Are you guys joking? Look around you! We live in a time in which the political class are terrified of appearing not to be pandering sufficiently to any real or imagined grievance claimed by any minority, racial group, feminists, subjectively conceived gender identity group, social justice activist etc. etc. Even mild, reasoned questioning of their claims, assertions and demands will get you labelled racist, misogynist or accused of indulging in any number of irrational phobias.

This is one of the bizarre traits of those on the  ‘progressive’-Left: The more they are pandered to… the more power and influence they achieve… the more attention is paid to their ideologically derived claims and grievances…. the more wild and hysterical their claims of ‘oppression’ and ‘marginalization’ becomes.


Mary Mc: I remember reading the Handmaids Tale when it was first published and have read every Atwood book since then. The TV screening is brilliant – I’m watching it with my daughter and its totally gripping. Oryx & Crake is another prescient Atwood novel … Atwood is a scientist as much as a writer so plenty of evidence and logic influence her writing – that’s what makes it – for me – so chilling at times. Obviously not everyone is going to relate to it in the same way – but I’ll resist calling them delusional…

Going to Getugly: It’s not the people who know this fantasy isn’t “prescient” who are delusional. And since when is Atwood a “scientist”?

CNN IS WATCHING! Trump wrestling CNN GIF CONFESSION!

So CNN went after the guy who made the Trump wrestling the CNN logo GIF. They tracked him down, found out his real name and sent him an email. The very next day, CNN hosts are on air brandishing the guy’s written confession, apology and requests for forgiveness.

In CNN’s own words, they have so far chosen not to make his personal details public “because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

But as CNN makes absolutely clear, if this supposedly free citizen does anything to upset CNN again, all bets are off:

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”

Check out this video. This is the actual confession of the Trump vs CNN GIF CREATOR! I swear… I didn’t manipulate this video in any way. Don’t come after me CNN!

Reminder to Students: The reason you’re in school is because you don’t know anything!

gm

I don’t know who started this idea that 20 year olds know enough about ANYTHING to justify taking their opinions seriously… let alone their “demands”(!)….. But it’s clearly time that stopped.