Canada’s largest newspaper now mainstreaming anti-white racism

Things are changing folks. And not for the better.

This op ed by national columnist Vicky Mochama was published in the Toronto Star this week:


star


The Star is the biggest newspaper in Canada. It has always been known as a decidedly Left-of-centre publication. But as the extreme far Left has come to dominate Leftist thinking in general, the Star has kept pace and has moved to reflect those extremes. By presenting radical ideological concepts in the most mainstream, ubiquitous platform imaginable… they are attempting to shift the public’s perception of these extreme ideas and to normalize them.

The Star has truly ‘jumped the shark’ this time. Publishing articles in a still widely read mainstream newspaper that promote the concept of ‘whiteness‘ as a social ill that society has failed to ‘grapple with’ is signalling that racist ideology of the far Left and the collective demonisation of white people is perfectly normal and acceptable.

It’s actually quite shocking to see the same intellectually barren and contemptible ideas that were once confined to loony, hyper-partisan web sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed now presented as credible mainstream editorial content.

If that wasn’t bad enough… these types of far-Left ideological screeds are almost always terribly written. How these people manage to write for a living is a complete mystery. For example, Mochama uses a 2017 mass shooting by Alexandre Bissonnette at a Mosque in Quebec in which six people were killed… an almost unheard of category of crime in Canada… as evidence of the scourge of ‘whiteness’. She writes:

“His crime is exceptional; he, however, is not. Bissonnette is as Canadian as the good old hockey game.”

Mochama makes no attempt to reconcile the contradiction in characterizing Bissonnette’s actions as ‘exceptional’…. in other words, anomalous in relation to the behavior of every other Canadian… while insisting that he simultaneously personifies the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.

The explanation for her indifference to the logical incoherence of her reasoning is obvious: she is far less concerned with making logical sense as she is with conveying her feelings of animus and contempt for white people. The goal is not to communicate a rational insight or to say something objectively true. It is strictly to let you know that she personally makes an equivalence between this despicable mass murderer and white Canadians in general.

Does Mochama ever get around to connecting any of these disparate dots to show how a crazy gunman, white people as a race and Canadian society come together to support the gaseous concept of ‘whiteness’?

Nope.

She just carries on… stream of consciousness style… presenting what appear to be random, fanciful interpretations which she feels no urge to justify or connect to anything objectively real. To be honest, it’s more like reading the personal journal of someone whose purpose for writing is merely to disgorge the flurry of subjective impressions running through her head rather than making coherent, reasoned arguments.

For instance, she says that because Bissonnette is white, “his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt. The guns he killed with were purchased legally without a hint of an obstacle. His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.”

You’re probably asking yourself….what the hell is that supposed to mean?  “Because he is white, his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt.”  Really? How do you quantify that? “His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.” It did? How does that work?

Perhaps you are giving Mochama the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she must have elaborated and clarified how these intangible premises relate to something that can be objectively evaluated or demonstrated.

Nope.

Mochama just carried on with a completely different set of premises, personal impressions and tenuous connections between things that are not obviously related.

You may think I’m being unfair and selecting bits from her column out of context to emphasize the incoherence of her thesis. I can assure you that I’m not. I will provide a link below to the original article for you to judge for yourself.  Be prepared… it’s a very irritating read.

link: Every time is the right time to grapple with whiteness in Canada

 

Advertisements

Going to Getugly Censored By Facebook For Criticizing Feminism!

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP NOTICE up2 bFACEBOOK CENSORSHIP notice this one

Yes folks… if you are critical of feminists and mention the objective fact that they are women you will be reprimanded by Facebook, have your comments censored and be at least temporarily banned from their platform. They also warn that unless you learn your lesson you could be banned permanently. So you better behave.

I received the message above from Facebook today along with notification that I’ve been locked out of my account. As you see, they provided a copy of the comment that allegedly transgresses the high standards of respectful discourse that we all know Facebook dutifully and uniformly enforces for anyone commenting on the feeds of major media outlets like the CBC, the ABC, The AGE, The Globe and Mail, CNN etc..

In this circumstance the comment was on the Facebook feed of  the Australian public broadcaster’s weekly panel show Q&A. It was in response to a video clip taken from a recent episode in which an audience member posed a question to panelist Harriet Harman of the Labour Party in the UK. The question loosely referenced Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson’s critique of the standard feminist conceptualization of the ‘gender pay gap’. I encourage everyone to watch the clip below and decide for yourself if my criticism of Harman’s response isn’t at least justifiable if not spot on.

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with my assessment of Harman’s response, to claim that it represents an “attack” on anyone “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability” is blatantly false. It is a lie.

Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire about how to identify the truly privileged class in society? It goes like this: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Isn’t it oddly Orwellian how often it is these days that the very people who constantly proclaim themselves to be the victims of societal systemic oppression are precisely the  people who are protected from criticism by that very same system?

As anyone who has even a casual familiarity with the degree of uninhibited maliciousness that routinely passes Facebook’s incredibly rigorous ‘Community Standards’ will know… the idea that some policy of  prejudice-free, moral excellence compels them to  remove posts that ‘attack people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability‘ is an absurd and dishonest joke.

And of course, the fact that my comment doesn’t meet any of their own criteria for censure doesn’t really matter. The only thing I ‘attacked’ was the willingness to engage in “intellectual dishonesty” by the people who are pushing the discredited notion of a ‘pay gap’. The fact that those people are women and feminists is… sorry folks… just that, an objective fact. I clearly didn’t ‘attack’ anyone because they are women. What  I ‘attacked’… or to put it less hyperbolically, what I criticized…. was the atrocious and disingenuous reasoning demonstrated by using deflection as a tactic to avoid addressing the flaws in their argument.

In other words, I criticised their ideas. I did not ‘attack’ their gender.

Now contrast my comment  with a small sampling of what the arbiters of respectful discourse and decency at Facebook apparently regard as meeting or surpassing the lofty ideals of their Community Standards. Pay particular attention to the deep commitment these paragons of virtuous elocution demonstrate to the noble principle of never ‘attacking’ anyone based on race, gender, age, blah blah blah….

Mandy Noone: It’s not about what any guy (let alone OLD WHITE GUYS) thinks

Sharon Knighton: How unusual that a MIDDLE AGED WHITE MAN doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McDermott: It looks so sad to see OLD WHITE MEN insisting that women arent in danger of being oppressed. im guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Robinson: Another WHITE MIDDLE AGED MALE mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

 

 

 

 

Fake News: National media hypes bogus ‘hate crime’ story

cbc c

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.

Video: The Left Demonize People Who Can Think

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.

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

ageee

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?

 

 

Rebuttals of the Week #15 Part 2: Lefty says Left-wing bigotry is okay because it doesn’t hurt anybody.

1a1a

Here’s a quick follow up to my exchange with James from Rebuttals of the Week # 15: Lefty tries desperately to believe racism okay if his side does it.

As is usual when you critique the position of someone captured by Left-wing ideology, James responded by ignoring the issues I raised in my argument and simply restated the same thing he’d said originally but with slightly different words (see below). Rather than supporting that position with facts, evidence or reasoned argument… notice how he offers only subjective expressions of the superior moral stature of his own opinion.

You see this over and over again when debating people on the Left. What James is revealing here, I believe, is the key to understanding what motivates people to identify with Leftist,  ‘progressive’ ideology: They are driven by an impulse for moral and social validation.

In short, they adopt opinions to fulfill ego-needs…. not to know something true about the objective world. And their use of language is a reflection of that.

This goes a long way to explaining why reason, argument and evidence that challenges or refutes their position rarely if ever influences their fixed opinion on these issues. They didn’t arrive at their conclusions as the result of an interest in what is ‘real’ to begin with. They settled on those conclusions because they find them personally satisfying. So it is rare that someone who focuses on ego-gratification by nature will suddenly exercise the willpower to make that sense of personal satisfaction subordinate to the pursuit of truth.


James: Dear Going to Getugly, standing in a different spot briefly would not hurt anybody. It might make people think. We shouldn’t turn our radar for sources of outrage up too high. If people will think about something I can move 30 feet or whatever for a couple of minutes. Let’s not major on the minors.

Going to Getugly:

Here’s the thing: What you think other people should feel about being told where to stand based on their race is irrelevant. You’re blind to the outrageous narcissism and self-aggrandizement of believing everyone needs to conform to your ideological concepts and see the deliberate humiliation of people at this concert based on their race as an opportunity to “make people think” about how collectively guilty they all are.

Again… this is what people out here in the real world keep trying to get people who are captured by this ideology to recognize: The fact that a self-identified “leftwinger” has “Left-wing” justifications for the bigotry he wants imposed on certain people doesn’t make him different to other bigots!

It makes the “leftwinger” exactly the same as every other bigot who ever walked the Earth. EVERY bigot believes he is doing ‘the right thing for the right reasons’ and that his critics are just not as aware and enlightened as himself.

The problem with “leftwingers” is that they lack principles. Basic principles tell you that unethical, deplorable behaviour…. like treating people differently or poorly based solely on their race… is ALWAYS unethical and deplorable… regardless of who is doing it and to whom.  But  “leftwingers”  indulge in the narcissistic conviction that the very same unethical and deplorable behaviour magically and conveniently transmutes into noble and justified as soon as they engage in it.

After all,  “leftwingers” are only doing it to “make people” who are clearly inferior to themselves “think” and behave the right way! Right James? And that’s nothing like the kind of justifications real bigots tell themselves!

‘Cultural appropriation’ propaganda pushed by mainstream media

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: