State media in Canada and Australia use Toronto tragedy to promote the same ideological narrative

abccbc

This is a great demonstration of how the mainstream media in the English speaking world are now essentially a single entity that circulates homogeneous, constructed and noticeably ideologically slanted narratives.

The same threadbare, tangential fragment of salacious material that the state broadcaster at the top of the world in Canada has leapt upon to sex-up the pointless act of barbarism that occurred in Toronto last week is simultaneously being torqued for its sensationalist value by the state broadcaster at the bottom of the globe in Australia.

So what if “we don’t have proof that these conditions led to the horrific van attack in Toronto that left 10 dead and 14 injured” as the CBC freely acknowledges in its version of the script?  What’s the point of a reputable news organization refraining from divisive and irresponsible speculation when it can justify it by simply pronouncing “it’s worth discussing regardless”?

And so we have ‘The Dawn of the Planet of the INCELS’ story-line. We will be contending with it for the foreseeable future. Proceed to set your hair on fire and run around hysterically exaggerating out of all rational proportion the threat posed by a handful of obscure Internet nerds who can’t get laid.

But the media is only using  this nonsense about ‘incels’ as a literary device. The real intention is to insert their favourite ideological narrative into a tragedy that has no inherent meaning of its own. The unambiguous takeaway that both the CBC and the ABC are propagandizing to their respective hemispheres is that the proper focus of your rage, your blame and your fear is on “white” people, on “men” and on those who do not conform to ‘progressive’-Left ideology.

CBC: “Combine powerful online echo chambers, the perceived decline of the white male, a surge in online troll culture and groups of angry and alienated men, and you have a powerful cocktail for dangerous radicalization.”

ABC: “They’re primarily straight, white dudes who claim to be plotting violent revolution because women won’t have sex with them.”

The CBC explicitly identifies a “hatred of social progressive values”  as one of the officially sinister characteristics motivating all of the lunatics who have deliberately mowed down pedestrians in a rented van in Toronto. From the first one ever to this latest one. Which is also the first one ever.

This is apparently sufficient evidence of an irrefutable pattern to those in charge of our state broadcasters… whose sole purpose it seems is to expose the public to their biases.

If you are a taxpayer in Canada or Australia who has internalized this ideology… then you probably regard having  your generic preconceptions mirrored back to you by your publicly funded media as something like responsible journalism.

Those of you who still prefer independent thinking might be inclined to feel like you’re not exactly getting your money’s worth.

 

cbc 2abc 2

Advertisements

Going to Getugly Censored By Facebook For Criticizing Feminism!

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP NOTICE up2 bFACEBOOK CENSORSHIP notice this one

Yes folks… if you are critical of feminists and mention the objective fact that they are women you will be reprimanded by Facebook, have your comments censored and be at least temporarily banned from their platform. They also warn that unless you learn your lesson you could be banned permanently. So you better behave.

I received the message above from Facebook today along with notification that I’ve been locked out of my account. As you see, they provided a copy of the comment that allegedly transgresses the high standards of respectful discourse that we all know Facebook dutifully and uniformly enforces for anyone commenting on the feeds of major media outlets like the CBC, the ABC, The AGE, The Globe and Mail, CNN etc..

In this circumstance the comment was on the Facebook feed of  the Australian public broadcaster’s weekly panel show Q&A. It was in response to a video clip taken from a recent episode in which an audience member posed a question to panelist Harriet Harman of the Labour Party in the UK. The question loosely referenced Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson’s critique of the standard feminist conceptualization of the ‘gender pay gap’. I encourage everyone to watch the clip below and decide for yourself if my criticism of Harman’s response isn’t at least justifiable if not spot on.

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with my assessment of Harman’s response, to claim that it represents an “attack” on anyone “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability” is blatantly false. It is a lie.

Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire about how to identify the truly privileged class in society? It goes like this: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Isn’t it oddly Orwellian how often it is these days that the very people who constantly proclaim themselves to be the victims of societal systemic oppression are precisely the  people who are protected from criticism by that very same system?

As anyone who has even a casual familiarity with the degree of uninhibited maliciousness that routinely passes Facebook’s incredibly rigorous ‘Community Standards’ will know… the idea that some policy of  prejudice-free, moral excellence compels them to  remove posts that ‘attack people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability‘ is an absurd and dishonest joke.

And of course, the fact that my comment doesn’t meet any of their own criteria for censure doesn’t really matter. The only thing I ‘attacked’ was the willingness to engage in “intellectual dishonesty” by the people who are pushing the discredited notion of a ‘pay gap’. The fact that those people are women and feminists is… sorry folks… just that, an objective fact. I clearly didn’t ‘attack’ anyone because they are women. What  I ‘attacked’… or to put it less hyperbolically, what I criticized…. was the atrocious and disingenuous reasoning demonstrated by using deflection as a tactic to avoid addressing the flaws in their argument.

In other words, I criticised their ideas. I did not ‘attack’ their gender.

Now contrast my comment  with a small sampling of what the arbiters of respectful discourse and decency at Facebook apparently regard as meeting or surpassing the lofty ideals of their Community Standards. Pay particular attention to the deep commitment these paragons of virtuous elocution demonstrate to the noble principle of never ‘attacking’ anyone based on race, gender, age, blah blah blah….

Mandy Noone: It’s not about what any guy (let alone OLD WHITE GUYS) thinks

Sharon Knighton: How unusual that a MIDDLE AGED WHITE MAN doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McDermott: It looks so sad to see OLD WHITE MEN insisting that women arent in danger of being oppressed. im guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Robinson: Another WHITE MIDDLE AGED MALE mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

 

 

 

 

Rebuttals of the Week#11: Why ‘progressives’ hate reality

ta

Poor old Tony Abbott just can’t catch a break it seems. He makes some completely benign, not uncommon, absolutely reasonable pro-marriage comment and all the tolerant, compassionate, accepting, non-judgemental, empathetic, morally righteous ‘progressives’ and feminists take it as an opportunity to unleash upon him any vile, cruel, dehumanizing accusation and epithet their corrupt little minds can generate.

Abbott’s comment inspired the above nasty, predictably anti-male and anti-Western civilization screed by Jenny Noyes in the radical feminist propaganda pamphlet The Age. As usual, this was an invitation to all the exemplars of virtue and goodness on the ‘progressive’/feminist Left among the general public to weigh in with their own wise and insightful observations in the comment section. In other words, there was a lot of this sort of thing:

Sharon F: “Cockhead”

Sezzy: “Being a woman myself, I feel like I need protection from idiots like him. Bloody ignorant fool!”

Bubba: “the irony is that marriage has not protected his missus or kids from having a complete dickhead as a husband and father.”

Stephen: “The man is just a delusional fool. I cannot wait to see the look on his hideous head when we finally receive true equality.”

Faye W: “Abbott you are a dickhead and an embarrassment.”

So a contributor to the comment section, Carl  L, tried to raise the quality of the discourse by injecting some factual evidence into the discussion:

Carl L: Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

ta a

Mum’s boyfriend – the worst sexual risk to children

Which provoked quite a few responses like these from folks who won’t let truth get between them and their preferred version of reality:

Kirsten A: “So, not a peer reviewed piece of literature.”

Lisa B: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”

My rebuttal, directed primarily at Lisa, is a breakdown of an extremely common thinking pattern which a lot of bad thinkers default to when they are confronted with evidence and argument that refutes their self-confirming, subjective beliefs. It’s the “Truth or Concept Pattern”. It highlights the distinction between people who have an attachment to a belief or concept which they find personally gratifying in some way,  and those who have an attachment to truth. When you become aware of the pattern, you’ll see it all of the time…. particularly when debating ‘progressives’, feminists, Leftists etc..


Going to Getugly: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”. Just like Kirsten Alys above. I’ll tell you how your mind is working here Lisa so you can improve your reasoning in the future:

Lisa’s mind: “I have a specific perception of this issue and  I’m really attached to it because  it’s very satisfying to my ego.  And I’ve never bothered to look into it because I just assume I’m right if a particular belief appeals to me.

Now I’m presented with credible information that completely invalidates my preferred assumptions and which gives me insight into actual, objective truth.

But I’m not interested in objective TRUTH! MY priority is preserving my preferred but false perception… because the satisfaction I derive from believing it is WAY more important to me than having an authentic appreciation of reality.

Problem: I refuse to update my understanding of this issue based on this new information (like a mature thinker would do)…. but I need some excuse that appears to justify my irrational denial of reality.

Solution: Oh, look! This was published in 2012.  I’ll assert that because the study was published FIVE WHOLE YEARS ago… that makes it invalid somehow! Sure, that makes no sense…. it’s a completely arbitrary proclamation…. and if I’m asked to explain why that invalidates it I’ll have to make something else up on the spot. But it’s all I’ve got! Oh yeah…. and I’ll put a condescending ‘lol’ at the end (even though that’s the sort of thing 14 year olds do) to convey that I’m so much more ‘aware’ and ‘clever’ than the dummy who provided the information.”

Do you see how transparent this flawed thinking process is, Lisa? Hopefully now that it’s been pointed out, you and Kirsten… as well as a lot of other women posting here…. will catch yourselves before you default to this pattern of inadequate reasoning in the future.

 

 

Rebuttals of the week #10: Dear all feminists… The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t happening to you.

It seems the new TV version of Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale  is severing what remaining threads once linked ‘progressives’ and feminists in Australia to reality.

hnttHMT


Emma : To all the men thinking the story is far fetched; it isn’t. Women have not had rights for that long a period of time, we are still fighting for equal rights. In a lot of countries still women are oppressed. It is scary to us women, for if the government really wanted they could take – and are trying to take away the rights to our own bodies – our rights any time they want. Men would not understand that fear.

Going to Getugly: Emma, what do you mean “Women have not had rights for that long a period of time”? Do you think they were kept in cages or something until just before you were born? If you actually believe that in this era of gender equity quotas, calls for laws requiring gender parity in boardrooms, an era in which condemning men collectively for their ‘male privilege’ is common and acceptable, an era in which dozens of people on this thread alone don’t hesitate to parrot the fashionable slogan ‘old white men’ as a pejorative because it’s perfectly acceptable in our society to single out people based on their race and gender for collective denunciation and social shunning as long a they belong to this one category….

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

… If in an era where all of that is commonplace and in which mainstream politicians are terrified of appearing to be out of step with fashionable identity politics… if you can still believe that governments are targeting women to remove their rights and doing so strictly for the sheer malevolent pleasure of it …. then you have bought into an extraordinarily irrational delusion.


 

 

Justin C: If we keep voting for politicians who put the super-wealthy elite before ordinary citizens, a scenario as dark as The Handmaid’s Tale is inevitable. Probably in our lifetime.

Jewel D: It’s already happening- instead of hanging people (as per The Handmaids Tale) , the pollies in the “Land of Oz”, “Murica” and “Yeh Olde England” are offing the poor/elderly/disabled/ugly etc etc by cutting off any form of social security and treating any of those who dare squawk “please sir may I have more” in a manner that befits Dickensian times. 😒

Justin C: Like the bath that gets hotter & hotter until we suddenly realise we’re cooked.

Going to Getugly: Are you guys joking? Look around you! We live in a time in which the political class are terrified of appearing not to be pandering sufficiently to any real or imagined grievance claimed by any minority, racial group, feminists, subjectively conceived gender identity group, social justice activist etc. etc. Even mild, reasoned questioning of their claims, assertions and demands will get you labelled racist, misogynist or accused of indulging in any number of irrational phobias.

This is one of the bizarre traits of those on the  ‘progressive’-Left: The more they are pandered to… the more power and influence they achieve… the more attention is paid to their ideologically derived claims and grievances…. the more wild and hysterical their claims of ‘oppression’ and ‘marginalization’ becomes.


Mary Mc: I remember reading the Handmaids Tale when it was first published and have read every Atwood book since then. The TV screening is brilliant – I’m watching it with my daughter and its totally gripping. Oryx & Crake is another prescient Atwood novel … Atwood is a scientist as much as a writer so plenty of evidence and logic influence her writing – that’s what makes it – for me – so chilling at times. Obviously not everyone is going to relate to it in the same way – but I’ll resist calling them delusional…

Going to Getugly: It’s not the people who know this fantasy isn’t “prescient” who are delusional. And since when is Atwood a “scientist”?

Progressive Left continues to eat itself alive!

In this video I look at how it was inevitable that an ideology based on the unquestionable credibility of infinitely finer and finer gradations of individual subjective absolute truths was going to implode under the weight of its own absurdity.

Happy International Condescending to Women Day!

Another International Women’s Day has come and gone… along with any number of marches, speeches full of platitudes and bromides, a call for a general strike by women that almost no one took seriously and at least one world leader blithely donating millions of dollars of his citizen’s money to other countries to buy himself kudos from feminists.

weeewe

Here is an honest question for everyone out there: Am I the only one who finds all of this “Women’s Day” stuff to be unbelievably condescending to women?

Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the premise that women as a group need to be stroked and pandered to like this. Am I really to accept that females are so insecure, so unsure of their personal autonomy and agency… and so needy of validation that a day has to be set aside every year to congratulate them for actually being able to do things?

wo

Who for instance (other than feminist women it seems), finds the idea that women can be pilots so extraordinary that it requires special attention and self-conscious recognition?

And how needy of ego-affirmation must you be to see this cloyingly ludicrous concept of a little girl representing some fantasized challenge to the momentum of American capitalism as anything other than deeply patronizing?

wew

The hyper-irony here is that for the premise of a Women’s Day to have any meaning… it presupposes women’s self-worth to be  dependant on the approval of men. For there must be an audience to whom this attention seeking behavior is directed and from whom all of this validation and recognition is so desperately sought. And who is it that we crave validation from? Those we know to be our equals? Hardly.

In fact,  the analogy that keeps coming to mind is how our parents would affectionately pat us on the head after being handed our crayon scribbled, stick-figure drawings…. and the satisfaction we felt as children, basking in the effusiveness of their praise as they validated our efforts and placed our work high on the refrigerator door for all the world to see.

 

Rebuttals of the Week#6: Annoying Self-Righteous Canadian Alert!

ANNOYING SELF-RIGHTEOUS CANADIAN ALERT!

No… not Justin Trudeau. Or even David Suzuki. Although both would easily qualify.

No, this time it’s life of the Party, Naomi Kline. And she has travelled thousands of miles in a huge, fossil fuel guzzling, CO2 spewing jet (business class no doubt)…. has been driven back and forth between airport, luxury hotel and media studios in fossil fuel guzzling, CO2 spewing cars… getting treated like a VIP…. eating well and often….. all so she can lecture average working people in Australia about how they are obliged to feel ashamed of their lifestyle and modest standard of living.

Yes folks. It’s climate change again. You’d forgotten about it, hadn’t you? What with all the hysteria about the US election and Donald Trump taking up so much oxygen for the past several months.

Naomi hasn’t forgotten about it. Nope. Naomi never forgets about it. And she considers it her business to make sure you don’t forget about it either.

q-a

Professional obnoxious, self-righteous bores like Kline and Suzuki seem to really embolden the amateur obnoxious, self-righteous bores that are  out there.

Below is the response from one of these self-anointed, amateur intellectual powerhouses to a comment of mine that expressed my reasoned disinclination to obediently submit to the judgements of the hypocritical academic class of which Kline is a privileged member.

Brenton Boswell B B : Imagine this for a moment: let’s say in a month from now, having made a genuine effort to listen and learn and think, you find that you have changed your mind and that climate change is in fact real and desperately, frighteningly urgent. How would you look back on your previous attitude? Would it be with shame or anger? To what extent would you blame yourself? Or should you blame others? I can answer that for you: it’s not really your fault. You have been actively misled by businesses that make *trillions* of dollars out of fossil energy production. You have also been ‘in denial’ in a way that is common to all human beings, i.e. we deny our fear of death. Think of it this way: clinging to ultimately false and foolish disinformation is not rare: it’s normal. What is rare is science: a disciplined approach to knowledge that in some ways is only 250 years old. The fact that you haven’t yet understood what makes science different from all other human beliefs is therefore not surprising. There are thousands like you. Don’t be angry. Just see what you can learn. The evidence and information, and patient people who can teach you, are available.

The dripping condescension and the assumption that anyone who doesn’t share his uncritical devotion to the ‘catastrophic man-made climate change narrative’ must never have heard the various slogans, clichés and ‘go-to’ talking points they all rely on is pretty standard. The weird faux-Freudian ‘denial of death’ stuff is a nice innovation though.

Here’s how I slapped him down:

Going to Getugly – Going to GetuglyIf you’re going to use fallacious arguments, at least try to come up with an original one… don’t just parrot standard clichés like “you’ve been brainwashed by oil companies and all of their anti man-made climate catastrophe propaganda !”

I’m always amused by people who mindlessly regurgitate that one as if it’s some devastating insight.

Because we are constantly being bombarded with oil funded, anti-climate change propaganda, right? It’s everywhere! I mean, we can go back to that multi-million dollar , Oscar-winning movie by a former American vice president that promoted the anti-man made climate change message…..

Oh wait. That was promoting the concept of man-made climate change.

Well, there’s all the messaging in schools indoctrinating children into disbelieving in man-made climate change….

Oh wait. That’s all promoting the unquestioning belief in man-made climate change.

Well, there’s the mass media which has spent the last 15 years legitimising only one side of the argument and promoting the belief that the ‘science is settled’ and proves that man-made climate change is not true….

Oh wait. They’ve done that for the pro man-made climate change side.

Well, at least we can point to all of the major politicians in the world who refuse to get on-board with the pro man-made climate change agenda! That’s why there’s been no carbon tax programs introduced anywhere. No cap-and-trade programs. No taxpayer subsidised ‘green initiatives’. No wind turbines erected anywhere etc. And of course there was that huge gathering last year in Paris when all of the world leaders got together to formalise their total rejection of the catastrophic man-made climate change premise and signed documents pledging not to pretend they can control the temperature of a planet to within fractions of a degree, 20 years into the future!

Oh, wait….

So essentially we’ve had 10-15 years of consistent, unified and exclusively pro man-made climate change messaging from the mass media, the education system, the entertainment industry and the political class (in other words, society’s elites). But your conclusion is that people such as yourself whose position on the subject conforms precisely with that wall of single-focused messaging are the people who are free from the effects of propaganda and manipulation……and it’s people like me whose perspective is at odds with messaging that is constantly streamed from every easily accessible source and yet maintain that there are legitimate reasons for remaining sceptical despite overwhelming pressure to conform… it’s us who are the weak-minded victims of a  program of propaganda that is nowhere to be found.

Yeah, yeah Brenton… there’s absolutely nothing about that premise that is in spectacular defiance of simple logic or is in any way hilariously ironic.

No seriously… the depth of your insight and the potency of your reasoning skills totally justifies your pose of intellectual superiority which otherwise would just come across as adolescent and embarrassing.

Not surprisingly, he gave up after that.