Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Savage, Hitchens, Rosin and Greer on Q and A

Last night's episode of Q and A was a memorable one. As usual the panel was heavily stacked to the left. They usually have three lefties against two conservatives. But this was three on one. Needless to say Germaine Greer, Dan Savage and Hanna Rosin ganged up on fusty fighter Peter Hitchens, even chuckling together when he was speaking. (The photo chosen for the web page for the episode actually illustrates one of these moments. Must have pleased the producer, or something ...)

Dan Savage was particularly annoying. He's clearly a vapid gym junkie who hasn't learned much about life. But he's given respect as a public intellectual because he ticks all the right (on) boxes. Not only is he gay, he also has a husband -- or is that a male wife? (Hell, I'm not sure which is the politically correct term for him. If gender makes no difference in marriage anymore, then surely the terminology doesn't either ...) Savage's gay marriage alone gives him demigod status amongst the Oz squitterati.

Needless to say the show was chockas with examples of the leftie panellists being incoherent, rude, and hypocritical. Take Savage saying that he didn't like cunnilingus. The Germainiac and Hanna Rosin, along with snow cone Tony Jones, all found this amusing. But imagine if Hitchens -- or any other male conservative for that matter -- had said that. Every feminist bimbo in the joint would've been squawking up a storm and "misogyny" would have trended again on Twitter!

Speaking of the audience: It was heavily skewed to the left as usual, too. Near the end of the episode they all cheered some silly interruption by one of the luvvies while Hitchens was speaking. He nailed their collective stupidity by accurately labeling the event a rally. And while you're cheering, he said, I can't speak. (And we're supposed to believe that the Q and A audience contained a representative rage of political views. Yeah, right!)

That extended cheering (and jeering) is sooo leftist. They're always quacking on about how they're all for free speech. But what they really mean is that they support their own right to shout other people down. They know in their hearts they can't win the argument, so they try to intimidate their opponents into silence -- or demonize them so thoroughly that people cease listening to them.

An example of this was when the primitive Savage verballed Hitchens by saying the Christian was arguing that he was being personally oppressed by the gay gym junkie's lifestyle choices. But that wasn't his point at all. Hitchens was merely pointing out the obvious: that if nothing is sacred, people have no shame, and absolutely anything goes then you wind up with Darwinian chaos. People treat each other as things, not as human beings. And that's a recipe for social disaster -- or at the very least pervasive misery and dysfunction.

And an audience member touched on that issue in her question referring to children who spend a lot of time in day care. As a result of missing parental guidance and love, she said, they are becoming increasingly narcissistic.

Speaking of narcissistic children: Savage certainly is one of those. The vain activist even had the gall to say that his motives were entirely selfless. Well, if you believe that, you'd believe pretty much anything ...

But he knows just how stupid and gullible his acolytes are, which is why he lies so shamelessly to them and uses such slimy tactics to demonize his opponents. Hitchens deftly identified one of those: labelling disagreement as pathology. The Christian then added that this was a step in the direction of totalitarianism. Protesting too much as usual, Savage spluttered with indignation.

But what was the dangerous idea he offered at the very end of the discussion? Mandatory abortion for all women for the next three decades. Not only quasi-fascist, it was clearly misogynistic. I mean, why didn't he argue for enforced sterilization for the blokes -- starting with himself!

No chance of that, of course. Wouldn't be able to rent-a-womb and make a new living, breathing fashion accessory with his husband, er, wife, partner, significant other, or whatever the hell he's called -- now would he?

Bet he's also a warmist, banging on about what kind of a world this generation is leaving to the next (i.e. the unborn). What a silly spoiled brat Savage is.

12 comments:

  1. I've seen worse on Q and A but yeh, was vile.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You seem to purposefully be interpreting jokes made by Savage as statements of opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Q and A is a serious political discussion show. Dan Savage wasn't joking when he made his suggestion that abortion should be mandatory for the next thirty years.

      He might have been aiming for laughs in some earlier exchanges during the show. But it should be remembered that many a true word is spoke in jest. And a joke is just a funny way of saying something serious.

      In other words, a person's serious beliefs can still be discerned from their attempts at humour.. His take on cunnilingus, for example, is almost certainly an accurate description of his feelings about it (he is gay, after all) even though he was being "jokey".

      And it wasn't just his attitude I was criticizing. I was mainly pointing out the stupidly prejudicial double standard displayed by the other panellists in their reaction to this line.

      Delete
  3. 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


    15 “Watch out for false prophets.


    So it seems that Q&A was about this. Hitchens was the true prophet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this article. Was watching Q & A live from Vanuatu and thought Hitchens was brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So it makes it ok to judge him as a vile gym junkie. Lovely attitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan Savage is clearly a narcissist as well as a misogynist and a totalitarian. An example of his sinister worldview is his suggestion that for the next thirty years the state should force all women to kill their foetuses.

      And you think I'm the one with the attitude problem?

      Delete
  6. Here's a dangerous idea... cut government funding to the ABC, but allow the organisation to raise whatever it can on Kickstarter.
    There's a small but noisy demographic that fervently supports the ABC. Let them demonstrate their support directly, not through government revenue but with a wad of the folding stuff straight out of their own pockets.

    ReplyDelete
  7. G'day Matt,
    Missed you during your silent period.
    I haven't watched Q&A for yonks - just couldn't be bothered with the crap it spouts.
    Time for the ABC to be privatised and let it see if it can get real money from people who live in a world governed by how much you contribute to the nation's wealth. If it can do so in its present format so be it. The probability is that it would be bankrupt in a very short time.
    I object to my taxes contributing to an obviously one eyed [left one] organisation which offers little to the nation.
    Kol tuv.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep.

    'Can't stand the leftie smugfest shows like that generate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After reading your blog, I did watch this episode. Regarding the audience, the festival of dangerous ideas is a left-wing event - no question. So the audience was skewed, much more so than for a usual Q&A. That being said, I reckon Q&A would be much better if the producers absolutely banned spontaneous clapping. It is always purely partisan, usually leftist but not always.

    Peter Hitchens was pretty incoherent. Did he want to go back to a Christian based society that he claims died after WW1? Would you want this Matt? Or was he just saying that our life-style choices will lead us to misery, which is a futurist prediction that is easy to make but hard to verify. He was conflating drugs with mothers working with divorce with gay marriage. I really have no idea what he is on about still. He was given plenty of opportunities to explain himself. The question about why he changed from a trotskyist was a case in point. He just gave a two sentence answer that he "grew up" implying that it is natural to go from naive socialist to realist conservative as you age. Well, most people brought up religious change to atheist. Would he be happy with me saying that I just grew up?

    I do agree that Tony Jones did a poor job though. Dan was interrupting Peter quite a bit at one stage, and then the next time Dan spoke and Hitchens made a couple of comments, Jones told him to let Dan speak. I thought Greer was fine on the night (though really off point on occasion) and much less deliberately offensive than she usually is.

    Dan's ridiculous comment was a poor addition to his assertion that over population is a big and dangerous idea. That actually hushed the lovies and I thought you would have approved. Unfortunately, he over-reached under pressure and made the stupid abortion comment, which was not well received.

    In short, I quite enjoyed the program and if you think it was worth blogging about I suggest that you have really lost some perspective. And I can tell you absolutely, I am not a leftist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cannot watch Q&A scared I will put my foot through the screen and can't afford to replace it. Usual leftie bias of the ABC. In my opinion it is usually 1 against 4. Their idea of balance is maybe one definite conservative and a wishy washy left of centre "leftie". With the bias of the audience it is like attending a nauseating smugness and condescension festival.

    ReplyDelete