Rebuttals of the Week # 41: Sorry folks. You hinged all your credibility on ‘Russian collusion’. Switching to ‘obstruction’ now that you’ve been proven wrong doesn’t cut it.

 

Lou M: So many assumptions, and the report isn’t public yet. According to Barr, Mueller makes the case for and against obstruction.

Going to Getugly: First of all… this was about Russian collusion. That was what this was all suppose to prove. It turned out to be a lie. And everyone who didn’t abandon independent critical thinking in favour of conforming to the most fashionable group-think one could possibly subscribe to all recognized it was a lie from the start. And now all of the people who uncritically bought into the Russian collusion lie are defaulting to the standard tactic that Leftists always rely on when they’ve been proven to be naive, easily manipulated and wrong…. they are instantly dropping the claim they’ve breathlessly supported for two years, they’re acting like it never happened and they are all simply moving on to the official NEW claim to validate their preferred conclusions… ‘it is now and has always been about “obstruction!“… which they’re all once again breathlessly supporting.

The assumption you are all relying on is that being completely wrong for two years about something that you were absolutely certain you were right about has no bearing on the credibility of your perspective going forward.

As much as you would like to believe that.. it isn’t true. You have proven yourselves to be incapable of adequately discerning what is true from what is false. So when you replace your certainty about “collusion” with your new certainty about “obstruction” you have no credibility whatsoever.

Rebuttals of the Week #34: Knowing the popular narrative is NOT the same thing as understanding climate change.

In this video: People mistake knowing the popular narrative that has been spoon fed to us with knowing everything that is relevant about the complex issue of climate change. That’s why they mistake critical scrutiny of the narrative with ‘rejecting science’.

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

 

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.

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

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.

Rebuttals of the Week # 21: Using the term ‘mansplaining’ makes you look dumb. Stop it.

 

There is a debating tactic favoured by all older sisters when they are around the age of 12 and which every younger sibling knows all too well. It would be deployed at times when the older girl was clearly in the wrong, in danger of losing an argument or simply wanted to indulge in some behavior that impacted negatively on her brother or sister. It was a particularly immature strategy which involved adopting a deliberately pompous, shamelessly arrogant and obnoxious tone and using purposefully condescending, insulting language towards her younger opponent. It would go something like this: “Oh, poor BABY! Is the widdle woo-woo gonna cwy about it? Let me kiss da booboo better!”  The intention was to humiliate, degrade and convey her utter, cold contempt for the feelings and interests of the other person. Not very edifying behaviour. But hey, we’re talking about 12 year old girls. What do you expect, right?

Well, one thing I expect is that such infantile, narcissistic self-indulgence would be long outgrown by the time those petulant little girls were old enough to be employed as professional writers for major media companies. I would expect such women to hold themselves to appropriate adult-level standards of journalism and rational thinking.

Judging from this column in the Age ( link: Men, hush now. Let us womansplain it to you) my expectations were misplaced.

Keep in mind that the following lines were written by a grown woman, Jacqueline Maley… a professional ‘journalist’… who evidently thought this was an appropriate manner with which to express serious ideas to sophisticated thinking adults in a major news publication:

“Men, hush now. Let us woman-splain it to you.” 

“Is there any way men can speak up about sexual harassment and the #metoo movement without sounding stupid, sexist and part of the problem?

“Man-actors, maybe it’s time for you to be quiet, dears. Look pretty, act in your action movies, dress up nicely on the red carpet, and for the moment, at least, leave the talking to the ladies.”

The fact that Jacqueline would not be embarrassed to represent the quality of her intellect with this level of rhetoric is sad. Very, very sad. That Fairfax Media would publish this juvenile tripe as legitimate, professional commentary is mind boggling.

But such is the era in which we now live. It’s why the public must come to terms with the fact that whatever social outrage the mainstream media happens to be pushing… whether it’s the now completely forgotten hysteria over Nazis popping out of the woodwork a couple of months ago or the current hysteria over sexual harassment…. the narrative is likely 1 percent related to something real and 99 percent ideologically derived, manufactured outrage driven by the media.

At least this terrible column provided the impetus for the somewhat heated exchanges below about the awful expression ‘mansplaining’… which culminated in what should be considered… in my humble opinion… the ultimate deconstruction of the shallowness of this self-infantilising, ludicrous expression.

---

The exchange starts with Pasha offering an excellent description of the inherent hypocrisy of using this recently invented phrase. Marcica quickly chimes in with some predictable circular reasoning to defend its use…. at which point I enter the fray in my usual demure manner. Kittie stumbles into the scene somewhat blindly… and ‘White Knight’ Campbell arrives on his steed to salvage her honour! He is quickly slapped off his saddle… at which point the main event begins with male feminist (Ughhhhh! I KNOW!) Paul’s attempt to set me straight. Enjoy!  :

Pasha : The concept of “Mansplaining” epitomises sexism: it dismisses an argument based on gender of the person making it. When open, all inclusive public deliberation is rejected, only violence remains.

Marcica: Wrong. Mansplaining is a patronising explanation not a difference of opinion.

  – Going to Getugly: Marcica, “mansplaining” is a silly, generic slogan used by under confident women who can’t tolerate having their sense of their own authority challenged. It’s self-infantilising. Calling it “a patronising explanation” reflects your sense of your own subordination in the dynamic.

Kittie: In your opinion.

  – Going to Getugly:  “In your opinion”? What kind of thinking adult’s response is that?

Campbell:  See that there? Textbook patronising.

  – Going to Getugly: No Campbell. ‘That there’ is a valid question in response to a childish rebuttal.

This is “textbook patronising”: “Oh no! I think he’s patronising someone! I’m going to signal my virtuousness and post a comment about it… as opposed to using reason like an adult to address the points he raised!”

Kittie: You raised no valid points….just more mansplaining.

  – Going to Getugly:  That’s a great example of what this silly ‘mansplaining’ slogan is really about. In this context, “You raised no valid points” means ” I don’t like what you’ve said but I have no rationally valid reason to take issue with it…. so, “mansplaining”.

Paul: Someone please explain to this guy what mansplaining actually is

 – Going to Getugly: Paul, I’m sure you will get all the pats on the head from feminists that you’re clearly looking for by so randomly signalling your submissiveness to their childish concepts. Here’s an idea… instead of reasoning like a feminist and making snarky emotional comments…. why don’t you make an effort to demonstrate that you can think like a grown man? Why don’t you explain what “mansplaining” actually is? Wouldn’t that be simpler?

Paul: jeez m9[sic] settle petal. As was stated above, it’s explaining something to a woman because you think as a woman she doesn’t understand the concept even though she may be inherently more qualified than you (yeah I know right, women can be more qualified than men for a given task? Mind-blowing stuff) and what do you mean by ‘looking for feminists?’ I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.

  – Going To Getugly:  Okay… so you are repeating the generic justification that women who use the ridiculous expression always use.

And according to your own definition, the premise of ‘mansplaining’ relies entirely on the woman attributing motives to a man who doesn’t agree with her or who fails to tell her she’s correct. The motive being attributed is that the man believes the woman doesn’t understand something based exclusively on the fact that she is a woman.

Tell me, how does the woman know that this is the man’s motive?

How does she objectively single out that one motive in particular from every other potential motive he could have for not agreeing with her? How does she know that he wouldn’t say the same thing to another man? How does she know that he doesn’t genuinely just think she is incorrect? What objective metrics is the woman employing that provides her with such an unobstructed view into the soul of another person that she can so definitively proclaim to know his deepest motivations in this situation?

Of course, the only motives that the woman is actually capable of knowing are her own. But that requires not only the capacity for self-awareness and honest self-critique… but also an active interest in knowing to what degree one’s own motivations are particularly virtuous.

Would it not be wise and far more mature for her to scrutinize her own motivations for how she is reacting before reflexively concerning herself with inventing motivations for the other person?

For instance, how certain is she that it’s not her own ego…. not his… that is too fragile to handle being challenged by the opposite sex? Perhaps she is simply having a negative emotional reaction to a man disagreeing with her and is indulging in pettiness by applying a convenient label to him to compensate for her own insecurity and wounded pride? Has she thought about that?

Has she given serious thought to the fact that attributing sinister motives as an explanation for someone disagreeing with you is a purely subjective, self-serving form of circular reasoning and is logically fallacious?

Has she reflected on the fact that she is a total hypocrite for trying to undermine the man’s point of view by using a demeaning phrase to dismiss it based entirely on his gender? Isn’t that what she is accusing him of doing and condemning him for it?

Frankly Paul, since it’s safe to say that none of this has ever occurred to the women who have latched onto this dumb slogan… I’m equally confident that none of that has occurred to you either.

Ultimately, this is a reflection of much bigger and pervasive problem: There are too many intellectually lazy people these days who uncritically and reflexively internalise fashionable, ideologically derived concepts which are propagated by the mass media… and who mistake that for being intellectually and ethically sophisticated.

In other words… ‘If I believe what is popular to believe that makes me good.’

I would recommend cultivating an instinct for autonomous critical thinking as the antidote.

Finally, you write, “I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.”

I have no idea what you do to ‘get laid’ nor is it a subject in which I have any interest.

I do believe however that you have acquiesced to conditioning that is telling men they are obliged to be submissive to women in general and feminist ideology in particular if they want to consider themselves ‘moral’.

---

Oh yeah… and Paul did in fact get the pat on the head he was looking for:

Vee: Paul , lovely to hear a voice of reason in amongst the twerps. Thanks

Rebuttals of the Week! #17: Feminist bigotry and logical fallacies.

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?

 

 

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.

Progressive Left continues to eat itself alive!

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.

Rebuttals of the week! #4: How do you drive ‘progressives’ crazy? Ask them to prove their point.

One thing that seems to catch ‘progressives’ completely off-guard is asking them to support their opinions and assertions. You often get the impression that the necessity of basing opinions on things you know to be… well, true – is just something that never occurred to them.  It’s as if expecting them to be able to prove their point is some kind of atrocious breach of ‘progressive’ etiquette or something – and all the language of compassion and tolerance is very quickly dropped when they are confronted with the fact that they really don’t know why they believe the things they espouse.

You will see in this exchange with ‘DE‘ an example of how quick ‘progressives’ are to get their backs up when you have the temerity to politely ask them to justify the definitive assertions.

The context for this exchange was a question in a survey distributed by Canadian MP Kellie Leitch to her supporters. The questions was, “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

The National Post published a column by Matt Gurney about the inevitable controversy that arose, called  : Is it unCanadian to worry that some would-be Canadians may be unCanadian?

Here was DE‘s take on the subject:

DE

 Canadian values change over time, and immigration has been one of the factors contributing to that change. Stagnant values, or the quest to somehow freeze the values of a country in time, only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others and it is usually the values of the dominant class that get so codified.

It was that first sentence in particular that caught my attention. It’s the kind of bland, generically ‘progressive’ platitude that is easy to agree with. But does it really mean anything? Is his assertion about the world connected to any actual knowledge or information? And if not, then why offer it as an opinion or hold it as a belief?

So I asked….

Going to Getugly

How has immigration “been one of the factors contributing to that change”?

“only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others”
Are you suggesting that there are not values that are better than others?

DE

 Because new people bring new ideas and values to a situation and for a society to progress both sets of values must be reconciled. And yes there are values that are better than others, but which are which is subjective. Generally speaking, people who think their values are 100 per cent superior to everyone else’s have at least one glaring flaw in their value system–a gross and misplaced sense of their own moral superiority. That’s not a value that needs to be perpetuated. In fact, it’s a value that often leads to aggression, and, on a societal level, to war.

Going to Getugly

That all sounds very nice …. but you didn’t answer the question. What ‘new ideas and values’ did Canada gain that it had lacked and which immigration brought and improved us?

DE

Obviously you feel that the continuous immigration to Canada over the past 400 or so years, including that of your own ancestors, has added nothing of value to the country. In your case, I’m afraid I am forced to agree.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Like I said, as is the case with most ‘progressives’, it didn’t take much for DE to drop the facade of tolerant, non-judgemental, compassionate pluralist and reveal the nasty, vindictive nature just below the surface.

And notice that he responds to a request for evidence by inventing an unflattering opinion for me that I have never expressed but which he asserts I “obviously feel”. He then attacks me for the opinion that he just made up and projected onto me.

It’s important to pause and think about that response and what it says about the character, the intellect and the reasoning skills of the person. It’s important because once you are aware of it, you will see that ‘progressives’ resort to this over and over again. And the purpose of ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! is to build a case that objectively demonstrates that people who are attracted to and who embrace ‘progressive’ concepts, ideals, politics and policies are inherently poor thinkers.

Here is how I responded to DE‘s ‘straw man’ argument. As you will see, he just kept digging himself deeper into the same hole:

Going to Getugly

What is obvious is that not only have you made an assertion that you can’t support… but one which you don’t actually believe. If you did believe it, you would have answered the question without hesitation the first time… let alone the second time. Of course, this is precisely why I posed the question: To highlight the fact that people such as yourself like to say things that make you feel very pluralistic and superior….but which have no connection to anything you actually know to be real. This is nothing but a self serving pose that you have adopted.

DE

Yeah, except there’s something you’re missing and that is that your question is so obviously that of a troll. You know as well as I do that immigrants from over 200 countries who have come here over the past 400 years have brought an almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country and that one of the foundational ideas of Canada is multiculturalism itself–to your great dismay, I’m sure. So if you want a list, troll, why don’t you make us a list of all the countries that have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution. Start with the country of your own ancestors, Underabridgeia.

Going to Getugly

 I’m a ‘troll’ because you’re embarrassed to admit you were just trying to say something politically-correct sounding that you don’t really mean? You say things like “almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country” …. but you can’t actually name one. And by the way…. multiculturalism is not an “idea or value” that immigrants brought here. It’s an idea that brought immigrants here. The fact that you’ve made a very transparent attempt to deflect from your inability to answer the question by putting the onus on me to ‘make a list’ to support a claim I never made just shows how desperate you are to salvage your credibility. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

DE

That all sounds very nice…. but you didn’t answer the question. What countries have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution?

 

Going to Getugly

 Really? You think doubling down on a straw man fallacy bolsters your credibility? You’ve had four opportunities now to select a single example from the “infinite multiplicity” you insist supports your claim. And all you’ve done for the last two posts is try and deflect from the fact that you have nothing to offer because your opinion isn’t based on having actually thought about it. Like most liberals/’progressives’ – you choose opinions you think will enhance your self-image rather than cultivating a point of view based on reasoned analysis, objectivity and critical thinking.

 

DE

Nope, that’s not it.

 Going to Getugly

Very convincing counterargument.

Hillary’s health: final nail in the coffin of mainstream media

 

The so called ‘credible’ mainstream media not only ignored and suppressed this issue for months… they went out of their way to attack and ridicule anyone in the alternative media who suggested her health was a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

 

 

Now that they can no longer deny that it is a genuine story – they are struggling to manufacture a narrative that retroactively justifies their total lack of journalistic scrutiny.

It’s too late.