Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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: If 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!
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.
You know you’re in for some fair and balanced analysis when an editorialist in a major newspaper begins his column with this:
“In less than a week the free world might be ruled by an orange-skinned Bond villain. If that happens, voters will have only themselves to blame. But it’s also as good an excuse as any to lash out at the media and the role it’s played in this tunnel-of-terrors election campaign we’ve all been forced to endure.”
Scott Reid is about as mainstream media establishment as you can get in Canada. Besides running a big league PR company called Feschuk Reid, he was Senior Advisor and Director of Communications to Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin and has served in senior communication capacities on national, provincial and municipal election campaigns. He is the co-anchor of National Affairs on the CTV News Channel in Canada. Reid is also a regular contributor on politics, current affairs and communications to several Canadian print publications including The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, National Post, and Maclean’s magazine.
If anyone should have ‘Mainstream Media Dude’ as a vanity licence plate, it’s this guy.
And guess what? Reid isn’t so keen on the alternative media. In fact, he’s feeling a bit underappreciated.
And it’s YOUR fault!
Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? It’s because you’re too thick to understand that only people in the mainstream media are worth paying attention to!
In his recent column for the Ottawa Citizen, Reid has offered an exceptional example of a mainstream media insider whining about how the population is too stupid to appreciate what a fantastic job the MSM is doing.
It’s a Canadian example that is indicative of the hubris of mainstream media elites throughout the Western world. And it is precisely why their industry is dying.
Reid opines: “If people are threatened for doing their job — especially when their job is to provide challenge to those who seek power — then that represents a real attack on institutions and norms that we rely upon to help order our democracies”.
Reid conveniently bypasses the obvious issue that applies to any industry: If people perceive that you are not providing the service you claim to provide, they are entitled to reject you.
Clearly, many people have discerned that the mainstream media is conspicuously selective in the degree to which they “provide challenge to those who seek power”. But rather than recognising their own failure to convince the electorate of their objectivity, the MSM has increasingly adopted the attitude of an enlightened class that the masses are obliged to appreciate for their superior insight and wisdom.
I suppose the sheer ignorance of everyone not dependant on traditional media for their living could be one explanation for why people are abandoning those sources of information in droves. The other possibility is that the MSN has become just another institution that has calcified into a culture constricted by very conventional thinking and which therefore only hires people who are capable of generating content that reflects very conventional thinking. This means that when smart people turn to mainstream media, they find themselves confronted with insights that strike them as mediocre and predictable at best.
The dreaded alternative media may be something of a Wild West of ideas and viewpoints…. but unlike Reid and others wedded to convention, thinking people find this intellectual environment stimulating, challenging and refreshing. Reid and his colleagues apparently find it distasteful and threatening.
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.
Globe 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….
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.