Monday, January 13, 2014

The hounding of "Corgi Barnyardi" on Twitter and elsewhere

Not surprised at all about the megalitres of puerile bile being directed at Senator Cory Bernardi over his book The Conservative Revolution. Needless to say, that ol' leftist double standard is in play here -- and to perhaps the most extreme extent so far.

They wouldn't like it at all if the same tactics they're using on the man they're calling "Corgi" and "Barnyardi" were employed against some of their, er, sacred cows. Many of the attacks, particularly on Twitter, are sexually tinged -- and some can even be described as rape fantasies. Imagine the outrage from the Left if, say, Penny Wong were mocked in this manner:
If this were the case, the very same sneering hipsters now chuckling at their iPhones would be squawking up a storm all over the net.

These social media muckdates clearly reveal a lot more about the sad, stunted psyches of those making them than they do about Bernardi himself. Sure, it's all just witless abuse from morally and culturally retarded twits. But much as the composition of gibbon droppings can tell us interesting things about the habits, diet, and behaviour of said apes, it's possible to glean some not invaluable insights into the tiny minds of these leftist howler monkeys from the content of their putrid online smearings.

For example, you have to wonder about their true attitude to minority sexual practices. I mean, if they're trying to imply that Bernardi is actually a gay man who hasn't admitted it to himself yet, and his book is an elaborate attempt to deny that reality, why are they so vicious? Hell, why even attack him at all? Shouldn't they be gently and sincerely encouraging him to come to that realization so that he can finally come out of the closet and proudly participate in the next Mardi Gras?

Or are those "satirical" photoshops only meant to humiliate him because gay sex is something he finds utterly revolting. In this case they're using gay imagery as a weapon of degradation. Doesn't sit well with their protestations of pride, now does it?

In both scenarios one thing comes across loud and clear. It's gutter stuff; hardly dignified. And it's hard to respect people with no dignity. If respect is something that Bernardi-hating gay rights activists and their fellow travellers want, they are certainly going about it the wrong way.

Speaking of which: If you want to win an argument then you should both know what your opponent's actually is, as well as have a counter to it. If you only ignore what he's saying and just try to demonize him, all you're doing is kicking own goals. That's why the score so far in this match is Conservative Senator: Ten; Leftist Trollective: A Big Fat Zero.

So listen up cool cats: Anyone who isn't a primitive, cowardly quarterwit will be absolutely disgusted by your reaction to his book. Which is why so many people (many of whom wouldn't have given it a second thought if you hadn't launched such a massive and sustained assault) are now buying it. Unlike you lot, they're actually curious about what it contains, and seek to educate themselves.

Keep at it kids. The more you slime him, the stronger he grows.


  1. Like the man said: progressives want conservatives to shut up, conservatives want progressives to keep talking.

  2. "Speaking of which: If you want to win an argument then you should both know what your opponent's actually is, as well as have a counter to it." This will come out a bit rambly, but alas it is midnight. But here goes:

    Cory Bernardi's worldview is not only hurtful and offensive, but it also does not solve social problems. He's compared same-sex marriage to bestiality, decried single parents as worthless and blended families as sub-par, labelled Islam as the root of all evil, supports the cutting of social programs designed to help vulnerable families and wants to bring on increased casualisation of the workforce via support of Work Choices' 'flexible' workplace agreement. Personally, I don't really like dividing everything into progressive/conservative labels as I feel it is redundant. However, Cory Bernardi is not very conservative, if conservative means upholding traditional values. For example, flexible workplace agreements that negotiate away penalty pay puts pressure on the traditional nuclear family model. Bernardi then complains about how young people are not raised correctly, pointing the finger at single mothers. (In this instance, he compares violence in young men as being on level with promiscuity in young women, a false equivalence which in itself speaks volumes). This makes no sense - on one hand, blaming families for raising their children incorrectly, while on the other hand wanting to bring about workplace arrangements which promote job insecurity and also wanting to cut social programs which help families.

    Also - blended families are not any less worthy than nuclear families - Jesus himself was from a blended family, if one believes the Christian doctrine.

    And one could argue that marriage as an institution is becoming increasingly worthless in society. Extending the institution of marriage to committed adults who want to formalise a long-term commitment might do more to strengthen the position of marriage as a valuable part of society.

    The whole abortion death factory comment... I don't even want to touch that with a ten foot pole, except to say that Bernardi wants God back in the classroom and the political stage. This would probably translate into abstinence only education, if the Bible Belt in the US is anything to go by. Statistics show that teen pregnancy rates are lower in places where teens have ready access to contraception and comprehensive sexual education. Would Bernardi support such schemes in the name of lowering abortion rates, or is his rhetoric simply an attack on the bodily autonomy of pregnant women?

    To be honest, it surprises me that people feel that Bernardi's views warrant careful deconstruction. I agree that rape jokes and the weaponisation of sexuality are extremely problematic ways of expressing disgust or disbelief, but I am a bit worried that you feel that critics of Bernardi should be gentle and nice to him, when his views are so openly offensive.

    1. I'm in a rush so I can't reply at length -- but I will say you've misrepresented him in numerous ways, falsely accusing him of "blaming" families, "pointing the finger" at single mothers, etc. Typical emotional lefty mush.

      And he never compared same sex marriage to bestiality. He used a slippery slope argument, pointing out than when you keep making concessions demands for change become more and more extreme.

      People wanting to marry their, er, animal companions is not beyond the realms of possibility. That's because if every other kind of union has been deemed legally valid, who's to say these enthusiastic "animal lovers" can't have their way too?

      When you consider the rise of the animal rights movement and the fact that high profile and politically influential figures like Peter Singer are apologists for zoophilia the warnings are not ridiculous at all.

      And re the death factory comment: Do you deny that abortion involves the ending of life, and is conducted on an industrial scale?

    2. Bernardi has clearly linked the prevalence certain family types to various social ills. However, he doesn't seem to offer any solutions - instead, he supports "flexible" workplace agreements which put pressure on families. He also supports cutting social programs which aim to help vulnerable families. If anything, Bernardi is emotional because he can only advocate a nostalgic return to the good ol' days, rather than propose any substantial way to improve violence in society and other social ills.

      The reason why bestiality seems, to me at least, beyond the realm of possibility is because our legal system uses consent as a marker for whether certain forms of sexual activity are legal. The idea of consent is very broad, which is why people cannot have sex with 16-17 year olds under their special care (e.g. a teaching capacity), even if the teenager in question was enthusiastically consenting. This is due to the element of coercion. Similarly, if a person is substantially intoxicated, in NSW this is grounds for establishing that a person did not consent to sex.

      Animals obviously cannot consent - even if one could establish that they enjoyed intercourse with humans, they do not possess the mental capacity or lack of coercion that a sober adult would possess. It is misleading for Bernardi to link same-sex marriage to bestiality because the former involves two mentally capable adults, while the latter does not. According to the way sex and consent is currently framed in the Crimes Act (NSW, I'm not sure about other states), this is like comparing a tennis ball to a shoe.
      Regarding abortion - the idea of bodily integrity is arguably a cornerstone of Western civilization and one of the key elements underpinning tort law. To paraphrase the famous quotation, "the least touching of another person in anger is battery". The idea of bodily integrity extends even to dead people - their organs cannot be harvested against their will, even if to not do so would involve the ending of another life.

      Pregnancy/birth is not an easy process and it takes a great toll on the body. In this sense, it becomes a matter of weighing up whose interests matter more - that of a fetus, or that of an adult?

      In a practical sense, criminalising abortion merely drives abortion underground. The best way to prevent abortions is comprehensive sexual education and ease of access to contraceptives, which seems at odds with Bernardi's Christian morals.

      Women don't have abortions for fun - abortions themselves result in pain and heavy bleeding and other side effects (not to mention emotional trauma for many women). Many women who have abortions already have children and cannot afford more, or do not feel capable of raising a child (and before you suggest sterilization, I feel that I should remind you that the less invasive forms of sterilization can still result in etopic pregnancies).

      Not only does criminalising abortion afford more legal rights to a corpse than to a pregnant woman, it also has the side-effect of making pregnant women second-class citizens. In the US, there have been several cases where women have been imprisoned for having miscarriages, because police suspected that the miscarriages were induced. In one case, I believe a woman was held for 12 months waiting for a trial, wherein it was found that the antidepressants her doctor prescribed her did not induce miscarriage. In Virginia, eyebrows were raised when a police sargeant proposed a new law wherein women would have to report miscarriages within 24 hours or risk persecution.

      Bernardi defines life as beginning at conception, which is interesting given that 60% of fertilized eggs fail to implant and additionally, 15% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.

      Anyway, thanks for responding to my comments. You have offered some interesting food for thought.

  3. I'm a Cory fan from way back I find him a down to earth Liberal who will speak his mind and stand up for the silent majority.He makes good sommon sense on most matters
    I have his other books and will buy this one too--will visit his website for details.
    Cory has a wife and children so why would any right minded person as insane, suppose without clear proof he is gay?
    The leftist maniacs don't understand hypocrisy, they just exhibit and live with it daily and carry on as if they are God's Chosen Ones and anyone not of their "faith" shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.
    Conservatives would and do fight for freedom of expression, but do not put limits and actually fight for these drongoes while they are denigrating us and trying to stifle OUR rights to speech !!

    1. Yes, Valerie, they have got things so tragically arse-about it's hilarious. They will happily say they want the likes of Bernardi to be silenced. But if you point out that they are being censorious, which makes a mockery of their claims to be for freedom of expression, they deny there is any inconsistency.

      See, in their tiny minds Bernardi is the censor. So to silence his speech you are facilitating more "diversity" of opinion (they love that word don't they?).

      If you ask for any examples of him censoring them, they can't answer. At that point they'll usually just roll their eyes, call you a homophobe and storm off in a huff.