Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's a small hole in Mounk's work.

https://medium.com/3streams/the-cons...p-aacb860788b0

Incredibly surprising Cliff likes a book that exactly mirrors how he’s approached this argument and any criticism in this vein for years.

The empirical evidence Mounk provides in support of his claims is anecdotal and scattershot. But, perhaps the most glaring flaw in Mounk’s account is what it’s missing: That is, references to identity-related dynamics on America’s political and cultural right.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

As a lawyer, here’s what concerns me. Again, quoting Levitt:

-Peterson’s are not phantom concerns. Only four years ago, the Law Society of Ontario, which regulates the province’s lawyers, passed a statement of principles requiring all Ontario lawyers to subscribe to and sign a statement agreeing to promote certain values of diversity inclusion and equity (referred to as DIE by Peterson) prescribed by it, arguably in disregard of the Charter freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, expression, conscience and religion. I and many others risked our licences by refusing to sign believing it not the role of our regulator to order us how to think. And I did this as the senior partner of one of the most diverse firms in the country.

- Lawyers were so up in arms that a slate of bencher (the term for directors of the law society) candidates ran directly in opposition to the society’s overreach and every single one was elected. They were elected because Ontario lawyers were worried that the LSO, empowered by this statement of principles, would conduct itself precisely in the fashion which the College of Psychologists just has and order witch hunts against the politically incorrect.

Interestingly, the regulatory overreach in the Peterson case should give this slate, who are running again on similar principles against an establishment slate, a new lease on life in the upcoming bencher election.

Thanks for the response.

I’m not sure I understand how this example supports Peterson’s case. It seems to suggest that professional groups are able to limit your rights and put your career at risk for not complying with these limitations, otherwise there would have been no reason for members of the LSO to have been up in arms about the change because it could have been successfully litigated as a violation of their rights.

Lawyers in general seem to already have their free speech rights somewhat limited due to attorney client privilege and confidentiality rules.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Incredibly surprising Cliff likes a book that exactly mirrors how he’s approached this argument and any criticism in this vein for years.

The right also engages in identity politics. And I’ve said so dozens of times here.

The traditional right: Politics should be centred round inherent identities and some deserve more power than others.

The whatever-we-call-it left: Politics should be centred around inherent identities, the traditional ones are oppressive and unjust, so our culture and systems need to be dismantled and rebuilt to ensure equal outcomes for all identities.

Liberalism: Don’t make inherent identities central to politics - judge people as individuals and treat them all the same.

We’ve gone over this ground before. I’ll doubt I’ll convince you or anyone else not interested in good faith dialogue at this point. I just chimed in to remark that woke is a clumsy term for an actual ideology and movement that’s distinct from both traditional economic leftism and liberalism.

If you don’t like Mounk’s definition, here’s one by the Economist:

It says all disparities between racial groups are proof of structural racism; that norms of free speech, individualism and universalism are camouflage for discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of privilege are dismantled.

Edit: In case anyone thinks Mounk is carrying water for the right, he’s written extensively about the rise of right-wing populism in Europe. One of his books was recently on Obama’s summer reading list.

https://www.cfr.org/book/great-exper...r-reading-pick

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The right also engages in identity politics. And I’ve said so dozens of times here.

LOL

You’ve argued harder for positions you get mad about people bringing up again than you have against right wing identity politics. Can we just not do the whole dog and pony show thing about “good faith discussion”? Please? It’s a conversation about “woke” and “identity politics.” We know what we’re going to get, and it ain’t that interesting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Azure: 19 years on CP, 35,000+ posts

Also Azure: YOU DONT KNOW ME!

I think I have a good grasp.

Imagine being so delusional to think you can label someone because they've made 35,000 posts on a hockey message board, where most of the discussions revolve around, hockey.

Peak ignorance from you, and that is saying a lot.

Might as well send you to the ignore list so you can join your buddy PepsiFree.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

Imagine being so delusional to think you can label someone because they've made 35,000 posts on a hockey message board, where most of the discussions revolve around, hockey.

Peak ignorance from you, and that is saying a lot.

Might as well send you to the ignore list so you can join your buddy PepsiFree.

Well, you’ve made 30 posts in the last year that are hockey-related, and most of them just loosely hockey-related (mostly about Pride night, Hockey Canada sexual assault issues, players abusing or assaulting spouses/others).

Conversely, you’ve made 100+ posts in the off topic area in just the last two months. So, there doesn’t seem to be anything delusional about it. I think we’re all smart enough to have a fairly decent read on everyones politics at this point, especially for the small group of us who post as much as we do.

Don’t worry Ozy, he’ll still read your posts and name drop you all the time. The “ignore list” just means he doesn’t respond directly and will mention how you’re on his ignore list every once in a while.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

Imagine being so delusional to think you can label someone because they've made 35,000 posts on a hockey message board, where most of the discussions revolve around, hockey.

Peak ignorance from you, and that is saying a lot.

Might as well send you to the ignore list so you can join your buddy PepsiFree.

You've been on ignore for years, but you were quoted, so I had to tell you directly you're a right-wing anger machine

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sure it is. You're just pulling a "no true Scotsman."

At the core of this movement is the belief that the only way to achieve whatever they consider to be equality/justice is by influencing the free market. That is an inherently liberal value.

They do not see the free market and capitalism as primary obstacles to justice and equality..

Can you provide an example or two of a policy proposal or new policy that you feel meets these criteria?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, you’ve made 30 posts in the last year that are hockey-related, and most of them just loosely hockey-related (mostly about Pride night, Hockey Canada sexual assault issues, players abusing or assaulting spouses/others).

Conversely, you’ve made 100+ posts in the off topic area in just the last two months. So, there doesn’t seem to be anything delusional about it. I think we’re all smart enough to have a fairly decent read on everyones politics at this point, especially for the small group of us who post as much as we do.

Don’t worry Ozy, he’ll still read your posts and name drop you all the time. The “ignore list” just means he doesn’t respond directly and will mention how you’re on his ignore list every once in a while.

https://twitter.com/OmarKelly/status...59402784571392

https://twitter.com/user/status/1462759402784571392

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Can you provide an example or two of a policy proposal or new policy that you feel meets these criteria?

Which criteria are you talking about? I described two different movements.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://twitter.com/OmarKelly/status...59402784571392

https://twitter.com/user/status/1462759402784571392

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Liberalism: Don’t make inherent identities central to politics - judge people as individuals and treat them all the same.

This is basically an argument in favour of colour-blindness, which is just a tacit form of racism as opposed to an explicit form.

[Harry Lime]

So, are you guys running for office, or what?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is basically an argument in favour of colour-blindness, which is just a tacit form of racism as opposed to an explicit form.

That statement sums up the difference between liberalism and whatever-we-call-it. It’s fine to believe it. But just recognize that A) it’s a break from liberalism, and B) most of the people who disagree with it are not conservative.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think this analysis by the National Bank of Canada economists was motivated by racism?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...igration-bank/

Here is that National Bank of Canada report. It's pretty crazy how the federal government has created this problem for Canadians, quite the self immolation on inflation and housing here, nevermind the dropping GDP in stark contradiction versus the US.

https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/t...ort_240115.pdf

[Doctorfever]

Just take all the money the government is willing to give you, whether you qualify or not, worst case scenario, you get caught. - Liberal MP.

https://apple.news/A8iihCh9bQtOPNVat0UYCNw

“I didn’t realize he still owed money on it until we did the financial disclosure,” she said. “They don’t ask for specific amounts. It’s his finances, and I don’t get involved.”
She added that, when the pandemic began, much of Aitkins’ freelance work dried up, and that he was only working at the CBC “a couple of days a week” at the time.
“The way we understood it, you might not qualify but you can apply,” she said of the CERB program. “The worst that can happen is you pay it back after.”

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Here is that National Bank of Canada report. It's pretty crazy how the federal government has created this problem for Canadians, quite the self immolation on inflation and housing here, nevermind the dropping GDP in stark contradiction versus the US.

https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/t...ort_240115.pdf

I think growth rates are far more useful to look at:

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Just take all the money the government is willing to give you, whether you qualify or not, worst case scenario, you get caught. - Liberal MP.

https://apple.news/A8iihCh9bQtOPNVat0UYCNw

Is it possible that you’re misquoting the article?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That statement sums up the difference between liberalism and whatever-we-call-it. It’s fine to believe it. But just recognize that A) it’s a break from liberalism, and B) most of the people who disagree with it are not conservative.

Nah. It's mostly just a lie white liberals can tell themselves in order to believe they aren't complicit in systems of oppression.

You either believe that racism and discrimination affects people's outcomes, or you don't. Considering what almost all the data points to, remaining colourblind is an ideological choice, not one grounded in reason.

Considering that "reason" is supposed to be the bedrock of liberalism, it's a major contradiction. That said, liberals tend to contradict themselves pretty frequently in service of themselves, so maybe it is liberal after all.

[Azure]

We added 500,000 people in the last 6 months.

It is not even remotely close to being sustainable, and right now the future of all our public services is at risk. The fact that a single person is willing to vote for the Liberals after this fiasco, and their inability to admit that they screwed up with the immigration policies is beyond mind-boggling.

What a bloody mess.