Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by kn

I don't know much about Jordan Peterson other than his refusal to use gender pronouns at UT and that he taught at Harvard before Toronto. What makes him so vile? He clearly has a following.

Here's a good read. He's popular among some because he knows how to make money off of their failures by pointing at things that make him uncomfortable, and has realized how he can stoke hatred against those he fears, and get rich doing it. Vulnerabile men buy into it, because he gives them someone to blame for their lack of success. It's an easy grift, particularly for a psychologist who knows how to push buttons, which is incredibly powerful, and also why he's repeatedly been told to knock it the #### off by regulatory bodies for his profession. The he can point to that and say "see! These are the power centers that don't want us to have agency.". Again, easy convincing stuff, but also bull####.



https://oncanadaproject.ca/blog/jord...n-is-the-worst

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Jordan is an iconoclast, especially as it comes to religious texts.

However, his overall views aren't particularly outlandish. As with most ideas that progressives find threatening, he is the target of character n assassination. It's a strategy that is backfiring in spectacular fashion.

Please read the link I just posted, and let us know if you still stand by this post...

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Please read the link I just posted, and let us know if you still stand by this post...

I scanned it. It doesn't change anything. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they try to summarize and characterize something that doesn't need it.

You can simply go listen to Jordan easily and form your own opinions. And people do. Then they read your article and realize that it is inconsistent, cherry picking, taken out of context etc.

Why would someone bother reading that article when Jordan is hardly shy about making his views easily accessible. This type of bad faith effort is exactly why progressives are losing everywhere.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The voters in most Western democracies are enthusiastically refuting the idea that their lives have been made better by progressivism. This isn't despite what progressives have accomplished by because of what progressives have accomplished. Progressives have accomplished a lot. In the accomplishing, they have also proved their ideas to be bankrupt, both literally and figuratively.

Just in time for conservative parties across the west to fucn up some more; which will be praised for now then largely forgotten by the time the chickens come home to roost.


Ronald Reagan legacy has been severely tarnished with time.
Thatcherism has been looking bad for decades.
The indomitable King Ralph policies of privatization are ####ing us all over now (electricity, car insurance, infrastructure)
George W Bush legacy was hit with the financial crisis pretty early on.
The UK and brexit.

The. We get into the neo-liberal issues which are largely right of centre policies from Clinton Blair cretien etc.

But yeah time for a change….

I’m glad we’ve get Daddy Musk and Kevin O’Leary running our countries because some of you didn’t like that other people wanted to use prnouns
Glad we’ve all seen the light

[puffnstuff]

I think we found someone who sends peterson money

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The voters in most Western democracies are enthusiastically refuting the idea that their lives have been made better by progressivism. This isn't despite what progressives have accomplished by because of what progressives have accomplished. Progressives have accomplished a lot. In the accomplishing, they have also proved their ideas to be bankrupt, both literally and figuratively.

Whatever narrative you need to make up to justify the unearned feelings of righteousness you’re feeling is fine, but not relevant to the conversation. You can argue that people are rejecting things like identity politics or gains that are focused too narrowly on marginalized communities are being rejected in favour of more populist rhetoric, but the you’ll notice that things like subsidized daycare in Alberta is not something anyone is rejecting, nor is there any call to remove it. And then if you look at down ballot issues in the US, many progressive issues outperformed the democratic party. Even people who voted for Trump preferred progressive policies over regressive efforts of evangelicals.

Because, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not, people like things that make their lives better. And much of the support for the UCP, the CPC, and Trump hinges heavily on the belief that they will not do all of the regressive things they say they will. And when they do (as we see with the UCP), it’s met with extreme disapproval and rejection.

People just want something different because they feel like things aren’t great. Don’t confuse being that something different with praise or support for your backwards ideology. End of the day, regressive people like yourself will still be left behind.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I scanned it. It doesn't change anything. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they try to summarize and characterize something that doesn't need it.

You can simply go listen to Jordan easily and form your own opinions. And people do. Then they read your article and realize that it is inconsistent, cherry picking, taken out of context etc.

Why would someone bother reading that article when Jordan is hardly shy about making his views easily accessible. This type of bad faith effort is exactly why progressives are losing everywhere.

I presume that to mean you don't have any issue with his positions so could you care to comment on why you believe people don't have the right to decide how to treat their own body, and if someone chooses that, why it has any effect on you at all? Or do you disagree with his many comments on women and what they choose for themselves, and sure, trans people too?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whatever narrative you need to make up to justify the unearned feelings of righteousness you’re feeling is fine, but not relevant to the conversation. You can argue that people are rejecting things like identity politics or gains that are focused too narrowly on marginalized communities are being rejected in favour of more populist rhetoric, but the you’ll notice that things like subsidized daycare in Alberta is not something anyone is rejecting, nor is there any call to remove it. And then if you look at down ballot issues in the US, many progressive issues outperformed the democratic party. Even people who voted for Trump preferred progressive policies over regressive efforts of evangelicals.

Because, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not, people like things that make their lives better. And much of the support for the UCP, the CPC, and Trump hinges heavily on the belief that they will not do all of the regressive things they say they will. And when they do (as we see with the UCP), it’s met with extreme disapproval and rejection.

People just want something different because they feel like things aren’t great. Don’t confuse being that something different with praise or support for your backwards ideology. End of the day, regressive people like yourself will still be left behind.

Two assumptions (at least) here that are not valid:

1. The opposite of progressive isn't regressive. The opposite of progressive is more akin to individualism, small state, less bureaucracy, less authoritarianism, etc.

2. Progressivism hasn't had the effect of making people's lives better without them realizing it. People believe that progressivism has made their life worse, economically and socially. You saying that they have a wrong opinion about whether their lives are worse or better is just the result of your cognitive dissonance requiring you to find a consistency, even if it is incorrect. I don't blame you - your views (as far as they are represented here), are being soundly and overwhelmingly rejected.

You could change and realize many assumptions you have made are incorrect, but precious few people are able to do that, so I don't blame you.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I presume that to mean you don't have any issue with his positions so could you care to comment on why you believe people don't have the right to decide how to treat their own body, and if someone chooses that, why it has any effect on you at all? Or do you disagree with his many comments on women and what they choose for themselves, and sure, trans people too?

That's a big expansion of the current topic.

I will say: you seem to be under the impression that peoples' opinion of JP are a result of them not correctly understanding his points. That if we can describe him with certain words, arranged in a certain way, in an essay or a blog post, that people will see the light.

It might be useful for you to understand that people have a different opinion of JP than you do, even when they understand his views completely. You may not see your views as representing extreme progressivism, but it appears that they are. The more extreme progressives were a very loud minority and they confused that loudness with broad support. It's why the popularity of JP or Trump or even PP is so disruptive to you. The world was never as you imagined it in your head, and people's preferences are now being revealed and it is hard for you to reconcile.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Two assumptions (at least) here that are not valid:

1. The opposite of progressive isn't regressive. The opposite of progressive is more akin to individualism, small state, less bureaucracy, less authoritarianism, etc.

It is regressive, actually. Everything you named is also able to co-exist (and to some degree, primarily exists with) progressivism. You’ve confused collective action with progressivism. And easy mistake for someone who gets most of their information from sources that only exist to confirm their limited worldview, so I forgive you.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

2. Progressivism hasn't had the effect of making people's lives better without them realizing it. People believe that progressivism has made their life worse, economically and socially. You saying that they have a wrong opinion about whether their lives are worse or better is just the result of your cognitive dissonance requiring you to find a consistency, even if it is incorrect. I don't blame you - your views (as far as they are represented here), are being soundly and overwhelmingly rejected.

Except you’re wrong, as we’ve seen at the polls and as evidenced by the popular policies that have remained even after conservative governments come into power. I’m not saying “they” have a wrong opinion, you’re suggesting you speak for them and that their actions don’t reflect what they believe, but instead reflect support only for what you wish them to believe. It’s a fairly ignorant, condescending view of society, but I understand someone like yourself needs to reframe this as support for the ideas you’ve essentially been laughed out of the room for sharing, but the general population will continue to laugh at you and treat people who share your beliefs as useful idiots whose use starts and ends with them voting the way they want.

The fact that you’ve been so duped by shows how incredibly provincial people who share those views are, and why you’re so easy to manipulate.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You could change and realize many assumptions you have made are incorrect, but precious few people are able to do that, so I don't blame you.

Just like you’ve been known to do, I’m sure lol.

[Buzzard]

Hmm, headline popped up from The Globe and Mail saying Mr. Fancy Socks is expected to resign as early as Monday. I don't have a sub, and can't find anything more..

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is regressive, actually. Everything you named is also able to co-exist (and to some degree, primarily exists with) progressivism. You’ve confused collective action with progressivism. And easy mistake for someone who gets most of their information from sources that only exist to confirm their limited worldview, so I forgive you.



Except you’re wrong, as we’ve seen at the polls and as evidenced by the popular policies that have remained even after conservative governments come into power. I’m not saying “they” have a wrong opinion, you’re suggesting you speak for them and that their actions don’t reflect what they believe, but instead reflect support only for what you wish them to believe. It’s a fairly ignorant, condescending view of society, but I understand someone like yourself needs to reframe this as support for the ideas you’ve essentially been laughed out of the room for sharing, but the general population will continue to laugh at you and treat people who share your beliefs as useful idiots whose use starts and ends with them voting the way they want.

The fact that you’ve been so duped by shows how incredibly provincial people who share those views are, and why you’re so easy to manipulate.



Just like you’ve been known to do, I’m sure lol.

We shall see. I do know that I'm making an observation on an outcome. The simplest explanation is that people worldwide are voting for their beliefs. I suppose you could try to convince yourself that people don't actually believe these things. But that's really just copium.

This is all just getting started.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Hmm, headline popped up from The Globe and Mail saying Mr. Fancy Socks is expected to resign as early as Monday. I don't have a sub, and can't find anything more..

It's on Reuters.

[Paulie Walnuts]

People listen to Jordan Peterson?

[GullFoss]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...tional-caucus/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

We shall see. I do know that I'm making an observation on an outcome. The simplest explanation is that people worldwide are voting for their beliefs. I suppose you could try to convince yourself that people don't actually believe these things. But that's really just copium.

This is all just getting started.

Do you believe then that anyone who votes for a racist is a racist?

[Sylvanfan]

I read it's expected by the Wednesday caucus meeting. It will be interesting to see if a guy like Carney thinks he can turn it around enough to lead the Liberals into the next election and rebuild the party. Or if they see a Kim Campbell like devastation and certain political death. The next leader doesn't need to win the election to keep the job, but they can't finish third type of thing.

[Johnny Makarov]

Good riddance to blackface Mr. Dressup! What a disaster.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I read it's expected by the Wednesday caucus meeting. It will be interesting to see if a guy like Carney thinks he can turn it around enough to lead the Liberals into the next election and rebuild the party. Or if they see a Kim Campbell like devastation and certain political death. The next leader doesn't need to win the election to keep the job, but they can't finish third type of thing.

Why would he wait? He is facing the biggest rightwing dweeb in history. He could get a majority.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Good riddance to blackface Mr. Dressup! What a disaster.

I hope he sticks around, campaigns hard and just crashes and burns.