Rebuttals of the Week #31: Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just a mouthpiece for propaganda.

 

nedia

This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.by virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #30: “Men are intimidated by smart women” and other self-flattering feminist fallacies.


‘Boys don’t like smart girls’. How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?

age

From the article: “This friend works in the science field and was involved in a discussion around the ABC story, and how it fits into a Women in STEM decadal plan she’s involved in looking at ways to increase women’s STEM participation and retention from school through careers over the next 10 years.

She told me about a colleague who was talking to a teenage girl, one who had just won a STEM award, about the biggest hurdles preventing young women from pursuing STEM studies and careers.

The young girl’s answer was, “Boys don’t like smart girls”.

How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?”


The old cliche about how “men are intimidated by smart women” that feminists seem so fond of repeating has never wrung true to me.  It’s just a little too convenient and self-flattering for a woman to use it as the explanation for why men aren’t attracted to her. Don’t you think?

“It can’t be that I’m doing anything wrong! In fact… it must be that I’m just too fantastic and that there’s something inherently wrong with all men!”

Besides,  if  it is true that girls are not pursuing certain careers because they think it will make boys less attracted to them as the article suggests…. then shouldn’t we be identifying girls as the ones with the issue that needs addressing rather than disparaging boys?

Of course, not all women buy into this nonsense as the selection of responses to this column from The AGE that I’ve included below my rebuttal makes clear.


Going to Getugly: How are you meant to ‘deal with an answer like that’? You tell the “young girl” who said it the truth… that she’s wrong and that she’s been brainwashed by feminists who want to manipulate the perceptions of females to believe that men are their enemies and that if anything doesn’t go their way in life then it’s men who are to blame.

Several women commenting had a similar response:

Helen S:  Not true.

Sally B: Rubbish

Ange Dav: Utter BS

Raewyn McC : If you believe that, you are not a ‘smart girl’ .

Daisy Ma: Since when?? Men love me and my intelligence is one of my most attractive features..

Lynne Os: Lazy journalism, let’s just fire another salvo in the gender wars.

Video: Rebuttals of the Week! Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think and I can prove it!

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.

Rebuttals of the Week #25: Feminists and Leftists don’t know how to think… and I can prove it!

gender bias

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.

Video: Conformity and the Language of the Left

In this Going To Getugly video: White privilege. Mansplaining. Rape culture. Wage gap…. It seems that as quickly as these terms are manufactured they are adopted and parroted by people eager to demonstrate their conformity.

When reality conflicts with feminism… just change reality!

Going to Getugly was censored and then blocked from Facebook for the past week. My previous post goes into the gory details and demonstrates that what gets designated as contravening Facebook’s highfalutin ‘Community Standards’ has little if anything to do with their own morally excellent criteria and a whole heck of a lot to do with ideological conformity.

Without going into the specifics again, the particular comment that apparently transgressed all norms of human decency criticized those who seek to advance the  social and political agenda of feminist ideology for their habit of bypassing any observations or insights that conflict with their preferred conclusions.

In other words, if there is a discrepancy between reality and feminist conceptions… it is reality that must be sacrificed.

Which leads me to the issue that inspired all of the ruckus and censorship in the first place: The ‘gender pay gap’. Or more specifically, the unabashedly Orwellian manner with which feminist ideologues have taken the very argument that thoroughly debunked their original premise and not only now claim it as their own… they claim that it was always their own and that it still proves the reality of systemic discrimination against women in the form of the ‘pay gap’.

Confused? Well, I suspect that was the ultimate intention all along. But I can break it down for you:

  1. The continuing relevance of  the ideology of feminism and the political power of its leadership in society is entirely dependant on the widespread perception of women as victims of systemic, culturally entrenched discrimination and oppression by men. Unfortunately for feminists, it is a premise that is at odds with the objective reality of contemporary Western societies.
  2. Women being paid less than men for the same work was at one time a clear and indisputable example of genuine discrimination based on sex. If it could be shown that decades after the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 60’s and 70’s nothing has changed… it would be a major validation for the persistence of feminist activism and a justification for diverting more power and resources to feminist causes and organisations.
  3. As a strategy for justifying their continued relevance and to draw power and influence to themselves, feminist ideologues generated statistics for the earnings of  men and women in the workforce which revealed a higher level of income for men on average than women. These findings were used by feminists as propaganda to implicitly and explicitly promote the perception that women were still being paid less than men for the same work :
  • Barack Obama re-election campaign, 2012: ““The son of a single mom, proud father of two daughters, President Obama knows that women being paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men isn’t just unfair, it hurts families,”
  • Forbes Magazine, 2016: “And the National Organization for Women website states : “For full-time, year-round workers, women are paid on average only 77 percent of what men are paid… Women still are not receiving equal pay for equal work…”
  • Huffington Post, 2012: “According to “Graduating to a Pay Gap” publicity materials, “The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field.”
  • Scary Mommy website: “It pays to look like Donald Trump — which is to say the wage gap is real and women of all races make less than white men for doing the same work.”
  • Linda Hallman, former executive director of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), 2015: “Think about it: Women have to work almost four months longer than men do to earn the same amount of money for doing the same job.”
  • Feminist activist Judy Bindell, The Guardian, 2017: “The fact that men are paid more than women for doing the same or similar job is well-known.”
  • The Conversation magazine, 2016: “The gender pay gap is similarly stubborn. Laura Bates, founder of the wonderful but depressing Everyday Sexism Project is especially clear on the facts in this contentious area…. This is not dependent on education, skills, or experience – women are paid less for doing the same work as men immediately post-graduation, for example.”

4. Almost immediately, this claim was debunked as a misrepresentation of the statistical evidence. People like Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell, Milo Yiannopoulos and many, many others tirelessly demonstrated that the statistics were based on the median incomes of the entire working population without accounting for the different types of jobs people had, number of hours worked, education level, how long individuals stayed in the workforce etc.. In fact, they showed that when these relevant factors are taken into account the pay gap evaporates or even shows a slight advantage for working women.

But as the list of quotes above demonstrates, feminist ideologues and those who pander to them in the political class were not about to let objective reality get in the way of a useful narrative. They continued to push what Causeway Capital Management CEO Sarah Ketterer called in the Wall Street Journal “The ‘Wage Gap’ Myth That Won’t Die” even as the credibility of the claim became less and less viable.

5. Now even feminists appear to have recognised the failed strategy of insisting that statistics support their desired conclusion when they clearly don’t. But rather than taking a moment to reassess the quality of their concepts and the integrity of their arguments… they are doing what feminists, Leftists and ideologues in general always do when they lose the argument: a) Pretend that none of that happened; b) Ignore that their cause and the quality of their reasoning has been completely discredited; c) Come up with a completely different argument and once again proclaim themselves to be 100% right and everyone who disagrees to be stupid.

In this case they have taken the argument that these statistics show only the median difference in pay between men and women in the workforce overall… which, as I mentioned, is the argument that was used by their opponents to debunk their original pay gap premise…  and repurposed it by tacking on a wacky new interpretation which they say makes the pay gap real and which they claim was always their argument from the start: It was never that women get paid less than men for the same jobs (objectively verifiable discrimination based on gender)… but that the jobs in which women tend to dominate are ‘undervalued’ (a completely subjective, hypothetical abstraction) apparently because men are jerks or something.

You are on the right track if all of this reminds you of the famous passage from Orwell’s 1984, “Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

This is the embarrassing but completely predictable result anytime you hitch yourself to a conclusion rather than pursuing what is true. If your justifications for your conclusion are shown to be lousy it means you’re now on the hook for another argument to rationalize your continuing commitment to it. And since your first argument was probably your best one, it’s inevitable that whatever you cobble together as your second crack at it will be even lousier and that much further removed from logic and reality.

Of course, like all ideologues, feminists don’t care much for logic, reality and truth. In fact, such concerns are a hindrance to the ultimate priority of preserving their treasured, ego gratifying conclusion that they are eternal victims of tyrannical oppression by intrinsically mean, evil  and all-powerful men.


Here is a sample of comments about the Q&A video which demonstrate how thoroughly feminism’s ‘outer-party members’  internalize the messaging and the ‘new’ history provided to them by the ‘Party’ :

Robyn: What both the questioner and ‘Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson’, along with most of those who have commented here, have failed to recognise is the ‘gender pay gap’ dose not relate to individual roles. Whether the gap is due to a uni-variable or a multi-variable as Peterson highlighted is totally irrelevant.

The gender pay gap refers to the MEDIAN pay for males and females. The median pay for males is higher than the median pay for females – therefore the gender pay gap is the difference between median male earnings and median female earnings! Do I need to explain what the median is?

Going to Getugly: People who announce “no one understands this except me” strangely seem completely unprepared to justify that flattering self-assessment.

What was your motivation for claiming that something that is self-evident, something that everyone is well aware of is something that only you know about? i,e. – “What both the questioner and ‘Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson’, along with most of those who have commented here, have failed to recognise is the ‘gender pay gap’ dose not relate to individual roles.” What point are you trying to make? What point are you attempting to make by making the fallacious assertion “Whether the gap is due to a uni-variable or a multi-variable as Peterson highlighted is totally irrelevant”? What point are you trying to make by pointing out the obvious: “The median pay for males is higher than the median pay for females – therefore the gender pay gap is the difference between median male earnings and median female earnings!”?


Nicky: Gender pay gap is not just about equal pay for equal work. That’s a strawman

Going to Getugly: “Gender pay gap is not just about equal pay for equal work.” But that WAS explicitly what it was about a few years ago when these statistics were first used to support the concept of a pay gap.

The fact that the only way you can generate a ‘pay gap’ is if you lump everyone in the workforce together and take the overall median pay between males and females was DISGUISED or not acknowledged by feminists for YEARS. That’s because the original premise for which they were trying to manufacture evidence was that women were paid less than men for THE SAME work.

Feminists denied or ignored the fact that theses statistics were deliberately misleading until their claim was so universally debunked by people like Christina Hoff Sommers, Warren Farrell and many, many others that it became embarrassing.

Now they’ve adopted a strategy which you have apparently bought into that is straight out of Orwell: Ignore the fact that the stats didn’t prove the conclusion that they wanted; pretend that highlighting the difference in ‘median’ pay was the point all along and invent a ludicrous premise to justify claiming that those stats now prove the desired conclusion.

In other words, rather than letting objective reality dictate their perception of the world… they generate subjective narratives to allow themselves to continue believing in the absolute perfection of their preferred interpretation regardless of what the objective world is doing.

Nicky: Funny that I’ve been a feminist for 20 plus years and have never argued that its just about same job, same pay. I guess I never received the memo lol. Regardless its not us trying to misrepresent the statistics in this discussion. That’s for sure.


Yeah. That’s for sure.

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.