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.
An old timey conservative gets elected Premier in Ontario… Canada’s largest province by population… home to the country’s biggest, richest and most important city…. my home town of Toronto… and the usual suspects lose their collective minds.
Some of us are old enough to remember when every election represented something other than the pivotal moment in human history when an enlightened society chose the path to ultimate Utopian fulfilment or the barbarians snatched power away from the sole possessors of ultimate truth to fulfill their goal of generating hell on Earth.
It used to be that your guy won and you were pleased or the other guy won and you thought… ‘Oh great. I have to put up with these jokers for the next four years.” That’s basically the way people thought about it.
Adults were so much more… adult at that time.
It wasn’t that long ago… but something has changed. And not for the better. We live in an era in which people mistake the indulgence in collective hysteria, sanctimony and emotionalism for insight and moral propriety.
The screenshot above is an actual post that appeared on my Facebook feed from a ‘friend’. The message is unequivocal: “You don’t share my political opinions and ideological convictions? Then everything else about you is irrelevant: You are unworthy of my friendship.”
And of course, all of the people who are so eager to equate not sharing their opinions on politics with being a despicable human being are the ‘progressive‘ folks who self-identify as the morally excellent, compassionate, preternaturally tolerant, loving, caring and enlightened class. But if you dare to not affirm the perfection of their opinions and ideological interpretations they won’t hesitate to assess your very humanity as inherently inferior to their own.
Tanya, below, is responding to the article in the Globe and Mail and the election of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party. The premise of the thread was established by commentator Peter G who basically proposed that if you didn’t vote for the far Left Liberal Party who have been in power for 15 years (whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, Jordan Peterson called “the most dangerous woman in Canada”) or the even farther Left socialist NDP party… then you were endorsing the plans of an evil “millionaire” who wants to hurt the poor and destroy education.
Peter G: “The millionaire will go after social services, education, and the working poor. Say goodbye to the social contract in Ontario.”
This is despite the fact that the legacy of the Liberals’ time in government is a provincial debt of $320,000,000,000 with $12.3 billion a year just in interest payments alone. Ontario is the largest sub-sovereign holder of debt in the world. The province’s debt is larger than the GDP of 75 per cent of the world’s countries. There’s the disastrous handling of the electricity file in the province resulting in the highest rates on the North American continent. Ontario had the lowest median household income growth of all the provinces between 2007 and 2016. Only last year they promised three years of balanced budgets and then released a budget earlier this year that guaranteed 6 more years of deficit. The Liberal’s time in office was marked by numerous scandals, criminal charges, the imposition of divisive ideological social policies and multi-billion dollar boondoggles.
The NDP thinks they weren’t radical enough.
But none of that matters because they care, you see! The fact that the people who are hurt the most by their corruption, manipulations and incompetence are the very people they claim to care so much about is irrelevant. It’s about how it makes ‘progressive’ voters feel about themselves to be able to say ‘I support the politicians who really really care about people!’
Tanya: “I don’t have a problem with a country and its people taking care of the marginalized and less fortunate among them. It’s human, ethical and respectful.”
The point that Tanya was making here is that if you don’t agree with her political opinions it means that you want a country that is the opposite of human, ethical and respectful. So I responded:
Going to Getugly: “Except you people don’t actually care about “the marginalized and less fortunate”….because those are the people who are most hurt when the cost of living rises, when taxes increase, when the cost of electricity and heating go through the roof, when billions of tax dollars are squandered and when the economy eventually tanks.
If you cared about those people you would be livid at political parties who have created those pressures on poor people and who promise to add to the problem while pushing the province off a fiscal cliff. So spare us your pronouncements of your sense of your own moral superiority Tanya. What Leftists ‘care about’ is their own ego and being able to tell themselves how incredibly wonderful, enlightened and morally excellent they are. That’s why they mindlessly support everything that’s marketed on the front end as ‘progressive’ and compassionate and then are completely indifferent to the real world results of those policies on the back end when they are implemented.”
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.
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.
This is what people these days seem to be unwilling to grapple with… It isn’t supposed to matter if you agree with Faith Goldy’s opinions or politics. As a principled person, you are supposed to be outraged that this woman… an independent reporter… is being intimidated and attacked by masked, male thugs… in public… in Canada… and that the national media is making a conscious choice to exclude this incident from their narrative construction. Remember, this is an era in which two random guys in a third rate city in a foreign nation who are told they can’t use a bathroom in a Starbucks unless they buy a coffee is deemed to merit daily, national news coverage for at least two to three weeks in this country.
And yet an incident involving someone who has worked in the mainstream media and who is very well known in the alternative media, who is a Canadian and who is covering a major story that is happening in our own country to which that same mainstream media has paid only passing attention is deemed unworthy of serious coverage. This is despite employees of every single one of those mainstream outlets being present to capture reams of audio and video to present to their editors and producers at all of the mainstream media bunkers back in Toronto.
A lot of people in management in a bunch of different offices decided, “Naaaaa! This isn’t something we want the public to think about.”
This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that the mainstream media does not provide a window into objective reality. The media constructs narratives. That’s their job. And the only narrative that this generation of homogeneous, incompetent and useless Canadian mainstream journalists are comfortable promoting is the one about how anyone who protests this absurd transgression of this country’s right to control its own borders is a Nazi.
And don’t ya know…. Nazis’ deserve whatever they get.
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.
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.
Things just keep getting worse.
So apparently we are at a stage in society where you can have a major conference at a publicly funded university in a major city to address the problem of white people. Yes folks, this will be an opportunity for the taxpayer supported, self-appointed arbiters of all that is moral and righteous… the ‘thought leaders’ who occupy the ‘social justice’ departments of our elite academic institutions… to tackle the scourge of racism by singling out a particular racial group and assigning blame to them for everything they don’t like about society.
What a great approach to changing things for the better! Why has no one tried it before?
If there is one thing that our moral and intellectual betters in academia absolutely excel at it’s the ability to pack a busload of self-confirming circular reasoning into catchy, two-word phrases. Terms like ‘social justice’ and ‘white privilege’ simply assume the truth of their own claim: Of course what we do is “social justice!” Of course what they do is “white privilege”! Weirdly, the specific metrics used to determine what makes something objectively ‘social justice’ and objectively ‘white privilege’ are always left pretty vague. My suspicion is that they rely on a rather simple formula: “If it is perceived to benefit anyone who thinks and/or looks like them it’s social justice. If it is perceived to benefit anyone who disagrees or doesn’t look like them it’s ‘white privilege’.
“Uncomfortable truths“ is another one of those slippery slogans that streamlines the fallacy of ‘begging the question’ to bumper-sticker efficiency. The ‘truth’ of whatever the slogan is referring to is simply proclaimed by the use of the slogan. No need to prove or demonstrate it. The slogan has already taken care of that for you.
Frankly, I don’t think it would ever occur to anyone who genuinely values “truth” or even understands what the word means to attach the adjective “uncomfortable” to it. “Uncomfortable” is a purely subjective experience arising from a negative emotional reaction. “Truth” is simply what is. Your personal preferences and emotions are irrelevant to recognizing ‘truth’. That is to say… you don’t judge ‘truth’. You merely recognize it. So I find it very revealing that ‘progressive’ social-justicey types instinctively equate ‘truth’ with subjective preference.
Personally, I only care about true truth. All of your other qualifications and categories… good truth, bad truth, red truth, blue truth…. are a reflection of the inherent narcissism of the ‘progressive’ Left as far as I’m concerned.
My interaction with Shirley, below, illustrates how for some people truth is whatever justifies the satisfaction they feel from seeing someone they resent getting screwed. With my first comment to her I confront the blatant, glaring, neon-supernova of principle-free double standards that her support, as a person of colour, for the ‘Everything That’s Wrong With White People’ conference so self-evidently represents.
I conclude by demonstrating how the premise of ‘white privilege’ is intellectually and ethically indefensible… and how anyone who endorses it is deserving of nothing but contempt from people of character, principle and good will.
Shirley: When the subject of one’s race is left open for discussion the results are a great research study. The replies to this post if not in Canada many would say this was America. Canada may me multicultural but not inclusive.
Going to Getugly: Would you be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem that people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society Shirley?
Shirley: It’s done every day a black man is arrested.
The term White Privilege was created by a white man remember that know your history
Going to Getugly: Are you telling me you don’t know the difference between an arrest and a conference Shirley? Or is that merely the transparent attempt to avoid honestly answering the question that it appears to be? The term and fallacious construct ‘white privilege’ was invented by academic and Leftist activist Peggy McIntosh… a woman… in 1989. You should practice a little more humility next time you feel the impulse to lecture someone else about ‘history’.
Shirley Davis: that’s class privilege.
White privilege means that you are born into the racial ‘norm’, another kind of privilege. A privilege where you can;
Turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of your race widely represented.
If you wish, you can arrange to be in the company of people of your race most of the time.
If you buy “flesh” coloured items like band-aids or stockings, they will more or less match your skin tone.
If you were able to use the original suite of emoji’s, the ‘thumbs up’ or ‘peace sign’ hand gestures represented your race.
You can easily can find picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and magazines featuring people of your race.
Going to Getugly: The “thumbs up” and “peace sign” is represented in my ‘race’. That’s the kind of inane issues that you need to reach for in order to justify your conclusion. I think you are doing a fine job proving just how devoid of merit and shallow this whole thing is.
So let’s review this… Our interaction started with me asking if you would be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society…. and you went out of your way to not provide an authentic response. And we both know why you avoided responding… it’s because if it was a conference addressing the problem presented by black people in society… you would instantly recognize the racist, intellectually and ethically despicable nature of such a conference. And we both know that if you were to be honest and acknowledged that… it would put you in the awkward position of being against it when the target is YOUR race but in favour of it when the target is someone else’s race. The double standard is self-evident.
And you and I both know that this would not only reveal you to be a hypocrite and devoid of principles… but someone who is actually perfectly comfortable with racial bigotry as long as it’s directed at people who you are happy to see targeted.
The fact that you know you are doing this and that, in fact, the only way anyone can possibly justify this is to lie about their real intentions and to pretend they are not indulging in a blatant double standard is itself proof positive that the premise does not stand up to objective intellectual or ethical scrutiny.
In other words, this is nothing but a means for people to indulge in their own bigotry by attempting to cloak it in pseudo intellectual gobbledygook.
You write: “that’s class privilege.”
No. Peggy McIntosh invented ‘white privilege’ in 1989. “Class privilege” was the earlier iteration of the same ideological stream… and that was Karl Marx who came up with that.
In other words… you don’t know what you’re talking about but you don’t have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it… so you just make something up to try to get away with it.
No one should take your ideas seriously. Least of all you.