Devine and Latham own Badham and O'Keefe on Sunrise

Sure you've heard about that heated debate on Weekend Sunrise about man bashing. I first heard about it on Twitter where the leftist trollective were having kittens over Mark Latham. True to form they didn't address any of his arguments. Just bleated variations on "Why the hell do they keep giving this arsehole a platform?". Totally caught up in their lefteous indignation, the poor little poppets never twigged that the fact that so many of them were asking this very question was a big part of the answer to it.

Being busy, I didn't watch the entire segment -- which posed the question "Are men becoming second class citizens?" -- until last night. But even though it's kinda old news already I thought it was worth writing about since it was a very good example of bolshie bluster and bullying.

Early on Miranda Devine succinctly summarized what so many people are arcing up about these days. There is and has long been a toxic strand of feminism obsessed with casting women as victims and demonising men. It's doing severe damage to the fabric of Australian society.

This was a perfectly reasonable opinion, calmly expressed. But Van Badham, sitting on her fainting couch in Melbourne, immediately interpreted this as a personal attack! And then she accused Devine of being paranoid. This was a textbook example of projection, one of the defining characteristics of the "social justice warrior".

Andrew O'Keefe shamelessly ditched his role as a detached moderator and took Badham's side, mindlessly regurgitating dodgy statistics about "the wage gap". (And in a small but telling aside he also invoked the idea of "rape clubs" which even the decidedly PC Vox conceded was a myth.)

When they could get a word in, Latham and Devine observed that one of the main reasons women earn less on average than men is because they work fewer hours, by choice. But O'Keefe and Badham, true to SJW form, just upped the ante.

Hard to remember everything exactly and in sequence, but well into the debate O'Keefe accused Latham of making a personal attack. But that was exactly what Badham did to Devine by calling her paranoid at the beginning and he happily let that pass.

Badham was obnoxiously hypocritical and self-indulgent throughout, rudely talking over others then falsely accusing them of doing that to her along with excluding her in a sexist way. Hardly surprising, of course. It's about the only thing she and her fellow "feminists" ever do ... Speaking of which, Badham's somewhat saner but still seriously silly sister Tracey Spicer tweeted this about Latham:

Looking back, Mark Latham talks over @vanbadham as she describes being sexually assaulted as a teen on a train. #shame

— Tracey Spicer (@TraceySpicer) May 1, 2016

So funny given that Spicer et al are always accusing men of shaming women with regard to their sexual behaviour and weight, among other things. Yet here she was quite explicitly doing that to Latham.

Not only that, the claim was utter bollocks. Tracey's take is the opposite of what happened. As Badham blathered on about this alleged event as if it was some kind of unbeatable argument Latham was silent. The person who did interrupt her was the female host of the show (who, unlike O'Keefe, did a good job, BTW).

And Spicer is a journalist? Gawd ...

On the subject of women only carriages Devine offered good sense again, saying that while some men are abusers, men are also protectors. If women feel unsafe then what you have is a policing problem.

To which Latham added words along the lines of "if you put yourself in the mind of the sexual predator, the pink carriages will be their first target".

Both O'Keefe and Badham then used a favourite tactic of the Left. They snidely implied that this thought experiment was a reflection on Latham's character. It was a dog whistle to their fellow lefties that said "he's thinking like a rapist because he's close to being a rapist".

Now, that's nonsense for a start. Cops, in particular serial killer profilers, put themselves in the minds of criminals as a necessary step in solving crimes. And no sensible person would say they are bad guys, would they?

It's also really mean-spirited and vicious. Still, that's typical of the Left. They don't have any valid arguments so rather than politely refute a view with evidence and reason they always go straight to "you're a hateful, bad person, quite possibly a criminal".

This, in turn, is because they're completely up themselves. They think it's all about them and their precious fee-fees.

So it's hardly surprising that Badham thought she did brilliantly in the debate. She was so enamoured of her own performance -- a trainwreck from start to finish by any rational measure -- that she actually asked her followers on Twitter to create a GIF of her rolling her eyes at Latham. And one of them obliged, no fibs!

Really, this chick oughta check her swivilege.

Thanks for reading, and if you've enjoyed this piece, please consider supporting me via Ko-fi.

Why I pity Trigglypuff but detest the "social justice" ideology that created her

Anyone who has been following developments related to freedom of speech (or rather the alarming lack thereof!) in American universities will be well aware of "Trigglypuff", the student who suffers a meltdown over conservative speakers at her campus.

As Paul Joseph Watson observes in the video embedded below, she's "the GIF that keeps on giving". If a picture paints a thousand words, then this little vid has written squillions of thick tomes about the Left, none of them remotely nice.

But I've gotta say I do feel a bit sorry for Trigglypuff. Being turned into a meme and mocked globally would be an extremely unpleasant experience regardless of your political leanings.

And she's just a kid! Well, not quite, but you get my drift ... Her behaviour is definitely obnoxious and censorious. But when you're at that age it's much easier to go overboard on stuff and be an utter bell end than when you're a few years older. And she really is just doing what she's been exhorted to do by her peer group and, presumably, lecturers. They've ginned her up to behave like this.

And in the end it's her behaviour that is so, er, problematic. It's not her size and appearance, which had much to do with the vdeo going viral.

That said, her weight is related to her ideology, since she's into all that fat acceptance nonsense and would probably be much lighter, and therefore healthier, if she hadn't embraced it.

Really, that stuff is so destructive. Being morbidly obese should not be celebrated, okay! In the vid the poor girl almost collapses from the exertion of shaking her arms and screaming at the conservatives. It's funny in a way but it's also a sign that even at such a young age her health is very poor. And that's depressing. (I don't like lefties as a rule but I don't wanna see them pop their clogs before their time. Would much prefer that they live as long as everyone else so they might eventually grow the far cup, and thereby shed their toxic ideology of victimhood.)

The tragicomedy (or rather, commie tragedy) of Trigglypuff is that she's a useful idiot for older -- and prolly a tad less hysterical -- leftist ideologues. Ironically, she's ended up proving to be very useful to their opponents, too. She's been used by both sides!

Sadder still is the likelihood that she'll learn nothing from the experience. The tsunami of jokes and abuse about her appearance will no doubt magnify her sense of victimhood. She'll probably engage in even more obnoxious, censorious "social justice" activism down the track.

And, in another irony, that's where she may ultimately, er, "benefit" from the whole experience. Just as many on the Right see her as the poster child for leftist stupidity, the PC Left will see her meme-ification as "objectification" and turn her into a kind of socialist sleb in her own right. You never know, she might even turn her ordeal into cold hard cash in the long run. It's certainly been done many times before ...

But even if Trigglypuff herself doesn't decide to use her suffering as a way to earn "victimbux" there are plenty of people in the meeja and halls of quackademe who will do this indirectly anyway. 

And that's the thing that I find most repellent about politically correct "social justice". It's not really about healing society. It's about perpetuating a narrative that cynical socialists leverage for power and income. Many righties do cruelly mock society's genuine victims. That's ugly and wrong. But socialists live comfortably off their suffering and desperately want it to continue. And that's far, far worse.

Dame Edna vs Waleed Aly on The Project

So Dame Edna was on The Project, and there seemed to be a weird passive-aggro vibe happening between the fabulous Aussie gigastar and Waleed Aly. More than a few people have been scratching their heads about what this was all about.

In live theatre shows and appearances on the teev, Dame Edna often singles out an individual to cruelly send up. If the target is a sleb, the gags will usually relate strongly to that person's public persona. If he is just a punter, Barry Humphries' character will mostly focus on his general appearance, and what can be gleaned from this in terms of his social background.

But this little episode was different. Though Edna's jibes did get laughs, you couldn't really see where they were coming from. And Aly did nothing to provoke them, too. So, you gotta wonder what their motivation was.

Now, it's risky to play amateur shrink with a satirist's motivations. If there's any complexity to the characters he creates then there will be a whole mess o' them. This definitely applies to Dame Edna Everage. She's been alive, developing, and moving with the times for decades now. She's probably got more psychological layers than some living, breathing people!

So, there's a good chance I've got this wrong. But here's my guess: It's got much to do with the fact that Barry Humphries is a conservative. He's obviously up to speed with Waleed's many smug utterances on Islam, such as terrorism being an "irritant".

I'll be that he would have loved to mock this stuff through his character. And he's certainly not afraid of controversy. He usually savours it, in fact. But given how hysterically the MSM reacts to anything that could be deemed offensive to Muslims, he just couldn't take the risk. So, prior to his appearance he made an inner choice to just not go there.

Still, sitting just near Aly the antipathy bubbled away, and he couldn't stop himself taking a few shots at him. But strangled by self-censorship, he only had poor, cheap, vague options to choose from. Hence the odd, mediocre performance last night.

What do you reckon? Am I close, or was it something else?

For SJWs Gamergate is an arm of the Patriarchy

Fascinating how words and phrases can have such hugely different meanings to different kinds of people. Take "Gamergate", for example. For those on the cultural libertarian side it's shorthand for a consumer revolution -- a concerted but non-centralized push for ethics in games journalism. But to the social justice crowd, Gamergate immediately evokes hordes of misogynist trolls hiding in their basements, making poor women's lives hell with their vicious online abuse.

The latter interpretation is clearly bullshit on stilts. If there is a concerted push to harass people online, it seems to be coming from the SOCJUS side more than anything. Yet the demonisation of Gamergate continues, and not just in the, er, twenches of Twitter. It's the prevailing angle in the MSM too.

And you've gotta wonder, why is it so dominant and immovable? Aren't journalists supposed to seek the truth? Surely they would disabuse themselves of their delusions and come to a more balanced, nuanced perspective after a few objective interviews of those involved in these numerous online stoushes. Hell, even a bit of Googling would do that, you would think.

But nup. Gamergate's haters are not for turning, that's for sure ... The reasons are manifold, of course. But I'd say one of the main factors is the toxic influence of the PC Left in higher education. This victim feminist myth about the entire world being stealthily controlled by a bunch of diabolically nasty old white heterosexual males (who are simultaneously knuckle dragging morons, BTW -- work that one out!) is drummed into journalism students right across the western world. They graduate seeing eeevil white males behind every social ill and not surprisingly their reporting reflects this.

It's this deep seated social justice narrative that bonds these people, gives them an identity. Throw in the huge political pressures (often in the form of mountains of moolah) brought to bear on many companies and organizations employing these nascent newshounds and the odds that they will start to think for themselves are remote indeed.

It's not too long a bow to say they're kinda like young priests fresh out of the seminary. Newbie padres have a neatly divided universe: God vs Satan. And in the tiny mind of your typical crusading journo it's the Patriarchy's war on Chickdom.

Reporters like this (and most of them are like this) see the dark, or should I say pale, hand of the Patriarchy at work everywhere they look. For them, Gamergaters are like this faceless cabal's younger henchmen. Just as victim feminists can never actually name which blokes comprise the Patriarchy they're always shrieking about, Gamergate is almost always collectively condemned. Named, individual harassers are almost never included in articles about its appalling antics. Which is odd, because if it were as vast and vicious as it's purported to be, there should be squillions of these cases to choose from.

It really is whacked out conspiracy theory stuff. The wheels are gonna fall off of it. They just have to. But it's gonna take a while, unfortunately.

ANZAC Day still going strong despite decades of leftist wailing

Didn't get down to watch the ANZAC Day march in Sydney yesterday. However, while briefly in the CBD I did see lots of old blokes proudly wearing their medals. And I read and heard many reports of the huge turnout. So, seems to be more popular than ever.

Now, I know there's a lot of disagreement about the nature of the commemoration. It's a bit like Easter and Christmas in that regard. These rituals have become too commercialized, the purists say. They've lost all their spiritual meaning.

With ANZAC Day it is not about commercialization. There are various criticisms, including that it's no longer a solemn occasion to honour our fallen and living soldiers and a time for serious reflection on the horrific nature of war and the value of sacrifice. Instead, it's morphing into a vague, nationalistic celebration of Aussie-ness; a fun day out for a bit of flag waving.

There was an interesting discussion last night on 2GB about this. Steve Price said he thought it was a bit silly that descendants of diggers should march and wave to the applauding crowd. "I mean, what have they done?" he asked. (Segment is over an hour in, some time after 9PM.)

Sam Newman put the opposing view, that there was nothing wrong with people glowing with pride over what their ancestors did to build this country.

Well, I'm undecided on this question. But I am glad that the day is still seen as hugely significant. The fact that it makes people reflect on our national history and the value of democracy is a good thing.

Of course the Left just loathes ANZAC Day. They say it's a celebration of violence. They get off on trashing the memory of our beloved diggers and claim they weren't heroes at all. No, they were all rapists and murderers running amok, they reckon!

Such a load of bollocks. Anyhoo, if those blokes hadn't gone off to fight and die in foreign hell-holes then today's whining PC parasites wouldn't even be free to slag 'em off, would they? With totalitarians in charge to this day, any rebel waving a placard would be locked up in some ghastly concentration camp -- if he were even allowed to live, that is.

But it's pointless trying to explain that to your average sneering, sulking socialist. They're incapable of perceiving the truth. (Actually, they can't perceive anything much. They're too busy indulging their precious fee-fees; wallowing in their own spurious victimhood and fake virtue.)

Generally speaking, lefties don't learn anything much as they get older. Emotionally and intellectually they remain spoiled sprogs. But sane, rational, non-doctrinaire types do develop with age, of course.

If you are one of these people, one common tendency is that you become more interested in history as you get older. I believe this is because with a few decades of living under your belt you've seen a lot of changes occur around you. So you are aware of how those events made you who you are. And you start to wonder how a nation's character is shaped, too.

Now that I've cracked the half century myself, I really notice old buildings and monuments much more than I did even a decade ago. Take this war memorial in Annandale.

As the plaque at the base solemnly states, all those guys listed above made the supreme sacrifice in World War One. 

There aren't all that many people living in Annandale even now. So you can imagine how devastating such a loss would have been a century ago. And there are memorials like this all across Australia ...

As I mentioned I didn't attend the march in the city yesterday. But I did get this little video of a band playing bagpipes in Town Hall station. That music really gets you deep inside every time. 

I just snapped it on the fly so it's short and shaky. But behind them you can see the surfing video that's a fixture in Sydney train stations these days. These guys performing against the backdrop of those free, youthful and very contemporary images is a nice metaphor for the value of the past in the present, IMHO.

Lest we forget, eh?

Gillian Triggs plays martyr role to perfection. Luvvies lap it up!

As we all know, child-brained leftists are all about the feels. They're not interested in facts, reason, or merit. That's why most leftie organizations and movements are led by hugely overrated mediocrities if not outright frauds. A sane, sensible person just looks at any one of these numpties and goes: "You? You gotta be kidding me ... How the hell did you get to that position of influence?"

Well, the answer is usually pretty simple. Leftie movers and shakers are extremely ambitious, often ruthlessly so, and have unshakeable confidence in their own very limited abilities. They are often very good actors, too. They really know how to look the part they're playing.

And when I say they are acting, I don't mean that their doing so is a conscious, calculating choice. If it were they wouldn't be so convincing. They sincerely believe what they are pretending to be ... They're kinda method actors in that sense. But they're still performing a role that has little to do with reality. And their credulous fans lap it up.

Gillian Triggs is surely the best example of this phenomenon locally. She's got that noble martyr look down pat! So when she appears at some hearing or other and haughtily answers her critics she's pressing all the right buttons in the minds -- or should I say hearts -- of her numerous supporters.

The jaw-dropping extent to which she's got these poor little poppets completely and utterly fooled is evidenced by their awed reaction to her recent interview in The Saturday Paper.

Excellent interview. #HRC Gillian Triggs, strong woman, much admired, stands her ground! https://t.co/kmp1QQvgoq pic.twitter.com/80gh3xyEJ7

— Girrali (@Girrali) April 24, 2016

Her fanbois see what they wanna see:

That Gillian Triggs interview in TSP is quite something. Amongst other things, utterly destroys what's left of George Brandis' credibility

— Ben Eltham (@beneltham) April 23, 2016

But more well informed, sceptical and incisive types see the same interview very differently.

Candace Owens of Social Autopsy vs Zoe Quinn et al

I'm not a gamer myself so I've been a latecomer to all this #Gamergate stuff. But it is absolutely fascinating. It's basically the online frontline of the culture wars between the forces of political correctness (SOCJUS) and the cultural libertarians (#Gamergate).

The characters are compelling, and the battles vicious. There's drama and hilarity in equal measure. It's like watching a satirical soapie unfold before your very eyes.

One of the most intriguing recent developments related to this saga has involved a startup called Social Autopsy. This was a well intentioned though flawed attempt to empower victims of online harassment. It quickly got a reputation as a doxxing platform that was extremely open to abuse (although I think that's probably a bit of an oversimplification).

In any case, the cultural libertarians were dark on it from the get-go. But what totally flummoxed just about everyone was that the heroine of the SOCJUS side Zoe Quinn did her utmost to bring it down, even personally contacting Social Autopsy's founder Candace Owens to try and talk her into dropping the whole project. (Around this time Quinn's fellow "anti-harassment champion" Randi Lee Harper admitted to getting the project nixed on Kickstarter.)

It was clearly high stakes for Quinn because she was emotional in the call. Ms Owens refused her request and was almost immediately hit with floods of racist, sexist online abuse -- all from "dudebros", natch. She quickly concluded that Quinn and Harper were orchestrating this campaign somehow. Owens' claims are very persuasive and there have been other developments that lend weight to her theory.

If they are true they confirm all the worst suspicions that many have long had about "social justice warriors" like Quinn and Harper. It seems they have created a mini-industry out of casting themselves as victims by lying about how much online abuse they receive, and have even been faking it against themselves. Now they could well be inflicting it on others too!

Rather than seeking the truth behind the all too plausible PC narrative pushed by Quinn and her followers most gaming journalists accept it as gospel and even do their utmost to perpetuate it. The MSM then follows suit. The whole thing is just jaw dropping in its scale and cynicism.

Quinn, Harper and their cohorts have hugely underestimated Owens, who comes across as a remarkably strong, principled and articulate young woman. Rather than folding under the pressure she's kept her cool and is standing firm against the bullies.

The story is clearly not over yet. I and many others will be glued to Reddit for updates about it. Regardless of how it all turns out it's certainly already got the makings of a must-see movie.

Speaking of which, Quinn has scored a book and film deal to tell her story. This will portray her as a brave feminist heroine cruelly assailed by the Patriarchy no doubt!

I just hope Ms Owens ultimately ends up scoring one as well. As well as this most recent battle, she also went through some tumultuous experiences almost a decade ago that have clearly done much to shape her character. If she does, there's no doubt in my mind that her account would make the more truthful, compelling, and ultimately entertaining project.