MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I did that on porpoise

That’s what they all say.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This could be post of the year. Not for the content, but because Slava thanked a post where he got called a milquetoast.

I know and I was going to chime and say he should cut down the personal attacks!

But this is the reality. I'm not some super radical right winger, or have these outlandish views, so it's hilarious to me that I'm now characterized in that light.

Originally Posted by fotze2

When Harper was in power he was a POS commie liberal dickhead who liked ethical funds. Every 8 years or so he somehow moves to the other side. HaHa.

Lol, which is another great point. These threads have changed a lot over the past ~decade. I still believe in ethical investments though.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I hope street sweepers leave a big pile of gravel on your front lawn.



Thanks brigade bro. Someone gets it.

They'll be looking for this front lawn that doesn't exist for a long time but you could consider accepting the free xeriscaping yourself. You shouldn't put so much reliance on hope though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know and I was going to chime and say he should cut down the personal attacks!

But this is the reality. I'm not some super radical right winger, or have these outlandish views, so it's hilarious to me that I'm now characterized in that light.

lol nobody characterized you as a super radical right winger with outlandish views, you were literally just asked to defend a position (that was virtually a carbon copy of Danielle Smith’s position on the issue, who is a super radical right winger! but the point remains that nobody called you that) and you respond with “no, you” and “why should I.”

For all the hand wringing that goes on around here about people being rude, some of you guys could solve it by just growing a back bone or not being too scared to say “IDK i actually haven’t put much thought into it.”

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol nobody characterized you as a super radical right winger with outlandish views, you were literally just asked to defend a position (that was virtually a carbon copy of Danielle Smith’s position on the issue, who is a super radical right winger! but the point remains that nobody called you that) and you respond with “no, you” and “why should I.”

For all the hand wringing that goes on around here about people being rude, some of you guys could solve it by just growing a back bone or not being too scared to say “IDK i actually haven’t put much thought into it.”

When have you ever shown to accept that response and move along?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

When have you ever shown to accept that response and move along?

I know you’re desperate for my attention but I already gave you your allotment for the day, you’re going to have to wait for tomorrow big guy.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know you’re desperate for my attention but I already gave you your allotment for the day, you’re going to have to wait for tomorrow big guy.

The is untrue. As previous evidence indicates, I’ll be in your head all day.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Except that it’s often perfectly normal, middle-of-the-road opinions that get dogpiled here. If you don’t recognize how out of step many of the commonly-held attitudes expressed here are, you should get out and talk to more people IRL. Or for a more empirical context, look at opinion polls and election results.

Any community where someone like Slava is cast as a conservative with whacky views is comically out of touch with mainstream opinions. He’s about as milquetoast, middle of the road Calgarian as you get.

The real problem isn’t the disagreement. It’s the fact certain highly active posters have proven they cannot disagree without making things personal. Back when these forums were moderated, they were suspended again and again. But now they run rampant, spitting snark and taking personal shots, because members who agree with them politically are happy to give virtual high-fives to antagonistic d-bags so long as they’re being antagonistic d-bags for the right team.

Well, we were talking about the silly claim of people who left CP because they think they're not allowed to be conservative. But keeping with the example of Slava, I'd say you proved my point though. You're right that he's not some super radical right-winger, that's not why he's often at the centre of these things. He's at the centre because he always gets involved with the discussions, but doesn't always back it up or fully engage in discussion. It's got nothing to do with left vs right

As long as we're using direct examples, let's single out PepsiFree too. We all know who people are talking about when you say 'makes things personal', 'antagonistic' etc. You think he gets on people just because he thinks one way and they think another? I think he just likes arguing and being extremely snarky, it's clearly fun to him. And yeah, sometimes oftentimes it gets to be too much

Like I've said, I would just argue the problem is a clash of personalities, not political views. Framing it as some sort of leftist problem is laughable.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s tribalism all the way down. How often do you see someone in these threads thank a well-supported post by someone who holds different political views, or call out a low-effort, antagonistic ####-post by someone who’s on the same team?

I know I used it as an example already in this discussion, but the gun control thread comes to mind again. Yeah I was getting trolled by people like Duffman but there were plenty of people, including Pepsifree, who were engaging in decent conversation with me despite my right-wing views on the topic.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I hope street sweepers leave a big pile of gravel on your front lawn.

Thanks brigade bro. Someone gets it.

Hyperbole is one of those rare words I had only read and never heard it pronounced until pretty recently. I always thought it was hyper bowl. High PER bow lee? What? Did Hermie-own say that or Hermione? Tacotime is now TahCOT a mee.

Like the place Ypres. I have a bud who lives on Ypres crescent. Never actually heard it pronounced properly until recently.

[btimbit]

I was going to skip it, but hell, we're already here

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Except that it’s often perfectly normal, middle-of-the-road opinions that get dogpiled here. If you don’t recognize how out of step many of the commonly-held attitudes expressed here are, you should get out and talk to more people IRL. Or for a more empirical context, look at opinion polls and election results.

Out of curiosity, how old are these people you're talking too? Because I'm out in the real world every day and can confirm, the things you claim are out of step really aren't. Probably an age or demographic thing happening here. If I only talked to my older pipeline friends that live out of town, then yeah you'd be right. But when I'm talking to my buddies still at fire or the city, it's a vastly different conversation.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Guys, I’m going to be a big boy today and take this conversation to the real world.

I’ll bring it up with my friends, but I’m a little scared. How should I handle it if I bring it up and someone says “We shouldn’t even talk about it” and I say “why not” and they say “because it is what it is” and I say “should it be that way?” and they say “it doesn’t matter because it is what it is” and I say “tell me why it should be that way” and they say “NO YOU”? At that point, I’m expecting a random person to come to our table and start lecturing us about echo chambers and criticizing the bartender for not appropriate moderating our debate. After that, I assume someone else will come to the table and proceed with an unhinged rant about marxism and free speech.

I’m told this is what happens in the real word so I’m not sure I’m ready for it. Wish me luck! Having conversations in the real world about niche topics like permanent resident voting rights in municipal elections is vewwy skewwy.

Maybe we’ll just skip all that and have a normal conversation we laugh at each other if someone says something stupid… you know… like normal people.

Instead of complaining about people not engaging, maybe you should try engaging. I proposed we back the discussion up a bit and talk about what core problem council is trying to address and on what criteria the decision should be made.

Originally Posted by edslunch

As one of the dregs of the board I admit I didn’t read the origins of this debate, just waded into the middle of endless pages of pros and cons of expanding voting. Your points in favour of the review seemed to be just a list of all the reasons to expand voting, not a discussion of whether it should be reviewed. I would have thought if you wanted to debate the review it would be about what fundamental issue or opportunity are they trying to address, why now, and importantly, what are the criteria for deciding this question.

Personally, I haven't heard a good rationale for why this issue should be explored beyond being nice to PR who have been here for a while, and I can't conceive of criteria that could be used to judge the decision, at least until we know what problem they're trying to solve. I also believe that making voting contingent on citizenship is an arbitrary line, not based on economics, inclusion or exclusion, loyalty or what have you. It's simply one of the few rights we reserve for citizens, to give a bit of meaning and distinction to being a Canadian citizen besides a blue passport. I don't understand why stating this means I'm not willing to have a discussion or justify my position. That is my position and justification.

What are your thoughts? How would you frame the issue to be explored and how would you define the decision-making criteria?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Instead of complaining about people not engaging, maybe you should try engaging. I proposed we back the discussion up a bit and talk about what core problem council is trying to address and on what criteria the decision should be made.



Personally, I haven't heard a good rationale for why this issue should be explored beyond being nice to PR who have been here for a while, and I can't conceive of criteria that could be used to judge the decision, at least until we know what problem they're trying to solve. I also believe that making voting contingent on citizenship is an arbitrary line, not based on economics, inclusion or exclusion, loyalty or what have you. It's simply one of the few rights we reserve for citizens, to give a bit of meaning and distinction to being a Canadian citizen besides a blue passport. I don't understand why stating this means I'm not willing to have a discussion or justify my position. That is my position and justification.

What are your thoughts? How would you frame the issue to be explored and how would you define the decision-making criteria?

I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.

That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.

I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.

On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Hyperbole is one of those rare words I had only read and never heard it pronounced until pretty recently. I always thought it was hyper bowl. High PER bow lee? What? Did Hermie-own say that or Hermione? Tacotime is now TahCOT a mee.

Like the place Ypres. I have a bud who lives on Ypres crescent. Never actually heard it pronounced properly until recently.

It’s Taw-coh.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Any community where someone like Slava is cast as a conservative with whacky views is comically out of touch with mainstream opinions. He’s about as milquetoast, middle of the road Calgarian as you get.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This could be post of the year. Not for the content, but because Slava thanked a post where he got called a milquetoast.

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not some super radical right winger, or have these outlandish views, so it's hilarious to me that I'm now characterized in that light.

Guys, can we calm down with the mischaracterization of Slava?

It's already been well established that he's literally Hitler. We don't need to go through this again.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.

That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.

I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.

On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.

I’m still not hearing the root problem that needs to be studied. PRs can’t vote is a fact, but is it an important problem that needs to be addressed?

Let’s assume for a moment that it is an important issue that needs studying and debate. How would you frame that debate? How do you judge if it is a good thing or not? A majority of councillors voted to debate it based on it being a good thing, just like you’re framing it as a positive thing for democracy. What process could lead them or you to a different conclusion? You complain about people objecting to this, disingenuously describing their positions as ‘cause it’s always been that way’ yet your mind is clearly made up. If I’m incorrect, what are the pros, cons and considerations you are mulling?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by fotze2

Hyperbole is one of those rare words I had only read and never heard it pronounced until pretty recently. I always thought it was hyper bowl. High PER bow lee? What? Did Hermie-own say that or Hermione? Tacotime is now TahCOT a mee.

Lol. I’ve always thought that The Hyperbole would be the next logical evolution of the Super Bowl, made more ironic by pronouncing it the way you used to do in your head.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Guys, can we calm down with the mischaracterization of Slava?

It's already been well established that he's literally Hitler. We don't need to go through this again.

Whoa, literally? I can confirm that I cannot grow a thick, lustrous moustache like that. My German is a little rusty as well.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whoa, literally? I can confirm that I cannot grow a thick, lustrous moustache like that. My German is a little rusty as well.

Huh. I have never once thought of Hitler's moustache as lustrous. It's specifically non-lustrous if anything.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whoa, literally? I can confirm that I cannot grow a thick, lustrous moustache like that. My German is a little rusty as well.

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Huh. I have never once thought of Hitler's moustache as lustrous. It's specifically non-lustrous if anything.

He must be thinking of Stalin and that glorious stache.

[Slava]

I don't know, I guess lustrous is the wrong word...I'm not sure the best way to describe his moustache.