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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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”?
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!
An old timey conservative gets elected Premier in Ontario… Canada’s largest province by population… home to the country’s biggest, richest and most important city…. my home town of Toronto… and the usual suspects lose their collective minds.
Some of us are old enough to remember when every election represented something other than the pivotal moment in human history when an enlightened society chose the path to ultimate Utopian fulfilment or the barbarians snatched power away from the sole possessors of ultimate truth to fulfill their goal of generating hell on Earth.
It used to be that your guy won and you were pleased or the other guy won and you thought… ‘Oh great. I have to put up with these jokers for the next four years.” That’s basically the way people thought about it.
Adults were so much more… adult at that time.
It wasn’t that long ago… but something has changed. And not for the better. We live in an era in which people mistake the indulgence in collective hysteria, sanctimony and emotionalism for insight and moral propriety.
The screenshot above is an actual post that appeared on my Facebook feed from a ‘friend’. The message is unequivocal: “You don’t share my political opinions and ideological convictions? Then everything else about you is irrelevant: You are unworthy of my friendship.”
And of course, all of the people who are so eager to equate not sharing their opinions on politics with being a despicable human being are the ‘progressive‘ folks who self-identify as the morally excellent, compassionate, preternaturally tolerant, loving, caring and enlightened class. But if you dare to not affirm the perfection of their opinions and ideological interpretations they won’t hesitate to assess your very humanity as inherently inferior to their own.
Tanya, below, is responding to the article in the Globe and Mail and the election of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party. The premise of the thread was established by commentator Peter G who basically proposed that if you didn’t vote for the far Left Liberal Party who have been in power for 15 years (whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, Jordan Peterson called “the most dangerous woman in Canada”) or the even farther Left socialist NDP party… then you were endorsing the plans of an evil “millionaire” who wants to hurt the poor and destroy education.
Peter G: “The millionaire will go after social services, education, and the working poor. Say goodbye to the social contract in Ontario.”
This is despite the fact that the legacy of the Liberals’ time in government is a provincial debt of $320,000,000,000 with $12.3 billion a year just in interest payments alone. Ontario is the largest sub-sovereign holder of debt in the world. The province’s debt is larger than the GDP of 75 per cent of the world’s countries. There’s the disastrous handling of the electricity file in the province resulting in the highest rates on the North American continent. Ontario had the lowest median household income growth of all the provinces between 2007 and 2016. Only last year they promised three years of balanced budgets and then released a budget earlier this year that guaranteed 6 more years of deficit. The Liberal’s time in office was marked by numerous scandals, criminal charges, the imposition of divisive ideological social policies and multi-billion dollar boondoggles.
The NDP thinks they weren’t radical enough.
But none of that matters because they care, you see! The fact that the people who are hurt the most by their corruption, manipulations and incompetence are the very people they claim to care so much about is irrelevant. It’s about how it makes ‘progressive’ voters feel about themselves to be able to say ‘I support the politicians who really really care about people!’
Tanya: “I don’t have a problem with a country and its people taking care of the marginalized and less fortunate among them. It’s human, ethical and respectful.”
The point that Tanya was making here is that if you don’t agree with her political opinions it means that you want a country that is the opposite of human, ethical and respectful. So I responded:
Going to Getugly: “Except you people don’t actually care about “the marginalized and less fortunate”….because those are the people who are most hurt when the cost of living rises, when taxes increase, when the cost of electricity and heating go through the roof, when billions of tax dollars are squandered and when the economy eventually tanks.
If you cared about those people you would be livid at political parties who have created those pressures on poor people and who promise to add to the problem while pushing the province off a fiscal cliff. So spare us your pronouncements of your sense of your own moral superiority Tanya. What Leftists ‘care about’ is their own ego and being able to tell themselves how incredibly wonderful, enlightened and morally excellent they are. That’s why they mindlessly support everything that’s marketed on the front end as ‘progressive’ and compassionate and then are completely indifferent to the real world results of those policies on the back end when they are implemented.”
Don’t Look At This Page: Both sides of American politics are rotten to the core and serve big business and the Military Industrial Complex.
Going to Getugly: That’s probably true. The whole Trump thing of course is that this guy was the first guy to come along who was not entrenched in that establishment and who represents the only opportunity to push back against that system . That’s why everyone who is part of the establishment hates his guts and is desperate to depose him… including most of the Republican establishment. By the way… it’s not just ‘American’ politics. Australian politics is a branch plant of the same system.
Don’t Look At This Page: Trump is very much part of the establishment. His policies are designed to make the 1% even wealthier. He is a hardcore capitalist. Bernie Sanders could have been a real alternative and would have stopped the wealthy plundering the poor and the middle class, but the Democrats screwed him over because he was a threat to the wealthy capitalists who also run the Democratic party. Hillary was a crook. The U.S system is rigged and as you correctly assert, so too is the Australian system.
Going to Getugly: As soon as you start regurgitating generic slogans like “the 1%” you are demonstrating that you are just another group-thinker who believes that the prepackaged ideology that you’ve given yourself over to is better than the prepackaged ideology you are railing against...”Bernie Sanders is the cult leader who you should think has all the answers!” Ridiculous. It’s not picking one ideology over another ideology. It’s recognizing that the problem is ideology itself. Cultivate the capacity to think for yourself. Develop some genuine principles and privilege the pursuit of truth… not the pursuit of what is gratifying for you to believe.