Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

This is what I am talking about, how would a young man 18-29 read this and want to agree with you?

lol he’s not wrong though, case in point:

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think you're missing the point. Folks like Jordan Peterson are not causal, they are symptomatic.




men are also more likely to abuse drugs, experiencing nearly twice as many overdoses

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...9-summary.html

men are also more likely to experience homelessness

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...023004-eng.htm


Again, I don't think that this is the fault of the liberal party or progressive initiatives. But certainly, left wing rhetoric is not sympathetic to these realities.

Sorry, left wing rhetoric isn’t concerned with overdosing and homelessness? Progressive initiatives are heavily concerned with solving both of those things.

Somehow, DEI initiatives are problematic because they’re too focused on specific genders/races/etc. But initiatives centred around homelessness and drug addiction are problematic because they’re not focused enough on a specific gender? And then too problematic if they focus on the fact that indigenous people are disproportionately represented in both, of course. But I don’t see any evidence of any sort of denial that “men” are excluded in conversations around drug abuse and homelessness.

I find this a little bit frustrating, to be honest, because it seems like the problem is, ultimately, it’s problematic to focus on any gender or race if it isn’t young white men. I know that’s not what you’re meaning to say, and I know that’s isn’t the general sentiment for most people discussing this (I think for one or two people it is for sure), but you can see how this conversation is mostly people pointing out solutions that create different problems.

You (the general “you”) can’t be both against DEI or initiatives that include a a dedicated race/gender focus and also feel young white men aren’t being focused on enough. You’d want to augment, not dismantle.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol he’s not wrong though, case in point:

Sorry, left wing rhetoric isn’t concerned with overdosing and homelessness? Progressive initiatives are heavily concerned with solving both of those things.

This is sort of the point I was trying to make to Cliff. The left has always been focused on issues that affect people universally and want to change the systems, policies, and ideologies that are responsible (e.g. greed, deregulation, wealth inequality, etc.).

Both liberals and conservatives only want to find solutions within the confines of those systems because dismantling/changing them is too inconvenient or not profitable, so they hyper focus on the policies that (marginally) uplift or improve the lives of minorities instead of the policies and ideologies that are failing white men.

The reason young men can't afford homes isn't because of DEI or "wokeness." It's because we've perpetuated a system that celebrates greed, blames the poor, and refuses to consider meaningful wealth redistribution.

Drug addiction is a perfect example. When it's primarily framed as an indigenous issue, we see a lot of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "tough love/tough on crime" rhetoric. Once it starts affecting white men, it's "we need to find the solution to male alienation and loneliness."

[Harry Lime]

Having Rubecube and Marchhare in the same thread has created a cascading spatial causality loop. We have managed to keep it in check by transferring life support to the deflector shield, but engineering will be the first section to be hit with severe oxygen loss, and there is a fear that once engineers are personally involved, space/time may fold in on itself.

[trackercowe]

Green Party officially uninvited from the debates tonight. I wonder if Carney will have an issue with it, just as he did in the French debate a couple weeks ago.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol he’s not wrong though, case in point:



Sorry, left wing rhetoric isn’t concerned with overdosing and homelessness? Progressive initiatives are heavily concerned with solving both of those things.

Somehow, DEI initiatives are problematic because they’re too focused on specific genders/races/etc. But initiatives centred around homelessness and drug addiction are problematic because they’re not focused enough on a specific gender? And then too problematic if they focus on the fact that indigenous people are disproportionately represented in both, of course. But I don’t see any evidence of any sort of denial that “men” are excluded in conversations around drug abuse and homelessness.

I find this a little bit frustrating, to be honest, because it seems like the problem is, ultimately, it’s problematic to focus on any gender or race if it isn’t young white men. I know that’s not what you’re meaning to say, and I know that’s isn’t the general sentiment for most people discussing this (I think for one or two people it is for sure), but you can see how this conversation is mostly people pointing out solutions that create different problems.

You (the general “you”) can’t be both against DEI or initiatives that include a a dedicated race/gender focus and also feel young white men aren’t being focused on enough. You’d want to augment, not dismantle.

First of all, I was attempting a parallel conversation to the debate about DEI. I don't think that this is the cause of the young male mental health crisis.

Likewise, I don't think initiatives targeting LGBTQ or Indigenous peoples are in opposition initiatives looking to help young men as a whole ( BIPOC men included). Moreover I was not trying to mislead with those statistics, Indigenous and LGBTQ youth are at the highest risk.

That said, I agree with Telal Asad's chapter "Thinking about Agency and Pain" in his 2003 work in Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity . Pain is inherently subjective, and to communicate it in a way that others can understand is inherently impossible. So, when someone experiences either mental of physical pain, it is in effect the worst pain that person can imagine. and therefore a terrible thing. With that in mind, saying "other groups of people have it worse, so you don't really have a problem", is not an effective rhetorical tool. In fact it undermines what are otherwise common goals. I would go as far as to say that It does no harm to these collective goals to acknowledge that young white men face problems that are specific to them and it is within the scope of left wing ideology to help them.

Yet, my point remains, most young men, and more specially white men ( though I do not think this is a problem for men of most cultural backgrounds) do not feel as if left wing rhetoric is sympathetic to the causes of their emotional turmoil. Let alone the symptoms of it. Be that right or wrong, justified or not. A part of that is that you need to write an essay to say that their plight is worth acknowledging without people saying "other people have it worse and you ancestors were #######s so deal with it".

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Green Party officially uninvited from the debates tonight. I wonder if Carney will have an issue with it, just as he did in the French debate a couple weeks ago.

Greens may lose party status. Followed pretty quickly by the NDP if what I've been hearing on the news is accurate and they're losing essentially most if not all their seats.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Greens may lose party status. Followed pretty quickly by the NDP if what I've been hearing on the news is accurate and they're losing essentially most if not all their seats.

Yeah, it's 12 seats to keep official party status. I don't know why anyone would cheer for less parties in politics. Two-party systems suck.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

As the resident 30 year old - this isn't how I feel but the sentiment I think others have.

I realllllly think the big thing here is money. People my age want money. They want money to do things they see online, buy nice things, live the life they dreamed of. And frankly, we want it to be easier than it is. It's not as easy now as it was to dream up big ideas and make them into reality, and people spent time going to school, volunteering, and checking all the boxes just to have the world change right when we entered it.

I mean, even living in Calgary we've had the 2008 crisis, 2015 oil slowdown, COVID. All the work that was done feels like it was never enough. If I can turn a blind eye to the things that dont impact me in an effort to live the life I think I "Deserve" or will be happier with, however misguided, I'll do it.

I also think my generation takes for granted how good things have been and how much we've benefited from good education, a strong economy, and still yearn for more.

Ya, of course. The problem is they've been convinced the cause of their inability to get what they see other(mostly older) have is because they are being pushed down by DEI. The reality is minorities aren't cashing in on this, they are also struggling all while being scapegoated by the wealthy.


Musk, the richest man on the planet, routinely guides anger toward the vulnerable. Does he criticize the uber wealthy and the inevitable collapse that is the end game of wealth consolidation? No, he says only white immigrants are worth having.


The young really need to figure out they are being played for fools while the rich rob them and point them at imaginary enemies. And also need to understand that the generations before us were able to achieve what they were because wealth was more evenly spread around.

[Fuzz]

Like, this. They are manufacturing issues for you to be mad at so you don't ever have time to figure out what the actual problem is.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

First of all, I was attempting a parallel conversation to the debate about DEI. I don't think that this is the cause of the young male mental health crisis.

Yet, my point remains, most young men, and more specially white men ( though I do not think this is a problem for men of most cultural backgrounds) do not feel as if left wing rhetoric is sympathetic to the causes of their emotional turmoil. Let alone the symptoms of it. Be that right or wrong, justified or not. A part of that is that you need to write an essay to say that their plight is worth acknowledging without people saying "other people have it worse and you ancestors were #######s so deal with it".

The problem remains that a lot of men aren't willing to listen to any ideas that don't conform to the established political and economic narratives. That makes it very easier for right-wing grifters and fascists to convince them that it's actually outgroups and those who try to improve the lives of the marginalized that are their enemies and the primary sources of their problems.

Look at the current debate about housing. We're talking about tax cuts, immigration, etc., instead of a broader conversation about an economic system that has wholly commodified and allowed the wealthy to accumulate a basic need to the point where it's now unaffordable to many.

How does the left effectively combat that when much of the issue is rooted in decades and generations of neoliberalism, red-scare propaganda, etc.?

Once the right turns it into an opportunity to blame outgroups, the immediate priorities for the left becomes harm reduction and protecting those groups, thereby reducing the resources available for broader messaging. This is by design. A key component of fascism is reducing the availability of leftist resources to combat the narrative by forcing them to shift their priorities to combating immediate threats to outgroups.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Green Party officially uninvited from the debates tonight. I wonder if Carney will have an issue with it, just as he did in the French debate a couple weeks ago.

He won't. It was just a convenient excuse to reject the TVA debate invitation because he didn't want his French to be exposed.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, it's 12 seats to keep official party status. I don't know why anyone would cheer for less parties in politics. Two-party systems suck.

Two party systems do suck and I like having alternative options but what can we do when so many voters are entrenched in strategic voting and will vote against their party allegiance for things like ABC. We could have had a better system but Trudeau let us down.

[Drak]

Strategic voting wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have an autocratic MAGA friendly party running.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Two party systems do suck and I like having alternative options but what can we do when so many voters are entrenched in strategic voting and will vote against their party allegiance for things like ABC. We could have had a better system but Trudeau let us down.

100%. Trudeau lying about PR is why I refuse to vote for the Liberals.

As much as I think the PPC are total losers, they should have seats equal to the percentage of people who voted for them. That's how a democracy should work.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

He won't. It was just a convenient excuse to reject the TVA debate invitation because he didn't want his French to be exposed.

Source? Feel free to prove your point with images or other proof.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

100%. Trudeau lying about PR is why I refuse to vote for the Liberals.

As much as I think the PPC are total losers, they should have seats equal to the percentage of people who voted for them. That's how a democracy should work.

More parties in the house with greater opportunities to collaborate on bills would definitely be a benefit for everyone. Parties would have to work with each other to a greater degree to get #### done. I would probably even lead to individual MPs voting outside of party lines and maybe listening to their constituents need to a greater degree.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

More parties in the house with greater opportunities to collaborate on bills would definitely be a benefit for everyone. Parties would have to work with each other to a greater degree to get #### done. I would probably even lead to individual MPs voting outside of party lines and maybe listening to their constituents need to a greater degree.

Yeah, I think we miss out on quality MPs/MLAs because people vote party-first.

I could be wrong though. Maybe it's DEI.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Source? Feel free to prove your point with images or other proof.

Proof that he used the Greens as an excuse?

Earlier Monday, Carney had responded in the affirmative to a Radio-Canada reporter who asked whether he would participate in TVA’s debate. “Why not?” he responded in French. “Yes, yes. There will be debates between the leaders and all the leaders. ... For all the debates you have to have all the leaders.” But on Tuesday, he said he’d opted to pull out of the debate after realizing that the Green Party hadn’t been invited. “I said ‘why not, if we have a debate with the leaders of all the parties,’” Carney said.

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news...#storylink=cpy

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is sort of the point I was trying to make to Cliff. The left has always been focused on issues that affect people universally and want to change the systems, policies, and ideologies that are responsible (e.g. greed, deregulation, wealth inequality, etc.).

Greed, dergulation, and wealth inequality aren’t the reason boys do much worse than girls in school right from age 5 onwards. Nor are Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. Not every problem is rooted in ideology and culture wars.

The educational gap between boys and girls is wider than the gap between rich and poor students.

These gender differences in academic performance become apparent early. Girls are 14 percentage points more likely than boys to be "school ready" at age five, for example. This is a much bigger gap than the one between rich and poor children, or between black and white children, or even between those who attended preschool and those who did not. This disparity carries over to grade school, with a seven percentage-point gender gap in reading proficiency in the fourth grade widening to an 11-point gap by the end of eighth grade…

Girls account for two-thirds of high-school students in the top 10% of their classes ranked by GPA, while the proportions are reversed at the bottom rung.

https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...e-hard-to-help

Educators and parents know this is a big problem. But as Reeves points out in his book and interviews, many of the people he spoke to about the education gap would not go on the record with their concerns, for fear of being branded conservative or anti-women. Just another instance where tribalism is the enemy of reason and good policy.

In 1972, the U.S. congress passed Title IX to address the gender disparity in college. At the time, the gap in undergraduate degrees favoured men by 13 percent. Today, the gap is 15 percent favouring women. I don’t see public champions of equity speaking out to address that disparity. Or the gender disparity among K-12 teachers, which research suggests plays a role in the growing gap in educational outcomes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Greed, dergulation, and wealth inequality aren’t the reason boys do much worse than girls in school right from age 5 onwards. Nor are Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. Not every problem is rooted in ideology and culture wars.

The educational gap between boys and girls is wider than the gap between rich and poor students.

You don't think more funding for public education, education specialists, academic studies that focus specifically on boys education, etc., could maybe help narrow the gap?