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

 

nedia

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.

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #30: “Men are intimidated by smart women” and other self-flattering feminist fallacies.


‘Boys don’t like smart girls’. How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?

age

From the article: “This friend works in the science field and was involved in a discussion around the ABC story, and how it fits into a Women in STEM decadal plan she’s involved in looking at ways to increase women’s STEM participation and retention from school through careers over the next 10 years.

She told me about a colleague who was talking to a teenage girl, one who had just won a STEM award, about the biggest hurdles preventing young women from pursuing STEM studies and careers.

The young girl’s answer was, “Boys don’t like smart girls”.

How are we, as smart women, meant to deal with an answer like that?”


The old cliche about how “men are intimidated by smart women” that feminists seem so fond of repeating has never wrung true to me.  It’s just a little too convenient and self-flattering for a woman to use it as the explanation for why men aren’t attracted to her. Don’t you think?

“It can’t be that I’m doing anything wrong! In fact… it must be that I’m just too fantastic and that there’s something inherently wrong with all men!”

Besides,  if  it is true that girls are not pursuing certain careers because they think it will make boys less attracted to them as the article suggests…. then shouldn’t we be identifying girls as the ones with the issue that needs addressing rather than disparaging boys?

Of course, not all women buy into this nonsense as the selection of responses to this column from The AGE that I’ve included below my rebuttal makes clear.


Going to Getugly: How are you meant to ‘deal with an answer like that’? You tell the “young girl” who said it the truth… that she’s wrong and that she’s been brainwashed by feminists who want to manipulate the perceptions of females to believe that men are their enemies and that if anything doesn’t go their way in life then it’s men who are to blame.

Several women commenting had a similar response:

Helen S:  Not true.

Sally B: Rubbish

Ange Dav: Utter BS

Raewyn McC : If you believe that, you are not a ‘smart girl’ .

Daisy Ma: Since when?? Men love me and my intelligence is one of my most attractive features..

Lynne Os: Lazy journalism, let’s just fire another salvo in the gender wars.

Video – Brett Kavanaugh: Do Women Want Justice or Revenge?

In this Going to Getugly video: A lot of women these days appear to be suggesting that we sacrifice principles like presumption of innocence and due process in order to get results that are personally satisfying to them. That’s a very dangerous philosophy. It’s essentially inverting the long established principle of “It is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted” and saying it’s worth ruining the lives of 100 innocent men to ensure a guilty man doesn’t get away with it.

Video: Maxime Bernier vs Canadian Conformity

In this new Going to Getugly video:

We live in an era in which people are denounced as racists not because they believe certain things about other races but because they don’t believe certain things about particular political policies. Canada is a country in which any deviation from the ‘One Permissible Opinion’ on policies that are deeply grounded in ideology like multiculturalism and the fetishization of ‘diversity‘ is strictly forbidden.

In a short series of eloquent and concise tweets Quebec MP Maxime Bernier brushed aside the ultimate Canadian taboo: He criticized official multiculturalism and the “cult of diversity”.

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

rac

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 #27: Propaganda trumps truth

The controversy surrounding the now infamous TIME magazine cover and the reactions to its distortion and manipulation has revealed something quite fascinating about how people in our era relate to the media. Specifically, it showed how much of a blindspot there is for the degree to which the media constructs our view of the world.

By now it is well known that the little girl whose image was used in the montage to promote the Trump “snatching children out of the arms of their mothers” narrative was not only not separated from her mother but, according to the child’s father, was the one child of four whom the mother didn’t abandon in Honduras but paid a human trafficker $6000 to illegally smuggle along with herself into the US.

To be fair, at least judging by my perusal of the reactions online to this story it appears that the majority of people who are commenting are lining up on the side of condemning TIME for their glaring misrepresentation of reality. But there are a lot of people downplaying or dismissing the egregiousness of an elite mainstream media outlet… owned by the same people who own CNN by the way… willfully sacrificing truth in service of popularizing a politically partisan interpretation…. not to mention defending doing so when they are caught!

What is notable is that people are not denying this is a misrepresentation of objective truth by mainstream media. The point that you see being made over and over again is this:  The imagery that was constructed to convey the mainstream media’s narrative  is clearly a lie… but the overall narrative itself is true and that’s all that matters.

But if members of the mainstream media elite have been caught demonstrating their indifference to objective truth so long as the perception they desire is being generated… why would you have any confidence that your perception of the ‘overall’ situation is ‘true’ when you got it entirely from the mainstream media?

Have a look and see how consistently this blindspot is demonstrated in this sample of my online interactions below:


Brandie: No it does not matter..  the atrocities are real. the children are being traumatized and detained in deplorable conditions. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! don’t let this photo take away from the REAL ISSUES> please i BEG of you 🙂 don’t lose sight of the horror and act hastily to rectify it.

Going to Getugly: Brandie, the intention behind the construction of this image… which is a misrepresentation of reality... was to bypass the public’s intellect and manipulate the emotions of people who never learned how to think like responsible mature adults. Your comments reveal that you were among the target audience.

Here is some objective analysis : ALL of the interpretations that you have expressed here have been provided to you by the mainstream media. This incident with TIME magazine is proof that the mainstream media is misrepresenting objective reality in order to construct and disseminate a particular perception of the situation.

The question that you need to ask yourself therefore is this : Why would you continue to trust a perception of the situation which is a product of the media… when this is proof the media is deliberately distorting objective reality in order to manipulate your perceptions?


Marilyn E: What is the difference what child it is?

Going to Getugly: “What is the difference what child it is?” Seriously?

Marilyn, where are we all getting all of our perceptions about what is happening at the American border with Mexico? We’re getting them from the MEDIA. This TIME magazine incident is proof for those of you who seem to be completely ignorant about this stuff that the mainstream media is willing to misrepresent objective reality in order to manufacture perceptions among the public that reflect their own political preferences.

In other words, when you say “What is the difference what child it is?”… what you are really saying is “I see no problem with the media lying to me.”


Jane: It’s called symbolism – a viral symbol of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. A picture of a little girl who’s being searched by border patrol agents. Terrified and scared.

It was taken by award-winning Getty photographer John Moore, who’s followed the border crisis for years and it was meant to embody the horror of Trump’s policy to prosecute all people crossing the border illegally, leading to the separation of families.

It helped fuel the public outrage that forced Trump to backtrack by issuing an executive order to end the practice.

Going to Getugly: Right. So to put it simply… it was pure manufactured propaganda designed to bypass the public’s intellect and play directly to their emotional response for the purpose of manipulating their perceptions and reinforcing a partisan political agenda.

Yeah, that’s just great Jane.


Sylvia: Does this mean children aren’t being separated from their families and locked in cages? No. Stop getting tripped up in the details and pay attention to what is happening. Geez.

Going to Getugly: So let me see if I understand your logic here Sylvia…. Your entire perception of this situation.. your interpretation about children “being separated from their families and locked in cages”…  is 100 percent, totally dependent on what has been delivered to you by the mainstream media. But this incident with TIME magazine is proof of the willingness of the mainstream media to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the perception of the public and to generate a politically partisan interpretation.

That being the case… how do you justify your certainty that your perception of what is “happening” is actually what is objectively “happening”?

“Geez” indeed.


Monica: This is silly. The actual report told the truth. What if Time had used a stock photo of a random crying child to illustrate it? Or had an artist do a pencil drawing of a crying child? The story is still true.

Going to Getugly: Yeah. It’s just “silly”! After all… the only thing that happened here is that the mainstream media demonstrated its willingness to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the public’s perceptions and to promote a partisan political agenda. You big sillies out there thinking there’s anything about that for responsible thinking adults to find disturbing and worthy of criticism!

Video: Australian feminists shift focus from murder victim to themselves

In this video I discuss how feminists and the media in Australia used the tragic murder of Eurydice Dixon to promote divisive ideological narratives and to make the ‘story’ about themselves.