Rebuttals of the Week! #17: Feminist bigotry and logical fallacies.

ageee

Kerry S: Cue all the men explaining why the gender pay gap isn’t a thing

Going to Getugly: Kerry, care to provide some kind of rational explanation for why men replying is a problem for you?

Kerry S: Ok. I’ll bite. Men replying is not a problem, per se. It’s just that soooo many of them spout the same old line despite the longitudinal evidence proving otherwise. I didn’t answer you because clearly you are spoiling for a fight and it is clear to me that rational argument would be wasted. You have made up your mind.

Going to Getugly: We could go on with the battling snarky comments… but I’d rather attempt a genuine conversation. Let me do a quick review of what has occurred and get your response:

The Age has posted an article.

– People have responded to the article by expressing their perspective in the comment section.

– You have started off this little thread… not by addressing anything raised in the article or responding to criticism or concerns raised by commentators… but by expressing generalised condescension towards anyone of a particular gender who may express disagreement with the article’s premise.

– Another commentator, Kelly, joined in on the generalised condescension towards people based solely on their gender and not their arguments:

Kelly :  “I’m just here to laugh at their bitter tears and tantrums”

– You replied in agreement with her and complained about the number of people of that gender expressing their perspective here:

Kerry S: “Kelly Anne yup. Skimming across the replies. Nearly all men…”

I think you have to agree that what I have described above is completely accurate and factual.

Now, my understanding of credible adult-level reasoned discussion and debate has always been that attacking anything other than the argument of the other person reflects incompetent reasoning. It’s fallacious. It signals someone who has a fixed conclusion to which they are very attached and are determined to protect… but which they can’t rationally and objectively support or justify. That’s why they deflect to complaining about anything OTHER than the arguments… things like the gender, race or age of the person who doesn’t share their convictions. Other deflection tactics include things like declaring themselves too far above the level of the other person to deign to engage them in rational debate.

It seems clear that you don’t share that understanding of what qualifies as credible reasoned discussion and debate. I’m curious, on what basis do you justify rejecting these basic, well established and essentially universally acknowledged standards? And why would you believe that demonstrating your rejection of those standards is not open to valid criticism and doesn’t disqualify you as being regarded as an informed and serious thinker?


Guess what… Kerry S never responded. I wonder why?

 

 

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #16: ‘Progressive’-Left thinking = incompetent reasoning skills.

1a1b wente

(Link to the article: Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity )

Tracy H:  Who says diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive?

Going to Getugly: Tracy… you are the third person I’ve seen here who has indulged in the very same, unbelievably banal straw man:

Liam SO: Why do you think that diversity of thought or intellect is mutually exclusive to racial, gender, ethnic and sexual diversity???

Leslie M:  The article confuses different issues; excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive

To me, this is an example of the incapacitating effect that being captured by a generic, all-consuming ideology has on an individual’s ability to think: You reflexively go to preconceived ideological categories in your head to tell you how to interpret what you are looking at rather than identifying the genuine characteristics of the ‘thing’ you are (supposedly) trying to understand.

Nowhere in Wente’s column does she say “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”. Neither does she make that argument.

And yet you and at least two others here have asserted that she directly or indirectly made that claim.

So if it didn’t come from Wente…. how did it get in your head? The only answer to that question is that it got in your head because YOU put it there. Not her.

When you say she said “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”… you are not describing Wente! You are describing YOU! Only you can’t tell the difference between what you make up in your mind and the ‘thing’ out there in the world that you believe you are describing.

And in my experience… this is the foundational characteristic of people who are on the ‘progressive’-Left. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s a demonstrable justification for equating ‘progressivism’ with incompetent reasoning skills.

Rebuttals of the Week #15 Part 2: Lefty says Left-wing bigotry is okay because it doesn’t hurt anybody.

1a1a

Here’s a quick follow up to my exchange with James from Rebuttals of the Week # 15: Lefty tries desperately to believe racism okay if his side does it.

As is usual when you critique the position of someone captured by Left-wing ideology, James responded by ignoring the issues I raised in my argument and simply restated the same thing he’d said originally but with slightly different words (see below). Rather than supporting that position with facts, evidence or reasoned argument… notice how he offers only subjective expressions of the superior moral stature of his own opinion.

You see this over and over again when debating people on the Left. What James is revealing here, I believe, is the key to understanding what motivates people to identify with Leftist,  ‘progressive’ ideology: They are driven by an impulse for moral and social validation.

In short, they adopt opinions to fulfill ego-needs…. not to know something true about the objective world. And their use of language is a reflection of that.

This goes a long way to explaining why reason, argument and evidence that challenges or refutes their position rarely if ever influences their fixed opinion on these issues. They didn’t arrive at their conclusions as the result of an interest in what is ‘real’ to begin with. They settled on those conclusions because they find them personally satisfying. So it is rare that someone who focuses on ego-gratification by nature will suddenly exercise the willpower to make that sense of personal satisfaction subordinate to the pursuit of truth.


James: Dear Going to Getugly, standing in a different spot briefly would not hurt anybody. It might make people think. We shouldn’t turn our radar for sources of outrage up too high. If people will think about something I can move 30 feet or whatever for a couple of minutes. Let’s not major on the minors.

Going to Getugly:

Here’s the thing: What you think other people should feel about being told where to stand based on their race is irrelevant. You’re blind to the outrageous narcissism and self-aggrandizement of believing everyone needs to conform to your ideological concepts and see the deliberate humiliation of people at this concert based on their race as an opportunity to “make people think” about how collectively guilty they all are.

Again… this is what people out here in the real world keep trying to get people who are captured by this ideology to recognize: The fact that a self-identified “leftwinger” has “Left-wing” justifications for the bigotry he wants imposed on certain people doesn’t make him different to other bigots!

It makes the “leftwinger” exactly the same as every other bigot who ever walked the Earth. EVERY bigot believes he is doing ‘the right thing for the right reasons’ and that his critics are just not as aware and enlightened as himself.

The problem with “leftwingers” is that they lack principles. Basic principles tell you that unethical, deplorable behaviour…. like treating people differently or poorly based solely on their race… is ALWAYS unethical and deplorable… regardless of who is doing it and to whom.  But  “leftwingers”  indulge in the narcissistic conviction that the very same unethical and deplorable behaviour magically and conveniently transmutes into noble and justified as soon as they engage in it.

After all,  “leftwingers” are only doing it to “make people” who are clearly inferior to themselves “think” and behave the right way! Right James? And that’s nothing like the kind of justifications real bigots tell themselves!

Rebuttals of the Week # 15: Lefty tries desperately to believe racism okay if his side does it.

 

1a1a

Article: Halifax music festival apologizes for ‘overt racism’ after volunteer refuses to give spot near stage to women of colour

Another fine example of the degenerate ethics and reasoning of the sanctimonious, allegedly ‘progressive’ Left. The reaction to this from James, below, is very interesting. He proudly self-identifies as a “leftwinger“. Yet his struggle to reconcile this unambiguously racist public incident with his conviction about the inherent moral excellence of the premise behind it is palpable.

This highlights precisely the threat posed by the cultural phenomenon of ‘progressivism’: The willingness to privilege ideological premises over self-evident, objective truth. 

Poor James is trying desperately to adhere to the standard “leftwinger” conception of  “teaching moments”… in which people who take the perfection of their own beliefs for granted impose their will on those they deem to be in need of their superior insight.

The problem for James is that unlike the majority of people who share his intellectual commitment to the ideology of  the ‘progressive’-Left , he hasn’t yet completely abandoned his capacity to recognise hypocrisy:

JamesHow is the volunteer racist? As a leftwinger, I confess that this baffles me if this article is accurate. Having white people move back as an exercise could be a teaching moment, but not with acceptable means unless you plan to, say, return people to their old spots after a few minutes.

Breaking equal-treatment rules isn’t acceptable. This is a grotesque caricature of the left that rightwing blogs constantly circulate (no, most leftwingers aren’t worried about dissenting opinions). Don’t ask people of one race to move back for people of another race for your concert.

Going to Getugly:

James, it’s anything BUT a “gross caricature of the left”. This is the Left in all of it’s irrational, hypocritical, circular reasoning glory! And your statement that this would be a “teaching moment” is a symptom of the same irrationality. You don’t subject people to the very thing you claim to so strongly oppose to fulfill your narcissistic belief in the righteousness of your own opinion.

Indulging in bigotry because you tell yourself it’s for ‘all the right reasons’ is not DIFFERENT to bigotry. It’s just bigotry! This is the blind spot of people such as yourself who self-identify as “a leftwinger” that folks who are not captured by ideology keep trying to get you guys to recognise! You are NOT better than the people you imagine yourselves to be superior to! The problem is that people on the Left… people like YOU… never bother to go through the process of examining YOURSELF before imagining that you occupy the lofty position to pass judgement on people who don’t conform to your ideology.

Another commentator, Nathan, inadvertently emphasises the truth about this impulse to privilege a commitment to prefabricated, ideological conceptualisations over independant thinking with this comment:

Nathan: I’m a liberal who spends more time confronting the stupidity of the type defined here than conservatives.

These aren’t isolated incidents. Head to any university in the country and you’ll find people that think making white people move is noble.

So I posed the obvious question:

Going to Getugly:

Nathan, why then do you persist in self-identifying with an ideology that you recognise is so flawed and corrupt?

Rebuttals of the week! #14: Enough with the ‘cultural appropriation’ garbage already!

hall.jpg

Halloween is fast approaching… so naturally the  ‘Let’s Pretend Trivial Nonsense Is Incredibly Important Squad’ is back to remind us that comfortable people in a uniquely successful and pluralistic civilisation will invent problems for themselves in order to have something to complain about.

Whereas normal people see the holiday as a rare opportunity to temporarily escape an increasingly mirthless, censorious and rigidly conformist daily grind (once known as having fun)… the New Puritans of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left are intent on making sure that the rest of us are just as miserable, uptight, boring and uncomfortable with spontaneity and as themselves.

That’s why something like the packaging of  obscure, seasonal products that have no effect on anyone can be accepted as worthy of intense scrutiny and moral consternation by major mainstream news organisations like the Globe and Mail.

The article prompted the following, reasonably non-agitated response from Michael G:

Michael G:  If you’re secure with yourself and heritage/culture, it’s not really an issue. All I’d be pissed about is having a non authentic costume….obviously those depicted are not authentic representations. But still i wouldn’t get my breaches in a bunch about it…

Commentator Su Con however, found Michael’s take on the matter to be in conflict with the standard ‘progressive’ party-line:

Su Con: Given the racism that still exists, how can they be secure? Doesn’t this all come down to trying to change that?

So I helped clarify the situation:

Going to Getugly:  No. This has nothing to do with stopping racism. It’s about two very specific things:

1. It’s about people who want to leverage their ‘victim’ status in order to see their will imposed on other people.

2. It’s about mainstream, middle-class people who find it gratifying to their ego and self-image to appear supportive of any fashionable trend… regardless of how stupid… that is marketed to them as atoning for past wrongs inflicted on minorities.

These two videos explore in detail what is really going on with the whole ‘cultural appropriation’ craziness:

‘Rebuttal Of The Week!’ #9: Why do people who care about the environment not care about the truth?

The Daily Wire drew attention this week to a revealing new study from the Danish Meteorological Institute. Not only does the study contradict the widely accepted catastrophic man-made climate change official narrative… it 100% refutes the endlessly recycled messaging from the mainstream media, the liberal political class and government funded scientists that the theory of man-made climate change is ‘settled science’ and that there is universal scientific ‘consensus’ on the issue.

a1(read the article here)

In other words… this one study alone ends the debate about whether or not scepticism towards the claims of the climate change establishment is justified. The verdict is in and it is indisputable: IT’S JUSTIFIED!

The fact that this paper is just one in a long series of under reported studies and news items undermining the validity of the ‘consensus’ climate change establishment orthodoxy only helps seal the deal. In February of this year  for example, a whistleblower accused NOAA (one of the government funded scientific bodies that is a primary source for information and data supporting and promoting the man-made climate change premise) of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”. The allegation is that this was done to intentionally “discredit” the so-called “hiatus” – the now two decade-long period in which there has been no global warming.  The whistleblower, former principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center John Bates, accused senior officials at NOAA of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” (Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’).

Last year, the journal Nature Climate Science published a report titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The scientists who authored the report presented the following summary:

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

John Fyfe, climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia and lead author of the report described it like this:

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing…We can’t ignore it.”

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge was quoted in the journal Nature that “Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.”

I could go on. There are countless other examples like these that receive essentially no attention from the mainstream press. But this is clearly sufficient to justify scepticism in any rational, objective adult about the claims of indisputable veracity made by the man-made climate change establishment and their proxies in the political and media classes.

What cannot be justified in light of information like this is anyone who would still impugn the motives or intelligence of people who simply acknowledge the inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their eyes…. let alone affix to them the pejorative  and inflammatory label of “denier“. To do so would be to exhibit a mindset more analogous to that of a devotee of some pernicious cult rather than a serious minded adult capable of independent thought and reasoning.

Not only is scepticism justified when it comes to these claims… for objective, thinking laypeople who privilege the pursuit of truth it is the only intellectually viable position to hold at this point.

Of course, this is not news to anyone who has bothered to make even a mild effort towards self-directed scrutiny of the climate change issue. As I point out in my ‘Rebuttal Of The Week’ below, every single person who objectively investigates this issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the liberal political class and the mainstream media immediately discovers the same thing: this is a far more contentious, uncertain and politicised issue than we have been encouraged to believe. There are massive economic, political, professional, personal and ideological interests at stake in sustaining the myth of catastrophic man-made climate change theory as ‘settled science’. And yet the narrative that has been constructed in the minds of many lay people is one of purely benevolent saviours of ‘Mother Earth’ versus the absolute evil of greedy oil executives and their malevolent or stupid stooges.

Here is my rebuttal to someone who responded to me posting the Daily Wire article by essentially downplaying  the report and making the argument that it’s not the science that’s relevant, but rather it’s caring about the future of the planet that counts.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly:
I think what happens is that people who have identified with a particular passion for the natural world are told by these establishment interests that if you don’t unreservedly support all things related to climate change… then you don’t really care about the environment. And so people reflexively join the bandwagon in order to feel like they’re doing the right thing, to feel they are part of the right team, like they’re one of the ‘good’ people. They give their unreserved support without thoroughly and critically scrutinising what they’ve been told, who is telling them what to think, what interests are at play, what the alternative perspectives are… and most tellingly, why at a time in which climate change is such a prominent issue, relevant information like this from the Danish Meteorological Institute isn’t headline news… or even mentioned!…. by the CBC, the ABC, Toronto Star, The Age, Globe and Mail, National Post, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune etc. etc. etc.. And yet every time some wing of the American government like NASA or NOAA issues a misleading press release about ‘the warmest year on record’ it immediately gets splashed across these same media outlets.

For those of us who actively look for information about the climate change issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media… there is nothing surprising, unique or controversial about this report. Despite what we have been encouraged to believe, there is no shortage of expert opinion and data that challenges the so-called  ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-made climate change. Everyone who is interested enough to look into it finds the same thing.

Does the preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion that is contrary to the claims of the climate change establishment prove the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change is false? Not necessarily. But it does prove beyond contention that we have been and continue to be lied to by that establishment about the certainty of their theory and the absence of disagreement among experts in their field. It also proves the mainstream media and the liberal political class have helped perpetuate that lie…. if not deliberately, then by systemic incompetence.

Which means the sceptics… or ‘deniers’…. were right all along.

For what it’s worth, here is my personal ‘big-picture’ take on all of this…. EVERYONE cares about the health of the natural environment. But only some people care about the natural environment and also care equally about being told the truth.

‘Rebuttals of the Week!’ #8: Stephen Colbert’s joke worse than homophobic… it wasn’t funny!

I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has  mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten  and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single,  impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.

The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.

One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.

So when I see bland purveyors of  contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities  happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.

Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist,  politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.

cv(Read: Craig Konnoth: Sorry, progressives. Gay jokes are never OK, even when you’re bashing Trump)

No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.

Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.

And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.

The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).

Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:

Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.

Going to Getugly  Going to Getugly:  Unfortunately Jane, we live in an era in which people’s context for what constitutes the zenith of wit and sophisticated late night TV humour stretches all the way back to the early days of Jimmy Kimmel.

That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.

If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.

And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.

Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.