Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Magda Szubanski mouths pro-SSM, anti-plebiscite cant on Q and A

On their ABC's Q and A it's pretty much a given that discussion will veer onto the subject of "marriage equality", even if they're quacking on about something completely unrelated to this. So last night's episode -- which specifically focused on the issue -- was hardly unique. However, the stupidity, incoherence and bloody-mindedness of most panellists was something to behold.

Magda Szubanski in particular came out with some real doozies such as this: "A lot of us in the LGBTQI community don’t want this money spent, and as we see it, wasted, for what is essentially an expensive opinion poll that won’t be binding when we already know from several polls already that the majority of people in the country are in favour."

So funny that she's fretting about wasted money. Has she ever railed against excessive government funding of crap movies that next to no one even watched -- some of which she even appeared in? Many millions of bucks down the drain right there ...

And she presumes to speak for the "LGBTI community". Yeah, well, I'm sure there are many in that same crowd who do want a plebiscite -- and even some who don't even want gay marriage at all, incredible as that may seem. They're just not organized and vocal about it.

Let's face it, the LNP went to the election with the plebiscite as a major promise. Clearly, that's one of the reasons they won. Most Aussies do want a say on this issue, and they certainly deserve one. Marriage is a central social institution that affects everyone, and has developed organically over millennia across the globe. People will be seriously pissed off if a bunch of opportunistic weasels deny them direct input on what marriage actually means from now on. Same sex marriage may become the law of the land sans plebiscite, but public resentment of it will seethe indefinitely due to the dodgy way it was enacted.

Anyhoo, if it's a done deal, as Szubanski claims, then why not hold the plebiscite? (Actually this was the official position of "marriage equality" advocates early on as I remember. Magda was prolly even among them. But now the plebiscite itself is deemed evil and wrong. Hell of an about-face, that.)

Having millions of Aussies vote for SSM would be such a huge vindication of it. There is absolutely no way the public will would not be respected by the Govt if that occurred. That battle will have been well and truly won; the whole issue down and dusted for all time.

But nup. Gotta get the pollies to do it. They can be bullied, cajoled, rewarded for their compliance. Why play fair when you can cheat?

Which begs the question: Why would you wanna cheat, particularly if you say you can win fair and square anyway. Well, the answer's pretty obvious. The "overwhelming support" so often claimed for SSM isn't actually there. They're lying about it, in other words.

Lefties telling porkies to get their way? Who'da thunk it!

Interestingly, Magda also introduced a strawman about the perceived "threat" of SSM.

Can I dispute with you that this is a really... It’s being portrayed as though this is a threat to society. Jimmy and I... You’re saying this is a serious issue.

I’m not saying it’s a threat.

It’s so serious that it requires a plebiscite.

No. No. No. Hang on. Hang on. I never said it was a threat.

No, I’m not saying you said that, but other people are saying that. You’re saying it is such a grave issue that every single Australian must vote on this. Why? Why not vote on other issues like superannuation? Why not a plebiscite on that? Why not a plebiscite on aged care? Those people are living below the poverty line. Why not a plebiscite on that? Now, Jimmy and I are actually family. I’m the godmother of his granddaughter. He’s a Scottish migrant. I’m a Polish-Scottish-Irish migrant. His wife is Thai. I’m a leso. We ARE that modern family. What threat does it pose except that I don’t have the same rights as the other people in my family?

It’s not a threat at all. 

So revealing that Magda was verballing Nash in this way. It was a clear case of projection. On absolutely no evidence, Magda was implying that those who believe in traditional marriage are hateful, insecure bigots. Even though she momentarily claimed not to aim this accusation at Nash it was clear that she was doing just that (and this wasn't the only time). It's an oft-used tactic of the PC crybully, this. It's aggressive misrepresentation purporting to be justified self-defense.

Speaking of threats: Pretty clear that the ones making most of them so far regarding this whole issue are the SSM zealots. Their vicious bullying of Mercure staff, for example, resulted in a planned ACL event being cancelled. This was not even mentioned in last night's Q and A, and for obvious reasons. Perpetuating the PC narrative was deemed way more important, of course.

And just on that subject of PC, check out these two egregious violations of gender sensitive language by Tony Jones and Jimmy Barnes, two right-on male persons who surely should have known better.

Guys, I’m just going to go back to our questioner. Jack Lattimore has his hand up. I’m just going to go back to Jack. Go ahead. 

The later on ...

Eventually we won’t need you guys.

Guys? Guys? GUYS? 

That deserved a badthink red alert. Shoulda called Gender Avenger David Morrison in! Coulda swiftly re-educated 'em on the correct terminology, then kicked 'em both in the nuts with his high heels for good measure.

FFS, what a joke ...

Back to Magda. Well into the show she used that verballing tactic again on Fiona Nash, though in a much more obvious way:

A plebiscite isn’t the thing that necessarily triggers people being nasty.

Can I ask one simple question?

Yes, I’m going to give you the final point here.

One simple question. Do you think I’m equal to you?

Of course I do.

If I was your daughter, and being gay, would you think that I should have the right to be married?

I’ve been asked this question a lot over the last 12 months and my response was that my view is still the traditional view of marriage. I love my children, regardless of what they ever brought home for me. It would make absolutely no difference at all. I completely respect your view and your desire to see that as equality...

But you won’t give me my rights.

I just have a different view.

Thanks for nothing.

See what she's doing. She's making it personal and emotive, forcing a confrontation that demonizes the interlocutor, puts them on the defensive. You see it all the time on Q and A. Shanghai Sam Dastyari tried it a few weeks back. But he was such a doofus, he failed spectacularly.

It's sooo dishonest and mean. It's kinda like saying: "When did you stop beating your wife?". It's not debate. It's abuse. But it works for the thick, credulous and plain ol' primitive. And there are plenty of those in the Q and A audience, as we all know. Which was the whole point, natch.

As Fiona Nash noted, it's not necessarily the plebiscite that makes people nasty. But political correctness sure as hell does! And when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage, well, it's pretty clear who the main bullies and threateners are -- at least at this point in the game.

1 comment:

  1. .... Marriage is a central social institution that affects everyone -- and has developed organically, over millennia, around the Earth ....

    How rare to read an informed take on the crucial importance of marriage to society -- and to Human Civilization. To whose development the institution nowadays called "marriage," has been vital.

    The earliest prehuman had much in common with its primate cousin, the chimpanzee, including sexual dimorphism: Males were twice as large as females and could copulate with any female at any time and were polygamous. When, some 1.7 billion years ago, Ergaster or Homo Erectus: "erect man" came on the scene, the females were suddenly much bigger - almost as big as males -- and it became necessary for pair bonding to become the norm. With it, the nuclear family was born and -- with that -- Human Civilization.

    What the paleontologists call pair bonding and we and every Johnny-come-lately religious opportunist calls "marriage" is, thus, quite literally the essential building block and the very cement of Human Civilization -- and it's that the "marriage equality" assault is out to destroy.

    "Marriage" is no more a "right" than is being in the army or a being policeman -- and nor is it about "love." Without it having lost an iota of its importance to Human Civilization, marriage's modern purpose is to provide a haven for the offspring of the coming together of the pair-bonded man and woman: for their children -- and it is, thus, a responsibility.

    And is Absolutely not an institution up for redefinition by the mentally ill, the deranged and the delusional. And nor by that mob's many and any other names!

    The fact it seems a forgone conclusion the mentally ill, sexually-deranged and similarly-delusional and their mates at the ABC and elsewhere around the nation's fascist Leftards' haunts will likely pull off their massive assault upon civilization does not in any way minimize the awful contribution the celebration of that tiny minority's insanity is lending and will continue to lend to the death of Aus -- and to the end of Judeo-Christian/Western/Human civilization.

    Brian Richard Allen.: