Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Which is the greater threat at the present time, the far-right or the far-left?

The far-right. But the rest of you guys have that covered. I don’t find any value in jumping in to be the sixth or 20th person in a thread to slam the latest outrage of populist nutbars. That’s not why I engage with social media. But if nativist, anti-vaxx, conspiracy-riddled lunacy was the dominant sentiment on this forum, and it was rarely challenged, I would be the first to step up and call it out. You may not believe it, but it’s true.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The left, obviously. I mean, look at one of Cliff's examples; a tenured professor (who has a job for life) wrote a rambling opinion piece where he brought out the "both sides, many sides" argument while talking about slavery, and after there was push back from other historians, he felt like he had to write an author's note saying that his article didn't convey what he intended. That's far worse than the right trying to dismantle democratic institutions and push back the rights of large swathes of the population several decades.

C’mon man. You’re a smart guy. Try engaging in good faith instead of misrepresenting the issue and taking shots at strawmen. Do you think the 1619 project is above criticism? If so, why? If not, what would legitimate criticism look like? Feel free to start a new thread if you think it’s a subject worth discussing.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think Atwood was making a false equivalency? And all the other people who have raised the issue of the censorious left (Rushdie, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Fry, etc)?

I’m only saying the same thing dozens of prominent liberals (and millions of regular people) have been saying for years: You don’t have to think the intolerant, illiberal left is as big a problem as the far right to think it’s a problem worth recognizing. You can dislike two threats to liberal principles at the same time.

It seems you can’t. But my outlook is far more common than people like you want to recognize - I’d wager it’s actually the norm IRL. It’s only rare on forums like this because by its nature social media is polarizing.

I don’t totally disagree with everything in that letter, there’s also a valid argument that these establishment ‘thought-leaders’ are simply struggling to grapple with a new world where they don’t go so easily unchallenged.

Are there problems with the censorious left? Absolutely. But I’m not convinced it’s the scourge to free thinking that is often portrayed. There is actually potential for deeper understanding, but it requires some degree of contrition (from both sides of any issue) that no idea is perfect.

The fact that the left challenges itself so vociferously is a big reason it doesn’t devolve into blind cult worship like the right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I just returned home from a two week trip to Nova Scotia and I can’t tell you how refreshing it was not to see a single politically motivated truck the entire time. I’m sure they are there but man it was just awesome to not have to look at a giant flag on a hockey stick or a giant #### Trudeau sticker every few blocks.

I like to think we have it pretty good in Alberta, like damn good but these people just seem to be so angry at ????? . I can’t reconcile it, I don’t understand why they feel so oppressed. What is it?

Careful, this is going to be thrown in your face for the next 2 years.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The far-right. But the rest of you guys have that covered. I don’t find any value in jumping in to be the sixth or 20th person in a thread to slam the latest outrage of populist nutbars. That’s not why I engage with social media. But if nativist, anti-vaxx, conspiracy-riddled lunacy was the dominant sentiment on this forum, and it was rarely challenged, I would be the first to step up and call it out. You may not believe it, but it’s true.

There are more people who are outspokenly far right wing than outspokenly far left wing here, with the vast majority falling comfortably in the middle, but you still reserve 95% of your criticism for the left, consistently interject with anecdotes about the left when it’s not a topic of conversation, and jump all over any chance to make a conversation into a far right vs far left comparison as though it’s team sports.

So… not sure why anyone would believe you.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

C’mon man. You’re a smart guy. Try engaging in good faith instead of misrepresenting the issue and taking shots at strawmen. Do you think the 1619 project is above criticism? If so, why? If not, what would legitimate criticism look like? Feel free to start a new thread if you think it’s a subject worth discussing.

Is criticism of the project above criticism itself?

There was a time it was just called debate. Some OTT reactions are inevitable with social media, but they’re a silly cop out to avoid defending/refining an idea you felt strongly enough to publish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

C’mon man. You’re a smart guy. Try engaging in good faith instead of misrepresenting the issue and taking shots at strawmen. Do you think the 1619 project is above criticism? If so, why? If not, what would legitimate criticism look like? Feel free to start a new thread if you think it’s a subject worth discussing.

Was criticism of the 1619 project the primary thing (either in the original article or in peoples' reaction)? It doesn't seem that way to me.

To me, it looks like he made a bunch of points (which given the short length turns the whole thing into pretty rambling prose):

1) Presentism (viewing history primarily through today's lens) is a problem within the field.

2) Too few students are undertaking study of pre-1800 history.

3) He criticizes the 1619 project as history.

4) While talking about a tour in Elmina, Ghana (an important location for the slave trade), the author complained that not enough attention was paid to slaves going to places other than the US, and that the guide made no mention of Africans themselves taking part in the slave trade (comparing the latter to conservatives trying to remove references to slavery in US school curricula).

5) He criticizes some Supreme Court decisions because they treated history as a grab bag to pull from.

6) He says history should not be interpreted through the optics of the present.


#1 and #6 are matters of contention among historians. But at the same time, all history is presentism to some degree. The notion of the "objective historian" went out the window decades ago.

#2 is easily explained by other factors (lack of job opportunities relating historians of that era, fewer existing professors to teach those periods compared to more modern eras, etc.), and he didn't offer a single piece of evidence that presentism is driving what he's talking about.

#3 and #5 are somewhat fair criticism, but kind of irrelevant when talking about historiography among professional historians.

#4 is pretty ridiculous. When I took a tour of Auschwitz, the Polish tour guides focused on Germans and didn't talk about Poles who may have assisted in committing atrocities, but so what?

Most importantly, he didn't bring up a single example of what he's talking about in work by actual historians. He just talked about the 1619 project, Supreme Court decisions, and a guided tour in Ghana, which he complains minimizes Ghanaians' role in the slave trade.

And the author of that Independent Institute piece takes some fairly big liberties in characterizing the responses. Here's one of the "activist historians" he's talking about; those all seem like pretty reasonable and professional criticisms.

And positioning this as a historian having to "salvage his career" is ridiculous. He's a tenured professor and his current position as President of the AHA only holds a 1-year term where the President does not stand for reelection. He wrote a poorly written and articulated (and somewhat condescending) argument about several topics at once and people reacted negatively. Not only because they disagreed with his points, but also be cause he's not just a random historian; he's the President of the AHA and is essentially tasked with speaking for historians.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The far-right. But the rest of you guys have that covered. I don’t find any value in jumping in to be the sixth or 20th person in a thread to slam the latest outrage of populist nutbars. That’s not why I engage with social media. But if nativist, anti-vaxx, conspiracy-riddled lunacy was the dominant sentiment on this forum, and it was rarely challenged, I would be the first to step up and call it out. You may not believe it, but it’s true.

Considering you never say anything criticizing the far right and regularly combat things that are said by those that criticize the far right, it is very hard to believe what you’ve just said. The fact that you even said “you may not believe it” tells me that you know your arguments aren’t in balance too.

Regardless, good to hear that you do see the threat that the far right poses, even if you don’t say so.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I just returned home from a two week trip to Nova Scotia and I can’t tell you how refreshing it was not to see a single politically motivated truck the entire time. I’m sure they are there but man it was just awesome to not have to look at a giant flag on a hockey stick or a giant #### Trudeau sticker every few blocks.

I like to think we have it pretty good in Alberta, like damn good but these people just seem to be so angry at ????? . I can’t reconcile it, I don’t understand why they feel so oppressed. What is it?

Lucky you, I was just in the Milk River area. Nauseating seeing all the trash on the side of the highways(signs about the globalist agenda, trucks with flags and the beavy of stickers, and just a general feeling that this was not at all my Canada).

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There are more people who are outspokenly far right wing than outspokenly far left wing here, with the vast majority falling comfortably in the middle, but you still reserve 95% of your criticism for the left, consistently interject with anecdotes about the left when it’s not a topic of conversation, and jump all over any chance to make a conversation into a far right vs far left comparison as though it’s team sports.

So… not sure why anyone would believe you.

Calgarypuck absolutely does not lean right. Not a chance.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Of course they made the right decision. Only after the event was publicized and decided it wasn't worth the negative attention or reputational hit to their own fragile campaigns.

Not unlike the track record of the UCP cabinet, both of which Toews and Schulz were cabinet members. Try and push ideas and decisions on Albertans, public pushback, dial it back because it was bad policy.

No pushback = bad decisions being put in place.

Aheer and Sawhaney never confirmed, Schulz' and Toews did. That's a problem in and of itself, because lumping themselves in with this libertarian/seperatist are things that Albertans notice - which is exactly what happened when the event was publicly exposed.

They're not wrong for wanting to debate, but if there was no public exposure of the extremist elements of these organizers, Toews and Schulz would have attended.

You can make fun of the polling numbers for Sawhaney and Aheer, but its pretty clear who put more thought into this process.

If you're a politician campaigning for office, or the campaigns that manage them, then you better understand the consequences of entertaining crowds like that, because Albertans pay attention.

Conservatives love to make corrections only after getting caught. Especially in Alberta.

Let’s not waste too much time arguing about the people who pulled out. Don’t turn your attention away from the ones who attended for even a second. Especially Smith who says she’s ‘aligned’ with the APP but ‘willing to give Canada one more chance’. Damn these people…we’re all Canadians.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

That might be the right strategy.

Schulz isnt going to first ballot anyone. She probably can't second ballot.

Toews is literally the only one who will win on second ballot voting.

And I hate it because he sucks. But not as much as Smith, haha.

Sadly, he's really the only choice to beat Smith. And if we don't vote in that manner, we are looking at a Smith win. Which means we get another swing back to 4 years of NDP, which will only stall Alberta's progress for another 4 years (I don't say that, because I dislike the NDP, only that such a dramatic ideological change will stall every project, initiative and legislation for 2-6 years).

It's gonna be a wonky couple years here. Especially for municipalities.

Will be interesting at least!

Sorry, what progress are we making?

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Calgarypuck absolutely does not lean right. Not a chance.

I've heard this several times before from other posters. I have no idea about the political leanings of the forum, and I'm honestly curious:

Why would a forum for a hockey team that exists in a predominantly conservative city, in a predominantly conservative province be made up of mostly non-right leaning people? How does that happen?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

I've heard this several times before from other posters. I have no idea about the political leanings of the forum, and I'm honestly curious:

Why would a forum for a hockey team that exists in a predominantly conservative city, in a predominantly conservative province be made up of mostly non-right leaning people? How does that happen?

In the political polls before elections Calgarypuck ends up favouring more 3rd party choices but in general it reflects Calgary’s vote patterns at the provincial and municipal level.

The one thing that Calgarypuck skews on in technologically competent and interested in sports 20 years ago. The nature of the message board platform and when they were popular is that it forms a relatively narrow band of age and favours higher incomes and post secondary educations. Post secondary educations results in liberalization relative to the general population.

Amoung top 10 posters in the Canadian politics it looks pretty even. Among top 10 posters in the Alberta politics thread it skews left but in my opinion that’s because the right posters quit trying to defend the train wreck years ago.

Also when looking at US politics the centrist Canadian is a socialist so that thread skews left of the American Center. This also makes Calgarypuck appear further left.

Calgarypuck is more socially progressive than the general Alberta population. I think this is where people mistake CP of being very left. It’s is not tolerant of intolerance. I’d be interested in seeing someone argue that this social position is a bad thing.
One are where Calgary is not representative is the anti

In my opinion people remember the posters that disagree with them loudly. They also remember the responses to racism,sexism, and homophobia more than policy.

This place is the home of the mythical people who want to vote for the socially liberal fiscal conservative that does not exist.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Izzle

This is going to manifest with Smith becoming the premier, isn't it?

I think there's enough urban vote to stop that.

I just want to add, it's not even just the prairies, we should really be breaking things down the Rural western Canada.

Hell, the weekly trucker/anti vax/and mask/freedom rallys last winter in Victoria were all majority populated by everyone north of Duncan. And belive you me, everything north of Victoria (including Nanaimo) is a very very Rural minded populace.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do we continually falsely call Notley Left and Smith right like their is equal distance to the middle. Notley is a centrist leaning left. We don’t have the equivalent left politicians.

I always go back to the gold standard of Alberta politics.

Who is closer to the standard set by Peter Lougheed?

a) Danielle Smith
b) Jason Kenny
c) Rachel Notley

Answer honestly.

And is it even close? Did you really have to analyse deeply and struggle to reach your conclusion?

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1564100636391735296

https://twitter.com/user/status/1564122697667604481

Hrrmm, Whataboutism trending on Twitter this morning. Seems somehow relevant here....

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

and people reacted negatively.

By denouncing him as a racist and bigot. Which has proven to be a highly effective tactic at silencing people.

The argument offered by critics that essays like Sweet’s are dangerous because they give ammunition to the far right is an example of “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity” that the authors of the Harper’s letter warn about.

Most of the attacks on Sweet weren’t thoughtful and nuanced criticism of the arguments he presented. They were furious attacks on his person intended to shame and silence him. And they worked. Because too many of the adults in the room today have subordinated the liberal principles of their institutions in favour of “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I think there's enough urban vote to stop that.

I think there is enough urban vote to stop her from winning an election. But if she wins the leadership she will be premiere for several months before having to face an election.

[PepsiFree]

If there’s any better example of whataboutism or one poster’s admitted need to be a contrarian than the focus on the far left’s criticism of the 1619 project in the Alberta Politics Thread, then I’d love to see it.