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! #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:

Rebuttals of the week! #13: ‘Your arguments are terrible’ vs ‘You’re a bad person’!

pay

P:
There have been studies that show female industries get paid less than males dominated ones. That pay goes down if an industry becomes more female dominated and up if it switches to being more males.
There is also this thing called unconscious bias. It’s very interesting you should look into it. Explains why even in cartoons a much larger percentage of speaking parts and characters are male which obviously equals less work for women which equals less money. Just as the stats reflect.

Going to Getugly:  P, your arguments are terrible. “Studies that show female industries get paid less than male dominated ones”. What studies? What industries? The entire point behind the premise that women get paid less than men is that they are doing the SAME job. Not that they are in completely different industries! The difference in potential earning across different industries is due to the value of the labour… not the gender of the employee. The fact that you are defaulting to these kinds of arguments betrays the disingenuous motives behind the perspective you are representing. Like many feminists, you’re not actually interested in ‘equality’. What you really appear to want is for reality to mirror your expectations and preferences at any given moment.

And in this instance, the reality that conflicts with your preferences is that there are multitudes of factors that account for why different people earn different levels of income that have nothing to do with men going out of their way to be mean to women for reasons that feminists never bother to explain.

P :  Going to Getugly, what do you actually stand for? All I can see on your page is that you hate a lot. You don’t seem to have any passion towards making the world a better place just hating on stuff. You seem worried about women becoming too equal – angry about any efforts that are made towards greater equality. If things are already perfectly equal why do you even care. Do you imagine women will start getting paid more than men. That men will be overlooked. That men perhaps need something they aren’t getting? Maybe you could focus on what you think is needed and get your own worthwhile cause.

Going To Getugly: Oh come on, P. You could answer the specific criticism and dispense with the moralising. Here’s the thing… When your entire response to criticism is to write several sentences in which you invent convenient, ridiculously self-confirming motivations for your critic but make no effort whatsoever to rationally address any aspect of his critique….. it is an indication that you have no answer to the criticism. In fact, it comes across as just venting frustration at not being able to defend your argument.

You ask what I stand for with my page. It’s this: I stand for drawing attention to the fact that a large swathe of the population seems to have abandoned the responsibility of exercising independent, autonomous critical thinking and instead relies on fashionable concepts and ideologies to do their thinking for them. And because these people appear to exercise no self-awareness, they indulge in the belief that merely parroting the generic slogans and talking points they’ve absorbed is as good as expressing genuine insight, knowledge or anything like an opinion that deserves to be taken seriously.

These people also indulge in the paradoxical belief that handing over responsibility for understanding the world to ideological group-think is actually an indication of their moral and intellectual exceptionalism! And that is how they inevitably come to interpret anything other than expressions of enthusiasm for conformity to their worldview as lacking  “passion towards making the world a better place” and “hating on stuff”.

Rather than giving me the schoolyard “You’re a big meanie!” response… how about reflecting on whether the criticism has merit? How about at least considering that if someone says ‘your argument is terrible’ and then points out specific problems with it…. that he isn’t expressing ‘hate’ but rather saying something valid about the way you construct your opinions?

 

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.

 

 

Traditional values at The Age protect feminist Clementine Ford from criticism.

So I recently had a comment rejected by the overseers of all things proper and decent at the online version of the Australian daily newspaper The Age.  And sure, it’s their publication and web site… and if they want to exclude my perspective from the public conversation,  it is certainly their prerogative. It’s not the first time and I think it unlikely it will be the last. Nevertheless,  it is interesting … and I think very revealing… to look at the kind of commentary from their own readers they would prefer be denied a platform.

My unwanted remarks were in response to a column by the reliably vexatious feminist activist Clementine Ford in which she went after the critics of media personality and activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (‘The hypocrisy that lies behind the reaction to seven words from Yassmin Abdel-Magied’)  . Yassmin had caused quite a kerfuffle recently when she used Australia’s national day of remembrance – a day dedicated to those who fought in the world wars – to indulge in a little self-aggrandizing virtue signalling about refugees via Twitter.

I didn’t address the predictably overblown backlash to Yassmin’s deliberate provocation. Instead, my comments focused on what I consider to be Clementine’s unjustified assumption that she occupies the moral high-ground in her sanctimonious judgement of Yasmin’s critics.

Here is my comment that the gatekeepers of The Age’s forum deemed undeserving of inclusion in the public discussion and debate. In my post I referenced another column by Clementine which had been published just a few weeks prior:

This moral indignation and accusations of hypocrisy are a bit rich coming from someone who used her platform in this publication a few weeks ago to target specific high school boys in Sydney for public ridicule after they made a pro-feminist video.

Not only did this adult woman express her open contempt for these kids from Sydney Boys High School and a shameless resentment for the fact they received kudos for their efforts… she suggested that threatening women with rape is much more in their character than making well-intentioned videos with positive messages about women:

“It’s better than the rape threats and abuse that schoolboys often seem to throw about the internet … but is it really an amazing project deserving of heartfelt praise and gratitude?” (Clementine Ford, March 16 2017, The Age)

vvv

As you can see in the screenshot above, there is no reason given for the decision by the overseers of the discussion board at the Age to designate a comment unworthy of inclusion. A post deemed unacceptable just ends up in the ‘rejected’ section of your ‘Masthead’ page a day or two after being submitted (the snippet in the screenshot of the other rejected comment is one I submitted in response to the previous Clementine Ford column I referenced and which inspired the video below).

Absent any declared justification for rejection, I am left to conjecture about their reasons for the rebuff.

It can’t be my use of language, since my comment is nothing other than an accurate description of Clementine’s argument using her own words which I quoted verbatim. Which leaves only one plausible explanation as far as I can tell: The Age feels obliged to protect the poor darling from having the weaknesses and inconsistencies of her perspective exposed.

Such valour! What chivalry! This instinct to shield the little lady from genuine critique of her ideas is… dare I say it… practically traditional! Even suggestive of old timey patriarchal values!

The Age is happy to let Clementine dish it out… but apparently they know she can’t take it in return. Either that, or they are well aware that Clementine is a hypocrite, a phony, an intellectual lightweight… that she is the embodiment of every cruel, bigoted, self-serving and intolerant character flaw that she and the rest of the principle-‘fluid’, allegedly ‘progressive’- Left loudly proclaim to oppose.

Ultimately, it just comes down to a good business decision on behalf of the editorial staff at  The Age. They recognise that it is in their interest to protect their property from effective scrutiny and critique.

Feminists’ Secret Belief: ‘Only Men Can Make Us Happy!’

Despite what they claim, today’s feminists seem committed to re-entrenching the ‘traditional’ dynamic that sees women as intrinsically dependant on men to make their lives bearable for them and to solve all of their problems. Check out my video:

I would be very interested to hear from women in particular who would like to share their perspective.