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.
“Universities are thus caught in the battleground of competing expectations between affluent students who treat university as a transitional period between adolescence and adulthood — a place where they can freely debate ideas — and traditionally underrepresented students, who tend to view university as both a stepping stone out of poverty and a way to support their communities. That is, university education as “finishing school,” versus university education as social justice.” Angela Wright (link)
“Social Justice” is a self-justifying label invented for a very rigid, essentially fanatical and radical ideological construct. It is used by adherents to that ideology to generate a perception of benevolent intention and unquestionable moral righteousness. Putting these two words together.. ‘social, justice’.. obviously doesn’t convey any specific meaning whatsoever. Like other recently coined slogans constantly parroted by the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left like ‘white privilege’, ‘rape culture’ or ‘mansplaining‘… it is deliberately vague. The intention behind slamming these unrelated words together is more about promoting a collective, subjective impression which validates their own ideological premise rather than to express anything logically coherent or objectively true. This of course is the ideal use of language for the extreme Left because it allows any of these suddenly fashionable phrases to mean anything they say it means and to apply it in any way that suits their purposes… with the moral righteousness automatically assumed.
The author of this ‘opinion’ piece from the publicly funded state broadcaster is one of those ideologues. By framing the university in divisive terms of class and race… pitting the motivations of ‘affluent’ students (code word for white people) against the those of the “traditionally underrepresented” she is imposing that ideological construct onto the institution.
The role of the university should never be the promotion of radical and divisive ideologies. “Social Justice”… despite the intentionally soothing title… is just such an ideology and therefore should have no place in the curriculum of these publicly funded institutions of higher learning.
Going to Getugly: You give the impression that you don’t distinguish between “guessing” and ‘knowing’ as a rule. Fortunately, I don’t have to guess to know that logical consistency isn’t your “strong point”.
The truth is that there isn’t much to comprehend in your comment. It’s just a series of unsubstantiated, self-confirming assertions about other people’s motives with the phrase “actual medical science” tacked onto it as if that’s the same thing as demonstrating you have the slightest clue about the “actual medical science”.
You are not a spokesperson for ‘science’, Rob. Science is predicated on objectively demonstrable proof of any truth claims. What you are a spokesperson for is ideology.
And your position is absolutely about “conforming” as you have arbitrarily designated anyone who doesn’t conform to your unsubstantiated ideological concepts as being motivated by maliciousness and a conscious desire to inflict harm on people.
Which makes you a hypocrite and strongly suggests that self-awareness isn’t your “strong point” either.
Rob P: I give the impression of not distinguishing between “guessing” and “knowing”?
That’s interesting, because I “know” about gender dysphoria, I “know” the published medical research in this area because I’ve read it, I “know” medical practitioners in this field, I “know” trans* people; and I “know” that people like Lyle Shelton deliberately ignore such research and the qualified practitioners in their attempts to belittle, demean, and marginalise the trans* minority within society.
I “guess” you side with Shelton, since you offer nothing other than an ad hominem attack; you’ve certainly done nothing to dispel my assertion that Shelton et al operate from a position of deliberate ignorance.
Going to Getugly: Claiming to “know” things isn’t a particularly convincing argument, Rob. And the way it works is that the onus is on you to justify your ad hominem and attribution of motives about people like Shelton and everyone else who doesn’t conform to your opinions about this subject. The onus is not on me to “dispel” your arbitrary, unsubstantiated and biased assertions.
And if you ‘know’ so much about the “actual medical” scientific opinion about this subject, perhaps you “know” about the official view of the American College of Pediatricians? Their position is that it’s the perspective which you are embracing and promoting that inflicts “harm” on “vulnerable people”. Or are you now going to claim that this body of medical professionals don’t “know” as much as you do about the subject? Or perhaps you want to claim they are “propagating debunked faux (religious based) science”? Or maybe you will default to the self-justifying, circular reasoning you’ve already demonstrated and simply invent sinister motivations for them?
The American College of Pediatricians: Gender Ideology Harms Children
Updated September 2017
The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs (also referred to as “intersex”) do not constitute a third sex.1
The bottom line is this: Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned. Specifically, they advise: affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as “non-male” or female. Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions. For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety.
Another example of feminist narcissism abusing the self-conception of children.
The superficial sanctimonious rhetoric is this: “If we can stop boys growing into men that behave like jerks, we won’t have to teach our daughters how to deflect a man in power making a comment about her boobs – or much worse.”
The messaging cutting through that rhetoric is this: “Boys are intrinsically defective and need to be fixed. Girls are perfect just as they are.”
This is dangerously distorting the self-conception of BOTH boys and girls. And it’s being promoted by self-absorbed, narcissistic women more concerned with the gratification they feel from conforming to fashionable, ego-flattering ideological constructs than the psychological health of their children.
Another fine example of the degenerate ethics and reasoning of the sanctimonious, allegedly ‘progressive’ Left. The reaction to this from James, below, is very interesting. He proudly self-identifies as a “leftwinger“. Yet his struggle to reconcile this unambiguously racist public incident with his conviction about the inherent moral excellence of the premise behind it is palpable.
This highlights precisely the threat posed by the cultural phenomenon of ‘progressivism’: The willingness to privilege ideological premises over self-evident, objective truth.
Poor James is trying desperately to adhere to the standard “leftwinger” conception of “teaching moments”… in which people who take the perfection of their own beliefs for granted impose their will on those they deem to be in need of their superior insight.
The problem for James is that unlike the majority of people who share his intellectual commitment to the ideology of the ‘progressive’-Left , he hasn’t yet completely abandoned his capacity to recognise hypocrisy:
James: How is the volunteer racist? As a leftwinger, I confess that this baffles me if this article is accurate. Having white people move back as an exercise could be a teaching moment, but not with acceptable means unless you plan to, say, return people to their old spots after a few minutes.
Breaking equal-treatment rules isn’t acceptable. This is a grotesque caricature of the left that rightwing blogs constantly circulate (no, most leftwingers aren’t worried about dissenting opinions). Don’t ask people of one race to move back for people of another race for your concert.
Going to Getugly:
James, it’s anything BUT a “gross caricature of the left”. This is the Left in all of it’s irrational, hypocritical, circular reasoning glory! And your statement that this would be a “teaching moment” is a symptom of the same irrationality. You don’t subject people to the very thing you claim to so strongly oppose to fulfill your narcissistic belief in the righteousness of your own opinion.
Indulging in bigotry because you tell yourself it’s for ‘all the right reasons’ is not DIFFERENT to bigotry. It’s just bigotry! This is the blind spot of people such as yourself who self-identify as “a leftwinger” that folks who are not captured by ideology keep trying to get you guys to recognise! You are NOT better than the people you imagine yourselves to be superior to! The problem is that people on the Left… people like YOU… never bother to go through the process of examining YOURSELF before imagining that you occupy the lofty position to pass judgement on people who don’t conform to your ideology.
Another commentator, Nathan, inadvertently emphasises the truth about this impulse to privilege a commitment to prefabricated, ideological conceptualisations over independant thinking with this comment:
Nathan: I’m a liberal who spends more time confronting the stupidity of the type defined here than conservatives.
These aren’t isolated incidents. Head to any university in the country and you’ll find people that think making white people move is noble.
So I posed the obvious question:
Going to Getugly:
Nathan, why then do you persist in self-identifying with an ideology that you recognise is so flawed and corrupt?
Halloween is fast approaching… so naturally the ‘Let’s Pretend Trivial Nonsense Is Incredibly Important Squad’ is back to remind us that comfortable people in a uniquely successful and pluralistic civilisation will invent problems for themselves in order to have something to complain about.
Whereas normal people see the holiday as a rare opportunity to temporarily escape an increasingly mirthless, censorious and rigidly conformist daily grind (once known as having fun)… the New Puritans of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left are intent on making sure that the rest of us are just as miserable, uptight, boring and uncomfortable with spontaneity and as themselves.
That’s why something like the packaging of obscure, seasonal products that have no effect on anyone can be accepted as worthy of intense scrutiny and moral consternation by major mainstream news organisations like the Globe and Mail.
The article prompted the following, reasonably non-agitated response from Michael G:
Michael G: If you’re secure with yourself and heritage/culture, it’s not really an issue. All I’d be pissed about is having a non authentic costume….obviously those depicted are not authentic representations. But still i wouldn’t get my breaches in a bunch about it…
Commentator Su Con however, found Michael’s take on the matter to be in conflict with the standard ‘progressive’ party-line:
Su Con: Given the racism that still exists, how can they be secure? Doesn’t this all come down to trying to change that?
So I helped clarify the situation:
Going to Getugly: No. This has nothing to do with stopping racism. It’s about two very specific things:
1. It’s about people who want to leverage their ‘victim’ status in order to see their will imposed on other people.
2. It’s about mainstream, middle-class people who find it gratifying to their ego and self-image to appear supportive of any fashionable trend… regardless of how stupid… that is marketed to them as atoning for past wrongs inflicted on minorities.
These two videos explore in detail what is really going on with the whole ‘cultural appropriation’ craziness:
In the article, John Doyle asserts: “It is stating the obvious to note that satiric comedy is enjoying a golden age in the United States. Every late-night chat show benefited from a tumultuous election and the triumph of Donald Trump. The Daily Show, much less pugnacious than under Jon Stewart, is thriving. The arrival of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Full Frontal with Samantha Bee only underlines that the appetite for the genre is huge.
The landscape here in Canada is different, but surely it is ripe for more caustic humour than we’ve been getting.”
Doyle is an example of the PROBLEM… not the solution.
The reason Canadian comedy is so meek and unfunny is NOT because it isn’t sufficiently like current American comedy. It’s because Canadian comedy is an even lamer version of the same predictable pandering to the conceits, assumptions and biases of the comfortable liberal middle class that defines American comedy today.
It’s simply delusional to believe that there is anything dangerous or brave about millionaire, Hollywood establishment liberal American television comedians telling an audience of mainstream, middle-class liberals that they are absolutely right about everything.
In the article, Doyle claims that these mainstream TV comedians like John Oliver, Samantha Bee and Jimmy Kimmel are encouraging everyone to “mock and distrust authority”. Now that’s funny! It’s also in complete defiance of reality!
These people are the CHEERLEADERS for the unchallenged authority of the ruling class. Don’t believe me? Then answer this question: Who does everyone… and I mean EVERYONE… in the political establishment, the mainstream media establishment, the Hollywood establishment and the academic establishment… in other words, all of the elites with power and authority in society…. absolutely despise and want to destroy right now?
You know the answer.
So you have to ask yourself…. who is really the one openly mocking and encouraging distrust of those who have grown accustomed to their hold on power and authority?