Rebuttals of the Week #44: Going to Getugly finally exposed as “a fifth-columnist in the service of a foreign ideology”!

bnw

Scott H: Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech are two vastly different things.

The Paradox of Tolerance: Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).

“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Going to Getugly: You’re right. Freedom of speech and “hate speech” are two vastly different things. The former is real, can be objectively quantified and is foundational to a free, open and flourishing society. The latter is a completely abstract, arbitrary and vague conception of ideology which is grounded in subjectivity. It is a term that is used to justify controlling people and punishing those who do not voluntarily submit.

Scott H: … you’re so predictably on cue.

And so predictably incorrect.

Try reading some Hobbes one day. Your absolutist construct has never existed. We’ve always restricted hate speech to various degrees – in the interest of maintaining civil order and social peace.

Going to Getugly: Writing the words “And so predictably incorrect” and “Try reading some Hobbes one day” is not an argument Scott. It doesn’t demonstrate that your opinions have any merit or that you know what you’re talking about. All it demonstrates is that you can’t respond to criticism of your personal opinions using your own words.

Saying “We’ve always restricted hate speech to various degrees” is a nonsensical sentence. “Hate speech” was never a recognized classification until quite recently.

Scott H: … you always accuse others of not forming cogent rebuttals to your American radical-right talking points, while simultaneously ejaculating another predictable ad hominem argument.

Can you spell “ironic”?

The regulation of hate speech goes back at least to the English sedition laws of 1590.

The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the “notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority”.

As English Common Law applies to the British North American Colonies and Canada historically, there has thus been a long & clear regulation of hate speech in this country – and the first modern laws around the construct we call “Hate Speech” were passed in 1970.

49 years ago.

So – as I’ve said repeatedly – we have a long history or regulating hate speech in this country.

Since 1590, to be exact. And again, rather pointedly since 1970.

Going to Getugly: Scott, you can’t complain that I’ve unjustifiably accused you of “not forming cogent rebuttals” and immediately follow that with this logically fallacious assertion: “your American radical-right talking points”.

What on earth is an “American radical-right talking point” and what does that obscure characterization have to do with me?

Like a lot of people these days you appear to conflate accurate, specific descriptions of your claims and reasoning with ‘ad hominem’ simply because you find the description unflattering. I can’t say for sure why this is… but I would guess it has something to do with existing in a bubble in which you never encounter anyone who doesn’t have the exact same generic opinions as your own. And therefore you’re not used to having your objectively incompetent reasoning described to you as incompetent reasoning. And so you experience unvarnished criticism like a spoiled child who has only ever been told how clever he is and we get the whining about how mean everyone is being to you.

Speaking of objectively incompetent reasoning… your history lesson is so self-evidently ridiculous there is no way to account for it other than incompetent reasoning.

You begin by attempting to establish your false premise: “The regulation of hate speech goes back at least to the English sedition laws of 1590.”

And then you just shift to describing the term ‘sedition’ and act like no one is going to notice that ‘hate speech’ and ‘sedition’ are completely different terms:
The term sedition in its modern meaning first appeared in the Elizabethan Era (c. 1590) as the “notion of inciting by words or writings disaffection towards the state or constituted authority”.

Scott… it isn’t ‘ad hominem’ to characterize this as “not forming cogent rebuttals”.

Like I say… you need to be able to separate not liking having this quality of reasoning correctly identified as poor, weak, fallacious, incompetent… take your pick…. and recognizing the validity of the criticism.

Scott H: The difference between you and I being that I have academic credentials and knowledge, and you are just some agent provocateur of the American radical-right.

You are a fifth-columnist, attempting to undermine Canadian Laws, Customs, and Conventions – in the service of a foreign ideology.

Going to Getugly: This is so sad and embarrassing.

You are now the third person on this thread alone who has felt it necessary to provide academic biographical information to attempt to bolster your credibility and compensate for your lack of confidence in your ability to support your own position and refute criticism. Check it out:

Jessica T: “Not that I like to bring it up, but I’ve got a masters of science degree from one of the top 10 universities in the world.”

Katherine M : “actually I have an M.A. in English Literature so I doubt I missed the point.”

You: “The difference between you and I being that I have academic credentials and knowledge, and you are just some agent provocateur of the American radical-right.”

The three of you and many others that I’ve encountered who have resorted to this tactic in order to boost your self-esteem are only supporting the perception that contemporary academia is a complete waste of time and either takes reasonably smart people and makes them dumber or attracts people who are already dumb.

Advertisements

Rebuttals Of The Week #43: ‘But I really really want to believe that conforming to group-think means I’m smart!”

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Sandi C: Whenever someone screams “fake news!” I immediately assume they’re unable to think themselves through regular life.

Going to Getugly: That’s right Sandi. Everyone reflexively conforming to the “Look at me! I hate Trump too!” group-think and who bought into the now thoroughly falsified ‘Russian collusion’ conspiracy theory are the embodiment of the capacity to ‘think for themselves’.
That’s quite an impressively Orwellian interpretation.

Sandi C: The Russian collusion conspiracy wasn’t falsified. Now that the Muller report has been released beyond the AG who told Trump what he wanted to hear, it looks like there was collusion. I haven’t read it yet, but will be. I’d suggest you do the same.

Going to Getugly: Yes Sandi, it was falsified. Look, I understand that you are still deeply motivated to continue believing that your mindless conformity to the group-think was an indication of how enlightened and insightful you are… and like everyone who bought into the conspiracy theory your ego is now imploding. Unfortunately the impulse for a lot of people when faced with the choice between protecting their ego and acknowledging reality is to protect their ego.
You are one of those people Sandi.

Sandi C: on hun…group-think? Really? That’s what you’ve pulled out of “let’s all read the report and come to conclusions based on the report not what Trump wants us to believe”?

Going to Getugly:  Sandi… the report is out. Everyone has had the opportunity to read it. You’ve lost. It’s time to come to grips with the fact that YOU are one of the naive, easily manipulated people who bought into this ridiculous conspiracy theory because you are a conformist and your priority is aligning yourself with whatever appears to you to be the most fashionable attitude to hold in the moment.

There are informed and credible people who despise Trump but who, unlike you, hold themselves to principle and rationality… the Left wing journalist Glen Greenwald springs to mind…. and who recognize that this entire thing as a farce and a particularity dangerous one at that.

This should be a lesson to you to identify how your own intellectual and ethical weaknesses makes you susceptible to manipulation by powerful interests who market themselves to you as the righteous and trustworthy faction of the ruling class.

Rebuttals of the Week #42: ‘Fascism’ is first and foremost a mindset.

fffff


Mark G:
This article nails what right wing fascism is, but there’s a unique variant appearing on the hard left as well. On the left it’s an intolerance of different points of view, any challenge to its increasing fundamentalism is met with name calling and vehement accusations of the challenger being Alt right. At this rate the hard left make Stalin look Alt right.

David O: What exactly is the threat of this hard left? Speaking a little nicer to people?

Going to Getugly: David, you are demonstrating  precisely the narcissism and moral self-aggrandizement that is at the centre of the ‘progressive’-Left. It’s the assumption that by adopting a particular set of ideological constructs it makes you morally superb, benevolent and unfailingly correct by default.

The grotesque irony is that this assumption of the absolute righteousness of fashionable ideological beliefs is precisely the mindset that gave rise and support to Fascists in Europe in the 1930’s.

Rebuttals of the Week # 41: Sorry folks. You hinged all your credibility on ‘Russian collusion’. Switching to ‘obstruction’ now that you’ve been proven wrong doesn’t cut it.

tr q

 

Lou M: So many assumptions, and the report isn’t public yet. According to Barr, Mueller makes the case for and against obstruction.

Going to Getugly: First of all… this was about Russian collusion. That was what this was all suppose to prove. It turned out to be a lie. And everyone who didn’t abandon independent critical thinking in favour of conforming to the most fashionable group-think one could possibly subscribe to all recognized it was a lie from the start. And now all of the people who uncritically bought into the Russian collusion lie are defaulting to the standard tactic that Leftists always rely on when they’ve been proven to be naive, easily manipulated and wrong…. they are instantly dropping the claim they’ve breathlessly supported for two years, they’re acting like it never happened and they are all simply moving on to the official NEW claim to validate their preferred conclusions… ‘it is now and has always been about “obstruction!… which they’re all once again breathlessly supporting.

The assumption you are all relying on is that being completely wrong for two years about something that you were absolutely certain you were right about has no bearing on the credibility of your perspective going forward.

As much as you would like to believe that.. it isn’t true. You have proven yourselves to be incapable of adequately discerning what is true from what is false. So when you replace your certainty about “collusion” with your new certainty about “obstruction” you have no credibility whatsoever.

Rebuttals of the Week #40: The Mueller Report: Truth takes a backseat to preferred conclusions

Joel:  
That is to say, in the summary dreamed up by Trump’s staunch Republican Attorney General pick, William Barr.

Going to Getugly:
You people are beyond delusional at this point.

Joel:
You think not enough evidence to legally prove guilt is the same as innocence.


Going to Getugly:
YES! Of course! What would you think if you were accused of something and your enemies said that just because there is no evidence whatsoever that you did what we’ve accused you of doing it doesn’t mean you’re not guilty?

Seriously… you people have detached yourselves to such an extent from logic, principle and objectivity that you can longer distinguish between what is real and what is merely some belief in your head that you really want to be real.

Joel:
It’s literally why courts say “not guilty” instead of “innocent”. We do not legally declare innocence, only that guilt hasn’t been adequately demonstrated.
In this case, the circle of people around trump convicted of crimes is very indicative, and their statements regarding his complicity also. But circumstantial.
Still, we haven’t seen the report. We know it doesn’t recommend the DOJ pursue further indictments. That does not mean it hasn’t recommended indictments be pursued by other judicial bodies – ones that AREN’T subject to presidential pardons.
Could be why the alt-right administration is now fighting so hard to prevent the release.
Stick around.


Going to Getugly:
Yeah yeah Joel. That’s “literally” what courts do. Except they don’t. Perhaps you’ve heard of a quaint axiom of our justice systems in the West… ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Then again… your comments here suggest that you are completely ignorant of that foundational notion of Western civilization.

Joel:
Okay idiot. Enjoy being conned further. Check back with me when it all comes out and you’re ready to apologise for being such a failure.
NB: Trump is obviously guilty and people like you are only feigning disbelief. You know he is.

Going to Getugly:
No Joel. We’ve been hearing the “check back with me” line for two years from you people who are determined to believe that your abandonment of independent thinking in favour of conformity to fashionable group think was an indication of your moral and intellectual superiority. That was the response all the way along as this propaganda fell apart bit by bit… the mantra was “CHECK BACK WITH ME when the Mueller report comes out! THEN you’ll be apologising for being such a failure!”

And now that the thing that you all pinned all of your credibility on has turned out to invalidate the conclusion you all uncritically accepted… you’re responding by moving the goal posts into the Twilight Zone rather than acknowledge what smart people have been saying from the start… that YOU are the people who are the most easily manipulated, most naive and who are the mindless slaves who submit to whatever is marketed to you as ‘right think’ by the established ruling class. YOU are the ones who uncritically accepted the propaganda pushed out by the entrenched establishment. 

The truth here Joel is that you know now that it’s YOU who was conned. It’s undeniable by your own standards. The Mueller report was supposed to be the final word that confirmed everything! And you are all acting like the kid who finds the Santa Claus costume in his parents closet and still tells himself that it doesn’t mean Santa isn’t real.

Rebuttals of the Week #39: ‘Hateful voices’ and the politics of the dumb

Tim R: You are known by the company you keep. When the Conservatives embrace these hateful voices like Faith Goldie and Rebel Media they will be painted with that brush, even moderate true Conservatives.

Going to Getugly:  “Hateful voices”. That’s the emotional rhetoric of an adolescent not of a thinking adult. This is what political discourse has been reduced to in Canada and in other Western nations. It’s the strategy of people who have no ideas: “I don’t have to know anything. I don’t have to think. I just have to denounce anyone who doesn’t tell me I’m right as morally inferior to myself.”

It goes without saying that it’s a lot easier to simply proclaim yourself a better person than anyone who doesn’t conform to your views than it is to demonstrate the superiority of your ideas.

It’s the politics of the dumb.

Rebuttals of the Week #38 : Five words to win an argument with a Leftist: ‘How do you know that?’

ctv

Dale N: Xenophobia, Racisim and hate crimes/speech are definitely on the rise in general and pose an inarguable threat as they always have, but the alarming and shocking rise of Islamophobia is absolutely exploding and poses extreme and real danger to not just Canadian muslims but muslims in general. Furthermore Andrew Scheer, Maxime Bernier and all other Islamophobes like them that have no respect for other cultures or basic human rights such as abortion, LGBT rights and so much more need to be expelled from politics and any leadership role and barred from being part of any decision making process that affects Canada, a fantastic start to curbing the rise of Extremist White Nationalism is to remove and silence people that normalize it and defend it or ignore it. In short Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet are the only two current eligible leaders that have what it takes to lead this Country and to make any sort of progress to criminalizing extreme acts of Islamophobia and hate speech, which I hope happens sooner rather than later and is why I am thankful for Bill M-103 ❤ 🙂 .

Going to Getugly: “Racisim and hate crimes/speech are definitely on the rise in general and pose an inarguable threat”

How do you know that Dale?

“the alarming and shocking rise of Islamophobia is absolutely exploding”

How do you know that Dale?

Dale N:  Read the comments on this post, enough said.

Going to Getugly: So in other words… you’re spouting a load of nonsense because your priority is advertising your sense of your own moral excellence not anything to do with truth. That’s kind of pathetic Dale.

Dale N: No, I’m acknowledging that Xenophobia, White Nationalism and Islamophobia are a very real and dangerous threat here in Canada, and because of this we need to crack down on it and start finding ways to further criminalize it and fight it. I am also highlighting that particular people in positions of power endorsing, encouraging and ignoring Islamophobia, xenophobia and discrimination and acting as a conduit for White Nationalists need to be removed as to strip the “”voice”” and “”suppress”” the blind hatred and violence that stem from it.

Going to Getugly: No Dale. What you’re doing is making very specific truth claims about things and you are presenting yourself as knowing these things to objectively factual. But the actual fact is that you don’t know that those things are true at all. And for some reason people like you don’t seem to care whether or not what you say and believe is actually real. So there must be something other than talking about objective reality that is motivating you. And the only other possibility is that it is gratifying to your ego to go onto comment sections and pontificate about how morally inferior other people are to yourself.

Dale N: Islamophobia, Xenophobia and White Nationalism are real, they do exist and they are becoming a bigger threat, believe me I wish Islamophobia, Xenophobia and White Nationalism and White Supremacism were fictional concepts as the world would be a better place with less violence and less hatred, but they are factual and they have deadly results as you can see from numerous acts of violence and terrorist attacks committed against Muslims. A prime example out of many to make these dangers factual is Trump, look at what his policies are formed from and around? Look at the hate groups and white supremacists that rally for him and support him? he has even tried to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. In short I am talking objective reality because I am showing my support that I am against Islamophobia, Xenophobia, White Nationalism and so much more, the more we talk about this problem and how to solve it the more progress we can make to making it achievable.

Dale N: I can see why you are trying so hard to discredit Islamophobia, Xenophobia and White Nationalism and paint them as fictional, your page and your followers and you yourself as the creator are part of the problem as well as contributing factors and your page is an advocate and a conduit for unification among many White Supremacist and White Nationalists.

Going to Getugly: No Dale.The problem here is that you reflexively conflate not agreeing with your hysterical but fashionable interpretations with ‘white supremacy’. You need to learn to distinguish between uncritically conforming to generic interpretations that gratify your desire to think of yourself as morally excellent and insight. All of the people that you denounce and that you probably think you understand…. like Nazis, ‘white supremacists’ or whatever… have one thing in common: They are convinced that the particular interpretive structure that they have embraced is providing them with absolute truth and bestows upon them absolute moral excellence. And therefore anyone who fails to mirror their own conformity to that interpretive structure can only represent the opposite of absolute truth and the opposite of moral excellence. In other words… they take for granted that not agreeing with them is the same thing as being objectively wrong and evil.

That is precisely what you are demonstrating here with your reflex to respond to critique of your reasoning and to encountering opinions that differ from your own by arbitrarily applying dehumanizing labels. Intellectually mature and genuinely ethical people respond to this sort of challenge by demonstrating how their own ideas are more rational and logical. Mindless ideologues do what you have done.. they label their critics morally inferior to themselves. That’s because they are not smart enough and don’t have the character to substantiate their claim to hold superior ideas and ethics.