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.

Advertisements

Truth or validation…. which do you privilege?

People either privilege the pursuit of truth or they privilege gratifying their ego in the form of social acceptance and moral validation. If you do the former your priority is cultivating as accurate a conception of the objective world as possible regardless of the degree to which that conception conforms to fashionable opinion. If you do the latter you simply adopt whole-cloth the generic opinions of the social class with whom you desire to be identified and uncritically internalize them as your own.

That is why people who gravitate to the Left are so consistently incapable of presenting logically coherent, properly reasoned arguments to support and substantiate their opinions when challenged. Their opinions are not the end result of a process of independent critical scrutiny and objective analysis. Therefore they have nothing behind them to link their claims to objective reality or to justify their confidence in the perfection of their interpretations.

‘Progressive’ ideology + cowardice = more dead black men, women and children

shoot

“With Toronto edging toward another record year of shooting victims, there is a growing push from researchers and advocates to tackle gun violence from a public-health perspective and to instead focus on the social inequalities that lie at the root of the problem.”

This is conformity to ideology presented as analysis. The default axiom of Leftist conditioning is that anti-social behaviour by members of certain protected classes is always and only a reflection of inherent problems EXTERNAL to their own community. To appreciate the glaring indifference to truth which this axiom represents one has only to observe how quickly and unapologetically it is reversed when the perpetrators are from the perceived dominant class… which is to say, white males.

Within 24 hours of the van attack that killed 10 people on Yonge Street earlier this year the story shifted from a lone nutcase committing a one-of-a-kind act of violence in the city of Toronto to a narrative about the obscure group of Internet nerds called ‘INCELs’… how this was really a story about a white male driven to an act of horrific violence by rampant misogyny and perceived injustices being heaped on white men and therefore ultimately a reflection of something gone terribly wrong with white males in society in general.

In contrast to that singular incident we have a problem that has persisted for decades to the point it has become a fixture of daily life in Toronto with a specific class of black men  mimicking the glorification of gun obsession, criminality and extreme violence of American black thug culture. And where are we being instructed by our media elite, ‘researchers and advocates’ to “look” to locate the “root of the problem”?  Not to the community from which this activity has been consistently arising but to an unquantifiable phenomenon called “social inequalities” they claim exists in society at large. In other words, black men shooting each other in the streets of one of the most open, freest, self-consciously welcoming and ethnically diverse cities to ever exist on the planet is not a reflection of something that has gone wrong within a class of the black community itself…. but of an intrinsically racist society created by and for the exclusive benefit of…. you guessed it… white men.

This privileging of fashionable ideology over reason and truth and the spinelessness displayed by politicians and journalists towards saying out loud what everybody (including, I suspect, most people in the black community) is thinking is precisely what allowed this problem to fester in Toronto for years and to escalate to critical proportions.

That is also why the problem will not be effectively addressed; why it will only get worse and why we will continue to see black families in this city mourn this senseless loss of life.

Rebuttals of the Week! #28: Leftist says discrimination based on race not necessarily ‘unjust’.

rac

Steve : Righting historic injustices, that still have tangible effects on historically disadvantaged groups, through practical measures, is just and perfectly justified.

Going to Getugly : The ‘righting historic injustices’ claim is simply an example of how people on the Left use language to justify indulging in the kind of bigotry and racism they make such a show of opposing.

Steve : How about you speak to the truth and logic in my post? Try validly refuting it.
As for language, using it to marginalize and “other” ‘out groups’ is what privileged groups have been doing since language emerged.

Going to Getugly : Believe me Steve, if I had found any ‘truth’ or ‘logic’ in your post I would have been more than happy to ‘speak’ to it. What I found instead were generic ‘progressive’ slogans and talking points that always get parroted by people who then act like they are expressing personal insights. For instance, your response to me pointing out that you are defaulting to the Left’s Orwellian practice of using language to justify indulging in behaviours they claim to be against is not to deny or refute the charge… it’s simply to insist that “the people I’m claiming to be my moral inferiors did it first!” and surrounding your schoolyard-level justification with yet more generic cliches and slogans like “privilege”, “marginalize” and ‘othering out groups’.

Steve : It’s morally unacceptable to discriminate, in a an unjust manner. It’s also morally unacceptable to benefit from unjust discrimination. Regardless, of whether the benefactor is the discriminator, or not. Righting past injustices, at the expense of those so benefiting, is perfectly just. If they aren’t benefiting, then that would be unjust, too.

Now, as to whether all this can be parsed out in a way that ensures justice is served fairly, is a practical and political question. Not a moral one.

Going to Getugly : Wait a minute…. it’s morally unacceptable to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin (otherwise known as racism)…. “in an unjust manner”? So you are saying that as far as you are concerned there are qualifications for when discriminating against someone based on their race is ‘just’… and when it is ‘unjust’? Okay, just to be clear… your position is that discriminating against someone because of their race isn’t wrong IN PRINCIPLE… it’s only wrong if a specific group of people do it to another specific group of people under a certain set of circumstances. That’s your position. Because that’s precisely what I’M saying your position is and the position of the ‘progressive’ Left as a whole.

How about that.

This is not a demonstration of concern for migrants and their kids. It’s a manifestation of hatred for Trump.

1 2 trump

The report by NPR stated: “U.S. immigration officials are planning to detain and deport immigrants who were part of the surge of Central Americans who crossed into the U.S. illegally” and that “immigration agents are mainly targeting young mothers with small children, and unaccompanied youths who turned 18 after they entered the U.S.” Adding “Many Central Americans have fled their home countries due to gang violence”.

That is part of a report from National Public Radio in the US detailing the policy initiative by the American federal government to deal with the issue of migrants from Central America who entered the country illegally with their children.

In 2016.

Yes folks. The report quoted above is describing the  policy directive given to the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by the administration of the yet to be officially sainted (just a formality at this point really) Barack Obama

An op ed in the Huffington Post in May of that year described it as ‘Obama’s Cruel Decision to Resume Mass Deportations’. The author of the column stated, “Sending mothers and young children back to countries from which they are fleeing violence is immoral and cruel as Pope Francis has recently emphasized”.

But wait a minute…. I don’t recall mass protests, around the clock coverage by the mainstream media, professional pundits weeping on TV or the “won’t someone please think of the children” crowd comparing the President to Hitler at that time. Where were all  the sanctimonious people rushing to online comment sections to proclaim their empathy for Central American illegal immigrants and their children two years ago and decrying President Obama’s ‘cruel’ and ‘immoral’ policies?

Here’s how Obama’s department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement defended the president’s “cruel” policy:

“As we have stated repeatedly, the Department of Homeland Security must enforce the law consistent with our enforcement priorities. Our highest priority is public safety and border security…. To promote and protect border security, our priorities include those apprehended crossing the border illegally after January 1, 2014. This includes single adults, as well as adults who bring their children with them.”

Sound familiar?

The unvarnished evidence shows that there is no particular difference in the attitudes or morality behind the policy in 2016 and that of 2018. And yet none of the people currently  protesting or otherwise indulging in ostentatious displays of  ’empathy’ and grief for the plight of Central American mothers and their kids could manage even mild interest when these things were happening two years ago. So what changed?  Only one thing: The guy behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

Which tends to suggest that the emotionalism and  shameless moral self-aggrandizement that seems to be all the rage at the moment has little if anything to do with sincere  concern for illegal migrants from Central America and their children. The moral outrage these people are so desperate to advertise today  is simply a manifestation of their hatred of Trump. Just as their indifference to Obama’s administration rounding up women and children from Central America and shipping them back to the ‘gang violence’ from which they were fleeing was  a manifestation of their blind adoration of Barack Obama.

Rebuttals of the Week #27: Propaganda trumps truth

The controversy surrounding the now infamous TIME magazine cover and the reactions to its distortion and manipulation has revealed something quite fascinating about how people in our era relate to the media. Specifically, it showed how much of a blindspot there is for the degree to which the media constructs our view of the world.

By now it is well known that the little girl whose image was used in the montage to promote the Trump “snatching children out of the arms of their mothers” narrative was not only not separated from her mother but, according to the child’s father, was the one child of four whom the mother didn’t abandon in Honduras but paid a human trafficker $6000 to illegally smuggle along with herself into the US.

To be fair, at least judging by my perusal of the reactions online to this story it appears that the majority of people who are commenting are lining up on the side of condemning TIME for their glaring misrepresentation of reality. But there are a lot of people downplaying or dismissing the egregiousness of an elite mainstream media outlet… owned by the same people who own CNN by the way… willfully sacrificing truth in service of popularizing a politically partisan interpretation…. not to mention defending doing so when they are caught!

What is notable is that people are not denying this is a misrepresentation of objective truth by mainstream media. The point that you see being made over and over again is this:  The imagery that was constructed to convey the mainstream media’s narrative  is clearly a lie… but the overall narrative itself is true and that’s all that matters.

But if members of the mainstream media elite have been caught demonstrating their indifference to objective truth so long as the perception they desire is being generated… why would you have any confidence that your perception of the ‘overall’ situation is ‘true’ when you got it entirely from the mainstream media?

Have a look and see how consistently this blindspot is demonstrated in this sample of my online interactions below:


Brandie: No it does not matter..  the atrocities are real. the children are being traumatized and detained in deplorable conditions. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! don’t let this photo take away from the REAL ISSUES> please i BEG of you 🙂 don’t lose sight of the horror and act hastily to rectify it.

Going to Getugly: Brandie, the intention behind the construction of this image… which is a misrepresentation of reality... was to bypass the public’s intellect and manipulate the emotions of people who never learned how to think like responsible mature adults. Your comments reveal that you were among the target audience.

Here is some objective analysis : ALL of the interpretations that you have expressed here have been provided to you by the mainstream media. This incident with TIME magazine is proof that the mainstream media is misrepresenting objective reality in order to construct and disseminate a particular perception of the situation.

The question that you need to ask yourself therefore is this : Why would you continue to trust a perception of the situation which is a product of the media… when this is proof the media is deliberately distorting objective reality in order to manipulate your perceptions?


Marilyn E: What is the difference what child it is?

Going to Getugly: “What is the difference what child it is?” Seriously?

Marilyn, where are we all getting all of our perceptions about what is happening at the American border with Mexico? We’re getting them from the MEDIA. This TIME magazine incident is proof for those of you who seem to be completely ignorant about this stuff that the mainstream media is willing to misrepresent objective reality in order to manufacture perceptions among the public that reflect their own political preferences.

In other words, when you say “What is the difference what child it is?”… what you are really saying is “I see no problem with the media lying to me.”


Jane: It’s called symbolism – a viral symbol of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. A picture of a little girl who’s being searched by border patrol agents. Terrified and scared.

It was taken by award-winning Getty photographer John Moore, who’s followed the border crisis for years and it was meant to embody the horror of Trump’s policy to prosecute all people crossing the border illegally, leading to the separation of families.

It helped fuel the public outrage that forced Trump to backtrack by issuing an executive order to end the practice.

Going to Getugly: Right. So to put it simply… it was pure manufactured propaganda designed to bypass the public’s intellect and play directly to their emotional response for the purpose of manipulating their perceptions and reinforcing a partisan political agenda.

Yeah, that’s just great Jane.


Sylvia: Does this mean children aren’t being separated from their families and locked in cages? No. Stop getting tripped up in the details and pay attention to what is happening. Geez.

Going to Getugly: So let me see if I understand your logic here Sylvia…. Your entire perception of this situation.. your interpretation about children “being separated from their families and locked in cages”…  is 100 percent, totally dependent on what has been delivered to you by the mainstream media. But this incident with TIME magazine is proof of the willingness of the mainstream media to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the perception of the public and to generate a politically partisan interpretation.

That being the case… how do you justify your certainty that your perception of what is “happening” is actually what is objectively “happening”?

“Geez” indeed.


Monica: This is silly. The actual report told the truth. What if Time had used a stock photo of a random crying child to illustrate it? Or had an artist do a pencil drawing of a crying child? The story is still true.

Going to Getugly: Yeah. It’s just “silly”! After all… the only thing that happened here is that the mainstream media demonstrated its willingness to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the public’s perceptions and to promote a partisan political agenda. You big sillies out there thinking there’s anything about that for responsible thinking adults to find disturbing and worthy of criticism!

Video: Australian feminists shift focus from murder victim to themselves

In this video I discuss how feminists and the media in Australia used the tragic murder of Eurydice Dixon to promote divisive ideological narratives and to make the ‘story’ about themselves.