Entry 2266, on 2023-03-27 at 19:59:08 (Rating 5, Comments)
They say that it's only 99% of lawyers who give the other 1% a bad name. I find that pretty amusing, because it's fun to give lawyers a hard time, because of their ridiculous charge-out rates, and the (arguably) somewhat unnecessary role they play in society. But all the lawyers I know, both professional and academic, are nice people, so no one should take that comment too seriously.
The real quote it is based on, of course, is that it is 1% of any particular group who give the rest a bad name. The numbers are unimportant, and if I was going to try to be more technically correct, that number would vary from one group to another. There is also the question of which groups actually do have a bad name, and to whom are they bad.
But let's just assume that every group has a bad name to some members of society, at least, and that the number of genuine bad people in those groups, who drag the reputation of the rest down, might vary from about half of them, to almost none.
So, in my opinion for managers and politicians that number is at least half; followed by used car salesmen (and women), real estate agents, and similar; for computer consultants (a group I chose because I belong to it) about 20%, and that would be similar for many other professionals; and there's probably not too many I would rate above that, although possibly medical professionals and emergency personnel could be (although even that is doubtful).
But all of that discussion of occupations is merely an introduction, because I want to go into far more dangerous territory now, and apply this rule to societal groups.
I often get very annoyed with how certain groups in society are given special privileges, are treated as more deserving that others, and who generally just seem to gain undeserved benefits.
Currently, in this country the two most obvious groups in this category are Maori and the trans community. I have heard people rant about how they hate Maori, for example, because of all the hand-outs, special privileges, and other benefits they gain because of our current woke government.
But I don't see it that way, because although those extra unearned privileges annoy me as much as anyone else, it's not Maori in general who are to blame: it's a tiny elite group of Maori, and their supporters who aren't even Maori themselves. They're the ones grabbing the power and money being handed out by the naive and virtue signalling politicians. The average Maori person in this country receives very little benefit from it, if any, and many are actively against it, and find it condescending or embarrassing.
And the same applies to the trans community. The disgusting, feral scum who were responsible for that violent riot in Auckland last week don't represent the average trans person, who just wants to live their life in the best way they can. They represent extremists, and their virtue signalling allies, who are so convinced they're right that they don't even stop to think, or who don't even care about what's right and just pursue political power or fame through our corrupt media.
So it really is a case that just 5% (a partly arbitrary number, which could really be from 1 to 10) who give the others a bad name. It's very easy to fall into the trap of blaming the community in general for the horrible behaviour of the small fraction who are genuinely corrupt, greedy, self-serving, or just plain evil, but that's something I have to consciously tell myself to avoid - although I sometimes forget that when discussing managers and politicians!
Because of this people often find my views difficult to understand. How can I be so critical of that so-called protest in Auckland by trans activist, but not be anti-trans, for example?
Well, let me tell you a little story. A few years ago, a friend I had known for many years decided to transition from male to female, later in life. She (I will use this pronoun and explain why later) was rejected by her family and many of her friends, but I still supported her, although I must confess I found it difficult to begin with. I talked to her, I called her "she", and I tried to treat her with respect, like any other person.
Yet, I severely criticised the activists at that protest/riot, and referred to the male to female transitioners there using their birth sex (that is he/him). Why the inconsistency?
Well, it depends on intent, and how the person acts. I figured the old friend was completely genuine. She waited until late in life to avoid offending her parents, she got the full surgery done, indicating a total commitment, and she didn't push it too far, although there were times when she got a little bit flamboyant and pushy.
Did I think she was a woman? Well, no, to be honest, I didn't (I don't think she reads this blog, but is she does, sorry, I did my best). She was a man identifying as a woman, and I could make her life easier by treating her as a woman, which is what I primarily did.
But I don't think those hideous scum at that riot deserved that privilege or effort on my part. I referred to them as male, and in some cases as "it", because identifying some of them as even human seemed too much. OK, I know I've entered some extreme rhetoric here now, but hey, I said this post was going into dangerous territory, didn't I?
So am I anti-trans? Well, if I was, would I have not joined all those other friends and family who refused to acknowledge the new identity of that old friend? But that is a privilege I only extend to those who deserve it, just like any other special effort other groups might demand of me.
This is the key factor with the most famous example of this issue: when Jordan Peterson refused to obey the mandated use of gender pronouns enforced by a new law in Canada, inflicted on the population by the ultra-woke Justin Trudeau. By the way, we got rid of out tyrannical woke prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, how has Trudeau survived this long?
And even if that law had been enforced, what meaning would it have had? People would have been prosecuted if they hadn't used the pronouns demanded by various sub-categories of gender diverse people, but would that use of pronouns been genuine? Of course not. At least with me, if I use your pronouns, you know I mean it.
And I know many, and work with many, people from diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds, and I really think I treat them all with the same level of respect. I honestly try not to let one aspect of a person's identity, whichever of those factors it is, affect my overall opinion. I know that most of the Maori people I know don't want undeserved political power or handouts, I know most of the Muslims I know don't want to kill be because I'm an infidel, I know most of the feminists I know don't think all males should be killed. All of those opinions are held by the worst 1% of those groups, but I hope they don't hold any strong appeal to the rest.
So my message is, give the majority in those controversial groups the benefit of the doubt, unless they reveal themselves to be part of the 1%. Then give them hell!
Comment 1 (7404) by Anonymous on 2023-03-27 at 21:38:41:
Comment 2 (7405) by Anonymous on 2023-03-27 at 23:04:52:
I've been following the whole Posie Parker issue with interest. Now I'm interested in knowing whether Marama Davidson (Green Party co-leader) is guilty of hate speech after describing cis-gendered white men as the source of all crime. Now, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and agree that she certainly didn't mean to say it, but I strongly suspect that it is her deeply held belief - those words didn't come from nowhere.
As a cis-gendered (I hate that term, it's such nonsense) white male, I don't want her banned, or cancelled, or censored. I am obviously the target of her predujice, but I'm a big boy and I can take it. I don't need to be protected. I'd much rather she be able to express her beliefs and we can debate the merit or validity of her beliefs in an open and honest way.
Comment 3 (7406) by OJB on 2023-03-28 at 07:44:48:
Yeah, Marama Davidson's comment isn't insulting or offensive, it's just wrong. Just today a woman committed a shooting in a US school, killing 6 people. Black people are by far the most violent in the US, and Maori here. But this is the problem with far leftists: they just repeat, parrot-like, meaningless catch-phrases, instead of trying to figure out what's true.
I agree with not wanting her banned. The more BS we hear from people like her, the more certain we can be that they aren't worth voting for. Best to get these attitudes out in the open, instead of simmering behind the scenes.
Comment 4 (7409) by Anonymous on 2023-03-28 at 11:00:48:
You need to learn what the one percent means. Hint: Not what you think.
Comment 5 (7410) by OJB on 2023-03-28 at 11:05:02:
Yes, I know "the 1%" usually refers to the top 1% of people with the most wealth. I used the title deliberately to show the rule applies in other situations as well.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE