Back in the early nineties when political correctness was just gaining momentum it seemed silly but harmless. But a coupla decades on it's all become very sinister indeed. Ultra right-on policies are actually getting people killed, no doubt about it.
The obvious example is Islamist terrorism (in Europe mainly). Because everyone is in denial about Islamism and terrified of being called "racist" if they criticize a bloody religion (and how stupid is that!) hundreds of people have been knifed, shot and run over by crazed jihadis in recent months.
But there are other less spectacularly gruesome ways in which political correctness is shortening people's life expectancy. Take the growth of "fat acceptance" and "fat pride", and the condemnation of anything that can be construed as "fat-shaming".
Fat pride? Why should anyone be proud of being fat? Sure, a bit of extra lard is no biggie. Some people are meant to be a bit plump and good on 'em. But all the biggest (and I do mean biggest) proponents of this movement seem to be severely overweight. And being in that condition is undeniably very bad for your health. In many cases it's certain to take years, if not decades, off your life. So zealously promoting the idea that fatness is fantastic is just crazy as.
The recent physical transformation of Paul Moore is a case in point. He was grossly overweight and photos of him shirtless were widely mocked on social media. He was traumatized by the experience, but it also seems to have strongly motivated him to lose the excess kilos.
Clearly the guy is a lot healthier now. But if no one had said anything negative when he was massively overweight he would likely still be in that condition and therefore at much greater risk of many health problems.
Mocking people because of their appearance is cruel. But then maybe it's not as bad as telling people something demonstrably false because you don't wanna hurt their feelings. In this case at least "fat-shaming" seems to have been the lesser of two evils.
What do you reckon?
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Greens' census rebellion over privacy concerns is pretty funny
This year's census is proving to be a rolled gold disaster in many ways. The fact that the website crashed reflected very poorly on the Government -- especially if this was due solely to the unforeseen number of wannabe form fillers and not because of some DOS attack, as claimed. Malcolm Turnbull in particular is looking like a real goose after having waxed lyrical about agility, innovation and nimbleness for so long.
Compounding the calamity has been the public outcry over privacy. Pouncing on this issue, ornery senators have staged a mini-rebellion by threatening to refuse to include their names on census forms.
You can understand Nick Xenophon doing this. After all, he never met a meeja stunt he didn't like. And ready-chick Jacqui Lambie is happy to arc up about pretty much anything if it'll make the LNP look bad ... But the fact that several Greens senators are in this group is pretty bizarre given their ideology. I can only assume that they found the opportunity for a bit of propaganda (not to mention party publicity) too tempting to resist.
Their whole party is about controlling the masses, after all. As we all know they are creepy commies in hipster clothing -- "watermelons" for short. (If you think I'm being OTT then look at the, er, herstory of Lee Rhiannon, one of the senators currently so deeply concerned about individuals' right to privacy.)
As well as trying to destroy productive industry, these toxic avengers spend much of their time telling people how to think, act and even feel. They are very pro-censorship and want cartoonists to be be severely punished for pointing out tragic social ills. Now in a disturbing political embrace with Islamism, they demand that mockery of that religion be made off-limits. They also want to invade classrooms to shape kids developing sexuality. Hell, they'll even tell you what to do in the bloody shower!
We can laugh at these silly people now because of their petty, petulant finger-wagging on so many issues. And their electoral support seems to be waning, which is good to know. But can you imagine what such control freaks would do if they ever managed to gain real, pervasive, enduring power over Australian citizens?
The manifold privacy invasions they would surely be happy to commit to create then maintain their imagined socialist utopia would make any potential worries about this particular census seem like very small beer indeed.
Compounding the calamity has been the public outcry over privacy. Pouncing on this issue, ornery senators have staged a mini-rebellion by threatening to refuse to include their names on census forms.
You can understand Nick Xenophon doing this. After all, he never met a meeja stunt he didn't like. And ready-chick Jacqui Lambie is happy to arc up about pretty much anything if it'll make the LNP look bad ... But the fact that several Greens senators are in this group is pretty bizarre given their ideology. I can only assume that they found the opportunity for a bit of propaganda (not to mention party publicity) too tempting to resist.
Their whole party is about controlling the masses, after all. As we all know they are creepy commies in hipster clothing -- "watermelons" for short. (If you think I'm being OTT then look at the, er, herstory of Lee Rhiannon, one of the senators currently so deeply concerned about individuals' right to privacy.)
As well as trying to destroy productive industry, these toxic avengers spend much of their time telling people how to think, act and even feel. They are very pro-censorship and want cartoonists to be be severely punished for pointing out tragic social ills. Now in a disturbing political embrace with Islamism, they demand that mockery of that religion be made off-limits. They also want to invade classrooms to shape kids developing sexuality. Hell, they'll even tell you what to do in the bloody shower!
We can laugh at these silly people now because of their petty, petulant finger-wagging on so many issues. And their electoral support seems to be waning, which is good to know. But can you imagine what such control freaks would do if they ever managed to gain real, pervasive, enduring power over Australian citizens?
The manifold privacy invasions they would surely be happy to commit to create then maintain their imagined socialist utopia would make any potential worries about this particular census seem like very small beer indeed.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Lefties' fearful silence on Al-Faisal College "no gays" claim speaks volumes
Lefties are the most fearful people I know. As well as being afraid of those who lead them, they're terrified of people they themselves cannot control. This drives a lot of their obnoxious, bullying behaviour.
They project a lot of their own fears onto others as well. That's why two of their favourite terms of abuse are "homophobia" and "Islamophobia".
Of course any rational person would see that, given Islam's well known antipathy towards homosexuality, there will be occasions when these two accusations become, er, problematic for those so fond of making them.
And here's a good example: The headmaster of Al-Faisal College, an Islamic school in Sydney, has said that there are no gay kids at the school because they are taught how to behave at home.
Hard to think of a more clear example of "homophobia" than that. And just imagine if a Catholic school principal had made such a statement? Lefties right across this wide brown land would go ballistic en masse!
But forget hypotheticals. You may recall that way back in 1989 Queensland politician Bob Katter claimed that there were no gays in his electorate. So notorious was this comment among the sneering hipster set that it was still being derisively cited in the mainstream media many years later.
So, why no criticism of this recent claim by a Muslim?
Obviously, it's that ol' fear factor again. Gutless lefties are afraid of calling out this example of homophobia, for fear of being accused of Islamophobia.
Gawd but these people are pathetic. Just packin' death the whole time ...
They project a lot of their own fears onto others as well. That's why two of their favourite terms of abuse are "homophobia" and "Islamophobia".
Of course any rational person would see that, given Islam's well known antipathy towards homosexuality, there will be occasions when these two accusations become, er, problematic for those so fond of making them.
And here's a good example: The headmaster of Al-Faisal College, an Islamic school in Sydney, has said that there are no gay kids at the school because they are taught how to behave at home.
Hard to think of a more clear example of "homophobia" than that. And just imagine if a Catholic school principal had made such a statement? Lefties right across this wide brown land would go ballistic en masse!
But forget hypotheticals. You may recall that way back in 1989 Queensland politician Bob Katter claimed that there were no gays in his electorate. So notorious was this comment among the sneering hipster set that it was still being derisively cited in the mainstream media many years later.
So, why no criticism of this recent claim by a Muslim?
Obviously, it's that ol' fear factor again. Gutless lefties are afraid of calling out this example of homophobia, for fear of being accused of Islamophobia.
Gawd but these people are pathetic. Just packin' death the whole time ...
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Talk of an Abbott return on Insiders exasperates Laura Tingle
Didn't see Insiders today. But apparently there was some talk of a possible Abbott resurgence. This was so unpleasant to Laura Tingle that she rolled out her eyes and let out a deep sigh. It was such a memorable reaction that a coupla tweeps remarked upon it.
Wish I'd seen at it. And I will try to hunt this down if I find time because it sounds like a perfect illustration of the Left's view of their number one hate figure. They all think of him as the embodiment of conservative eeevil. And they laboured for years to slay him. With his replacement by Turnbull they thought they'd finally won, and for good.
But now that change has proven to be a rolled gold disaster, and the Delcons are gaining momentum. So we're back to the same old situation we had a coupla years back ...
Sure, people never really warmed to Abbott, and they won't do again. But they definitely do know where he stands on issues. Unlike Turnbull (or Shorten for that matter) Tony Abbott is a conviction politician.
Basically, he's got a spine. And people respect that even if they totally disagree with his positions ... And these days -- particularly with the threat of terrorism ever-present, and growing -- leaders with backbone will gain substantial support in the electorate.
Lefties just don't get that. They have this view of Abbott that is so emotive and deluded it borders on the psychotic. They think they can shape the electorate's perception of him by controlling the media narrative. But the punters aren't that easy to manipulate. They may be influenced, and quite a bit, for a while. But eventually they will end up making up their own minds on the evidence.
Rather than accepting that truth the Left keep on keeping on with their "attitudinal reconstruction" agenda, only to be frustrated over and over again. They're both sad and funny at the same time, the poor little poppets!
Wish I'd seen at it. And I will try to hunt this down if I find time because it sounds like a perfect illustration of the Left's view of their number one hate figure. They all think of him as the embodiment of conservative eeevil. And they laboured for years to slay him. With his replacement by Turnbull they thought they'd finally won, and for good.
But now that change has proven to be a rolled gold disaster, and the Delcons are gaining momentum. So we're back to the same old situation we had a coupla years back ...
Sure, people never really warmed to Abbott, and they won't do again. But they definitely do know where he stands on issues. Unlike Turnbull (or Shorten for that matter) Tony Abbott is a conviction politician.
Basically, he's got a spine. And people respect that even if they totally disagree with his positions ... And these days -- particularly with the threat of terrorism ever-present, and growing -- leaders with backbone will gain substantial support in the electorate.
Lefties just don't get that. They have this view of Abbott that is so emotive and deluded it borders on the psychotic. They think they can shape the electorate's perception of him by controlling the media narrative. But the punters aren't that easy to manipulate. They may be influenced, and quite a bit, for a while. But eventually they will end up making up their own minds on the evidence.
Rather than accepting that truth the Left keep on keeping on with their "attitudinal reconstruction" agenda, only to be frustrated over and over again. They're both sad and funny at the same time, the poor little poppets!
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Rouen bar fire seems suspiciously like terrorism to me
These days there are horrific stories of violence coming out of Europe and to a lesser extent the USA almost every week. Some lunatic goes crazy with a knife, gun, axe or truck. The plods and MSM spend the days afterwards trying to portray it solely as a crazy act committed by a poor soul afflicted with a mental illness.
Slowly but surely other details emerge. More often than not we find out the perpetrator is a young bloke with ties to Islamists. Predictably, the Left hangs on to their PC narrative. But everyone else just shakes their heads in disgust at being lied to yet again, and despair that their governments are so unwilling to act decisively to stop this scourge.
Sure, there's a danger of reading all reports of violence through the prism of Islamist terrorism. As Freud noted, sometimes a cigar is ... just a cigar. And a gruesome spree killing can still be a horrific, insane but non-political act. Still, the odds that Islamism will be proven to be a motivating factor are depressingly high.
That's why I think this report of a fatal bar fire in Rouen, Normandy's capital, seems like it may well turn out to be one of these terrorist acts.
This is the city where that priest was murdered, after all. And it's in a bar, the kind of venue perceived by jihadis to be a scene of wicked Western decadence.
Of course it could well have been an accident. If so it's still a huge tragedy. But I suspect details will gradually emerge pointing to the work of Islamic State or one of its lone wolf sympathisers.
Slowly but surely other details emerge. More often than not we find out the perpetrator is a young bloke with ties to Islamists. Predictably, the Left hangs on to their PC narrative. But everyone else just shakes their heads in disgust at being lied to yet again, and despair that their governments are so unwilling to act decisively to stop this scourge.
Sure, there's a danger of reading all reports of violence through the prism of Islamist terrorism. As Freud noted, sometimes a cigar is ... just a cigar. And a gruesome spree killing can still be a horrific, insane but non-political act. Still, the odds that Islamism will be proven to be a motivating factor are depressingly high.
That's why I think this report of a fatal bar fire in Rouen, Normandy's capital, seems like it may well turn out to be one of these terrorist acts.
This is the city where that priest was murdered, after all. And it's in a bar, the kind of venue perceived by jihadis to be a scene of wicked Western decadence.
Of course it could well have been an accident. If so it's still a huge tragedy. But I suspect details will gradually emerge pointing to the work of Islamic State or one of its lone wolf sympathisers.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
In Rudd vs Turnbull stoush narcissism fuels snarkissism
The ongoing stoush between Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull over the former's dream of becoming UN secretary general is unedifying. But it's also fascinating given how similar they are psychologically.
Now, I'm no shrink. Still, from what I've read and seen I think it's safe to say they clearly both display behavioural characteristics that could reasonably be called narcissism.
Such flawed individuals do not learn from reality. In their minds they constantly replay a gloriously inflated vision of themselves and demand that all those around them reflect it back as confirmation of its validity.
This compulsion is so strong and deep inside them that most people unfortunate enough to be trapped in their orbit die early, go barking mad, wind up addicted to drugs or alcohol, or, most frequently, run away screaming and take months to recover their own sense of self. More psychologically balanced individuals simply can't stand up to them -- unless they're narcissists themselves.
That seems to be what's happening here. And that's why I suspect this bitch-fest is gonna go for quite a while yet ...
And while men like Rudd and Turnbull are formidable, domineering and relentless, they are also extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism. They'll often take the rage this causes out on subordinates by chucking massive tanties over the tiniest of issues. But if that's not an option they'll express it in less dramatic ways.
Take Rudd's revealingly snarky reaction to Turnbull's claims he didn't actually promise him support for his UN push. While advising a bunch of young Labor activists he said this:
'I've got a very dark deep secret for you, sometimes it'll turn to s**t and sometimes it won't turn out perfectly.
'I've had a modest experience of that, just a little bit, including yesterday.
'Part of the collective scar tissue of life.'
This is very emotive language for a politician, don't you think? It clearly comes from a very different part of the brain that produced "programmatic specificity".
I think Rudd is hinting at the level of rage he's feeling now. He's saying he does have a deep, dark side to him. And a helluva lot of scar tissue!
Translation: "I'm a mean mofo with a hide like a rhino."
And from the same article:
Mr Rudd said he wanted to 'make a huge difference' as prime minister and on the international stage in his bid to be Australia's United Nations secretary general.
'I've been seeking to do that on the international stage, and then one of those great brick walls in life presented itself in the form of Malcolm Turnbull,' Mr Rudd said.
The first part shows his grandiosity. The second shows his contempt for Turnbull, whom he dehumanizes in his metaphor.
Translation: "Don't you dare deny me my good and altruistic ambitions. Do that and you are committing a crime against humanity! Watch out, pal. If I get the chance I'll flatten you like a bulldozer!"
Rudd's clearly upped the ante to "No more Mr Nice Guy". It'll be very interesting to see what happens next.
Now, I'm no shrink. Still, from what I've read and seen I think it's safe to say they clearly both display behavioural characteristics that could reasonably be called narcissism.
Such flawed individuals do not learn from reality. In their minds they constantly replay a gloriously inflated vision of themselves and demand that all those around them reflect it back as confirmation of its validity.
This compulsion is so strong and deep inside them that most people unfortunate enough to be trapped in their orbit die early, go barking mad, wind up addicted to drugs or alcohol, or, most frequently, run away screaming and take months to recover their own sense of self. More psychologically balanced individuals simply can't stand up to them -- unless they're narcissists themselves.
That seems to be what's happening here. And that's why I suspect this bitch-fest is gonna go for quite a while yet ...
And while men like Rudd and Turnbull are formidable, domineering and relentless, they are also extremely sensitive to any kind of criticism. They'll often take the rage this causes out on subordinates by chucking massive tanties over the tiniest of issues. But if that's not an option they'll express it in less dramatic ways.
Take Rudd's revealingly snarky reaction to Turnbull's claims he didn't actually promise him support for his UN push. While advising a bunch of young Labor activists he said this:
'I've got a very dark deep secret for you, sometimes it'll turn to s**t and sometimes it won't turn out perfectly.
'I've had a modest experience of that, just a little bit, including yesterday.
'Part of the collective scar tissue of life.'
This is very emotive language for a politician, don't you think? It clearly comes from a very different part of the brain that produced "programmatic specificity".
I think Rudd is hinting at the level of rage he's feeling now. He's saying he does have a deep, dark side to him. And a helluva lot of scar tissue!
Translation: "I'm a mean mofo with a hide like a rhino."
And from the same article:
Mr Rudd said he wanted to 'make a huge difference' as prime minister and on the international stage in his bid to be Australia's United Nations secretary general.
'I've been seeking to do that on the international stage, and then one of those great brick walls in life presented itself in the form of Malcolm Turnbull,' Mr Rudd said.
The first part shows his grandiosity. The second shows his contempt for Turnbull, whom he dehumanizes in his metaphor.
Translation: "Don't you dare deny me my good and altruistic ambitions. Do that and you are committing a crime against humanity! Watch out, pal. If I get the chance I'll flatten you like a bulldozer!"
Rudd's clearly upped the ante to "No more Mr Nice Guy". It'll be very interesting to see what happens next.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Sonia Kruger triggers the Left again, now over LGBTI scholarships
Sonia Kruger is proving herself to be a total champ. Hot on the high heels of her comments about Muslim immigration (which I thought were tad OTT, but nonetheless understandable given recent events) she's now triggering the LGBTI SJW crowd by saying that students should get scholarships on merit, not according to which sex they wanna schtup.
What the hell is so unreasonable about that? It's just common sense. Just the mere fact that she's called the scholarship selection process "reverse discrimination" has outraged many. But that's exactly what it is, innit?
Hell, I can even remember a time when that was what some of its proponents called it. Then they changed it to "affirmative action" to make it sound all caring and sharing. (Lefties have form on this. They're always dodgying up the language to conceal their true motives. "Global warming" morphing into "climate change" is another example.)
Anyhoo, I'm glad Kruger has got the, er, cojonettes to say these things. She's definitely got the support of most of her viewers even if she's surrounded by right-on jellybacks. And the fat cats who are trying to censor her know this. That's why they won't sack her.
I'll bet the tragically PC drip David Campbell thinks he's actually preserving his career by tut-tutting Kruger for her wrongthink. But I think the opposite is the case.
Remember the line "Politics is showbiz for ugly people"? Yeah, well, the inverse holds as well. That is, showbiz is politics for the good lookin'.
The vast majority of Oz commercial TV viewers have had a gutful of this PC shit. And viewers vote with their eyeballs, so in the long run babes with backbone like Kruger will retain their constituencies (and therefore their careers) more than attractive airheads mouthing PC cant.
What the hell is so unreasonable about that? It's just common sense. Just the mere fact that she's called the scholarship selection process "reverse discrimination" has outraged many. But that's exactly what it is, innit?
Hell, I can even remember a time when that was what some of its proponents called it. Then they changed it to "affirmative action" to make it sound all caring and sharing. (Lefties have form on this. They're always dodgying up the language to conceal their true motives. "Global warming" morphing into "climate change" is another example.)
Anyhoo, I'm glad Kruger has got the, er, cojonettes to say these things. She's definitely got the support of most of her viewers even if she's surrounded by right-on jellybacks. And the fat cats who are trying to censor her know this. That's why they won't sack her.
I'll bet the tragically PC drip David Campbell thinks he's actually preserving his career by tut-tutting Kruger for her wrongthink. But I think the opposite is the case.
Remember the line "Politics is showbiz for ugly people"? Yeah, well, the inverse holds as well. That is, showbiz is politics for the good lookin'.
The vast majority of Oz commercial TV viewers have had a gutful of this PC shit. And viewers vote with their eyeballs, so in the long run babes with backbone like Kruger will retain their constituencies (and therefore their careers) more than attractive airheads mouthing PC cant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)