#ethics

Grievance Studies hoax

What a surprise in today’s academia. Three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable politically correct jargon (wrt gender equality, white supremacy, LGBTQI) and developed ridiculous conclusions with the aim of placing these ‘peer-reviewed’ pieces in high-profile journals. At the time of exposing the hoax 7 journals succeeded in being published, 7 were in the approvals process and only 6 were rejected.

Just goes to show that some journalists are happy to publish anything provided it fits a narrative, no matter how ridiculous the content. For instance;

Some of the papers accepted included, Western astrology was viewed as imperialist and sexist. It argued female astrology be implemented by science faculties.

Another paper titled, Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon‘ which postured whether dogs suffered from oppression based upon perceived gender.

Yet another paper, ‘Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation‘ argued that men objectifying women during the act without her consent were perpetrators of sexual violence.

As Yascha Mounk correctly pointed out,

[this] doesn’t just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals. This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the “privilege” of white students.

Grievance is an industry underpinned by political correctness. Forget rational thought and debate. Just publish whatever fuels the grievance that rationalizes the irrational. Some of these hoax pieces (unsurprisingly) have been taken down. Just proves activism for what it is – as long as they don’t find out we can keep banging the drum of perpetual victimhood.

Constructive dismissal?

CM’s view on the incompetence of Rugby Australia (RA) is well documented and reconfirmed by Alan Jones in The Australian today. It appears that Israel Folau looks more like a sacrifice to the altar of the sponsor god, Qantas.

Sponsorship money is important to sports teams but it should never get to a point where the sponsored has to make unconscionable decisions to acquiesce their paymasters. It is unethical.

CM has long held issues over Qantas’ flagrant use of shareholder capital to sponsor the CEO’s activism. It is terrible governance.

Remember the acceptance rings ahead of the same sex marriage debate that Qantas pushed so hard on us? The idea was to distribute these acceptance rings (not fully closed) to customers, clients and travellers.

CM supposed if someone were to politely decline to wear one they risked being be branded homophobic, bigoted and summarily ostracized for expressing such views. It might be that they actually support gay marriage but do not wish to express it openly. That is nothing more than a conscious choice, not categorical staunch opposition. Perhaps failure to wear the ring could cause their career takes a turn for the worse all because they don’t comply with group expression i.e. corporate slavery. The team leader who passes them over because they incorrectly assume the employee is a dissenter. That is palpable workplace bullying encouraged by a woke CEO.

What Jones points out is that the ‘wallaby court’ had already decided the outcome before a word was uttered in defence. It appears it was a ‘hearing’ conducted with the deaf.

RA CEO Raelene Castle apparently told Vanessa Hudson, chief customer officer at Qantas,

I updated her on the situation a day after the post and told her that, confidentially, Rugby AU would be working towards a process to terminate Mr Folau’s contract and that Ms Hudson can share that position with Qantas chief executive Mr Alan Joyce. Ms Hudson texted me later that day saying that she had only shared the update with Mr Joyce and he was appreciative of the transparency and he said that a speedy resolution by Rugby AU was paramount.”

This says a lot about Qantas. If it wants to exert control over RA it should acquire it and manage it as a subsidiary.

Yet where was the pushback by RA? It flaked. If it understood the dwindling fan numbers meant it wasn’t connecting to revenue, it might have thought defending Folau might have been its greatest coup and that many non virtue signaling corporates could replace Qantas’ sponsorship.

The culture of RA is self evident. It is not about rugby anymore but a platform for identity politics.No wonder fans are deserting it. CM discusses dwindling fan numbers yesterday, something Jones alluded to. Put simply, the product stinks and that rot permeates from the top. Fans aren’t stupid.

Coach Michael Cheika’s abysmal win/loss record is tolerated because he tows the line of the C-level cabal. So do some of the players who threatened to boycott the team if Folau was allowed to keep playing.What a joke! These virtue signaling players if given the choice to stand by their beliefs or keep their lucrative contracts would choose the latter every time. They sounded just like those Hollywoodcelebrities that threatened to leave America if Trump won the presidency.Hypocrites.

However it only reinforces the reality of the culture within the RA that encourages this type of numb skulled response to pander to the top. If these players wanted to think about faith in context of not selling out core beliefs they could learn muchfrom Israel Folau.

It increasingly looks like the high level breach has been committed by the board in cahoots with Qantas.

As CM mentioned yesterday, perhaps receivership is the best outcome for RA. That way the apparatchiks get cleared out and replaced by people that connect with fans who ultimately pay the keep the lights on at HQ. It isn’t that hard to fix RA’s problems but it will be impossible with a leadership team which seems to support constructive dismissal at the behest of corporates that champion activism rather than principle. Clearly Qantas is the mean “spirit of Australia”

Get woke, go broke.

Trudeau trips into a trap

The scandal surrounding PM Justin Trudeau is killing his poll numbers. This explanation around the SNC-Lavalin affair and the Attorney General’s independence doesn’t go well.

Scheer to Trudeau – “Get on with it”

Canadian Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer has told PM Justin Trudeau to “get on with it” with regards to threatening to sue over the SNC-Lavalin PMO scandal. Scheer has accused the PM of interfering with the investigation carried out by the Independent Prosecution Service.

Scheer said

“I stand by every single criticism I have made of Justin Trudeau’s behaviour in this scandal. If Trudeau intends to sue me, if he believes he has a case against me, he should get on with it…

…Why do I welcome Justin Trudeau’s lawsuit? 1) Because he will finally be forced to testify under oath. 2) He will not be able to shut down the proceedings like he has in Parliament. Canadians will finally get the answers they deserve.

In the latest April CBC poll, the Conservatives under Scheer are at 36.2% and Trudeau’s Liberals at 31.7%. In November, it was 31.3% and 37.7% respectively. A slight reversal in fortune.

Trudeau is a darling of the left. Sadly his legacy is a disaster. From telling Canadians that returning ISIS fighters could be rehabilitated by reciting poetry and haiku, to dressing up in local garb on a visit to India (to the point where Indian officials said most don’t wear such clothing), wearing Star Wars socks, introducing compelled speech legislation and meddling with the ethics committee over his holidays with Aga Khan, Trudeau has proved completely out of his depth. His speech in front of the UNGA exposed his unpopularity as did waving to an empty airfield.

The peoplekind of Canada surely have buyers remorse. Luckily a general election is not far away.

 

Jim Jefferies – what goes around comes around

Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies shot to stardom on the back of his “gun control’ skit post the Parkland school shooting last year. He now has a regular slot on US TV.

Comedy cuts across almost limitless bounds. It triggers some and makes others convulse with laughter. We should accept that. To give Jefferies his due, he can be very funny. Usually vulgar but pointed.

However Jefferies deliberate misrepresentation of Jewish vlogger, Avi Yemini, was reprehensible. Yemini’s responses were edited and cut in ways to answer totally different questions that were asked in an attempt to smear him. It was unethical on every level.

The irony of the “hidden recording” taken by Yemini was that Jeffries himself was exposed for the very anti-Islamic remarks he accused his guest of. He even scribbled a mock drawing of Mohammed and agreed with much of what he criticized Yemini for. Hypocrite. How ironic that the comedian who thought he was interviewing a total dummy now looks the fool.

Regardless of whether one likes Yemini or who he represents or not, it does not give anyone, even a comedian, the right to smear in such a duplicitous and sanctimonious manner. Yemini warned Jefferies he may invite death threats for his blasphemous actions.

Serves him right. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Juncker focuses on the wrong climate

There is an irony to EC President Jean-Claude Juncker promising to spend €1 in €4 of the EU budget on climate mitigation. Worse he used 16yo Swedish climate school strike activist Greta Thunberg as the pawn to justify it. €1 trillion will be spent annually through 2027. It is for their future after all!

Last week CM debated a former client who tried to justify teachers using WMO data in their studies of teenage students on climate. WMO is a part of the U.N. which has been embroiled in so much data manipulation, scandal, lack of governance, unethical conduct and conflicts of interest as to beggar belief. So kids are being indoctrinated if the scholastic standard is the WMO.

Has Juncker considered how his climate plan will alleviate stubborn poverty and anemic economic growth?

EU poverty or risk of exclusion in 2017 stood at 22.4%. So 1 in 4 EU-28 member state citizens are struggling. In Greece it remains high at 35%. In 2007 poverty in the EU-28 was 16%. Even poster child Germany has gone from 16% to 19% in the same period. Macron’s yellow vests are protesting at 17.1% poverty vs 13% in 2007. In 2007 there were 78mn at risk of social exclusion. In 2017 there were 114mn.

The U.N. has called for “no poverty” in 15 years. The EU subscribes to this nonsense. While poverty may have drifted from the post GFC peak of 24.8% in the eurozone, 36mn extra people are unable to afford to heat their homes, afford a colour TV or eat meat, fish or chicken once every two days. These are the EU metrics on poverty. So how does spending €1 trillion per annum to mitigate climate change sit with a growing number of constituents dying to see blazing sunshine bask upon their economic climate?

Retail electricity prices across Europe are up 23% in the last decade. In Germany +39%. Spain +47%, Portugal +50%. Sweden +76%. France +40%. This is what happens when a growing amount of renewables are thrust on the grid. The countries with far lower renewables targets, like Hungary, have seen electricity prices fall. Who’d have thunk?

EU GDP growth has been slowing for the last 5 quarters and expected to slow to 1.1% in the coming quarter.

The EU claimed a 6.6% unemployment rate in Dec 2018. An update is expected on March 1. Is that number realistic if the poverty rate remains so high or is it a reflection of low paying rubbish job opportunities? Greek unemployment is north of 18% and Spain at 15%. Part time employment has grown to 20% from 15% over the last decade. In the Netherlands almost 50% of work is part time.

December 2018 EU industrial production fell 4.2%YoY. Ireland fell back 19.8% and Spain -6.7%. Hardly positive readings.

So instead of promising teenagers a green future, Juncker would find it far more sensible to focus on alleviating the chronic youth unemployment in Europe which remains around 19%. At least Thunberg is likely to skip the unemployment queue by landing a cushy EU job when she graduates unlike her fellow Swedish schoolmates who will face 18% unemployment.

What’s the point of listening to kids pleas to save the planet when the unelected overpaid bureaucracy in Brussels won’t even be able to provide them with a sustainable career to enjoy it? No doubt the kids will realize this folly when they grow up in the real world.