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

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.

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: Rebuttals of the Week! The ‘progressive’-Left don’t really care about other people.

The subject of debate in this video is how people who are drawn to the ‘progressive’-Left  present their desire for moral self-aggrandizement as caring about other people.

Video: Rebuttals of the Week! Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think and I can prove it!

In this video I look at how ideologies of ‘identity’ like feminism are really just a means to justify the indulgence in self-serving interpretations and narratives.

Rebuttals of the Week #25: Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think… and I can prove it!

gender bias

Kathryn: There needs to be the question asked as to WHY women are not applying. And if they do apply, why are they not accepted or why do they not complete the various science based programs.

If it is because of the way they are treated, humiliated, told to get the sandwiches or coffee because they are the only girl in the study group, then something has to be done about it. There are still cases where women with full PhDs are entering the meeting room and being asked if they brought the coffee. Until MEN get it out of their system and treat all women as equal, this discussion has to be made.

Going to Getugly: Kathryn, you need to learn to distinguish between presenting cliché, fantasy scenarios to justify your self-serving conceptions and knowing something true based on objectively demonstrable reality. Let me help…. What you, feminists, Leftists and all people who don’t know how to think do is you start with the conclusion that appeals to your ego… and then you subjectively generate self-confirming scenarios that seem to you to be the kind of things that would probably be true if your conclusion was true. And that circular, internal, completely subjective process is what passes for adequate reasoning about the world to you, to feminists and to Leftists in general.

You need to teach yourself to not do that if you want to stop mistaking your subjective impressions and biases for what is really going on out here on the other side of your skull.

Rebuttals of the Week #24: A ‘progressive’ argument: “Just ‘give up’ and tell me I’m right!”

Want to see how ‘progressives’ reason and debate? Want to see what happens when their absolute certainty about the universal truth and righteousness of the generic concepts they parrot is challenged with basic logic? Well have a look at my brief interaction with Lawlor, below, concerning the bizarre issue of race being a determining factor for hiring a professor to teach a course in history at university.

rezz

Lawlor: There may come a point when it will not matter but when we still operate a colonial state in Canada, this unfortunately aint it.

Going to Getugly: Is that point the moment when adults regain the capacity to distinguish between parroting ideological group-think and reason?

Lawlor: Yes, we have to break through the colonial group think. So what I meant was simply that when we, the descendants of European colonizers come to grips with our oppressive colonial relationship with Indigenous people and work with them to dismantle it, then we will be able to dispense with this kind of conversation.

Going to Getugly: Sorry Lawlor, when you parrot the generic ideological conceptions of “colonialism” you don’t get to pretend it’s everyone who is still thinking for themselves who are the group-thinkers.

Lawlor: We differ in our views. Colonialism is not discussed nearly enough, it seems to make people uncomfortable.

Going to Getugly: It doesn’t make anybody “uncomfortable”. The problem is that too many people want the ‘discussion’ to be restricted to their chosen ideological narrative.

Lawlor:  I disagree and agree with you. Facing up to our colonial, and thus oppressive relationships clearly makes many people uncomfortable, if not downright angry, I know this because I read A variety of papers and magazines and observing fb responses to the original post here. On the other hand I have to agree that we need to be prepared to move out of our ideological comfort zones. That’s why I read widely. I does however require us to deal with the issue, for example Canada’s colonial history and present, and not revert to a default, but perhaps comfortable, assumption that because I are someone else uses a term that they are “parroting”, etc.

Going to Getugly: This is precisely the problem Lawlor. What does emotional, guilt-laden language like “facing up to” mean? And what does the word “our” mean in this context? That use of language indicates that the judgments and conclusions have already been made… we’re all ‘oppressive colonialists’. So what is the point of having ‘discussions’ with people who hold your views on this?

This is a classic example of an ideologue’s concept of ‘discussing’ an issue. You take a very complex subject for which there are multiple valid perspectives…. and you say, “Let’s discuss it. But first, I insist that we dismiss all of that complexity and reduce the entire issue to the one perspective generated by my ideological commitments and which is designed to produce the interpretation and conclusions preferred by me and my fellow ideologues.”

And Lawlor, you can’t mimic the specific language of a particular social and political ideology and then take umbrage at having been identified as ‘parroting’.

Lawlor: ok, you won’t give up, I get it, and I do. Getting into an insult match is simply not worth my, or anyone else’s time.

Going to Getugly:  Right… so now a detailed critique of your argument is an “insult match” and the expectation of the person advocating ‘discussion’ is for anyone who disagrees with him to “give up”.

You could not have proved my point more effectively if you had been consciously trying to do so.