Funny how you mention this as I usually call my father at least twice a month to check up on him and a few weeks ago we got into a little argument regarding politics. Unfortunately his girlfriend watches Fox news and it's tainted their views of politics. I usually always try to avoid discussing politics with him but when he started ranting that the tariffs were Trudeau's fault I hat to cut him off and tell him that I don't discuss politics with people that use Fox news as their political source leading to an argument where I had to hang up on him. I kinda felt bad about how things ended so called him up the following weekend and we agreed that we won't discuss politics. I mean he's the only dad I got and I don't know how many years he has let so I'm not going to let something out of my control like politics get in the way of the relationship.
That is really difficult. I hope you can find common ground in other aspects of your life.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
Yeah, sorry, but I'm drawing lines if one of my friends aligns with policies that are actively harmful to another one of my friends.
It's essentially a logical certainty that every major political party advocates for policies that are, by some reasonable measure, actively harmful to one of your friends. That is, unless you have like... three total friends.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
You’re assuming the person in question supports the CPC because of those particular policies and not in spite of them. That’s the same outlook conservatives demonstrate when they say only Canadians who are onboard with corruption could vote for the Liberals. Most people aren’t passionate, blank-cheque enthusiasts for everything the party they vote for does.
I’m frustrated by a lot of the opinions expressed by conservative supporters I know, and I’ll often call them on it. There are a couple people I’ve cut out of my life entirely because they’ve gone deep down the populist right conspiracy rathole and can’t shut up about the crazy #### they believe.
But unless you want to have a very small or very homogenous social circle, you can’t indulge in blanket condemnation of half the people in society.
I dunno. As a person that has voted Liberal the last 3 elections I am ok owning that decision fully. Policies, corruption...the whole shebang. It was and continues to be a far more palatable choice than the social regressiveness of the CPC.
If you're voting CPC or UCP you have to eat the whole cookie, even with the s### nuggets like Jennifer Johnson mixed in.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
You new here? I'm not picking on him but that's rube in a nutshell. Seems like a guy that's maybe has his heart in the right place but also very angry.
I feel like if you are not angry now, you are not paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Well yeah but Trump represents a bad time period that will pass.
In some respects there has never been a better time to be a human being. On the other hand, social media is poisoning society, fueling populist, fascist, pseudoscientific, and evangelical tribes.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's essentially a logical certainty that every major political party advocates for policies that are, by some reasonable measure, actively harmful to one of your friends. That is, unless you have like... three total friends.
The difference is the intent.
I've said this many times in this thread and others. I can overlook a policy that harms people if the intent is a net benefit, and the harm is either an unintended consequence, or a necessary evil.
Where I draw the line is policy where the intent is to harm people.
So many policies put forth by hard right wing politicians are being put in place with the intent to harm people directly. There is no other purpose.
For example, all of the rhetoric around trans youth, and the kind of bills you see the UCP putting in place (and any of the anti-trans bills in the US) have no redeeming quality. They aren't there for any reason but to harm vulnerable people. They aren't protecting anyone. They aren't improving the lives of anyone. Hell they aren't even saving money (the worst reason for hurting people, but at least you could call it a reason).
The purpose is harm for harms sake.
That isn't/should not be defensible by anyone with a conscience or an iota of empathy.
I was fully prepared to vote for the Liberals this election even if Trudeau had stayed on.
I was very open about the fact that I would rather choose open/active corruption vs open/active/targeted policy meant to harm vulnerable people.
Now that we've got better leader at the helm of the Liberal Party, the choice is that much clearer.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 04-03-2025 at 12:21 PM.
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
I agree with all of that, with a couple of addendums... I would say that wilful ignorance about harm is almost as bad as a deliberate intent to harm.
I would also say that anti-LGBT measures have always been, in some measure, implemented by virtue of the complicity of ignorant and frightened people in an effort to "protect children" somehow - which we rightly scoff and roll our eyes at, but a lot of people actually believe that that's what they're doing by fighting against the "trans agenda", as they did against the "gay agenda". That's horrific and obviously misguided, but the reality is that in an actual democracy like this one you can't accomplish evil without convincing well-meaning people to do horrific things, usually by scaring them into it by offering them a bogeyman. So even factoring in intent, it's not straightforwardly just a bunch of people whose intent is purely malicious.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 04-03-2025 at 12:40 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I never thought I'd say this, but I long for the days of Stephen Harper's CPC. Yeah, all the same crazies were there but he kept a lid on them and didn't let them share their ####ing insanity.
He kept a tight ship, and got #### on a lot for it. But it really started to sneak out in his last campaign.
He kept a tight ship, and got #### on a lot for it. But it really started to sneak out in his last campaign.
He had no choice as a minority government. If he wanted to stay in power he had to keep things toned down, which looked a lot like the traditional PC party policies. When he got that majority is when we started to see the full CPC rear up and it looked a lot more like the party that Preston Manning intended.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
I agree with all of that, with a couple of addendums... I would say that wilful ignorance about harm is almost as bad as a deliberate intent to harm.
I would also say that anti-LGBT measures have always been, in some measure, implemented by virtue of the complicity of ignorant and frightened people in an effort to "protect children" somehow - which we rightly scoff and roll our eyes at, but a lot of people actually believe that that's what they're doing by fighting against the "trans agenda", as they did against the "gay agenda". That's horrific and obviously misguided, but the reality is that in an actual democracy like this one you can't accomplish evil without convincing well-meaning people to do horrific things, usually by scaring them into it by offering them a bogeyman. So even factoring in intent, it's not straightforwardly just a bunch of people whose intent is purely malicious.
Nah. Ignorance and delusion are not valid excuses.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
I'm always suprised at how much people proudly advertise their politics on LinkedIn. Don't get me wrong, that social network is trash, but there are definitely companies that use it to gather information on potential employees. There's people who willfully discuss and advertise nutty conspiracy theories, misinformation, and the like. I engage in zero political discourse on that platform.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Nah. Ignorance and delusion are not valid excuses.
I'm not suggesting they are. I'm just responding to that post, which states that intent is a big differentiator. Which I agree with, but if so, you have to honestly assess what the intent is - and often it's not pure maliciousness, it's "we need to protect our kids from this scourge", despite the scourge being wholly fictitious. Fear, in other words, rather than cruelty.
... Of course you also have to acknowledge that for some people it literally just is cruelty. But that was sort of my point, that the cruel people couldn't accomplish their cruelty without tricking scared people into joining them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This isn't how you win an election. Good that's he's fighting back against Manning's secession comments, but this is such own goal actions and putting only negative attention.
This isn't how you win an election. Good that's he's fighting back against Manning, but this is such own goal actions and putting only negative attention.
The separatists see the US crisis as an opportunity they don't get often, so they are going hard on it. If Pierre wants to have a chance in the rest of Canada he doesn't have a choice but to separate himself from these idiots. It's not like losing votes in Alberta matters. At worst he'll give up a couple seats, but he'd lose a lot more if he sided with them.
Being tricked into saying "a vote for Carney is a vote for the destruction of Canada" would be the absolute end of his chances, if any still remain. It's not even a hail marry, it's a bullet pointed at his head.
This isn't how you win an election. Good that's he's fighting back against Manning's secession comments, but this is such own goal actions and putting only negative attention.
Earlier this week, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she's not interested in a referendum on Alberta independence, but said citizens do have a mechanism if there's enough support.
"We have a citizen-initiated process where if you get enough petition signatures you can force a vote," she said.
"I got a mandate to fix Canada."
No, you don't have a mandate to fix Canada. You are not the Prime Minister of Canada you stupid stupid insufferable piece of ####.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Paulie Walnuts For This Useful Post:
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
