Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Izzle]

Seems relevant. Spoilered due to swear word.

Spoiler!

First tweet

https://twitter.com/user/status/1504687870006620163

Second tweet

https://twitter.com/user/status/1504777169570041860

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I did, because in many cases they very clearly are. I'm not sure how to convince someone that this is a thing, because it seems really obvious.

Trust me I see it as well. But I wonder to myself, do I see it because its
(as you say) obvious, or do I see it because people concerned with 'wokeness' in society won't stop talking about it? Like, it's been pointed out with so many different things that I now I notice it everywhere.

I often think that I wouldn't even notice or care about these things if the loud minority of people who get upset about a black Little Mermaid didnt start losing their minds over it.

Anyways, thanks for the chat. I appreciated it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Let's say skin color was a consideration when casting (in LOTR or Little Mermaid, whatever). What you're saying, intentionally or not, is that these people have an issue when that skin color isn't white. You never hear about wokeness when actors are white, or when other decisions regarding physical attributes come into play (unless it's Jordan Peterson complaining about the girl on Sports Illustrated, which adds to my point).

As I subsequently explained, you do hear ideologically-driven complaints about when actors are white. It's the mirror image of the same thing.

nobody actually believes casting a Black person somehow made the writing worse. That's an insane thing to believe and the fact that you're excusing it as "not weak in all cases" is ridiculous. It defies any logic whatsoever.

I'll give you an example. In the recent Netflix sandman show, there were a lot of characters who were switched races, and a few who were switched genders. In some cases, it didn't make any difference to the way those characters were presented. In one case, they cast a black woman as Death, when in the source material she was a small, white (not caucasian but literally white as a sheet), somewhat punkish goth girl who also used idioms that didn't seem to match her appearance in any way - it was a very strange mess of contradictions that created a unique and interesting characterization. In the show, the actress played her like any woman you might have walked past on a street in downtown London. Did she play the role badly? No, but definitely I prefer the original vision of that character. Is it worth getting upset about? No, it's a TV show.

So you can find it as obnoxious as you'd like, but you've proven the point I made with what I said by offering plainly ridiculous alternative scenarios where these people might be upset. When white people that don't look anything like a white character are cast, it's "bad casting," but when a Black person is cast, it's "woke."

Sigh... okay, you can believe I've made your point for you if that makes you happy. I knew I wasn't going to influence the way you look at any of this anyway, as demonstrated by the next thing you wrote:

Sorry you were offended that my comment came off a little too broad but you're not being honest if you're pretending it isn't. The majority of people who use it aren't classical liberal academics pining over the days of freedom expression hampered by a passionate yet misguided youth movement around identity. Time to come into the real world.

I don't really think you're living in the real world, when it comes to this stuff. You've constructed one that conveniently paints everything in very simplistic and monolithic terms. That might make you feel better about adopting an un-nuanced approach to various issues but it's not how people work.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by calculoso

At least this $10k would only apply once the unit was occupied. No subsidy for those who buy/build a unit just to flip it.

Of course, the traditional conservative response to this is - won’t this just cause inflation? If the buyer can expect to pay $10k more, won’t it just flow through to the developer? I swear the same thing has been said about most other proposed subsidies, I fail to see how this one will be different other than whose idea it was…

It has a big problem of encouraging sprawl which is also problematic. Make it $10K per brownfield unit/inside existing communities and I’d be over the moon with it as a policy since it would provide huge incentive to cities to push better land use and speed up the build process.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well that was pointless. Justinflation stupid Liberal heckler Justinflation no new taxes Justinflation Justinflation Justinflation. There, I saved everyone some suffering.

Ridiculous. Journalist heckles and he calls him out as a “Liberal heckler”. Guy says, “but I was the one who broke the Justin Trudeau story”. Next line, “liberal heckler wants to…”. Trudeau and PP both sound like bumbling idiots.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'll give you an example. In the recent Netflix sandman show, there were a lot of characters who were switched races, and a few who were switched genders. In some cases, it didn't make any difference to the way those characters were presented. In one case, they cast a black woman as Death, when in the source material she was a small, white (not caucasian but literally white as a sheet), somewhat punkish goth girl who also used idioms that didn't seem to match her appearance in any way - it was a very strange mess of contradictions that created a unique and interesting characterization. In the show, the actress played her like any woman you might have walked past on a street in downtown London. Did she play the role badly? No, but definitely I prefer the original vision of that character. Is it worth getting upset about? No, it's a TV show.

Are the reactions of people the difference though? You hear about review bombs of the new marvel shows or the LOTR show because they switch someone's race or make someone gay or whatever. Does that same reaction happen the other way?

I remember when they made those Jack Reacher movies - people were annoyed that the mega tall indestructible fighting machine main character was played by Tom Cruise but I don't think people went out of their way to blow up the movies ratings score because of it.

[b1crunch]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...team-1.6581317

"Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre revealed his Commons leadership team Tuesday in a social media post — a nine-member group that includes two LGBT MPs and one of the few persons of colour in the Conservative caucus."

Now see, should I view this as PP being "woke" because he chose 2 LGBT MPs and a person of colour for the the Conservative caucus? Did he do that because theyre the best for the jobs or because he's looking to meet a diversity quota?

I'm being rhetorical of course. In reality, I think he's doing what every other organizations does in that he's hoping to gain support for the Conservative Party from a brand range of people across Canadian society. And I don't really understand why that would be a problem for anyone.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Trust me I see it as well. But I wonder to myself, do I see it because its
(as you say) obvious, or do I see it because people concerned with 'wokeness' in society won't stop talking about it? Like, it's been pointed out with so many different things that I now I notice it everywhere.

I often think that I wouldn't even notice or care about these things if the loud minority of people who get upset about a black Little Mermaid didnt start losing their minds over it.

Anyways, thanks for the chat. I appreciated it.

It is actually interesting that you make that last point about noticing or caring because you absolutely must take notice and care.

You and I and most folks here are probably close to the same age and raised/educated under similar standards. At that time, the common notion when it came to race was that we were supposed to be color blind and not see race as a limiting or contributing factor. We were taught to look beyond skin color and not make reference to it and to treat everyone the same. But now things have gone 180 and being conscious of color is more important than ever. Being color blind is actually a naive notion.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It is actually interesting that you make that last point about noticing or caring because you absolutely must take notice and care.

You and I and most folks here are probably close to the same age and raised/educated under similar standards. At that time, the common notion when it came to race was that we were supposed to be color blind and not see race as a limiting or contributing factor. We were taught to look beyond skin color and not make reference to it and to treat everyone the same. But now things have gone 180 and being conscious of color is more important than ever. Being color blind is actually a naive notion.

I notice it in the sense that I'll see a trailer for a new movie and there will be a black/gay/minority of some kind actor/character and I now think "that'll upset people on the internet". I honestly don't think I'd have noticed or cared before. The all female Ghostbusters is a great example.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Are the reactions of people the difference though? You hear about review bombs of the new marvel shows or the LOTR show because they switch someone's race or make someone gay or whatever. Does that same reaction happen the other way?

No, but what happens the other way is that a thousand blogs or online "news" or "opinion" outlets with names like "The Take" write articles about how out of touch the producers are and how the actor is contributing to whitewashing, and so on, until the studio and the actor apologize and pledge to "be better", or "be more mindful of inclusivity", or whatever Hail Marys the thousands of people on twitter who get upset about this sort of thing want them to do. I don't know if that's better or worse than a bunch of bad reviews on metacritic.

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Now see, should I view this as PP being "woke" because he chose 2 LGBT MPs and a person of colour for the the Conservative caucus? Did he do that because theyre the best for the jobs or because he's looking to meet a diversity quota?

I'm being rhetorical of course. In reality, I think he's doing what every other organizations does in that he's hoping to gain support for the Conservative Party from a brand range of people across Canadian society. And I don't really understand why that would be a problem for anyone.

Well, to answer your rhetorical question, I think he is doing this for reasons that someone might want to characterize as "woke", but defensively so: he's deliberately chosen his caucus that way to pre-emptively guard against what are absolutely inevitable accusations of him being an alt-right troll, white supremacist, Trump-esque figure and so on. Of course, he invited those accusations by attending freedom convoys and associating himself with people who clearly are Trume-esque alt-right types, but what I'm saying is that I think there was a deliberate strategic choice to ensure that he had people in that group who weren't white guys... which, great, but I'm not about to give him credit for motivations like "wanting to ensure broad representation of Canadian society to obtain support from people who don't traditionally vote for the CPC", or anything like that.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, to answer your rhetorical question, I think he is doing this for reasons that someone might want to characterize as "woke", but defensively so: he's deliberately chosen his caucus that way to pre-emptively guard against what are absolutely inevitable accusations of him being an alt-right troll, white supremacist, Trump-esque figure and so on. Of course, he invited those accusations by attending freedom convoys and associating himself with people who clearly are Trume-esque alt-right types, but what I'm saying is that I think there was a deliberate strategic choice to ensure that he had people in that group who weren't white guys... which, great, but I'm not about to give him credit for motivations like "wanting to ensure broad representation of Canadian society to obtain support from people who don't traditionally vote for the CPC", or anything like that.

Right, so it would be ridiculous for me to refer to his choices as "woke". Rather, they are calculated decisions to maximize his success in the political realm. Which is exactly what I was suggesting earlier when I argued that it was foolish to think that large movie studios act how they do out of some 'woke' behavior. Rather, they're interested in being successful. If people can criticize disney for some perceived 'woke' behavior in its movies, should people now critique PP for being woke (regardless of the rationale) now?

I don't think so, which is why this whole "woke" trend is garbage. I think PP and the Conservatives are free to chose who they want in their caucus just as is any other organization. Even if it's to promote an image.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As I subsequently explained, you do hear ideologically-driven complaints about when actors are white. It's the mirror image of the same thing.

I'll give you an example. In the recent Netflix sandman show, there were a lot of characters who were switched races, and a few who were switched genders. In some cases, it didn't make any difference to the way those characters were presented. In one case, they cast a black woman as Death, when in the source material she was a small, white (not caucasian but literally white as a sheet), somewhat punkish goth girl who also used idioms that didn't seem to match her appearance in any way - it was a very strange mess of contradictions that created a unique and interesting characterization. In the show, the actress played her like any woman you might have walked past on a street in downtown London. Did she play the role badly? No, but definitely I prefer the original vision of that character. Is it worth getting upset about? No, it's a TV show.

Sigh... okay, you can believe I've made your point for you if that makes you happy. I knew I wasn't going to influence the way you look at any of this anyway, as demonstrated by the next thing you wrote:

I don't really think you're living in the real world, when it comes to this stuff. You've constructed one that conveniently paints everything in very simplistic and monolithic terms. That might make you feel better about adopting an un-nuanced approach to various issues but it's not how people work.

Yeah, you’re right. “I know what you are but what am I.” High level stuff. I’m trying to talk about “woke” as a dog whistle and you’re pretending I’m saying that’s ALL it is while refusing to honestly engage with the argument (nobody cares whether you like a Sandman character, it has nothing to do with this).

Just keep it honest and simple: do you think “woke” is used as dog whistle for bigots with issues regarding race/gender/etc or not?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

Right, so it would be ridiculous for me to refer to his choices as "woke". Rather, they are calculated decisions to maximize his success in the political realm. Which is exactly what I was suggesting earlier when I argued that it was foolish to think that large movie studios act how they do out of some 'woke' behavior. Rather, they're interested in being successful. If people can criticize disney for some perceived 'woke' behavior in its movies, should people now critique PP for being woke (regardless of the rationale) now?

No, I understood you and I agreed, I was just saying that there are different motivations within, for example, Disney. A lot of the execs might be on board with a decision for purely box-office related reasons, while some of the people involved in production may have a different basis for thinking something is a good choice, including an ideological basis. There are obviously going to be true believers in the cause, and often they're in decision-making roles.

And as far as criticizing PP for making that decision, I think you can criticize him for doing something that might be good, but for the wrong reasons, if you wanted to.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, you’re right. “I know what you are but what am I.” High level stuff. I’m trying to talk about “woke” as a dog whistle and you’re pretending I’m saying that’s ALL it is while refusing to honestly engage with the argument (nobody cares whether you like a Sandman character, it has nothing to do with this).

K.

Just keep it honest and simple: do you think “woke” is used as dog whistle for bigots with issues regarding race/gender/etc or not?

Sometimes.

[calgarygeologist]

To get back to politics, it looks like the rift between right and center is progressing in the CPC with MP Alain Reyes choosing to leave the caucus to sit as an independent citing values that are not compatible with the direction of the party.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, I understood you and I agreed, I was just saying that there are different motivations within, for example, Disney. A lot of the execs might be on board with a decision for purely box-office related reasons, while some of the people involved in production may have a different basis for thinking something is a good choice, including an ideological basis. There are obviously going to be true believers in the cause, and often they're in decision-making roles.

And as far as criticizing PP for making that decision, I think you can criticize him for doing something that might be good, but for the wrong reasons, if you wanted to.

I'm fine with that interpretation, but it's my opinion that money/profit will always be the number 1 (likely only) driver for those decisions. Disney (or any other large corporation) won't push a narrative of any kind unless they think it makes them money. Which is the exact same scenario now with PP and his choices for caucus. He chose who he did for very calculated reasons. And that's fine. Promoting an inclusive, diverse image for your organization is a positive thing. I really see now problem with any of it. Hence, people who the use the word "woke" for these things are ridiculous.

Alright, I'm done with this one. Thanks again for the conversation. Appreciate the back and forth.

[Superflyer]

So on the topic of Wokeness, Jamil Jivani: The Conservative MP who's fed up with the menace of woke corporations

Canadians have had reasons to worry about woke capital for years: ESG (environmental, social and governance) investment policies have undercut our oil and gas industry; businesses have embraced Black Lives Matter, despite serious concerns about the group’s ethics; and multinational corporations have imported American culture wars into our country.

At last, a Canadian MP is pushing back. Conservative Tom Kmiec, who has represented the riding of Calgary Shepard since 2015, is proposing a new bill designed to hold powerful officers and directors accountable.

Kmiec is currently drafting a private member’s bill to amend Section 122 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA), which is focused on the duty of care that officers and directors owe to their shareholders. If passed, it would ensure that officers and directors prioritize the interests of shareholders above political agendas that are unrelated to the company’s business purpose.

A summary of Kmiec’s bill, which was obtained by the National Post, explains that it would be “considered a breach in the duty of care owed to shareholders when directors and officers of a large distributing corporation (a company with a total market value of shares above $100 million) make activist statements, including in relation to public policy or social issues, that is not directly related to the business the corporation carries out and that could reasonably be expected to reduce the value of shares.”

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I don’t blame PP for taking a picture with someone at one of his rallies. He doesn’t know everybody’s backgrounds.

The question is why do far right types go to his rallies, support him, take pictures with him?

Because he and Deplorable Murphy Brown gave all these freedumbasses an olive branch!

[Fuzz]

Good to see someone is looknig out for the poor corporations, unable to maximize and squeeze every last penny out of society. Phew, that almost got away from us for a minute.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well that was pointless. Justinflation stupid Liberal heckler Justinflation no new taxes Justinflation Justinflation Justinflation. There, I saved everyone some suffering.

did he break out the 2X4? and dumb it down to Grade 3 levels so his supporters could understand?

Like seriously, Blackface would be the worst politician in Cdn history if he can't win a majority vs Peter the little Pest.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

I'm fine with that interpretation, but it's my opinion that money/profit will always be the number 1 (likely only) driver for those decisions. Disney (or any other large corporation) won't push a narrative of any kind unless they think it makes them money. Which is the exact same scenario now with PP and his choices for caucus. He chose who he did for very calculated reasons. And that's fine. Promoting an inclusive, diverse image for your organization is a positive thing. I really see now problem with any of it. Hence, people who the use the word "woke" for these things are ridiculous.

Alright, I'm done with this one. Thanks again for the conversation. Appreciate the back and forth.

I think Disney and PP are two sides of the same coin. Disney didn't want to come out against the FL legislation, because it really doesn't have anything to do with them, it's polarizing, and the people who passed it have huge power over their operations. But enough of their staff (and LGBTQ are highly over represented in show business) complained that they felt they had to. I doubt Bob Chapek is a social justice warrior, he just wants to make money.