Rebuttals of the Week! #29: Um… Too much information!

dug

Background: The Progress Conservative Party gets elected in Ontario, the largest province in Canada, replacing 18 years of rule by an ideologically far Left and much loathed Liberal Party. The Conservatives ran on a platform that included repealing a very controversial, very ideologically grounded and in many parents’ eyes age-inappropriate sex-ed curriculum that was imposed on public schoolchildren by the Liberals under the leadership of Kathleen Wynne (whom Jordan Peterson once described as “the most dangerous woman in Canada”!) only three years ago. It replaced a curriculum that had been in place since 1998.

To the shock and horror of Liberals and Leftists,  PC party leader and new Premier Doug Ford announces within a couple of weeks of assuming power that the contentious curriculum is now officially revoked… thus keeping one of the promises that got him elected.

Liberals and Leftists in Ontario respond as expected by lighting their hair on fire and running around screaming that life as we know it is about to come to an end and that children’s lives are now in imminent danger.

The ‘hair on fire’ thing is a slight exaggeration. Claims that the lives of children are threatened as a result of getting rid of this course that’s been around for three years is actually real. You can’t make this stuff up.

1 lkk2lll2ll

Speaking of stuff you couldn’t make up… have a look at the exchange below. Ray W who launches the interaction seems to be a first year University student in his 20’s who is probably just mouthing the fashionable opinion of his peer group and the group-think pumped into him by whatever ‘Social Justice’ course his parents are wasting thousands of dollars on in place of a useful education for their son. But it’s Carrie B who wins the “Didn’t See That One Coming” award with her… let’s call it, explicit point!


Ray W: Your children are gonna grow up without knowing about lgbt people, consent and cyber safety all because some people clearly didn’t read the curriculum but threw a fit anyway, good job Ontario

Going to Getugly: Funny Ray… somehow everyone who lived before you were born a couple of decades ago managed to ‘grow up knowing’ about all of this stuff without this curriculum. You might want to stop telling yourself that everything began the moment you were old enough to be aware of it.

Carrie B:  Oh, you mean like my 53 year old coworker who didn’t know the difference between a vulva and a vagina?

Going to Getugly: Oh well then! That changes everything! Someone call the Premier of Ontario and inform him that Carrie B had a weirdly inappropriate conversation with her coworker and discovered he was something less than an expert on female anatomy!

Thanks for alerting us to that Carrie. Please let us know if you ever had a disturbing chat with someone on the bus at any point in your life and we’ll make sure government policy is rewritten to reflect whatever it is you found out.

Advertisements

‘Progressive’ ideology + cowardice = more dead black men, women and children

shoot

“With Toronto edging toward another record year of shooting victims, there is a growing push from researchers and advocates to tackle gun violence from a public-health perspective and to instead focus on the social inequalities that lie at the root of the problem.”

This is conformity to ideology presented as analysis. The default axiom of Leftist conditioning is that anti-social behaviour by members of certain protected classes is always and only a reflection of inherent problems EXTERNAL to their own community. To appreciate the glaring indifference to truth which this axiom represents one has only to observe how quickly and unapologetically it is reversed when the perpetrators are from the perceived dominant class… which is to say, white males.

Within 24 hours of the van attack that killed 10 people on Yonge Street earlier this year the story shifted from a lone nutcase committing a one-of-a-kind act of violence in the city of Toronto to a narrative about the obscure group of Internet nerds called ‘INCELs’… how this was really a story about a white male driven to an act of horrific violence by rampant misogyny and perceived injustices being heaped on white men and therefore ultimately a reflection of something gone terribly wrong with white males in society in general.

In contrast to that singular incident we have a problem that has persisted for decades to the point it has become a fixture of daily life in Toronto with a specific class of black men  mimicking the glorification of gun obsession, criminality and extreme violence of American black thug culture. And where are we being instructed by our media elite, ‘researchers and advocates’ to “look” to locate the “root of the problem”?  Not to the community from which this activity has been consistently arising but to an unquantifiable phenomenon called “social inequalities” they claim exists in society at large. In other words, black men shooting each other in the streets of one of the most open, freest, self-consciously welcoming and ethnically diverse cities to ever exist on the planet is not a reflection of something that has gone wrong within a class of the black community itself…. but of an intrinsically racist society created by and for the exclusive benefit of…. you guessed it… white men.

This privileging of fashionable ideology over reason and truth and the spinelessness displayed by politicians and journalists towards saying out loud what everybody (including, I suspect, most people in the black community) is thinking is precisely what allowed this problem to fester in Toronto for years and to escalate to critical proportions.

That is also why the problem will not be effectively addressed; why it will only get worse and why we will continue to see black families in this city mourn this senseless loss of life.

Rebuttals of the Week! #28: Leftist says discrimination based on race not necessarily ‘unjust’.

rac

Steve : Righting historic injustices, that still have tangible effects on historically disadvantaged groups, through practical measures, is just and perfectly justified.

Going to Getugly : The ‘righting historic injustices’ claim is simply an example of how people on the Left use language to justify indulging in the kind of bigotry and racism they make such a show of opposing.

Steve : How about you speak to the truth and logic in my post? Try validly refuting it.
As for language, using it to marginalize and “other” ‘out groups’ is what privileged groups have been doing since language emerged.

Going to Getugly : Believe me Steve, if I had found any ‘truth’ or ‘logic’ in your post I would have been more than happy to ‘speak’ to it. What I found instead were generic ‘progressive’ slogans and talking points that always get parroted by people who then act like they are expressing personal insights. For instance, your response to me pointing out that you are defaulting to the Left’s Orwellian practice of using language to justify indulging in behaviours they claim to be against is not to deny or refute the charge… it’s simply to insist that “the people I’m claiming to be my moral inferiors did it first!” and surrounding your schoolyard-level justification with yet more generic cliches and slogans like “privilege”, “marginalize” and ‘othering out groups’.

Steve : It’s morally unacceptable to discriminate, in a an unjust manner. It’s also morally unacceptable to benefit from unjust discrimination. Regardless, of whether the benefactor is the discriminator, or not. Righting past injustices, at the expense of those so benefiting, is perfectly just. If they aren’t benefiting, then that would be unjust, too.

Now, as to whether all this can be parsed out in a way that ensures justice is served fairly, is a practical and political question. Not a moral one.

Going to Getugly : Wait a minute…. it’s morally unacceptable to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin (otherwise known as racism)…. “in an unjust manner”? So you are saying that as far as you are concerned there are qualifications for when discriminating against someone based on their race is ‘just’… and when it is ‘unjust’? Okay, just to be clear… your position is that discriminating against someone because of their race isn’t wrong IN PRINCIPLE… it’s only wrong if a specific group of people do it to another specific group of people under a certain set of circumstances. That’s your position. Because that’s precisely what I’M saying your position is and the position of the ‘progressive’ Left as a whole.

How about that.

This is not a demonstration of concern for migrants and their kids. It’s a manifestation of hatred for Trump.

1 2 trump

The report by NPR stated: “U.S. immigration officials are planning to detain and deport immigrants who were part of the surge of Central Americans who crossed into the U.S. illegally” and that “immigration agents are mainly targeting young mothers with small children, and unaccompanied youths who turned 18 after they entered the U.S.” Adding “Many Central Americans have fled their home countries due to gang violence”.

That is part of a report from National Public Radio in the US detailing the policy initiative by the American federal government to deal with the issue of migrants from Central America who entered the country illegally with their children.

In 2016.

Yes folks. The report quoted above is describing the  policy directive given to the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by the administration of the yet to be officially sainted (just a formality at this point really) Barack Obama

An op ed in the Huffington Post in May of that year described it as ‘Obama’s Cruel Decision to Resume Mass Deportations’. The author of the column stated, “Sending mothers and young children back to countries from which they are fleeing violence is immoral and cruel as Pope Francis has recently emphasized”.

But wait a minute…. I don’t recall mass protests, around the clock coverage by the mainstream media, professional pundits weeping on TV or the “won’t someone please think of the children” crowd comparing the President to Hitler at that time. Where were all  the sanctimonious people rushing to online comment sections to proclaim their empathy for Central American illegal immigrants and their children two years ago and decrying President Obama’s ‘cruel’ and ‘immoral’ policies?

Here’s how Obama’s department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement defended the president’s “cruel” policy:

“As we have stated repeatedly, the Department of Homeland Security must enforce the law consistent with our enforcement priorities. Our highest priority is public safety and border security…. To promote and protect border security, our priorities include those apprehended crossing the border illegally after January 1, 2014. This includes single adults, as well as adults who bring their children with them.”

Sound familiar?

The unvarnished evidence shows that there is no particular difference in the attitudes or morality behind the policy in 2016 and that of 2018. And yet none of the people currently  protesting or otherwise indulging in ostentatious displays of  ’empathy’ and grief for the plight of Central American mothers and their kids could manage even mild interest when these things were happening two years ago. So what changed?  Only one thing: The guy behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

Which tends to suggest that the emotionalism and  shameless moral self-aggrandizement that seems to be all the rage at the moment has little if anything to do with sincere  concern for illegal migrants from Central America and their children. The moral outrage these people are so desperate to advertise today  is simply a manifestation of their hatred of Trump. Just as their indifference to Obama’s administration rounding up women and children from Central America and shipping them back to the ‘gang violence’ from which they were fleeing was  a manifestation of their blind adoration of Barack Obama.

Rebuttals of the Week #26: Dear all ‘progressives’: You don’t really care about other people.

Ford 1

An old timey conservative gets elected Premier in Ontario… Canada’s largest province by population… home to the country’s biggest, richest and most important city…. my home town of Toronto… and the usual suspects lose their collective minds.

Some of us are old enough to remember when every election represented something other than the pivotal moment in human history when an enlightened society chose the path to ultimate Utopian fulfilment or the barbarians snatched power away from the sole possessors of ultimate truth to fulfill their goal of generating hell on Earth.

It used to be that your guy won and you were pleased or the other guy won and you thought… ‘Oh great. I have to put up with these jokers for the next four years.” That’s basically the way people thought about it.

Adults were so much more… adult at that time.

It wasn’t that long ago… but something has changed. And not for the better. We live in an era in which people mistake the indulgence in collective hysteria, sanctimony and emotionalism for insight and moral propriety.

DOUG

 

The screenshot above is an actual post that appeared on my Facebook feed from a ‘friend’. The message is unequivocal: “You don’t share my political opinions and ideological convictions? Then everything else about you is irrelevant: You are unworthy of my friendship.”

And of course, all of the people who are so eager to equate not sharing their opinions on politics with being a despicable human being are the ‘progressive‘ folks who self-identify as the morally excellent, compassionate, preternaturally tolerant, loving, caring and enlightened class. But if you dare to not affirm the perfection of their opinions and ideological interpretations they won’t hesitate to assess your very humanity as inherently inferior to their own.

Tanya, below, is responding to the article in the Globe and Mail and the election of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party. The premise of the thread was established by commentator Peter G who basically proposed that if you didn’t vote for the far Left Liberal Party who have been in power for 15 years (whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, Jordan Peterson called “the most dangerous woman in Canada”) or the even farther Left socialist NDP party… then you were endorsing the plans of an evil “millionaire” who wants to hurt the poor and destroy education.

Peter G: “The millionaire will go after social services, education, and the working poor. Say goodbye to the social contract in Ontario.”

This is despite the fact that the legacy of the Liberals’ time in government is a provincial debt of $320,000,000,000 with $12.3 billion a year just in interest payments alone. Ontario is the largest sub-sovereign holder of debt in the world. The province’s debt is larger than the GDP of 75 per cent of the world’s countries. There’s the disastrous handling of the electricity file in the province resulting in the highest rates on the North American continent. Ontario had the lowest median household income growth of all the provinces between 2007 and 2016. Only last year they promised three years of balanced budgets and then released a budget earlier this year that guaranteed 6 more years of deficit. The Liberal’s time in office was marked by numerous scandals, criminal charges, the imposition of divisive ideological social policies and multi-billion dollar boondoggles.

The NDP thinks they weren’t radical enough.

But none of that matters because they care, you see! The fact that the people who are hurt the most by their corruption, manipulations and incompetence are the very people they claim to care so much about is irrelevant. It’s about how it makes ‘progressive’ voters feel about themselves to be able to say ‘I support the politicians who really really care about people!’


Tanya: “I don’t have a problem with a country and its people taking care of the marginalized and less fortunate among them. It’s human, ethical and respectful.”

The point that Tanya was making here is that if you don’t agree with her political opinions it means that you want a country that is the opposite of human, ethical and respectful. So I responded:

Going to Getugly:  “Except you people don’t actually care about “the marginalized and less fortunate”….because those are the people who are most hurt when the cost of living rises, when taxes increase, when the cost of electricity and heating go through the roof, when billions of tax dollars are squandered and when the economy eventually tanks.

If you cared about those people you would be livid at political parties who have created those pressures on poor people and who promise to add to the problem while pushing the province off a fiscal cliff. So spare us your pronouncements of your sense of your own moral superiority Tanya. What Leftists ‘care about’ is their own ego and being able to tell themselves how incredibly wonderful, enlightened and morally excellent they are. That’s why they mindlessly support everything that’s marketed on the front end as ‘progressive’ and compassionate and then are completely indifferent to the real world results of those policies on the back end when they are implemented.”

 

I guess all of the morally excellent folks figure Faith Goldy deserves it.

This is what people these days seem to be unwilling to grapple with… It isn’t supposed to matter if you agree with Faith Goldy’s opinions or politics. As a principled person, you are supposed to be outraged that this woman… an independent reporter… is being intimidated and attacked by masked, male thugs… in public… in Canada… and that the national media is making a conscious choice to exclude this incident from their narrative construction. Remember, this is an era  in which two random guys in a third rate city in a foreign nation who are told they can’t use a bathroom in a Starbucks unless they buy a coffee is deemed to merit daily, national news coverage for at least two to three weeks in this country.

And yet an incident involving someone who has worked in the mainstream media and who is very well known in the alternative media, who is a Canadian and who is covering a major story that is happening in our own country to which that same mainstream media has paid only passing attention is deemed unworthy of serious coverage. This is despite employees of every single one of those mainstream outlets being present to capture reams of audio and video to present to their editors and producers at all of the mainstream media bunkers back in Toronto.

A lot of people in management in a bunch of different offices decided, “Naaaaa! This isn’t something we want the public to think about.”

This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that the mainstream media does not provide a window into objective reality. The media constructs narratives. That’s their job. And the only narrative that this generation of homogeneous, incompetent and useless Canadian mainstream journalists are comfortable promoting is the one about how anyone who protests this absurd transgression of this country’s right to control its own borders is a Nazi.

And don’t ya know…. Nazis’ deserve whatever they get.

“Populism”: The latest buzz-word for failing to conform to Leftist group-think

glob

“Countries around the world have been gripped by an incoherent, rage-fuelled nihilism that rejects elites on the left and the right. It’s not income inequality, as many think, but a fear of immigrants undermining culture and a way of life , argue Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson”

“I think ‘populist’ is a term that some people use for things they don’t like.” – Douglas Murray

What is driving so-called “populism” is the inevitable and completely predictable push-back by normal people against the relentless expansion and normalisation of extreme Leftist ideology in Western society. It is also the expectation of unquestioning conformity placed on the individual by elites in the political, cultural, academic and media classes who are so overwhelmingly enamoured with that ideology.

And because the people in those elite classes… people like Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson… find it so confounding to relate to any perspective that exists outside of the closed loop of their ideological bubble… they invent dark and malignant motivations to explain to themselves why anyone would possibly reject the purity and absolute truth of their own worldview.

After several decades of displaying unprecedented goodwill and acceptance towards a series of social engineering experiments being imposed on them without consultation by  the ideologically possessed in the ruling classes… some people are… for the first time in any significant numbers… exercising their democratic right to voice their growing sense of disenchantment with the process. And how are the people who are most directly affected by the ideological fancies imposed upon them by the wealthy, powerful and protected classes treated? The moment these people open their mouths…. the moment they dare stand up for what they consider to be their own interests… they are slapped down, accused of “incoherent, rage-fuelled nihilism” and condemned for their lack of virtue by those who take their own enlightenment and moral excellence for granted.

It doesn’t seem to occur to those elite ideologues that it’s the narcissism of restructuring society in their own image and the arrogance of expecting everyone to be humbly grateful to be the beneficiaries of their self-proclaimed superior wisdom that is the real genesis and driving force of the growing discontent.