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


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.


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!

Rebuttals of the Week # 15: Lefty tries desperately to believe racism okay if his side does it.



Article: Halifax music festival apologizes for ‘overt racism’ after volunteer refuses to give spot near stage to women of colour

Another fine example of the degenerate ethics and reasoning of the sanctimonious, allegedly ‘progressive’ Left. The reaction to this from James, below, is very interesting. He proudly self-identifies as a “leftwinger“. Yet his struggle to reconcile this unambiguously racist public incident with his conviction about the inherent moral excellence of the premise behind it is palpable.

This highlights precisely the threat posed by the cultural phenomenon of ‘progressivism’: The willingness to privilege ideological premises over self-evident, objective truth. 

Poor James is trying desperately to adhere to the standard “leftwinger” conception of  “teaching moments”… in which people who take the perfection of their own beliefs for granted impose their will on those they deem to be in need of their superior insight.

The problem for James is that unlike the majority of people who share his intellectual commitment to the ideology of  the ‘progressive’-Left , he hasn’t yet completely abandoned his capacity to recognise hypocrisy:

JamesHow is the volunteer racist? As a leftwinger, I confess that this baffles me if this article is accurate. Having white people move back as an exercise could be a teaching moment, but not with acceptable means unless you plan to, say, return people to their old spots after a few minutes.

Breaking equal-treatment rules isn’t acceptable. This is a grotesque caricature of the left that rightwing blogs constantly circulate (no, most leftwingers aren’t worried about dissenting opinions). Don’t ask people of one race to move back for people of another race for your concert.

Going to Getugly:

James, it’s anything BUT a “gross caricature of the left”. This is the Left in all of it’s irrational, hypocritical, circular reasoning glory! And your statement that this would be a “teaching moment” is a symptom of the same irrationality. You don’t subject people to the very thing you claim to so strongly oppose to fulfill your narcissistic belief in the righteousness of your own opinion.

Indulging in bigotry because you tell yourself it’s for ‘all the right reasons’ is not DIFFERENT to bigotry. It’s just bigotry! This is the blind spot of people such as yourself who self-identify as “a leftwinger” that folks who are not captured by ideology keep trying to get you guys to recognise! You are NOT better than the people you imagine yourselves to be superior to! The problem is that people on the Left… people like YOU… never bother to go through the process of examining YOURSELF before imagining that you occupy the lofty position to pass judgement on people who don’t conform to your ideology.

Another commentator, Nathan, inadvertently emphasises the truth about this impulse to privilege a commitment to prefabricated, ideological conceptualisations over independant thinking with this comment:

Nathan: I’m a liberal who spends more time confronting the stupidity of the type defined here than conservatives.

These aren’t isolated incidents. Head to any university in the country and you’ll find people that think making white people move is noble.

So I posed the obvious question:

Going to Getugly:

Nathan, why then do you persist in self-identifying with an ideology that you recognise is so flawed and corrupt?

Rebuttals of the week! #14: Enough with the ‘cultural appropriation’ garbage already!


Halloween is fast approaching… so naturally the  ‘Let’s Pretend Trivial Nonsense Is Incredibly Important Squad’ is back to remind us that comfortable people in a uniquely successful and pluralistic civilisation will invent problems for themselves in order to have something to complain about.

Whereas normal people see the holiday as a rare opportunity to temporarily escape an increasingly mirthless, censorious and rigidly conformist daily grind (once known as having fun)… the New Puritans of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left are intent on making sure that the rest of us are just as miserable, uptight, boring and uncomfortable with spontaneity and as themselves.

That’s why something like the packaging of  obscure, seasonal products that have no effect on anyone can be accepted as worthy of intense scrutiny and moral consternation by major mainstream news organisations like the Globe and Mail.

The article prompted the following, reasonably non-agitated response from Michael G:

Michael G:  If you’re secure with yourself and heritage/culture, it’s not really an issue. All I’d be pissed about is having a non authentic costume….obviously those depicted are not authentic representations. But still i wouldn’t get my breaches in a bunch about it…

Commentator Su Con however, found Michael’s take on the matter to be in conflict with the standard ‘progressive’ party-line:

Su Con: Given the racism that still exists, how can they be secure? Doesn’t this all come down to trying to change that?

So I helped clarify the situation:

Going to Getugly:  No. This has nothing to do with stopping racism. It’s about two very specific things:

1. It’s about people who want to leverage their ‘victim’ status in order to see their will imposed on other people.

2. It’s about mainstream, middle-class people who find it gratifying to their ego and self-image to appear supportive of any fashionable trend… regardless of how stupid… that is marketed to them as atoning for past wrongs inflicted on minorities.

These two videos explore in detail what is really going on with the whole ‘cultural appropriation’ craziness:

Rebuttals of the week! #13: ‘Your arguments are terrible’ vs ‘You’re a bad person’!


There have been studies that show female industries get paid less than males dominated ones. That pay goes down if an industry becomes more female dominated and up if it switches to being more males.
There is also this thing called unconscious bias. It’s very interesting you should look into it. Explains why even in cartoons a much larger percentage of speaking parts and characters are male which obviously equals less work for women which equals less money. Just as the stats reflect.

Going to Getugly:  P, your arguments are terrible. “Studies that show female industries get paid less than male dominated ones”. What studies? What industries? The entire point behind the premise that women get paid less than men is that they are doing the SAME job. Not that they are in completely different industries! The difference in potential earning across different industries is due to the value of the labour… not the gender of the employee. The fact that you are defaulting to these kinds of arguments betrays the disingenuous motives behind the perspective you are representing. Like many feminists, you’re not actually interested in ‘equality’. What you really appear to want is for reality to mirror your expectations and preferences at any given moment.

And in this instance, the reality that conflicts with your preferences is that there are multitudes of factors that account for why different people earn different levels of income that have nothing to do with men going out of their way to be mean to women for reasons that feminists never bother to explain.

P :  Going to Getugly, what do you actually stand for? All I can see on your page is that you hate a lot. You don’t seem to have any passion towards making the world a better place just hating on stuff. You seem worried about women becoming too equal – angry about any efforts that are made towards greater equality. If things are already perfectly equal why do you even care. Do you imagine women will start getting paid more than men. That men will be overlooked. That men perhaps need something they aren’t getting? Maybe you could focus on what you think is needed and get your own worthwhile cause.

Going To Getugly: Oh come on, P. You could answer the specific criticism and dispense with the moralising. Here’s the thing… When your entire response to criticism is to write several sentences in which you invent convenient, ridiculously self-confirming motivations for your critic but make no effort whatsoever to rationally address any aspect of his critique….. it is an indication that you have no answer to the criticism. In fact, it comes across as just venting frustration at not being able to defend your argument.

You ask what I stand for with my page. It’s this: I stand for drawing attention to the fact that a large swathe of the population seems to have abandoned the responsibility of exercising independent, autonomous critical thinking and instead relies on fashionable concepts and ideologies to do their thinking for them. And because these people appear to exercise no self-awareness, they indulge in the belief that merely parroting the generic slogans and talking points they’ve absorbed is as good as expressing genuine insight, knowledge or anything like an opinion that deserves to be taken seriously.

These people also indulge in the paradoxical belief that handing over responsibility for understanding the world to ideological group-think is actually an indication of their moral and intellectual exceptionalism! And that is how they inevitably come to interpret anything other than expressions of enthusiasm for conformity to their worldview as lacking  “passion towards making the world a better place” and “hating on stuff”.

Rather than giving me the schoolyard “You’re a big meanie!” response… how about reflecting on whether the criticism has merit? How about at least considering that if someone says ‘your argument is terrible’ and then points out specific problems with it…. that he isn’t expressing ‘hate’ but rather saying something valid about the way you construct your opinions?


Pandering to the biases and expectations of the comfortable middle class is the definition of ‘cowardly comedy’.


In the article, John Doyle asserts: “It is stating the obvious to note that satiric comedy is enjoying a golden age in the United States. Every late-night chat show benefited from a tumultuous election and the triumph of Donald Trump. The Daily Show, much less pugnacious than under Jon Stewart, is thriving. The arrival of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Full Frontal with Samantha Bee only underlines that the appetite for the genre is huge.


The landscape here in Canada is different, but surely it is ripe for more caustic humour than we’ve been getting.” 

Doyle is an example of the PROBLEM… not the solution.

The reason Canadian comedy is so meek and unfunny is NOT because it isn’t sufficiently like current American comedy. It’s because Canadian comedy is an even lamer version of the same predictable pandering to the conceits, assumptions and biases of the comfortable liberal middle class that defines American comedy today.

It’s simply delusional to believe that there is anything dangerous or brave about millionaire, Hollywood establishment liberal American television comedians telling an audience of mainstream, middle-class liberals that they are absolutely right about everything.

In the article, Doyle claims that these mainstream TV comedians like John Oliver, Samantha Bee  and Jimmy Kimmel are encouraging everyone to “mock and distrust authority”. Now that’s funny! It’s also in complete defiance of reality!

These people are the CHEERLEADERS for the unchallenged authority of the ruling class. Don’t believe me? Then answer this question: Who does everyone… and I mean EVERYONE… in the political establishment, the mainstream media establishment, the Hollywood establishment and the academic establishment… in other words, all of the elites with power and authority in society…. absolutely despise and want to destroy right now?

You know the answer.

So you have to ask yourself…. who is really the one openly mocking and encouraging distrust of those who have grown accustomed to their hold on power and authority?