Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

PP refers to Liberal partnership with NDP as "radical, woke coalition with the NDP"

Would you agree with PP that the NDP and Liberals are the "illiberal" left? Because you just used the word woke as a synonym for illiberal, and yet its being thrown around like candy by PP.

No, I don’t agree. Though I do think the reason politicians make hay opposing ‘woke’ attitudes is because they’re genuinely unpopular and so it’s an easy win.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

So what's the equal term for the right? Is it "far-right"? Why don't we just use "far-left" then?

Sometimes it feels like some people in our society enjoy using terms like woke in a way that is meant to be demeaning, and not necessarily because they are trying to have an honest and open dialogue. People also use all sorts of ridiculous words to refer to people on the far-right. Besides that, I disagree that "woke" is an appropriate synonym for people on the far left of the spectrum, and certainly not all people who consider themselves progressive. Some people, maybe, but as a "catch-all" its ridiculous.

Which is why the new leader of a major political party using the terms "woke" and "radical" for the Liberals and NDP is so disappointing. Instead of PP coming across as being open to a dialogue about what he feels is best for the country, it instead feels like he's trying to win some points with people who will love hearing that. And his actions, will only cause more people to use the terms as a way to win some perceived political points in our society. It definitely comes across as labeling the "other" as some sort of boogeyman rather than mature political discourse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJaa...b_channel=CP24

PP refers to Liberal partnership with NDP as "radical, woke coalition with the NDP"

Would you agree with PP that the NDP and Liberals are the "illiberal" left? Because you just used the word woke as a synonym for illiberal, and yet its being thrown around like candy by PP. I consider labeling anyone as illiberal to be a serious charge on their character, and wouldn't misuse the term for my own political gain, but that appear to be what he's doing.

I guess my last question, is PP advancing or harming political discourse in this country when he says things like this?

Anyone who uses the term "woke" in a non-ironic way is not interested in actual discussion, and isn't a person to be taken seriously.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I've never seen why a politician being in a picture with someone is a big deal. I mean I haven't been to any political rallies lately, but I imagine pretty much anyone could have gone up to PP during an event and said "hey, can I get a picture with you?"

If PP doesn't know who this guy is, he is even less engaged in reality than I thought. PP knows exactly who he is and what he stands for. He'll pretend he doesn't, but that's because he already got what he needed from the picture.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I've never seen why a politician being in a picture with someone is a big deal. I mean I haven't been to any political rallies lately, but I imagine pretty much anyone could have gone up to PP during an event and said "hey, can I get a picture with you?"

Agreed. I don't expect PP, or any politician, to know the complete history and background of every person he meets. I would however, expect him to make a statement and distance himself from this person now that its spreading online. Something to the effect of "I do not agree with with views of this person".

Also, it's a bit concerning that people with such extremist views see PP as someone who represents them. Not PP's fault, but still concerning that his messaging speaks to some of the extremists of our society. (This doesn't mean I think PP is an extremist)

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No, I don’t agree. Though I do think the reason politicians make hay opposing ‘woke’ attitudes is because they’re genuinely unpopular and so it’s an easy win.

So I said this many posts back in this same thread, but that's where PP (and other politicians) lose me. When they decided to win political points at all costs, and actively hurt/degrade the political climate of this country.

It tells me, PP is willing to say and do some pretty unbecoming things in order to win. That's not generally someone I'd vote for, let alone spend time talking to in my everyday life. It's a very unlikable human quality, yet we seem to elevate people to positions of authority that excel at it.

Regardless, the term 'woke' in ridiculous. I've never met anyone in my own life that used the term in a positive way. For instance, no one has ever said "I'm woke" as if that's a positive, like "I'm honest". I've only ever heard it by people referring to others in a negative/demeaning way.

You yourself used is both as a synonym for progressive and illiberal. Hell, those two words mean massively different things, and highlight that woke is a ridiculous term to try to capture someone's actual political beliefs.

[Fuzz]

The ridiculous thing is that the attributes of being "woke" are actually what we should strive for. Being aware of the injustices happening around us should be a positive attribute. Yet those using it are celebrating their ignorance and perpetuating inequality, as if it is a sports team to cheer for. Essentially criticizing the woke left is lashing out at those who have concern for the situations of their fellow citizens. What a horrible thing!

That's why you should not use the term, or respect anyone who does. You certainly shouldn't vote for someone who cares so little for equality that they mock the very concept.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The ridiculous thing is that the attributes of being "woke" are actually what we should strive for. Being aware of the injustices happening around us should be a positive attribute. Yet those using it are celebrating their ignorance and perpetuating inequality, as if it is a sports team to cheer for. Essentially criticizing the woke left is lashing out at those who have concern for the situations of their fellow citizens. What a horrible thing!

That's why you should not use the term, or respect anyone who does. You certainly shouldn't vote for someone who cares so little for equality, so mcuh that they mock the concept.

It’s almost as if there’s a motive behind it. Almost.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Agreed. I don't expect PP, or any politician, to know the complete history and background of every person he meets. I would however, expect him to make a statement and distance himself from this person now that its spreading online. Something to the effect of "I do not agree with with views of this person".

Also, it's a bit concerning that people with such extremist views see PP as someone who represents them. Not PP's fault, but still concerning that his messaging speaks to some of the extremists of our society. (This doesn't mean I think PP is an extremist)

I agree with that also, but then again if you show up at rallies where there are extremists in the first place, it's not exactly surprising that you end up in photos with them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I agree with that also, but then again if you show up at rallies where there are extremists in the first place, it's not exactly surprising that you end up in photos with them.

What’s Pierre supposed to do though? He has to attend his own rallies after all.



I used the bag emoji because this joke was kinda low hanging fruit, but in all seriousness a lot of extremists do seem to have a fondness for him.

[b1crunch]

An issue I'm having with both Canadian and American politics, is the constant need for people to demonize their political opponents. This ties into the use of the word "woke" as that's how I think it's being used. PP calls the Liberals and NDP "radical" and "woke" as a way to rile up his base and instil fear.

This is also rampant in American politics, where people throw around the words "pedophile" or "devil" for their political opponents. It's ridiculous and terribly damaging to the political institutions in our society. #pedohitler was trending on twitter after Biden gave a speech a while back. But Twitter isn't the best place to go for open political discourse. lol

What happened to disagreeing with your political opponents, while still being able to see their humanity?

[Hack&Lube]

I am personally hoping for Pierre to temper his politics as he is smart enough to realize he needs to shift to the middle to appeal to the national audience and most of his messages are about working class needs and affordability which speaks to the economic conservatism that could actually be of benefit rather than rampant spending.

Socially however, I want government to stay out of it even though I'm personally quite liberal when it comes to society.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The ridiculous thing is that the attributes of being "woke" are actually what we should strive for. Being aware of the injustices happening around us should be a positive attribute. Yet those using it are celebrating their ignorance and perpetuating inequality, as if it is a sports team to cheer for. Essentially criticizing the woke left is lashing out at those who have concern for the situations of their fellow citizens. What a horrible thing!

That's why you should not use the term, or respect anyone who does. You certainly shouldn't vote for someone who cares so little for equality that they mock the very concept.

All you need to do is look at how people in the center, the right use "woke," and even some on the "left that cares about economics" or whatever group that's supposed to be, as a criticism for having people who aren't caucasian in movie and television roles they believe to be traditionally caucasian to see the deeper meaning of woke as a pejorative.

It's the antithesis of "old stock" and "traditional" and "family values." It's a dog whistle. And it doesn't matter where you fall on the political spectrum, right, left, center, upside down, because that's how it's used across the board now.

So when someone says "well golly, whatever other word could I use?" it's because society keeps telling them the words they want to use aren't acceptable anymore. How else are they going to describe a heinous, unpopular group they've defined as "caring about group identity and cultural issues"? How else are they going to describe a group that by their own definition is mostly made up of visible, cultural, sexual orientation, and gender minorities? All the good pejoratives are banned. "Guess I can't say ###### anymore... so woke it is!"

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, obviously anyone who uses the word woke is basically a KKK member. They all wish they could just use those good old racial slurs. Good take there.

Woke, as generally used by people complaining about wokeness, is basically just an ideological shibboleth to express disapproval of an opposing tribe's viewpoints... It's just the analogue of "problematic", which incidentally riles up the people complaining about wokeness just as much as people on this page seem to be in complaining about "woke".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, obviously anyone who uses the word woke is basically a KKK member. They all wish they could just use those good old racial slurs. Good take there.

Woke, as generally used by people complaining about wokeness, is basically just an ideological shibboleth to express disapproval of an opposing tribe's viewpoints... It's just the analogue of "problematic", which incidentally riles up the people complaining about wokeness just as much as people on this page seem to be in complaining about "woke".

Alright, I'll treat your take the same way as you treated mine.

Tell me what are the specific "tribe's viewpoints" that are being opposed when people use the term "woke" as criticism for having Black actors play fictional characters in LOTR.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

An issue I'm having with both Canadian and American politics, is the constant need for people to demonize their political opponents. This ties into the use of the word "woke" as that's how I think it's being used. PP calls the Liberals and NDP "radical" and "woke" as a way to rile up his base and instil fear.

This is also rampant in American politics, where people throw around the words "pedophile" or "devil" for their political opponents. It's ridiculous and terribly damaging to the political institutions in our society. #pedohitler was trending on twitter after Biden gave a speech a while back. But Twitter isn't the best place to go for open political discourse. lol

What happened to disagreeing with your political opponents, while still being able to see their humanity?

It’s been happening for awhile where everyone is looking to get a sound bite in. I want someone in place who can talk like a human and say, “fair point” to their opposition, and leave it at that rather than look to #### on every point while twisting the smallest thing around. It’s childish. All them do it now. It’s almost a reflection of how dumb we are as citizens to put these bozos in place and buy into these debates when none of them truly say what they represent. It’s just mindless attacks. I waiver in supporting each group each election but what I liked about O’Toole last election is he didn’t really resort to that. Where he f’ed up royally was the gun control stuff. He was a little more centre of the line and I appreciated that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Tell me what are the specific "tribe's viewpoints" that are being opposed when people use the term "woke" as criticism for having Black actors play fictional characters in LOTR.

Without expressing any particular opinion about the strength or weakness of this position, the viewpoint being opposed is the prioritization of ideology related to racial identity - i.e., the view that the skin colour of the actor is a crucially important consideration, such that it's absolutely necessary that casting pay attention to it and ensure that there are black actors in the show. I mean I'm sure there are some of them who are just "#### black people", a lot of it is, "it's a Lord of the Rings show, not an instrument for social change, just make the show good and stop prioritizing this other stuff that isn't central to whether the writing or production are enjoyable to watch". The attitude is less "don't cast black people", so much as "don't go out of your way to intentionally cast black people as some demonstration of how progressive you are." Which is absolutely what's happening when the studio casts a black girl as the little mermaid, obviously - that's a deliberate choice to say "look, we cast a black girl, we obviously care about minority representation in film! Now, write a lot of stories about how great or terrible this is so that everyone knows this movie is coming out."

It's never exactly straightforward. For example, some of the backlash to this casting stuff lately has been "why do these producers think diversity exclusively involves either gender swapping or casting more black people, there are lots of other races that are underrepresented in film that are still not getting any attention while you all pat yourselves on the back for making a black elf." Do those people actually care about whether there are latinos getting roles in LOTR? Well, some actually do. Others don't really, but are making that point in earnest as an illustration about what they see as hypocrisy, and a less than honest commitment to "diversity". Others are just trying to score cheap points and get attention from their twitter followers. And yes, other still are essentially KKK members who actively dislike black people. So saying things like, "well, they all use woke because all the slurs they used to use are banned" was worth the rolled eyes.

For the record, my view is that the casting in TV shows and movies falls squarely on the list of things that are absolutely not worth spending any energy caring about, but some people feel the need to fight political battles on literally every front so it's hardly surprising that this debate is a thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The ridiculous thing is that the attributes of being "woke" are actually what we should strive for. Being aware of the injustices happening around us should be a positive attribute. Yet those using it are celebrating their ignorance and perpetuating inequality, as if it is a sports team to cheer for. Essentially criticizing the woke left is lashing out at those who have concern for the situations of their fellow citizens. What a horrible thing!
.

Two problems with that line of thinking.

1) It assumes everyone of goodwill agrees on what constitutes an injustice and how they should be remedied. But in the real world, to give an example, only 38 per of Black Americans think race should play any part in college admissions. Are blind auditions for orchestras fair, or do they perpetuate inequality? Is it unjust to write novels or movies from the POV of a person of a different racial or gender identity? Disagreements about these matters don’t break neatly along lines of compassion or justice.

2) Social values often conflict with other values in messy ways. What are the pitfalls of emphasizing group identity over individual identity? Of employing shame and ostracization to enforce consensus on issues people feel passionate about? What do we lose when we treat ideas as violence? People who have spoken out against the illiberal left - people like Margaret Atwood, Malcolm Gladwell, and Salman Rushdie - have not been watching too much Fox News. They see a genuine threat to vital liberal values and norms emerging from the left.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Without expressing any particular opinion about the strength or weakness of this position, the viewpoint being opposed is the prioritization of ideology related to racial identity - i.e., the view that the skin colour of the actor is a crucially important consideration, such that it's absolutely necessary that casting pay attention to it and ensure that there are black actors in the show. I mean I'm sure there are some of them who are just "#### black people", a lot of it is, "it's a Lord of the Rings show, not an instrument for social change, just make the show good and stop prioritizing this other stuff that isn't central to whether the writing or production are enjoyable to watch". The attitude is less "don't cast black people", so much as "don't go out of your way to intentionally cast black people as some demonstration of how progressive you are." Which is absolutely what's happening when the studio casts a black girl as the little mermaid, obviously - that's a deliberate choice to say "look, we cast a black girl, we obviously care about minority representation in film! Now, write a lot of stories about how great or terrible this is so that everyone knows this movie is coming out."

It's never exactly straightforward. For example, some of the backlash to this casting stuff lately has been "why do these producers think diversity exclusively involves either gender swapping or casting more black people, there are lots of other races that are underrepresented in film that are still not getting any attention while you all pat yourselves on the back for making a black elf." Do those people actually care about whether there are latinos getting roles in LOTR? Well, some actually do. Others don't really, but are making that point in earnest as an illustration about what they see as hypocrisy, and a less than honest commitment to "diversity". Others are just trying to score cheap points and get attention from their twitter followers. And yes, other still are essentially KKK members who actively dislike black people. So saying things like, "well, they all use woke because all the slurs they used to use are banned" was worth the rolled eyes.

For the record, my view is that the casting in TV shows and movies falls squarely on the list of things that are absolutely not worth spending any energy caring about, but some people feel the need to fight political battles on literally every front so it's hardly surprising that this debate is a thing.

I get what you're saying, and I think thats genuinely how some people view it, but at the end of the day, it's that studio's artistic property. Are they not allowed to do with it what they want? If they want black actors than so be it? Why do I or anyone else need to control who is in their artistic work?

Besides that, I'd assume the vast majority of these studios are less concerned about progressive change and more concerned about making money. They do something because they think it'll help the film/tv show whatever be profitable. So, they are likely working in actors of different ethnicities because: 1. more representations means more people of different ethnic groups will likely watch the program, 2. it gets people talking and creates buzz around the project.

I really doubt that these huge businesses are doing something because they want to make some grand statement about society. They're profit seeking businesses, so they will do whatever they think will generate the most money.

I think alot of people in our society are misconstruing the intentions of a lot of these things.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I am personally hoping for Pierre to temper his politics as he is smart enough to realize he needs to shift to the middle to appeal to the national audience and most of his messages are about working class needs and affordability which speaks to the economic conservatism that could actually be of benefit rather than rampant spending.

Socially however, I want government to stay out of it even though I'm personally quite liberal when it comes to society.

Honest Question, does PP has detailed fiscally conservative plan?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Two problems with that line of thinking.

1) It assumes everyone of goodwill agrees on what constitutes an injustice and how they should be remedied. But in the real world, to give an example, only 38 per of Black Americans think race should play any part in college admissions. Are blind auditions for orchestras fair, or do they perpetuate inequality? Is it unjust to write novels or movies from the POV of a person of a different racial or gender identity? Disagreements about these matters don’t break neatly along lines of compassion or justice.

2) Social values often conflict with other values in messy ways. What are the pitfalls of emphasizing group identity over individual identity? Of employing shame and ostracization to enforce consensus on issues people feel passionate about? What do we lose when we treat ideas as violence? People who have spoken out against the illiberal left - people like Margaret Atwood, Malcolm Gladwell, and Salman Rushdie - have not been watching too much Fox News. They see a genuine threat to vital liberal values and norms emerging from the left.

It's not about actions, it's about being aware enough to have discussions about it. Being 'woke" doesn't mean you fight for every perceived injustice you come across. It's jut the difference between being socially educated and ignorant. Are you arguing for ignorance, or are you missing the point?