Rebuttals of the Week #32: Australian ‘progressives’ happy to see children used to advance political agendas

The eyes of Australian ‘progressives’ were moist and lumps rose in their throats at the sight of thousands of school children skipping class and mouthing the political views  of adults back at them in the streets of the country’s major cities last week.

The kiddies were engaging in an act of mass civil protest you see. They had “demands” don’t you know.

What did they want? “Urgent action on climate change!” When did they want it? “Now!” Or at least before 9 o’clock. That’s their bedtime.

That’s not all. As stated in the apparently irony-free headline from the daily newspaper The Age : “the students ‘demand’ climate talks with PM.”

“Demand climate talks” with the Prime Minister no less.

Have a look at two of the hard-nosed political activists in the picture below who are issuing ‘demands’ and insisting on a tête-à-tête with the leader of the country to hash out policy initiatives.

1 aaa kids

Granted, they’ve got the steely-eyed stare into the camera thing going… but I find the gravitas is undermined somewhat by the barrettes and rosy-red apple cheeks.

So what happened here?

Well it seems that the phenomenon highlighted by renegade academics like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Janice Fiamengo, Bret Weinstein and others whereby the explicit purpose of ‘social justice’ programs at the university level to produce  ideologically ‘progressive’ political activists has made its way down to the earliest levels of the public educational/indoctrination system.

Very young school children who have had catastrophic man-made climate change taught to them less like a theory of physics than a theological absolute and moral crusade have been encouraged, rewarded and otherwise manipulated by the  adults around them into perceiving themselves as enlightened warriors for the ‘truth’. Any distinction between themselves as children and the adults in the highest positions of authority to whom they feel entitled to  issue “demands” and lecture seems not to have been impressed upon them.

Chillingly, the ability to distinguish between child and adult appears to be absent from a fairly wide swath of alleged grown ups in the general population as well. The willingness to perceive this as some spontaneous, self-directed expression of preternaturally enlightened 12 year olds bestowing their authoritative personal insights about the issue of planetary climate science as it relates to political and economic policy is simply surreal.

The AGE’s broadsheet competitor The Australian presented a decidedly less gushing and sentimental take on the ‘protest’ by visiting UK Left-wing  contrarian and commentator Brendan O’Neill.

 

1 aA children

 

My interaction with Linda M below is a pretty revealing overview of the mindset of people who rationalized this use of children to advance a political agenda into a glorious stirring of the nation’s youth leading us to our ‘progressive’ green Utopian future.

Notice how quickly  Linda reduces the subject to a moral binary in which everything that is ‘admirable’ and to do with ‘hope for the future’ and which is in the interests of ‘democracy’ is 100 percent located with her and those who agree with her… and anyone who fails to conform to her views is identified as ‘conservative’ and immediately associated with everything unscrupulous and corrupt.

At a point in my rebuttal I zero in on this reflex to bypass critical thinking in favour of reducing the world to a hyper-simplistic categorization of  “All of the good people think these things over here and anything other than that is evil and wrong by definition.” That’s the basic pattern of ideological thinking and it is the definitive form of reasoning relied on by those on the ‘progressive’ Left.

And it should probably come as no surprise…. Linda is a teacher.


 

Linda M: Double whammy for the Murdoch gutter hacks. They get to attack children and get in their daily hysterical attack on the ABC in the one go.

Going to Getugly: Was that easier for you than addressing the actual concerns and criticisms that people have about this Linda?

Linda M:  As a teacher of 30 years I can assure you that many of these children, who will be voters in a few years, are admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy. As opposed to a foreign media baron, who pays no tax in Australia and is able to arrange his affairs in order to get an $870 million tax refund, being able to fly in and organise the toppling of our Prime Minister. Not to mention the daily attacks on our independent broadcaster and any alternative to their extreme conservative tame pollies.

Going to Getugly: They are “admirably demonstrating the hope for our future in a democracy.” That’s very interesting. Whose hope are they demonstrating Linda? Their own? Or are they merely the vehicles for the political “hopes” of the adults around them?

Linda M:  As I have pointed out: As a 30 year teacher, I can attest to the ability of these young adults and adolescents to think for themselves. I and everyone of my acquaintance are grateful that there are future generations with the intellect to understand that we can’t sell the future of our grandchildren for the interests of mega rich miners.

Going to Getugly: It’s quite disturbing actually to see a “teacher of 30 years” being an apologist for using children to advance a political agenda because she personally likes the agenda. These are little CHILDREN who are too intellectually and emotionally immature and are lacking the life experience and the personal autonomy to fully cognise the concepts they are regurgitating and what it means to be participating in this ‘protest’.

These are not autonomous adults expressing ideas and convictions they have cultivated on their own who are engaging in self-directed activity. These are children who are behaving in a certain fashion because they are being encouraged and validated to do so by adults who are using them to advance a political agenda.

Linda M:  What utter arrogance!!!! To claim that young adults and adolescents are incapable of rational thought just because they do not subscribe to the Alt Right agenda of propping up the mega rich miners/political donors in their disastrous pursuit of profit before people.

Going to Getugly: So you’ve been teaching for 30 years (!) and yet you have no idea what logical fallacy is or how to make a rational argument? “You aren’t telling me my enthusiasm for using children to advance a political agenda I like is a sign of how enlightened I am because “alt-right agenda” and “rich miners” and stuff!”

No wonder parents are turning to home schooling.

Linda M:  These rational thinkers are our future. Thank goodness. Most of us understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Not the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks.

Going to Getugly:  And for how many of these “rational thinkers” is the other primary concern at the moment what Santa Claus will bring them for Christmas in two weeks?

Here’s the thing Linda… you can’t include yourself in the category of “us” who “understand that an argument is a logical series of statements intended to establish a proposition” when you immediately do the opposite of that.

Writing the words “the Alt Right method of automatic gainsaying and hysterical attacks” is not an argument. It’s just a bunch of words in a row that are not connected to anything.

Linda M: “Here’s the thing”. Again with the condescending and arrogant tone. Do you even listen to yourself? To dismiss young adults and adolescents as Santa pining babies is to write alienate all the potential future voters. Conservatives shooting them selves in the foot as usual these days. If I was going to use the attack tactics of the right I’d point out that a troll group with the moniker “Going to Getugly” is self explanatory as a bunch of wreckers in the world with no worthy agenda.

Going to Getugly: Complaining about the “tone” isn’t an argument either Linda.

Identifying the actual intellectual and emotional stage of development of these children… as well as identifying their lack of individual autonomy isn’t ‘alienating’ them. But adults romanticising and idealising young children and projecting their own political aspirations onto them is unethical, abusive and grotesquely self-indulgent.

That’s why until very very recently all thoughtful ethical adults regarded the use of children to promote and advance political agendas… as was common under authoritarian regimes… to be a prime illustration of how indifferent those regimes were to any moral and ethical constraints. This was considered self-evident to normal people because… they are CHILDREN.

As someone who was just pontificating about logic and the structure of a properly reasoned argument you should notice that you don’t address any specific points that challenge your opinion. Being intellectually mature means you can defend your ideas against criticism directly because your perspective is the result of a complex process of reasoning which generates genuine insight. So there is a lot behind your perspective which you can draw on to validate and justify it.

Contrast that to what you do…which is to reduce everything to a hyper-simplistic binary categorisation:

Category 1 is a set of fixed opinions and interpretations which you’ve adopted because they appeal to you personally and which you accept as universal truths that reflect moral excellence.

Category 2 is anything that doesn’t conform to Category 1. Which by definition is the opposite of universal truth and moral excellence.

That’s why when your unexamined assumption about the excellence of your opinion is challenged your reflex is to simply slot the other person into Category 2…. “The only plausible explanation for anyone not telling me I’m right and how enlightened and wonderful I am is that they’re EVIL “wreckers in the world” and they’re “Conservatives” and “alt-right” and other generic self-confirming slogans and clichés!”

That being a  ‘wrecker of the world’ and arguing against children being used to promote the political agenda of adults are mutually exclusive motivations is conveniently overlooked.

That’s because at no point does conscious, adult-level rational thinking play any part whatsoever in how you process this.

And so it’s not surprising that when you have adults whose own reasoning and ethical development hasn’t matured past the stage of adolescence that the distinction between the child and the fully developed autonomous adult remains opaque them.

Advertisements

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.

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.