Rebuttals of the Week!: Metaphorical shark… meet your trans/non-binary/twin spirited/ gender fluid jumpers! (part 2)

I have been inspired to present my response (below) to the premise that ‘denying’ a pronoun  should have “legal ramifications” in cartoon form. It seems fitting somehow.

Like part 1 of this edition of Rebuttals of the Week! the subject of debate was the reaction of the tolerant, non-judgemental, morally superior champions of diversity at the University of Toronto to psychology professor Jordan Peterson‘s public stance against political correctness… and his principled rejection of the premise that he is obligated to affirm the subjective self-conception of people who identify as transgendered by adopting their preferred use of pronouns.

OtD took issue with this statement of mine: “You can ask me to use whatever pronoun you wish. But I am not obliged to indulge that request.”

To which OtD replied: “Unless you are in a situation where you denying that pronoun is a denial of service or identity or harassment. In those cases, there are legal ramifications.

A situation where ‘denying’ a pronoun  should have “legal ramifications”Yes folks, we are living in a Monty Python sketch on a societal scale.

pronouns-strip-bw-signed

 

 

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week! #5: Metaphorical shark… meet your trans/non-binary/twin spirited/ gender fluid jumpers! (part 1)

There was a rare sighting last week of what had long been thought to be merely a creature of myth and fantasy. No… it wasn’t bigfoot, a unicorn or a women’s studies graduate with a useful job. It was a prominent academic from a major university with the guts and integrity to publicly oppose the tyranny of politically correct, SJW-style, “progressive”, Left-wing ideology.

Honest to God. I saw it with my own eyes.

untitledGlobe and Mail: U of T professor’s stand against genderless pronouns draws fire

Jordan Peterson is a popular and prominent psychology professor at the University of Toronto who has found himself on the receiving end of some intense hostility from the tolerant, non-judgemental, morally superior champions of diversity at his esteemed institution of higher learning.

His offence was to use a series of video lectures to present a detailed and reasoned critique of how anti-rational, politically correct ideology has infiltrated the legal and education systems and how it poses a real threat to the values of freedom of thought and speech. But what really drove the PC crowd nuts was his rejection of the premise that he is obligated to affirm the subjective self-conception of people who identify as transgendered by adopting their preferred use of pronouns. Peterson went to great lengths to justify his refusal to submit to this expectation on the basis of logic, principle and the right to intellectual autonomy.

The self-anointed enlightened class responded to all this logic and carefully reasoned argument by chucking the label ‘bigot’ at him, attacking his character and generally calling for his head on a platter.

As is evident from the sample of comments below and in the next Rebuttals of the Week!, the catalyst for their outrage was not the quality of Peterson’s argument, but his unwillingness to conform to concepts they deem to be supreme and sacrosanct.

As I have pointed out in other Rebuttals of the Week!, it is this intolerance of nonconformity that drives the aggressive emotionalism that is so characteristic of the progressive’s response to dissenting points of view. And it is the privileging of the pre-rational urge to attain social affirmation above all other considerations – including objectivity, reason and the pursuit of truth – that determines the progressive’s opinion and makes him immune to  interventions of reason.

Here is the first sample of my interactions with Professor Peterson’s critics….

M CW

freedom of speech is still fully intact. you still have the complete right to say things that are blatantly ignorant (like the idea of this event…) and not risk persecution from your government.

what free speech DOESNT let you do is literally DENY someone’s gender identity because its you dont believe in it and have no one call you out for it.

you people are a goddamn joke.

Going to Getugly Freedom let’s people do all kinds of things other people dislike. Your apparent inability to tolerate that represents the real problem here.

M CW

no the real problem here is that people like you want a world where you can say whatever you want without any thought to the harm it will do to already marginalized people without. that, i have an inability to tolerate.

Okay. Now the next comment from WR is a perfect example of how NOT to confront the assertions of ‘progressives’. It isn’t that the point he is trying to make is incorrect. It’s that simply presenting an alternative opinion to the one being expressed by a ‘progressive’ doesn’t accomplish anything. Remember, they’ve already decided that not sharing their opinion is the same thing as being wrong and stupid. They don’t assess the veracity of your opinion in contrast to their own… they just react to the insolence of not submitting to the absolute perfection of their position.

William RutherfordW R 

Except that this is about a law that turns ANY statement against trans people a hatecrime… that’s not equality.

Compare that response to the one I present below. Notice that I don’t offer a contradictory set of subjective assertions about the topic. Instead, I address the specifics of MCW‘s reasoning process. I highlight objective inconsistencies in his logic. How he takes for granted his own entitlement to indulge in the very freedoms that he advocates should be denied to others. How his lack of hesitation to insult, generalize and dismiss the validity of other people’s perspective and experience demonstrates not only a profound hypocrisy, but a crude and genuine nastiness that reflect the very character flaws he claims to revile.

Going to Getugly

Nope. The problem is that you don’t recognise that insisting that principles apply only in certain circumstances according to your personal preferences and biases is irrational, unethical and only appealing to hypocrites.

For instance… you have expressed your contempt for ‘people like me’ who you characterise as expecting the freedom to “say whatever you want” without regard for the negative feelings it may inspire in other people. You have even written: “you people are a goddamn joke”.

But it is perfectly obvious that you grant YOURSELF the freedom to make sweeping negative generalisations; to issue insulting, unproven condemnations of character; to be deliberately antagonistic and insulting …. and essentially say “whatever you want” with no regard for the feelings of the people to whom you’ve directed those harsh comments. You’ve even expressed the sentiment that ‘people like me’ don’t deserve to be recognised as existing…. since we are nothing but a “goddamn joke”.

Now either it is wrong and worthy of contempt to “want a world where you can say whatever you want without any thought to the harm” it may cause other people…. or it’s only wrong when people other than YOU do it in whatever context you’ve personally decided makes it okay. Clearly, you take for granted it is the latter. Which makes you unprincipled and a hypocrite.

And as is so often the case when you challenge the absolute certainty of a progressive’s sense of moral and intellectual superiority by applying his own judgements back at him… MCW spewed a couple weak insults and ran away.

M CW  yup play victim

M CW   get your sympathy likes fam

The fact that the only response to my argument you feel you can offer is this transparently weak ad hominem should inspire some serious reevaluation of your position.

Stay tuned. We’re just getting started and there is a lot more to come on this issue in the next Rebuttals of the Week!

Climate change science wrong again!

Man-made climate change ‘science’ seems to be unique among scientific disciplines in that it doesn’t matter how consistently it generates predictions that turn out to be wrong when compared to real world observations…. it never justifies re-assessing the validity of the theory.

a1a

a1a1a

Scientist accused of ’crying wolf’ on climate change with claim that Arctic sea ice would vanish

Instead, we get the argument from the very people who kept getting it wrong for 10 to 20 years that we are obliged to consider this track record irrelevant and to accept that all the claims, predictions and policies they are promoting today are beyond questioning.

Shockingly, there are still adults out there who believe their absolute refusal to recognise any justification for any degree of scepticism about the claim is the most rational position to hold on the issue.

Quick thought: Carbon tax is based on a false premise, Part 2

nppp
coy-2

coyAndrew Coyne’s article: Liberals’ carbon price hardly a drastic measure

I’m astonished that Andrew Coyne would present such an atrociously anti-rational argument as this:

” But if you accept, even as a probability, that global warming is real and that it imposes costs of its own, potentially catastrophic, then the costs of action need to be reckoned against the costs of inaction. Put simply, the world cannot do nothing — nor can Canada, if it wishes to maintain its position as a member of the world community, avoid doing its part.”

This is exactly the problem we should expect from blurring the boundaries between what is supposed to be factual, ‘hard’ science… and the vague, subjective supposition, personal opinion realm of politics and social policy.

Coyne is actually making the argument that the implausible subjective belief that carbon taxes will have the effect of altering the temperature of the entire planet by exactly 2 degrees, 50 years from now and thus avert a future catastrophe that exists only as a conjecture… amounts to an obligation upon the sovereign nation of Canada to impose upon itself an onerous, extra layer of taxation to demonstrate our subordination to the preferences of an undemocratic, supra-national governing class.

What is going on here? Has everybody lost their minds?

Quick thought: Carbon tax is based on a false premise… but we’re doing it anyway.

nppp
npp
np

Read article at: Kelly McParland: Trudeau’s carbon plan means Canadians will pay more for a tax that will have very little impact

Rather than saying the tax will have ‘very little impact’…. let’s be more direct and say there is no evidence it will have any measurable effect on the climate or temperatures of the planet in the near or distant future whatsoever.
 
Therefore, the justification they are using for imposing this tax is blatantly false… and they know it. In fact, we ALL know it.
 
But we live in an era where the masses are happy to endorse the lies of the political class if they are marketed in a manner that strokes their ‘progressive’ egos and fulfils their priority of receiving social and moral validation.

Rebuttals of the week! #4: How do you drive ‘progressives’ crazy? Ask them to prove their point.

One thing that seems to catch ‘progressives’ completely off-guard is asking them to support their opinions and assertions. You often get the impression that the necessity of basing opinions on things you know to be… well, true – is just something that never occurred to them.  It’s as if expecting them to be able to prove their point is some kind of atrocious breach of ‘progressive’ etiquette or something – and all the language of compassion and tolerance is very quickly dropped when they are confronted with the fact that they really don’t know why they believe the things they espouse.

You will see in this exchange with ‘DE‘ an example of how quick ‘progressives’ are to get their backs up when you have the temerity to politely ask them to justify the definitive assertions.

The context for this exchange was a question in a survey distributed by Canadian MP Kellie Leitch to her supporters. The questions was, “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

The National Post published a column by Matt Gurney about the inevitable controversy that arose, called  : Is it unCanadian to worry that some would-be Canadians may be unCanadian?

Here was DE‘s take on the subject:

Doug EarlDE

 Canadian values change over time, and immigration has been one of the factors contributing to that change. Stagnant values, or the quest to somehow freeze the values of a country in time, only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others and it is usually the values of the dominant class that get so codified.

It was that first sentence in particular that caught my attention. It’s the kind of bland, generically ‘progressive’ platitude that is easy to agree with. But does it really mean anything? Is his assertion about the world connected to any actual knowledge or information? And if not, then why offer it as an opinion or hold it as a belief?

So I asked….

How has immigration “been one of the factors contributing to that change”?

“only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others”
Are you suggesting that there are not values that are better than others?

Doug EarlDE

 Because new people bring new ideas and values to a situation and for a society to progress both sets of values must be reconciled. And yes there are values that are better than others, but which are which is subjective. Generally speaking, people who think their values are 100 per cent superior to everyone else’s have at least one glaring flaw in their value system–a gross and misplaced sense of their own moral superiority. That’s not a value that needs to be perpetuated. In fact, it’s a value that often leads to aggression, and, on a societal level, to war.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

That all sounds very nice …. but you didn’t answer the question. What ‘new ideas and values’ did Canada gain that it had lacked and which immigration brought and improved us?

Doug EarlDE

Obviously you feel that the continuous immigration to Canada over the past 400 or so years, including that of your own ancestors, has added nothing of value to the country. In your case, I’m afraid I am forced to agree.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Like I said, as is the case with most ‘progressives’, it didn’t take much for DE to drop the facade of tolerant, non-judgemental, compassionate pluralist and reveal the nasty, vindictive nature just below the surface.

And notice that he responds to a request for evidence by inventing an unflattering opinion for me that I have never expressed but which he asserts I “obviously feel”. He then attacks me for the opinion that he just made up and projected onto me.

It’s important to pause and think about that response and what it says about the character, the intellect and the reasoning skills of the person. It’s important because once you are aware of it, you will see that ‘progressives’ resort to this over and over again. And the purpose of ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! is to build a case that objectively demonstrates that people who are attracted to and who embrace ‘progressive’ concepts, ideals, politics and policies are inherently poor thinkers.

Here is how I responded to DE‘s ‘straw man’ argument. As you will see, he just kept digging himself deeper into the same hole:

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

What is obvious is that not only have you made an assertion that you can’t support… but one which you don’t actually believe. If you did believe it, you would have answered the question without hesitation the first time… let alone the second time. Of course, this is precisely why I posed the question: To highlight the fact that people such as yourself like to say things that make you feel very pluralistic and superior….but which have no connection to anything you actually know to be real. This is nothing but a self serving pose that you have adopted.

Doug EarlDE

Yeah, except there’s something you’re missing and that is that your question is so obviously that of a troll. You know as well as I do that immigrants from over 200 countries who have come here over the past 400 years have brought an almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country and that one of the foundational ideas of Canada is multiculturalism itself–to your great dismay, I’m sure. So if you want a list, troll, why don’t you make us a list of all the countries that have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution. Start with the country of your own ancestors, Underabridgeia.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 I’m a ‘troll’ because you’re embarrassed to admit you were just trying to say something politically-correct sounding that you don’t really mean? You say things like “almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country” …. but you can’t actually name one. And by the way…. multiculturalism is not an “idea or value” that immigrants brought here. It’s an idea that brought immigrants here. The fact that you’ve made a very transparent attempt to deflect from your inability to answer the question by putting the onus on me to ‘make a list’ to support a claim I never made just shows how desperate you are to salvage your credibility. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

Doug EarlDE

That all sounds very nice…. but you didn’t answer the question. What countries have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution?

 

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 Really? You think doubling down on a straw man fallacy bolsters your credibility? You’ve had four opportunities now to select a single example from the “infinite multiplicity” you insist supports your claim. And all you’ve done for the last two posts is try and deflect from the fact that you have nothing to offer because your opinion isn’t based on having actually thought about it. Like most liberals/’progressives’ – you choose opinions you think will enhance your self-image rather than cultivating a point of view based on reasoned analysis, objectivity and critical thinking.

 

Doug EarlDE

Nope, that’s not it.

Going to Getugly Going to Getugly

Very convincing counterargument.

Hillary’s health: final nail in the coffin of mainstream media

 

c1

The so called ‘credible’ mainstream media not only ignored and suppressed this issue for months… they went out of their way to attack and ridicule anyone in the alternative media who suggested her health was a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

 

 

Now that they can no longer deny that it is a genuine story – they are struggling to manufacture a narrative that retroactively justifies their total lack of journalistic scrutiny.

It’s too late.