Rebuttals of the Week #23: Tackling the scourge of racism by holding a ‘What’s Wrong With White People’ conference.

wpriv

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.

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #16: ‘Progressive’-Left thinking = incompetent reasoning skills.

1a1b wente

(Link to the article: Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity )

Tracy H:  Who says diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive?

Going to Getugly: Tracy… you are the third person I’ve seen here who has indulged in the very same, unbelievably banal straw man:

Liam SO: Why do you think that diversity of thought or intellect is mutually exclusive to racial, gender, ethnic and sexual diversity???

Leslie M:  The article confuses different issues; excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive

To me, this is an example of the incapacitating effect that being captured by a generic, all-consuming ideology has on an individual’s ability to think: You reflexively go to preconceived ideological categories in your head to tell you how to interpret what you are looking at rather than identifying the genuine characteristics of the ‘thing’ you are (supposedly) trying to understand.

Nowhere in Wente’s column does she say “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”. Neither does she make that argument.

And yet you and at least two others here have asserted that she directly or indirectly made that claim.

So if it didn’t come from Wente…. how did it get in your head? The only answer to that question is that it got in your head because YOU put it there. Not her.

When you say she said “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”… you are not describing Wente! You are describing YOU! Only you can’t tell the difference between what you make up in your mind and the ‘thing’ out there in the world that you believe you are describing.

And in my experience… this is the foundational characteristic of people who are on the ‘progressive’-Left. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s a demonstrable justification for equating ‘progressivism’ with incompetent reasoning skills.

Rebuttals of the Week! #5: Metaphorical shark… meet your trans/non-binary/twin spirited/ gender fluid jumpers! (part 1)

There was a rare sighting last week of what had long been thought to be merely a creature of myth and fantasy. No… it wasn’t bigfoot, a unicorn or a women’s studies graduate with a useful job. It was a prominent academic from a major university with the guts and integrity to publicly oppose the tyranny of politically correct, SJW-style, “progressive”, Left-wing ideology.

Honest to God. I saw it with my own eyes.

untitledGlobe and Mail: U of T professor’s stand against genderless pronouns draws fire

Jordan Peterson is a popular and prominent psychology professor at the University of Toronto who has found himself on the receiving end of some intense hostility from the tolerant, non-judgemental, morally superior champions of diversity at his esteemed institution of higher learning.

His offence was to use a series of video lectures to present a detailed and reasoned critique of how anti-rational, politically correct ideology has infiltrated the legal and education systems and how it poses a real threat to the values of freedom of thought and speech. But what really drove the PC crowd nuts was his rejection of the premise that he is obligated to affirm the subjective self-conception of people who identify as transgendered by adopting their preferred use of pronouns. Peterson went to great lengths to justify his refusal to submit to this expectation on the basis of logic, principle and the right to intellectual autonomy.

The self-anointed enlightened class responded to all this logic and carefully reasoned argument by chucking the label ‘bigot’ at him, attacking his character and generally calling for his head on a platter.

As is evident from the sample of comments below and in the next Rebuttals of the Week!, the catalyst for their outrage was not the quality of Peterson’s argument, but his unwillingness to conform to concepts they deem to be supreme and sacrosanct.

As I have pointed out in other Rebuttals of the Week!, it is this intolerance of nonconformity that drives the aggressive emotionalism that is so characteristic of the progressive’s response to dissenting points of view. And it is the privileging of the pre-rational urge to attain social affirmation above all other considerations – including objectivity, reason and the pursuit of truth – that determines the progressive’s opinion and makes him immune to  interventions of reason.

Here is the first sample of my interactions with Professor Peterson’s critics….

M CW

freedom of speech is still fully intact. you still have the complete right to say things that are blatantly ignorant (like the idea of this event…) and not risk persecution from your government.

what free speech DOESNT let you do is literally DENY someone’s gender identity because its you dont believe in it and have no one call you out for it.

you people are a goddamn joke.

Going to Getugly Freedom let’s people do all kinds of things other people dislike. Your apparent inability to tolerate that represents the real problem here.

M CW

no the real problem here is that people like you want a world where you can say whatever you want without any thought to the harm it will do to already marginalized people without. that, i have an inability to tolerate.

Okay. Now the next comment from WR is a perfect example of how NOT to confront the assertions of ‘progressives’. It isn’t that the point he is trying to make is incorrect. It’s that simply presenting an alternative opinion to the one being expressed by a ‘progressive’ doesn’t accomplish anything. Remember, they’ve already decided that not sharing their opinion is the same thing as being wrong and stupid. They don’t assess the veracity of your opinion in contrast to their own… they just react to the insolence of not submitting to the absolute perfection of their position.

William RutherfordW R 

Except that this is about a law that turns ANY statement against trans people a hatecrime… that’s not equality.

Compare that response to the one I present below. Notice that I don’t offer a contradictory set of subjective assertions about the topic. Instead, I address the specifics of MCW‘s reasoning process. I highlight objective inconsistencies in his logic. How he takes for granted his own entitlement to indulge in the very freedoms that he advocates should be denied to others. How his lack of hesitation to insult, generalize and dismiss the validity of other people’s perspective and experience demonstrates not only a profound hypocrisy, but a crude and genuine nastiness that reflect the very character flaws he claims to revile.

Going to Getugly

Nope. The problem is that you don’t recognise that insisting that principles apply only in certain circumstances according to your personal preferences and biases is irrational, unethical and only appealing to hypocrites.

For instance… you have expressed your contempt for ‘people like me’ who you characterise as expecting the freedom to “say whatever you want” without regard for the negative feelings it may inspire in other people. You have even written: “you people are a goddamn joke”.

But it is perfectly obvious that you grant YOURSELF the freedom to make sweeping negative generalisations; to issue insulting, unproven condemnations of character; to be deliberately antagonistic and insulting …. and essentially say “whatever you want” with no regard for the feelings of the people to whom you’ve directed those harsh comments. You’ve even expressed the sentiment that ‘people like me’ don’t deserve to be recognised as existing…. since we are nothing but a “goddamn joke”.

Now either it is wrong and worthy of contempt to “want a world where you can say whatever you want without any thought to the harm” it may cause other people…. or it’s only wrong when people other than YOU do it in whatever context you’ve personally decided makes it okay. Clearly, you take for granted it is the latter. Which makes you unprincipled and a hypocrite.

And as is so often the case when you challenge the absolute certainty of a progressive’s sense of moral and intellectual superiority by applying his own judgements back at him… MCW spewed a couple weak insults and ran away.

M CW  yup play victim

M CW   get your sympathy likes fam

The fact that the only response to my argument you feel you can offer is this transparently weak ad hominem should inspire some serious reevaluation of your position.

Stay tuned. We’re just getting started and there is a lot more to come on this issue in the next Rebuttals of the Week!