Bullshit as usual

Yo, SUZANNE!  If one of the goals of Status of Women Canada is “an auditor-general for feminism”, why can’t I find it anywhere on their website?

stop-bullshitting-suzanne1

There you have it:  a goal of SWC that’s so huge and threatening that SUZANNE’s been talking about it for 2 years… yet it doesn’t appear on SWC’s website.   In other words, it’s bullshit, and just typical of the lying douchebaggery so near and dear to the shriveled hearts and vacant minds of right-wing feminist-bashers like SUZANNE.

It’s an easy game to play:  just come up with a shriek-worthy phrase that’s bound to make your pinhead readers blow their loads with rage, and repeat as necessary.  “Auditor-general for feminism” — SHRIEEEEK!  That’s a good one, conjuring up ghastly images of Feminazis on the March, kicking in the doors of  Your Home with their Jackboots of Feminist Supremacy!  Unfortunately it doesn’t have much basis in reality.

Few if any of SUZANNE’s anti-feminist talking points do.  Absurd expressions like “feminist supremacy” and “rewriting all laws to conform to feminist thought” don’t stand up to scrutiny because they don’t add up to meaning a whole lot in the real world.  And when you ask the question — what exactly does it mean, can you provide examples, context, you know, good-faith debate-type stuff, what you get is…

SOW!  LOL!  Hyuk hyuk!  Sows at the trough!  Duh yuk yuk yuk!

People like SUZANNE don’t debate in good faith, they spew propaganda for the benefit of their idiotic readership, who are being told what they want to hear and won’t ask questions.  It’s a mistake to engage them respectfully and expect them to respond in kind — their arguments are so weak and easily-derailed, anything that might lend their opponents any legitimacy is unacceptable.  Ultimately any attempt at good-faith debate always comes down to this:haloscancom-comments_1229364143338

Open debate is not only a waste of time to a propagandist, but threatening, since it exposes their dishonesty.  So when things get too hot they declare it pointless, falsely attribute some idea that their opponent has never said they hold, and move on.

This has been yet another installment of “Why It’s A Waste Of Time To Engage Them, They’re Only Fit To Be Mocked And Ridiculed”.

 

41 Responses to “Bullshit as usual”


  1. 1 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    If SOW has such a noble righteous message, why can’t they get their supporters to open their chequebook and support them (one might ask the supporters of the Liberal, NDP, Green, and BQ parties the same question)?

    Why should I be forced to support these feminazis through taxation?

    I was very disappointed when Harper cut their public funding, then quietly gave it back to them. 😦

  2. 2 deBeauxOs Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Gee “proudNOT2bprogressive”, that is an excellent idea. I support our soldiers but I do NOT want them fighting a war created to defend the geopolitical interests of the US.

    So I suggest that every taxpayer – YOU, for example – who supports the war in Afghanistan should open their cheque books and contribute towards the billions of dollars’ difference between the cost of maintaining our National Defense forces and what it costs, in terms of transport, equipment and rehabilitation for soldiers injured, maimed and permanently traumatized by combat conditions that I never voted to support.

  3. 3 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    A fair question, P2notwhatever, especially relative to political parties. I frankly don’t have a problem with private funding, although I think there might be some inequities with parties like the NDP, who tend to represent the less-affluent.

    If you want to talk about SWC, I’ll happily address your comments when you use the right acronym.

    But I will say that, by your standard, why should I as a taxpayer be forced to pick up the slack for tax exempt religious organizations?

    It’s called democracy — we unfortunately don’t get to pick & choose where our tax dollars go. Our elected officials do that for us.

  4. 4 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    DeBeauxOs – Good point. Reality is that all of us are paying for things we don’t particularly want or need or even like, in order to support something called the Common Good… that’s an unfortunate byproduct of living in a democracy.

    (I’d be happy for us not to pay ANY taxes and pay for the systems we need at the community level… but that’s just another one of my libertarian daydreams… 😉 )

  5. 6 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    DeBeauxOs, every country needs a military. Only a naive fool like Taliban Jack thinks one can “sweet talk” the Taliban into dropping their arms. They won’t even allow us women to get an education. Weren’t you proud when the first person to drop a ballot in their election was a 19 y/o woman?

    How many countries can you list that don’t have a military? And why against the military? Is it because if we were invaded, we could mooch off the Yanks and have them defend us? I thought only Old Europe did that.

    However every country does not need public funding directed towards feminist activist groups.

  6. 7 Paladiea Monday, December 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    However every country does not need public funding directed towards feminist activist groups.

    No only the ones that don’t want to be like the “terrorists” that we’re supposedly fighting.

    Unless you think that everyone in Canada currently enjoys an equal standing in society, and if you believe that I have a few bridges to sell you.

  7. 8 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    fern hill – Yeah, it’s an exercise in frustration. When someone can’t or won’t go into any detail about what their talking points really mean, it’s obvious that debate and discussion isn’t their goal.

    I’m sure that like any government entity, there might be some good reasons to critique SWC, just not the ones I’ve seen so far. (Not to mention the level of maturity of the criticism has been, thus far, sadly wanting.)

  8. 9 deBeauxOs Monday, December 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    “proudNOT2bprogressive” please re-read my post carefully. If you can’t be bothered, here are the points I made.

    1) I support our soldiers and the military.

    2) I do NOT want our troops fighting a war created to advance the geopolitical needs of the US, and being killed for those interests. I want to bring them home to be with their families.

    3) I pay taxes for National Defense armed forces – happily. My father was a veteran.

    4) I never voted in support of the war against Afghanistan, so why should I pay for the cost of this war?

    Don’t you find it is a gross manipulation of public opinion to claim to save Afghan women from the Taliban, in order to justify the invasion of that country? Wouldn’t it have been more honest to admit that mistakes were made when the US chose to arm the mujahideen against the USSR?

    Why maintain the lie that billions of dollars are being expended to ‘save’ Afghan women and children when in reality, their lives have become much worse? How many more wedding parties and innocent villages need to be bombed to satisfy the US need for vengeance?

    So, if you felt proud when one Afghan woman got to vote, in some conveniently staged photo opportunity – how do you feel about abused women and children in Canada who are turned away from shelters filled to capacity since the Cons stopped funding the advocacy work of organizations such as Women and the Law? Are you proud about that?

  9. 10 Mike Monday, December 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Hey, proudNOT2bprogressive, if the CPC is so right about removing subsidies, why aren’t they getting rid of the tax credit for political donations that has the government paying 75 % of the first $400 donated to a political party?

    Do you think maybe because that would wipe out most of the Conservative party funding?

    Naw….

    I have long argued that SWC and other feminist organizations should have independent funding so that Neanderthal Conservative prigs and proto-fascists can’t try to destroy them by undemocratic means.

    So, how about the Cons stop subsidizing the Big Oil companies and the tar sands. And the big 3.

    I say we withhold all our taxes and donate it to SWC and Women and the Law – give our money to the causes we support and financially starve the Conservative government. See how they like it.

    In the meantime proudNOT2bprogressive – piss off.

  10. 11 Beijing York Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    How about we also remove tax exempt status for religious organizations. If the followers are so damn keen about them, let them pay for their existence through donations.

  11. 12 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Mike – Another good point — if they really meant that cut as a cost-cutting measure, they’d get rid of the 75% credit. What a sham.

    I love the idea of withholding taxes from those extortionist thugs! I don’t even need a reason!

  12. 13 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Beijing – Absolutely. It works both ways.

  13. 14 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    “Why maintain the lie that billions of dollars are being expended to ’save’ Afghan women and children when in reality, their lives have become much worse?

    Wow. Just wow! Being able to vote and go to school makes AFghani women livers “much worse”.

    Unbelievable! Why do you hate women so much?

  14. 15 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Oops. “livers” should be “lives”.

    Auntie’s keyboard is different than mine.

  15. 16 Frank Frink Monday, December 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Wow. Just wow! Being able to vote and go to school makes AFghani women livers “much worse”.

    Ummm, ‘Proudd2Bsomethingorother’…that’s not what she said at all and you know it. That’s called being disingenuous.

    As for girls going to school. Yeah, they can go to school. Sorta. If they don’t mind something like this happening. And no, it is not uncommon.

    Yep, it’s soooo much safer now for women and girls, isn’t it. Hope you noticed that this post is called ‘bullshit as usual’, and you really delivered.

  16. 17 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    MIke, I don’t hear CPC supporters wailing and gnashing their teeth over public funding being cut to political parties….

  17. 18 deBeauxOs Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Hey, “proud2Bdishonest” was that a NOTprogressive trick, to ignore most of what I said, and twist my words into your own meaning? Typical Con trick.

  18. 19 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Quit being disingenuous Frank. She stated that Afghani women have it much worse now compared to before.

    This is utter lunacy so cut the BS puh-leeze.

    The first person to drop a ballot in the voting box was a 19 y/o woman. But I’m not surprised that that means little to most here; the ppl here tried to overthrow the duly elected govt of Canada.

  19. 20 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    “that’s just another one of my libertarian daydreams”

    Libertarian?! BWAHAHA! Who you trying to zoom?

    Anyone can look at your blogroll and see you are a Dipper, i.e., a “progressive”

  20. 21 proudNOT2bprogressive Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Mike, clean the cobwebs off your chequebook, and quit mooching off me and demanding I support Canada’s loony leftoid parties!

  21. 22 Bina Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    How can anyone be “proud not to be progressive”? That’s like being proud not to be sane.

  22. 23 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    P2not – “Anyone can look at your blogroll and see you are a Dipper, i.e., a “progressive”

    I wasn’t aware that a blogroll made someone a member of a political party, that’s special.

    You think there are no progressive libertarians? 😆 Wake up & smell the anti-authoritarian coffee.

  23. 24 Frank Frink Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Quit being disingenuous Frank. She stated that Afghani women have it much worse now compared to before.

    Uh-huhn… I’m never disingenuous. deBeauxOs she never said anything about ‘voting and going to school making their lives worse’. Of course, they still, after all this time that we’ve been there, do have to risk their lives to go to school and vote.

  24. 25 JJ Monday, December 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    proud2 – “Mike, clean the cobwebs off your chequebook, and quit mooching off me”

    Where do you get off accusing anyone of mooching? You better pay more attention if you want to keep commenting here — Mike is about the last person who’d “mooch” off anyone.

    Why is it that right-wingnuts always think they’re the only ones who work and pay taxes? Gimme a fucking break.

    Then again, sometimes people make accusations because they know that, given the opportunity, it’s what they themselves would do. Something like that going on, p2? Mooching a little?

  25. 26 Mike Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 4:51 am

    Jeez wow JJ. Wasn’t I the one who, on this (er actually your old one) very blog recommended that SWC fundraiser themselves so that they weren’t dependent on the largesse narrow minded bigots like those in the CPC? Not because I’m a mean spirited prick, but because I think SWC does important work and shouldn’t be in a position to be beholden to the very people they are fighting against.

    At least as a hardworking Canadian libertarian progressive I can afford my choice of keyboards on my computers and don’t have too ‘mooch’ off of relatives. I’m also not so pig ignorant as to visit my Aunt and then spend the entire time using her computer to troll the blogs instead of actually visiting with her.

    Methinks p2not is projecting a little.

    BTW, I probably made more money in the time it took to write this than p2not did all day yesterday.

  26. 27 bcwaterboy Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 6:20 am

    I vote for a 30% cut in SUZANNE”s wages. It’s just a supply and demand thing, nothing to do with her being a woman and such.

  27. 28 JJ Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 7:24 am

    Mike – “Wasn’t I the one who, on this (er actually your old one) very blog recommended that SWC fundraiser themselves so that they weren’t dependent on the largesse narrow minded bigots like those in the CPC?”

    Actually, you reiterated that very recommendation in the post above that P2 is responding to, but she somehow *overlooked* that part of it. The real joke is that compared to you, p2 is probably a nanny statist.

    Seriously, some of these people are completely incapable of good-faith debate. I also wonder why, if they really believe in their ideas, they have to use fake names when they comment instead of posting under their real blogger handles. What are they afraid of? It’s not like I’ve got an army of flying monkeys I’ll send over to harass them 😆

  28. 29 JJ Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 7:35 am

    bc waterboy – Hey you, hi! Long time no see! 🙂

    The only problem with voting to cut SUZANNE’s wages is that SUZANNE doesn’t work for wages, she gets an allowance from Daddy.

    That could be why it’s so easy for her to shit on pay equity.

  29. 30 balbulican Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

    SUZANNE is not a very bright person.

    She compounds that natural disadvantage with an ideological streak that compels her to view the universe through a lens of absurdities she cannot even allow herself to question.

    It’s difficult to feel sorry for her, since she embraces the absurdity that defines her mental life so tightly. But she is not to be taken seriously.

  30. 31 LogicallySpeaking Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 9:27 am

    While I post over at SUZANNE’s blog from time to time when I’m bored and feel like pissing on something, it really is attacking a horribly flimsy strawman. *shrug* Maybe somebody still has to do it.

    As for public subsidies, besides the litany of excellent points already made, as long as you vote, the amount of your tax dollars going towards a party you don’t support is pathetically small. Unless you honestly believe the average Conservative supporter pays way more taxes than the average Liberal supporter.

    I wish there was some way to see the amount of total tax revenue that comes from supporters of each party. I think it would shut a lot of people up.

  31. 32 JJ Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 9:50 am

    balb – Oh, I know. It’s always a mistake to take people like SUZANNE seriously. She’s a propagandist, nothing more. She’s so accustomed to just spewing propaganda and never having it questioned that she’s incapable of good-faith debate.

    All I wanted was for her to tell me what the asinine rhetoric really means — in the real world, with examples — and she responds with more rhetoric. And then declares the whole debate pointless because I’ll never agree to her way or the highway. Uh… she’s never heard of compromise?

    Ironically, I had been about to tell her that I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing SWC does — like any government agency, it has room for improvement — and we might even find some common ground (albeit probably for different reasons). But in order to get there, you have to deal with reality, not meaningless talking points. But that obviously doesn’t fit the agenda.

    I don’t feel sorry for her at all — she knowingly disseminates bullshit, and when it looks like her arguments are falling apart, she shuts down the discussion. “Free speecher”? — it is *to laugh*.

  32. 33 JJ Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Logically – “While I post over at SUZANNE’s blog from time to time when I’m bored and feel like pissing on something, it really is attacking a horribly flimsy strawman. *shrug* Maybe somebody still has to do it.”

    Well that made me LOL.

    I do it because a lot of what she posts is such utter bullshit that I feel it needs to be challenged. She’s a hardcore ideologue so I don’t expect her to engage in a good-faith debate, I do it more for her other readers. Who knows, it might make one of them think twice about the BS she’s feeding them. *shrug*

    “I wish there was some way to see the amount of total tax revenue that comes from supporters of each party. I think it would shut a lot of people up.”

    Tru dat, baby! 😆

  33. 34 KEvron Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    “Mike, clean the cobwebs off your chequebook, and quit mooching off me”

    the proper response to this is, of course, “make me!”, then laugh at the troll’s feckless demands.

    KEvron

  34. 35 KEvron Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    “Maybe somebody still has to do it.”

    you rang?

    KEvron

  35. 36 JJ Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    “Maybe somebody still has to do it.”

    you rang?

    KEvron

    lol!
    😉

  36. 37 900ft jesus Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 7:25 am

    SWC shouldn’t fundraise through private donations. That would make it a special interest group. Bad idea, because it undermines the efforts of recognizing that equity and abuse are still huge problems in reference to women. Women’s problems must never be reduced to “special interest” only supported by those who recognize the problems women still face, or by those who support equality for women.

    SWC is also a venue for educating Canadians on an ongoing basis to realities women face. All Canadians must be involved with, and aware of those challenges, not only those interested in women’s issues. The very people who despise SWC are often the worst abusers of women and their rights, so they can’t be let off the hook by de-legitimizing SWC to some extent by making it a special interest group.

    That’s as ridiculous as saying the Human Rights Commission should be privately funded through donations.

    I don’t have any handicapped children, but I fully support government funded agencies that promote the rights of handicapped people and heighten awareness and create opportunities.

  37. 38 900ft jesus Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 7:31 am

    forgot to add –

    proudNOT2bprogressive said – If SOW has such a noble righteous message, why can’t they get their supporters to open their chequebook and support them (one might ask the supporters of the Liberal, NDP, Green, and BQ parties the same question)?

    Perfect example of why SWC should not be funded through donations. Over and over the CONs point to low level of donations to left-wing parties as proof of a number of things: people don’t support them, they are badly organized…

    SWC would suffer the same distorted criticisms.

    Our rights cannot depend on people “open(ning) their checkbooks,” but on policies and legislation as well as support from Canadians.

  38. 39 mouthyorange Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 8:14 am

    JJ – “she”. I’m not convinced that P2 is a woman. He did protest too much.

  39. 40 JJ Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 10:19 am

    900 – I think when the private funding aspect of things is discussed, it’s done with a bigger, “perfect world” picture in mind.

    That said, there’s no doubt that being beholden to the state is dicey — for anyone — it means constantly fighting those that would cut off funding for ideological reasons, even when the majority of us vote in a way that shows we’re supportive of said funding. However, that’s the way it works for now. In an ideal world we wouldn’t even need a Status of Women agency.

  40. 41 JJ Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 10:23 am

    orange – Yah, I’m pretty sure ptroll is a guy. I can’t imagine a woman wasting time trolling like that — it’s definitely a young, immature guy thing.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 633,872
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: