Alberta Politics Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Stupid though it is, things like that is still just hyperbole, Slava. And Jansen seeking to use her gender as a shield from criticism - legitimate or hyperbolic - is just as repugnant as the people who are throwing misogynistic harassment at her.

Thing is that a number of these quotes and comments have nothing to do with gender. People threatening violence shouldn't be taken lightly. I would like to see some of the culprits face some kind of justice for that because I do think it becomes impossible to draw the line between "I got carried away and made a stupid comment" and someone with more serious intentions. It's unfortunate, but we've seen it in the past in general.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First, yeah, I agree that it's over the line and people shouldn't say anything like that. I also recognize that this is the internet, and the reality is that it's going to happen, especially when you're a public figure.

So it doesn't "come with the territory" of being an MLA, but it does "come with the territory" of being a controversial figure (which she is, now) and existing online. Until someone regulates trolling and being an a-hole on the internet, and I don't even think they should do that, this is going to be the trade-off for having a twitter account. People can say mean, horrible things to you. You can then block them. This isn't exclusive to politicians.

But what Jansen has done here, tried to distract from legitimate criticism by mining her comment stream for the worst of what people will say when they're not face to face with someone and casting herself as a victim (and her critics as those victimizing her), is so repugnant it actually competes with the decision to cross the floor in the first place for sheer obnoxiousness.

I entirely agree it's not exclusive to politicians and its part of being a controversial figure. But I guess I fear that we normalize and justify this behaviour with a sentiment that people are anonymous and as a result can say and do whatever they want. I also think that it runs a little deeper than someone calling someone a name when people are saying that people should be shot.

And the second paragraph is exactly the problem. Was her behaviour controversial. Sure; and I have said point blank that I'm against floor crossing. I have a number of issues with it. But to legitimize name-calling and threatening a politician because of that is just ridiculous. That is akin to the "she had it coming" argument, or a "well what did you expect?" I don't think that we should stand for that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Slava

I entirely agree it's not exclusive to politicians and its part of being a controversial figure. But I guess I fear that we normalize and justify this behaviour with a sentiment that people are anonymous and as a result can say and do whatever they want.

Well, "say" and "do" are pretty different things... within the law, people pretty much can say whatever they want, and while often what they have to say is horrible, there's an obviously good reason we let them do it anyway. I really have no answers to solve the problem of "people being jerks on the internet" where the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease, but if you do, I'm all ears.

That being said...

I also think that it runs a little deeper than someone calling someone a name when people are saying that people should be shot.

I do agree with this, in that it could be taken as a threat, and you have to take that sort of thing seriously. Police involvement isn't out of the question in these situations.

But to legitimize name-calling and threatening a politician because of that is just ridiculous. That is akin to the "she had it coming" argument, or a "well what did you expect?" I don't think that we should stand for that.

I have no real issue with name-calling. I do have an issue when it crosses the line into misogyny, like "stay in the kitchen where you belong", and my issue extends to basically saying to the author of that comment, "criticize her all you want but stop being a sexist piece of garbage". I have a big issue with threatening violence. There is a pretty significant difference between that and being mean, and the two shouldn't be lumped in together.

The problem is that I don't really think she wants people to "take this seriously", so much as she'd like people to stop going after her for her selfish decision to switch parties and betray the people who elected her. Incidentally, "you traitorous bitch" isn't very nice, but it's a legitimate expression of someone's anger and disappointment at the person they (presumably) elected.

[transplant99]

Yeah the threats are going way to far and actually make those who are uttering them worse than what she's done.

This isn't just a floor crossing however. 2 weeks previous she wanted the mantle of leading the defeat of the very group she decided to join. That will illicit much harsher criticism and reaction than merely changing parties to take up a different cause.

Considering how many people are hurting financially right now and her decision to join the very group so many are blaming for it, there is no surprise the viotrol has been ramped up and to an extent she has brought it on herself.

People don't like snakes and she is the giant cobra in the room

[DiracSpike]

Notley's also played this female victim card. I'm pretty sure Redford did too. People don't hate you for your gender, they hate you because you suck at your job.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...gyny-1.3863097

Sandra Jansen who jumped over to the NDP made this speech in the house this afternoon shocking everyone who was there. While I do not condone lots of the comments made to her, she has to expect some backlash for jumping ship.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Facebook and Twitter posts from random, anonymous strangers?

When I watched this on the news this morning I thought they were comments from other politicians.

Is she new to the Internet?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thing is that a number of these quotes and comments have nothing to do with gender. People threatening violence shouldn't be taken lightly. I would like to see some of the culprits face some kind of justice for that because I do think it becomes impossible to draw the line between "I got carried away and made a stupid comment" and someone with more serious intentions. It's unfortunate, but we've seen it in the past in general.

Like it or not, you are treading dangerously close to infringing on freedom of speech there. Go ahead and speak out against such hyperbole, but as Ashasx notes, nobody should really be surprised given the nature of the internet.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like it or not, you are treading dangerously close to infringing on freedom of speech there. Go ahead and speak out against such hyperbole, but as Ashasx notes, nobody should really be surprised given the nature of the internet.

Well freedom of speech is definitely something that should be protected. But that freedom has a limit and we likely all agree that when you're threatening physical violence you've breached it. I do agree that calling her a "traitorous bitch" isn't tasteful, but isn't really a big deal IMO. Its the fact that we have seen these very thinly veiled threats over the past few years that should be concerning.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

I do think that there is a sentiment that these types of comments "come with the territory" and I just plain disagree. People can be angry, and upset. They can disagree vehemently and absolutely can and should voice that disagreement. But the name calling, thinly veiled threats and behaviour like that shouldn't be tolerated.

They aren't tolerated. Pretty much all sensible people agree that they're inexcusable. But that isn't going to stop them from being posted. The internet is open to miserable d-bags who hide behind anonymity to vent their anger at the world. No amount of social disapproval is going to change their behaviour. So where does that leave us?

• We abandon the model of an open, public internet and resort to secure private networks.
• We recognize that no matter how repugnant we find it, public forums and platforms are going to have awful things said in them.

[Ozy_Flame]

It's times like this I wish robots ran government matters with non-partisan decision making, based on accurate business intelligence from heaps of objective, quantitative data.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It's times like this I wish robots ran government matters with non-partisan decision making, based on accurate business intelligence from heaps of objective, quantitative data.

I completely agree, Humanity needs a good annihilation




All box lunches will include one package of protein, one package of calcium and a vitamin pill. You will comply

[Ozy_Flame]

You're not the first to post Terminator gifs when I've mentioned this before haha.

I'm talking more along the lines of self-service analytics rather than Skynet

[CaptainCrunch]

The problem with using a machine to make decisions is that chances are it will look at what works and eliminate what doesn't.

The poor and mentally ill will not gain sympathy from the Governbot 3000. Instead they will be dispatched to work camps where they can be used most efficiently, at worst they will make an excellent food source for the more productive members of society.

Also all humans must follow a regime of hygiene that includes the use of diluted lye soap and a wire scrub brush to cut down on sick days used.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The poor and mentally ill will not gain sympathy from the Governbot 3000. Instead they will be dispatched to work camps where they can be used most efficiently, at worst they will make an excellent food source for the more productive members of society.

What makes you think that Supreme Overlord Governbot 3000 will care about the wellbeing of the more productive members of society? No matter how productive they are, Governbot can devise new machines that will be more productive. Ultimately, Governbot will doubtless determine that the carbon atoms in our bodies are best used as the raw materials for paper clips.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What makes you think that Supreme Overlord Governbot 3000 will care about the wellbeing of the more productive members of society? No matter how productive they are, Governbot can devise new machines that will be more productive. Ultimately, Governbot will doubtless determine that the carbon atoms in our bodies are best used as the raw materials for paper clips.

Wouldn't governbot 3000 run a entirely paperless government. He'd keep one or two humans to maintain his SQL database. The rest of us would be a renewable source of energy as he'd breed the fertile ones to create firewood.

[Ozy_Flame]

Cap, most forward thinking organizations that manage resources and need more control/insight into their decision making are moving towards analytics and BI solutions. This is a trend that is not going away, and will likely be strategically engrained in organizational culture, especially as the cost of BI and data solutions become more accessible for businesses and organizations of all sizes going forward, and with the move to scalable, cloud-based data provisioning.

All I'm saying is that the partisan, emotional and often times damaging consequences from human decision-making on government matters is risky, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...gyny-1.3863097

Sandra Jansen who jumped over to the NDP made this speech in the house this afternoon shocking everyone who was there. While I do not condone lots of the comments made to her, she has to expect some backlash for jumping ship.

I think we should compare the worst tweets lobbed at Donald Trump and the worst tweets lobbed at Hillary Clinton.

I suspect the two would not look dissimilar. Being a woman doesn't give you a free pass on criticism, or even hurtful comments.

Heck, can someone find some awful comments from when the wildrose crossed the floor? Doesn't matter where. CBC comments, calgary sun comments, youtube comments, twitter, crazy uncles. I bet we'd find some really good ones which we can make into a speech.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wouldn't governbot 3000 run a entirely paperless government. He'd keep one or two humans to maintain his SQL database. The rest of us would be a renewable source of energy as he'd breed the fertile ones to create firewood.

It was a Bostrom reference. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They aren't tolerated. Pretty much all sensible people agree that they're inexcusable. But that isn't going to stop them from being posted. The internet is open to miserable d-bags who hide behind anonymity to vent their anger at the world. No amount of social disapproval is going to change their behaviour. So where does that leave us?

• We abandon the model of an open, public internet and resort to secure private networks.
• We recognize that no matter how repugnant we find it, public forums and platforms are going to have awful things said in them.

This was proposed more than a decade ago:

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by chemgear

This was proposed more than a decade ago:

Using the principles of parsimony, I made this equation more efficient...

[Bunk]

Covered by BBC World

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can...alflow_twitter

Interesting to note at the bottom of the article:

Jason Kenney, who is a front-runner in the PC's leadership race, says he has also been the victim of political bullying from opposing campaigns.

Kenney is clearly playing the "I'm a victim too card"