Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:
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.
What is it about exploiting the naïveté of children that people on the ‘progressive’-Left find so appealing?
The version of this video that appeared on my Facebook feed several times this week had been shared 84,000 times with 6.2 million views . It shows a 15 year old boy putting on an admittedly convincing performance at a Martin Luther King Day event on Monday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where King was a pastor.
The boy is Royce Mann. In the video he is seen addressing a large audience of exceptionally enthusiastic adults – including Bernie Sanders seated in a row of honour behind the uncommonly self-possessed 15 year old. With a reasonably credible (and seemingly inevitable these days) impersonation of the speaking style of a Baptist minister, young Royce regales the appreciative congregation with a series of generic platitudes while checking-off one social justice/ ‘progressive’ talking point after another.
White bigotry against black people…check! White bigotry against Muslims…check! White bigotry against Mexicans…check! White bigotry against native Americans…check! The bigotry of parents who don’t validate the confused thinking of their children experiencing gender dysphoria…check! Don’t forget white privilege. Check and check!
Now of course, every reasonable adult knows intuitively that this boy has no idea what he’s talking about. The kid is 15 years old for God’s sake! He likely only stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy within the last couple of years. Every idea, judgement and slogan coming out of his mouth has been put there by the adults in his orbit. Despite what his ‘progressive’ fanbase prefer to imagine, we are not watching some preternaturally insightful savant bestowing uncanny wisdom that transcends his years. We’re witnessing a child simply responding to positive reinforcement he has received for accurately mimicking the political beliefs of the adults around him.
We are also witnessing a room full of grown men and women expressing uninhibited satisfaction at seeing a young boy trained like a performing seal to spout their opinions back to them. Opinions about very complex adult issues which are clearly beyond the child’s capacity to fully conceive…let alone evaluate.
That’s kind of ugly to say the least.
But astonishingly, it would appear that a lot of people out there find using a child in this manner to be absolutely adorable. People who shared the video included comments like,“OMG with kids like him there is so much hope for the future. I still have goosebumps” and “Damn tears…..amazing and on point.”
For some mystifying reason, when people on the Left hear children parrot their ideology back to them, it provokes a maudlin sentimentality that is so totally absorbing it pushes out any sense of responsibility they may possess for critically and objectively assessing what they are actually looking at.
As hard as it is to believe, these people simply do not reflect on the fact that nothing this child is saying could possibly have arisen out his own observation and insight. It clearly doesn’t even occur to them. Or matter.
Their calculus is much simpler than that:
ideology they support + cute, articulate child = gushing sentimentality and approval.
The kid doesn’t even have to be all that articulate (or even properly socially adjusted for that matter) as long as he’s reasonably cute and mirroring their liberal biases…. as the other viral video from the past week featuring a politically ‘progressive’ adolescent suggests:
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:
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….
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are basically two kinds of people. First, there are those who are intellectually courageous and free thinking. These are people who at some point in their lives have recognized just how susceptible we all are to allowing our mostly unconscious , primal desire for social validation to shape our perspective. These people understand how conformity to the value system of the tribe is reflexive, instinctual and seductive….and how only by cultivating a detached, critical and sceptically curious approach can we counteract this default reflex and have any hope of developing an appreciation for the world approximating something like truth.
Now consider the ‘progressives’. These are people who are either completely ignorant of these inherent, reality distorting impulses or for whom the promise of ego gratification and social acceptance is so irresistible that any aspect of objective reality which presents a barrier to that indulgence is simply ignored or dismissed.
This is the Achilles heel of all ‘progressive’/Left thinking. And targeting this undeniable and easily demonstrated blind-spot is the most effective way to confront those who espouse ‘progressive’ ideas. Not by attacking what they think…but how they think. Because the truth is that ultimately… they don’t think. They merely adopt, internalise and repeat.
Well enough is enough. It’s time for thinking people to take back control from the weak minded, the emotionally self-indulgent, the intellectually immature and the flat-out, bat-shit crazy. It’s time for those who value reason, rationality, objectivity, critical thinking – and who are capable of genuine self-reflection and self-awareness to reimpose control of the situation before it is too late. That is… if it’s not too late already.
My small contribution will be to post a selection of the interactions I’ve had with people who exemplify the flawed thinking style routinely practised by ‘progressives’, SJWs, Third Wave Feminists and their ilk. I’ll present this under the heading – ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! Hopefully this can be instructive…. because an obvious pattern emerges when you collect examples of ‘progressive’ thinking in one place: It quickly becomes clear that people who share these opinions demonstrate identical flaws in their reasoning. And if we want to undermine their claim to moral, ethical and intellectual credibility…let alone supremacy – we need to hammer at the ‘progressive’/Left’s inability to engage the critical thinking skills that are a requisite for generating a perspective that adequately reflects objective reality.
These people are not insightful. They don’t even care about insight or truth. Their only priority is projecting a persona that conforms to currently fashionable concepts of moral propriety.A brief glance at history would reveal that every era and every society has had a mainstream concept of what should be considered ‘acceptable and good’ that was reinforced by the elite and the ruling class – and which only a small portion of courageous, free-thinking contrarians challenged and confronted. With the advantage of hindsight, we now recognize that – almost without exception – it was the insightful outliers challenging the status quo who propelled society forward and overturned the corrupt structures that primarily benefited the elite.
It’s Galileo and Copernicus challenging the status quo of the Catholic Church and ushering in the scientific revolution. It’s William Wilberforce forcing the establishment to face the immorality of the slave trade – leading to the abolishment of slavery in the West. It’s Charles Darwin. It’s Magellan and Columbus. Einstein and Freud. King and Parks. Picasso and Presley. And all of the unknown and unheralded individuals throughout history who resisted enormous social pressure to conform and obey.
All of us have a choice: We can be part of that legacy of free-thinking individuals championing truth, clarity and transformation….. Or we can keep our heads down, parrot all of the popular memes, slogans and socially sanctioned opinions – demand nothing of ourselves other than that our values mimic those of our peers – and bask in the validation that comes with compliance and conformity with the herd.
Here is a sample of the interactions with ‘progressives’ that I’ll be including in the ‘Rebuttals of the Week!‘. The context of my debate with ‘S’ – who describes herself a “bleeding heart” and “leftie” – is UK columnist Brendan O’Neill’s recent article –We must have the freedom to hate: Hatred is an emotion, and the state has no business policing emotion. – and his appearance on the Australian panel show Q&A.
As is customary for tolerant, non-judgemental, deeply “compassionate” progressives – S’s initial comment is not a critique of O’Neill’s argument…. but a personal, harsh and definitive attack on his character:
S… You may have the space to be hateful & small, if that is what you wish??? You do not have the right to make us be like you 💕
(You gotta love that she included the little love-hearts at the end. Adorable, right? It’s like she’s saying “You’re a thoroughly despicable, insignificant person – and the reason I’m entitled to judge you is because I’m so much better than you….. and I’m saying that with love“. You see this blindness to hypocrisy and irony from ‘progressives’ over and over again. It’s a standard trait that you’ll notice time and again in other ‘Rebuttals of The Week’.)
Going to Getugly With that statement you have perfectly demonstrated the primary motivation for those who support ‘progressive-Left’ policies…. it’s the desire to think of yourself as morally superior. So anything that feeds that desire is reflexively supported. It has nothing to do with truth, reason or the application of critical thinking skills.
S… Not morally superior, just no desire to compete. The truth is I am better than no one. The application of my skills is in listening, not talking. We seek enlightenment on different paths…but that is ok. You are interesting, I never understood those who separate fact from emotion – we would have some great chats!