In this video I look at how ideologies of ‘identity’ like feminism are really just a means to justify the indulgence in self-serving interpretations and narratives.
Things just keep getting worse.
So apparently we are at a stage in society where you can have a major conference at a publicly funded university in a major city to address the problem of white people. Yes folks, this will be an opportunity for the taxpayer supported, self-appointed arbiters of all that is moral and righteous… the ‘thought leaders’ who occupy the ‘social justice’ departments of our elite academic institutions… to tackle the scourge of racism by singling out a particular racial group and assigning blame to them for everything they don’t like about society.
What a great approach to changing things for the better! Why has no one tried it before?
If there is one thing that our moral and intellectual betters in academia absolutely excel at it’s the ability to pack a busload of self-confirming circular reasoning into catchy, two-word phrases. Terms like ‘social justice’ and ‘white privilege’ simply assume the truth of their own claim: Of course what we do is “social justice!” Of course what they do is “white privilege”! Weirdly, the specific metrics used to determine what makes something objectively ‘social justice’ and objectively ‘white privilege’ are always left pretty vague. My suspicion is that they rely on a rather simple formula: “If it is perceived to benefit anyone who thinks and/or looks like them it’s social justice. If it is perceived to benefit anyone who disagrees or doesn’t look like them it’s ‘white privilege’.
“Uncomfortable truths“ is another one of those slippery slogans that streamlines the fallacy of ‘begging the question’ to bumper-sticker efficiency. The ‘truth’ of whatever the slogan is referring to is simply proclaimed by the use of the slogan. No need to prove or demonstrate it. The slogan has already taken care of that for you.
Frankly, I don’t think it would ever occur to anyone who genuinely values “truth” or even understands what the word means to attach the adjective “uncomfortable” to it. “Uncomfortable” is a purely subjective experience arising from a negative emotional reaction. “Truth” is simply what is. Your personal preferences and emotions are irrelevant to recognizing ‘truth’. That is to say… you don’t judge ‘truth’. You merely recognize it. So I find it very revealing that ‘progressive’ social-justicey types instinctively equate ‘truth’ with subjective preference.
Personally, I only care about true truth. All of your other qualifications and categories… good truth, bad truth, red truth, blue truth…. are a reflection of the inherent narcissism of the ‘progressive’ Left as far as I’m concerned.
My interaction with Shirley, below, illustrates how for some people truth is whatever justifies the satisfaction they feel from seeing someone they resent getting screwed. With my first comment to her I confront the blatant, glaring, neon-supernova of principle-free double standards that her support, as a person of colour, for the ‘Everything That’s Wrong With White People’ conference so self-evidently represents.
I conclude by demonstrating how the premise of ‘white privilege’ is intellectually and ethically indefensible… and how anyone who endorses it is deserving of nothing but contempt from people of character, principle and good will.
Shirley: When the subject of one’s race is left open for discussion the results are a great research study. The replies to this post if not in Canada many would say this was America. Canada may me multicultural but not inclusive.
Going to Getugly: Would you be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem that people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society Shirley?
Shirley: It’s done every day a black man is arrested.
The term White Privilege was created by a white man remember that know your history
Going to Getugly: Are you telling me you don’t know the difference between an arrest and a conference Shirley? Or is that merely the transparent attempt to avoid honestly answering the question that it appears to be? The term and fallacious construct ‘white privilege’ was invented by academic and Leftist activist Peggy McIntosh… a woman… in 1989. You should practice a little more humility next time you feel the impulse to lecture someone else about ‘history’.
Shirley Davis: that’s class privilege.
White privilege means that you are born into the racial ‘norm’, another kind of privilege. A privilege where you can;
Turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of your race widely represented.
If you wish, you can arrange to be in the company of people of your race most of the time.
If you buy “flesh” coloured items like band-aids or stockings, they will more or less match your skin tone.
If you were able to use the original suite of emoji’s, the ‘thumbs up’ or ‘peace sign’ hand gestures represented your race.
You can easily can find picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and magazines featuring people of your race.
Going to Getugly: The “thumbs up” and “peace sign” is represented in my ‘race’. That’s the kind of inane issues that you need to reach for in order to justify your conclusion. I think you are doing a fine job proving just how devoid of merit and shallow this whole thing is.
So let’s review this… Our interaction started with me asking if you would be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society…. and you went out of your way to not provide an authentic response. And we both know why you avoided responding… it’s because if it was a conference addressing the problem presented by black people in society… you would instantly recognize the racist, intellectually and ethically despicable nature of such a conference. And we both know that if you were to be honest and acknowledged that… it would put you in the awkward position of being against it when the target is YOUR race but in favour of it when the target is someone else’s race. The double standard is self-evident.
And you and I both know that this would not only reveal you to be a hypocrite and devoid of principles… but someone who is actually perfectly comfortable with racial bigotry as long as it’s directed at people who you are happy to see targeted.
The fact that you know you are doing this and that, in fact, the only way anyone can possibly justify this is to lie about their real intentions and to pretend they are not indulging in a blatant double standard is itself proof positive that the premise does not stand up to objective intellectual or ethical scrutiny.
In other words, this is nothing but a means for people to indulge in their own bigotry by attempting to cloak it in pseudo intellectual gobbledygook.
You write: “that’s class privilege.”
No. Peggy McIntosh invented ‘white privilege’ in 1989. “Class privilege” was the earlier iteration of the same ideological stream… and that was Karl Marx who came up with that.
In other words… you don’t know what you’re talking about but you don’t have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it… so you just make something up to try to get away with it.
No one should take your ideas seriously. Least of all you.
In this Going To Getugly video: White privilege. Mansplaining. Rape culture. Wage gap…. It seems that as quickly as these terms are manufactured they are adopted and parroted by people eager to demonstrate their conformity.
This was national headline news in Canada for three days. The Mayor of Toronto, the Premier of Ontario and even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau felt obliged to release official statements about it.
Even if this had been TRUE it would have been a minor… if ugly, isolated incident.
But the CBC gave these people a national platform, hyped the story out of rational proportion and broadcast it repeatedly around the clock. It was the lead story on their flagship nightly news program The National! That’s how consumed the mainstream media in Canada is with demonstrating their ‘progressive’ bona fides and virtue signalling. Some random little girl lies to her mum and before anyone has bothered to activate a neuron or two…. our $1 billion a year, taxpayer extorting, state-run, multimedia news and information corporation has turned it into a national news event and an indictment of the character of Canadian society. As mentioned above, even the Prime Minister jumped at the opportunity to get in on the act and virtue signal… thereby blowing the incident even further out of proportion.
And yet the same CBC and other mainstream media corporations keep telling us that THEY are the only sources of news and information that can be trusted…. and that it’s those grotty little alternative media outlets… which just happen to pose a threat to their own jobs and industry… who must be seen as having no credibility and expunged from the Internet for being purveyors of ‘fake news’.
The underlying problem here is more troubling and insidious than simply a lack of due diligence on behalf of professional journalists…. which is a serious problem in its own right. The incautious enthusiasm to believe and imbue this story with a significance far beyond anything such an isolated incident should merit exposes how the media has exchanged objective reporting for the promotion of narratives which reflect a ‘progressive’-Left worldview: “Of course a little Muslim girl was attacked by a man driven insane by his hatred and racism! That’s the inherently racist, Islamophobic, far-right, white male privileged, random hijab scissoring world we live in don’t ya know!”
‘Progressives’ will ignore the media’s role in turning what was literally a non event into national moral crisis and simply delete this from their consciousness. For these people, critical judgement is a faculty reserved exclusively for people and institutions with whom they disagree. And the next time the CBC or another mainstream media outlet frames a story in a way that just happens to mirror the assumptions and preoccupations fashionable among the Left or casually dehumanizes their enemies by labeling them ‘racist’…. they will be comforted by the affirmation while taking for granted that they are getting an unobstructed, unmediated window directly onto objective reality.
New Going to Getugly video: Just as ‘progressive’-Left ideology manufactures a flattering generic identity for its adherents… it also manufactures a generic, dehumanizing identity for anyone who doesn’t conform to its worldview.
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
So CNN went after the guy who made the Trump wrestling the CNN logo GIF. They tracked him down, found out his real name and sent him an email. The very next day, CNN hosts are on air brandishing the guy’s written confession, apology and requests for forgiveness.
In CNN’s own words, they have so far chosen not to make his personal details public “because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”
But as CNN makes absolutely clear, if this supposedly free citizen does anything to upset CNN again, all bets are off:
“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
Check out this video. This is the actual confession of the Trump vs CNN GIF CREATOR! I swear… I didn’t manipulate this video in any way. Don’t come after me CNN!