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?

 

Advertisements

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.

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.

 

Sorry ladies… I think you’ve lost the plot

Like everyone, I saw the images in the media and online of the huge crowds of women in pink hats who turned out in cities around the globe for last weekend’s ‘Women’s March’. But unlike everyone who has adopted what appears to be the officially sanctioned interpretation of the phenomenon, I don’t feel like I was witnessing some inspiring, enlightened defiance of an existential threat to human rights or a spontaneous expression of solidarity with some meaningful and just cause.

No. What others are giddily celebrating looks to me more like mass hysteria, collective paranoid delusion and pathological group-think… perhaps for the first time on a global scale.

It occurs to me that there doesn’t appear to be as much as a hair’s breadth of sunlight between the messaging recently constructed and amplified by the political and media establishment – disseminated globally by social media and the Internet – and the personal conceptualisations of these ‘protestors’ and their supporters.

Alleged celebrity and irrational hysteric Ashley Judd rants incoherently about mustaches at Woman's March in Washington

So what is really happening here?

To my mind, over the past 10 to 12 months I’ve watched a narrative being cunningly constructed and promoted by political and media elites invested in particular social and political agendas. Now it seems to me I’m witnessing the efforts of those powerful vested interests bearing fruit – with thousands of people (primarily women it has to be said) appearing to have reflexively and uncritically internalised the messaging and subjectively relating to it as a personal insight that mirrors objective truth.

In other words, they are responding to a program of propaganda exactly the way the authors of that program intended.

Ashley Judd demonstrates the intellectual standard required to represent the Women's March

And as seems to be the case with so many of these collective displays of ‘progressive’-Left dissatisfaction and outrage, no one seems able to articulate anything specific that the protests are supposedly about… let alone what they are meant to accomplish.

The motivations are all very vague and ephemeral… especially considering the degree of frenzy and apparent depth of satisfaction being generated among the participants.

“It’s about women’s rights!”

Okay. Could you be more specific? What is it about ‘women’s rights’ that has changed so dramatically in the last four days that warrants such histrionics and extraordinary expressions of outrage?

Anyone?

“It’s about solidarity!”

Okay. Solidarity with whom over what?

*crickets*

Where normally you would expect to find specifics and facts… all you get are vague allusions to some looming, present or past social-justice catastrophe and a rather self-indulgent and frankly adolescent emotionalism.

The thing is,  it is precisely this indistinct and incoherent grasp of their own motivations that you would expect from people who had allowed themselves to be swept up in a program of group-think manufactured by  external sources and designed to activate their egos and emotional reactivity – not engage their intellect and reason.

Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone directly or indirectly partaking in this event is acting out of a genuine concern for the greater good or a commitment to admirable principles. The payoff for these individuals is not the elevation of truth… but more likely it is the ego expansion people experience when they divest themselves of their individuality in favour of the collective identity of a mob. The ‘greater purpose’ of the collective is far more gratifying than the seemingly mundane, ineffectual and resentful experience of the individual.

And I suspect that resentment and a reflex for shifting responsibility for their personal grievances and dissatisfaction from themselves to others is a significant, if unacknowledged,  motivating factor behind much of this mania.

The fact that this character flaw can be manipulated by the media and the political establishment – and on such a grand scale – is about as far away from ‘inspiring’, ’empowering’ and admirable as you can get.

Madonna Louise Ciccone - a woman horribly oppressed by the patriarchy her entire life - finally gets an opportunity to express herself thanks to the Women's March on Washington.

She tells us of her anger. Her outrage. And her obsession with committing violent acts of treason.

Anyone else feeling relieved these people lost?

slatre

reeIt’s not a hitherto submerged but widespread racism, misogyny, bigotry etc. of the so called ‘alt-right’ that the election of Donald Trump has allowed to come spilling forth into the world….. it is the unstable, hyper-emotional, narcissistic and infantile irrationality of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left that has broken free of all restraints…. like an unhinged, shamelessly self-aggrandising Frankenstein’s monster that is now rampaging across the land.

The more self-serving, reason-free hysteria I see of the kind the author of this grotesque Slate screed has indulged in the more relieved I am that these mentally and emotionally fragile people didn’t get their way.

Here’s the original Slate article (if you can stomach it): There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter