Occam All Ye Doubtful

Many have shared this interview on social media and various blogs already, commenting from their particular position.

We would like to offer an alternative to the Red vs Blue Team arguments and discuss this interview as a proxy to explain why we are currently seeing so much polarisation in, well, every area of public debate.

The two participants, while nominally discussing the same subject are using two incompatible approaches to the discussion.

On the one hand, Peterson talks in terms of statistics showing trends, while Newman uses his description of a trend as a specific for an individual.

A great example of this disconnect is when Peterson tries to explain why hierarchies and the human response to them are ancient and even predate hominids. His nuanced point was that the serotonin reaction to status is shared with lobsters, so (a) status cannot be a social construct to be quickly dismantled and, (b) probably has some deep evolutionary cause, reminding us of Chesterton’s fence.

The discussion around the causes of the pay gap is even more poignant; one person is approaching the data point that, on average, women are paid 9% less than men, with a reasonable question about how we might isolate the multiple variables which may be responsible and cautioning against drawing the conclusion that it must be entirely or, in a large part, due to bias.

On the other hand, the other person is either unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that other factors may be at play.

Peterson remains remarkably patient during this exchange while Newman reverts to hyperbole, invites Peterson to argue against her strawman summaries of his points and begins to raise her voice.

Bill’s Opinion

One doesn’t need to take a position on the content of the discussion to see that the two approaches to this debate are incompatible. The form of the discussion is a wonderful embodiment of the current standard of debate between those with a cultural Marxism tendency and everyone else in the world.

A 9 year old female relative received this inspiring book for Christmas;

100 stories of inspiring women role models to underline the message that girls can achieve whatever it is in life they desire.

Most of the examples are uncontentious with wonderful tales of intelligence, tenacity and bravery to achieve outstanding outcomes in various disciplines; Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale, Ada Lovelace, Hypatia, etc.

The authors could be accused of a little padding however, especially as 8% of the heroines they include were queens from history, women who epitomise one of the Left’s favourite insults; unearned privilege by birth.

There seem to be an over-representation of women with “activist” (or synonym) as their title (12%) versus those notable for academic achievements (23%).

However, to ensure balance, it was nice of them to include this surprise addition to the collection;

Although mentioning the abolition of “free” milk presumably softened the blow.

There were two additions which made me chuckle. Firstly, a woman most famous because of her husband’s surname and a remarkable inability to tell the truth or win elections. Not the greatest role model one can think of, certainly not in the top 100;

“To every little girl who dreams big, I say YES, you can be anything you want – even president…. especially if you tell the truth and connect with middle America“.

Even worse is the second example, another person famous only through marriage (creepy picture too);

But lastly, how about this for a confusing message for a young girl;

Bill’s Opinion

It’s admirable that the authors of this book inspire girls to not be limited by their imagination. How commendable it is also that they have given the same message to boys; if you want to be a girl, just say you’re a girl. Simple!

After all, in 2015 the most inspiring woman of the year was a man. See, men are better than women at everything…. including being women.

 

 

File under; “Questions not asked or answered by the journalist“.

As reported, this is a tragic story of disadvantage, abuse and desperation.

As the Grauniad reporter Ben Doherty expects, our natural reaction is one of sympathy for a fellow human being whose entire life has been a series of events of terrible luck.

Can we ask some questions though, please?

First question; when did Said Imasi arrive in Australia and under what circumstances?

He admits to travelling on false passports, he says, because it is impossible for a person without a country to gain one legitimately.

Imasi arrived in Australia – by plane and intending only to pass through – in January 2010.

He got on an international flight with a false passport? Hands up who, in these post-911 days, likes the idea of getting on a plane with someone travelling under a false identity? You sir, Mr. Guardian Reader at the back, would you put your family on that plane?

Ok, next question; to an accuracy level of the nearest year, how old is Said?

He doesn’t know where he was born, or when. He has few documents to demonstrate who he is or where he comes from.

Imasi was born on or about 27 March 1989. He doesn’t know his exact birthdate, nor precisely where he was born.

That’s sad. It would make competing in a junior athletics competition a little tricky too, wouldn’t it? Yet somehow…..

That’s a mighty fine set of biceps and quadriceps the “teenage” Said is sporting there, relative to the weedy kids running next to him. It’s almost as if….. no, we’re imagining things.

Third question; other than for the international crime of travelling on false documentation, why is Said in a detention centre in Australia (well, on the Australian territory of Christmas Island)?

Oh, because he claimed asylum when he arrived in Australia due to fear of persecution. So perhaps the reason he’s not at liberty in Australia is because he’s undergoing the due process required by the Australian state to ensure the validity of the claims made by asylum-seekers?

Penultimate question; given that he’s living at the expense of the the Australian public and has requested they allow him to live among them permanently, is he motivated to help clarify their points of confusion about his background and the legitimacy of his claim?

The government has previously raised doubts Imasi is from Western Sahara and said he has been uncooperative, a claim rejected by the UN working group.

Oh, that’s awkward.

Final question; if his claim to be at risk of persecution were to be found to be valid, is he the type of person Australians would like to have as a neighbour?

From the article we can see that he has admitted to being a member of a criminal gang, drug-running, traveling under stolen or forged passports, violence and rape.

Although many of Australia’s citizens can trace their ancestry back to British and Irish criminals who were transported to the various penal colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, it is no longer a requirement or, indeed, desirable for new immigrants to be hardened criminals.

Bill’s Opinion

There is no doubt that Said Imasi has lived a difficult life beset with many cruel twists of fate. He has, however, lied like a cheap fake Rolex at every opportunity offered to him to explain his identity, background and any other pertinent facts which might support his claim to asylum.

The people of Australia are well within their rights to detain him away from their society until these uncertainties have been cleared up.

What happens next to Said is entirely down to Said’s choices; he can either come clean about who he is, where he’s been and what he has done prior to arriving in Australia or he can give just enough information to prove that he has been resident of another country long enough to be able to claim asylum elsewhere.

In the meantime, enjoy the free food, high definition TV, internet and Xbox games at the expense of Australia.

Melbourne, Australia has a problem with gangs of young African men committing violent crimes. It’s been occurring for a while now, this example is from just under a year ago and there plenty more similar reports in the media.

The relative size of the problem can be debated and crime statistics are available to point to this particular ethnic group’s contribution to the total number of incidents and, indeed, the ratio of that group who are arrested and/or convicted of violent crime compared to other ethnicities.

On this basis, the Australian Race Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, has called for less “panic, more perspective” over the issue, going on to claim that perhaps there are mitigating excuses for the crimes, such as “social and economic disadvantage”. He urges us to not reduce the issue to race and ethnicity.

We’ll address the debunked Cultural Marxist theory that poverty produces crime shortly. His request that we shouldn’t reduce the issue to race and ethnicity piques our interest primarily.

The chutzpah of Tim’s request is admirable; this from a department and a Commissioner with a recent track record of Identity Politics. Tim, for example, rushes to the assumption of racism for anyone who struggles to pronounce an unfamiliar 4 syllable name. It’s an overused sentiment  but really, this kind of hectoring and haste to label everything as racist and everyone as bigots “is why we got Trump“.

Tim requests that we don’t revert to labeling these crimes by the ethnicity of the perpetrators. He has a point, justice should indeed be blind. People in fear of being physically attacked are usually not blind, however, so is there perhaps some rationality to their response?

Consider the fact that people of an African appearance (no, not this type of African) are extremely rare in Australia, 92% of the population is European in origin, is it surprising that an uptick in crime from an easily identifiable ethnic group receives more attention than say a crime wave where the perpetrators are from a Scottish or French ethnic background?

In fact, does it not make logical sense that, if there’s a set of identifiable features (for example; males, between the ages of 15 and 25, African appearance, congregated in a group of 3 or more) linking a series of crimes that the police have a duty to focus their investigations on those sharing these features (without diluting the legal duties such as the presumption of innocence)?

In the same way that we would condemn the counter terrorism agencies for allocating resources to investigating potential violent Buddhists and Jihadists in equal measure, why would anyone question profiling groups of young African men if there have been multiple recent cases of violence reported at the hands of that demographic?

Bill’s Opinion

It’s not racist to report that there have been violent crimes committed by gangs of young men of South Sudanese origin. It’s also not racist for the police to focus on that demographic during their investigations and efforts to prevent further such crimes. It makes perfect sense and the police would be in derogation of their duties, in fact.

Lastly, poverty does not result in crime; crime results in poverty. If the South Sudanese have a culture which tolerates criminal behaviour, that culture will trump most efforts to integrate them into a law-abiding culture.

By the way, Australian taxpayers, you are paying Tim Soutphommasane’s salary for him to tell you how awful you are. If that’s not the definition of an abusive relationship, I’d be interested in hearing what is.