Canadian Politics Redux

1233234236238239244

Comments

  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    Parksy said:
    In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

    Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 
    I thought an automatic investigation was hard wired right into use of the EA. How is that not happening?
    It is.  That's why we're learning about the police not actually saying they needed the EA ... which contradicts what the minister said. 

    I think a similar investigation should occur with regards to why and how the cops did so little about the freedom convoy for 2.5 weeks. 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,773
    edited June 2022
    Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

    For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

    I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

    I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

    Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

    For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

    I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

    I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

    Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

    I agree.  For two reasons...  American pressure and ... and I'm putting this as politely as I can... whatever the fuck it took to get those cock stains away from the border and out of Ottawa.. I'm all for it. 

    However...  the abuse of power fear would always come up no matter how it was used... so that's why we've put stipulations into how and when it gets used and most importantly... you have to be able to legally justify it.  I can personally justify it all I want... and I will :)  but was it legally justified?  

    Its worth noting that it was voted on and they did in fact write into the order how it was to be used, and for how long... so if the Conservatives want to cast this as Trudeau and the Liberals as being power grabbing authoritarians......  where is the smoking gun here? Like what did this particular use of the EA abuse?  What rights were taken away, etc.?  How did it negatively affect people?

    The only plausible case I've seen regarding that is the ability to freeze assets. And looking at the fact that a lot of funding came from the states... it sort of makes sense to assure no outside interference, etc. 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    Parksy said:
    In as much as I welcome an investigation into the Liberals using the EA...   I think it makes sense to investigate police procedures with regards to demonstrations.   

    Situations like these should end up with the police being able to say they left nothing to imagination and speculation. Law gets broken, this is how we enforce it.  Full stop... doesn't matter what the cause is... message is clear:  follow the law. 
    Pretty much completely agree with you there.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    edited June 2022
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

    For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

    I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

    I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

    Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

    Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

    As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

    To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.

    Edit: I need to clarify that at times I’ve been condescending and dismissive myself. I make no claims to perfection and when I’m able to recognize that impulse I do try to fight against it. So I own that this pot is calling the kettle.
    Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

    For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

    I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

    I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

    Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

    Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

    As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

    To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.
    You are correct that I should be less vulgar. 

    For me... I look at both sides of the fence here and see a lot of the same mindsets.  Situations or perceived wrong doings happen. People become motivated. And then people act.  It's the same recipe. And when either of those sides become violent or disruptive or illegal... on a legal and enforcement level they should be handled the same. 

    The justifications and the causes are what swing my personal bias towards being derogatory and repugnant. 

    It's strictly personal... but I can at least understand and sympathize more with those who stand up for the environment and/or against ethnic cleansing as opposed to those who take a stand against temporary mandates and a bullshit fear of oppression. 

    I can say that no matter what the cause....  WHAT all these people are doing can be very awful.  But WHY they're doing it... that's where I have strong feelings against the convoy folk. 




    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    Parksy said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, Ministers have resigned over far less, does this government understand ministerial responsibility? How many times did he continue to parrot the arson as justification for the EA, even after it was disproven (I personally witnessed at least one time, watching his “testimony” (he’s forced me to use quotation marks) before the committee.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marco-mendicino-emergencies-act-convoy-1.6488424

    For clarity, this post is about a clearly dishonest Minister, not the protests themselves.

    I'll await a statement where they will presumably explain how his words were misunderstood (not holding my breath), and if he actually did lie to try and make it happen, that's totally unacceptable and I would think he should resign, and I think Trudeau should demand that he does. That said, recommendation from the RCMP or not, I completely supported and still support the decision to evoke the Emergencies Act at the time. If their reasoning to do it was really all or largely about what the RCMP allegedly said (it wasn't), then that would be weird, but I'm still glad it was evoked.

    I like Trudeau's comment here btw: "What is crystal clear is how much Conservatives are hoping Canadians forget that they stood with the illegal blockaders," he said.

    Yup, for some Cons, for sure. Then there are the ones who are all about the idiot Trucker convoy, and I assume the party very much hopes they keep that support of the blockaders top of mind.

    Mendicino’s deputy minister appeared before the committee (which is separate from the judicial inquiry that’s required in the act) to try and explain away the “misunderstanding”.

    As someone pointed out elsewhere online, Mendicino is a trained lawyer and should be able to find the correct words that won’t lead to this level of confusion as to what he meant when he said law enforcement asked for the EA to be enacted. If he meant to say the police were asking for the tools without mentioning the Act by name, then he should have just said so.

    To Parksy, I felt quite strongly about how the rail blockades were seemingly tolerated, but I have done my best to not be derogatory or dismissive of them. Or can I call them cock stains and we’re all good? It’s this condescension on all sides that is honestly the most troubling thing to come out of these last years.
    You are correct that I should be less vulgar. 

    For me... I look at both sides of the fence here and see a lot of the same mindsets.  Situations or perceived wrong doings happen. People become motivated. And then people act.  It's the same recipe. And when either of those sides become violent or disruptive or illegal... on a legal and enforcement level they should be handled the same. 

    The justifications and the causes are what swing my personal bias towards being derogatory and repugnant. 

    It's strictly personal... but I can at least understand and sympathize more with those who stand up for the environment and/or against ethnic cleansing as opposed to those who take a stand against temporary mandates and a bullshit fear of oppression. 

    I can say that no matter what the cause....  WHAT all these people are doing can be very awful.  But WHY they're doing it... that's where I have strong feelings against the convoy folk. 




    Thanks for the reply, and on most points I agree with you. I apologize for singling you out to make a more general point, that wasn’t really my intent (which led to my edit acknowledging my own role in all this).

    As I keep telling my friend who questions whether he’s allowed to feel a certain way, we all feel what we feel and we’re all entitled to our personal feelings (I’ll broaden it in this context to include opinions), no matter how right or wrong those feelings may seem. Hopefully we get back to a place of more discussion instead of butting heads (again, this is a general point not specifically aimed at you Parksy, it’s aimed at myself as much as anyone).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    Not sure if this muddies Mendicino’s waters or clears them up.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bill-blair-chrystia-freeland-emergencies-act-1.6489053
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • NamiNami NewfoundlandPosts: 5,971
    https://youtu.be/hZhHhkuFmYg

    Just posting this link as this channel has been covering the committee/EA review since the beginning.   It's hard to find anything else.  

    US bridges were cleared prior to the EA, I cant see pressure from Biden at that point.  Judge ruled the protest was legal, hence cops doing nothing (after the fact yes, but perhaps why).   RCMP/Ontario police did not request it....and publically stated  such during questioning.  The Liberal party is trying to save face/ pass the blame now as they have been caught.  Don't forget, they used the powers prior to passing Senate... Not sure if that's the correct order of execution... PM powers.    Labelling all truckers the way JT did was the start of events, made it a publically justifiable overreach in their eyes, to freeze bank accounts, arrest, and publically damn anyone against vaccine mandates and passports, or for showing any form of support. A show of power is all it was because someone disagreed with them violating their rights.






    Hamilton 9-13-05; Toronto 5-9-06, Toronto 8-21-09, Toronto 9-12-11, Hamilton 9-15-11....
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    Nami said:
    https://youtu.be/hZhHhkuFmYg

    Just posting this link as this channel has been covering the committee/EA review since the beginning.   It's hard to find anything else.  

    US bridges were cleared prior to the EA, I cant see pressure from Biden at that point.  Judge ruled the protest was legal, hence cops doing nothing (after the fact yes, but perhaps why).   RCMP/Ontario police did not request it....and publically stated  such during questioning.  The Liberal party is trying to save face/ pass the blame now as they have been caught.  Don't forget, they used the powers prior to passing Senate... Not sure if that's the correct order of execution... PM powers.    Labelling all truckers the way JT did was the start of events, made it a publically justifiable overreach in their eyes, to freeze bank accounts, arrest, and publically damn anyone against vaccine mandates and passports, or for showing any form of support. A show of power is all it was because someone disagreed with them violating their rights.






    I get where this guy is going... but it's hard to keep asking for an answer when you literally cut the person off three times. 

    What Freeland is saying is accurate here.  Reputation is important.. and I would go so far as to say that if you read between the lines here, she's referring to the importance of acting on behalf or due to pressure from the States. 

    As far the economic impact... I agree that the Liberals should have reports and figures and facts to provide. In the absence of that, I do recall the Auto sector asking the government to intervene because they were losing millions per day because parts were coming over the border on time. 

    What's ultimately troubling for me with regards to the Liberals is that even weeks and months after they don't seem to have their ducks in a row.  While I understand where Freeland is coming from and I really, really think it's plain disrespectful to not let a person fully answer a question that has been asked....   they should have been prepared for all of these questions.  If an MP asks as this fellow was... what was the threshold, what was the economic problem......   Freeland needs to have those figures in front of her.  Her answer should have been:

    Our economy was losing (insert figure here) during the blockade. 
    Ottawa businesses were being impacted (this much). 
    (This many) businesses needed to shut down temporarily. 
    We consulted with (these people) to ensure it met the threshold. 

    I doubt she was about to explain those things...  but the fellow didn't give her an opportunity to even if she was. 

    Perhaps I missed it... what judge deemed the protests legal?  I don't recall that happening at all nor do I agree with it. 

    JT did not start these events by labelling the fringe minority.  That's just nonsense.  The folks who organized this convoy (said fringe minority) ... they began this shit storm. And they are far worse than Trudeau. That's just my opinion.  It's one thing to be against a policy and want your voice heard... but to go to Ottawa with a list of demands and do what they did... for how long they did it... in the manner that they did it... attracting the kind of support that they did (Trump, Fox News)....... that's why a lot of people are against them and that's why some of them are facing criminal charges. 

    These people are an utter embarrassment. And while I certainly wanted the occupation and blockades to end, I 100% think it needed to be done legally.  It's much more important to me that the government acts within the boundaries of the law than it's own citizens.  To that point, that's why Trudeau should not be PM. 


    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    Nami said:
    https://youtu.be/hZhHhkuFmYg

    Just posting this link as this channel has been covering the committee/EA review since the beginning.   It's hard to find anything else.  

    US bridges were cleared prior to the EA, I cant see pressure from Biden at that point.  Judge ruled the protest was legal, hence cops doing nothing (after the fact yes, but perhaps why).   RCMP/Ontario police did not request it....and publically stated  such during questioning.  The Liberal party is trying to save face/ pass the blame now as they have been caught.  Don't forget, they used the powers prior to passing Senate... Not sure if that's the correct order of execution... PM powers.    Labelling all truckers the way JT did was the start of events, made it a publically justifiable overreach in their eyes, to freeze bank accounts, arrest, and publically damn anyone against vaccine mandates and passports, or for showing any form of support. A show of power is all it was because someone disagreed with them violating their rights.






    Trudeau met virtually and spoke with Biden on February 11th.  

    The blockade in Detroit that was massively affecting the auto industry saw protesters leave on February 13th although it did not fully open the border. 

    Trudeau evoked the EA Act on the 15th. 

    Interestingly... the timeline makes everyone look dumb. But I'm still convinced that Trudeau did it to appease the States and I think that's what Freeland is loosely trying to say as well.  

    To be clear though...   in as much as the governments response and usage of the EA could be seen as dumb and irresponsible...  so was the police. And very much so were the convoy folks.  Let's not forget... they occupied Ottawa at a time when most provinces were already lifting mandates.  Ontario had already announced their plans for re-opening.  And in terms of timing....   we just had an election and while this doens't fit a lot of people's narratives...  Trudeau was crystal clear on why he called the election and he was crystal clear about his opinions and plans for getting out of the pandemic. 

    And none of this... none of these conversations take place had it not been for the 'fringe minority' thinking that for some reason they had a right to their own way.  Thinking that they were more important than the election. More important than democracy. More important than the law. If Trudeau is dumb, and the cops are dumb, and the convoy was dumb... which I believe to be all true... the dumbest of the dumb is the convoy. 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    We often discuss and post etc. about all the bad things in society.  Here you have a D-Bag, being a D-Bag and we think....  'wow, this fellow is a D-Bag.' 

    What doesn't get more attention and often passed or missed is the woman in the photo thinking this is hilarious. 

    I've already seen some of the responses and they're the same as usual: 

    "We strongly condemn this float and all forms racism." Yadda Yadda.  What would be refreshing and constructive is if the responses were tweaked a bit: "We strongly condemn this float and all forms of racism. And if you thought this was funny... we condemn you too." 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I have some relatives in Alberta who would absolutely be this woman. 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    I have some relatives in Alberta who would absolutely be this woman. 
    Got some in Ontario that would think the same.  I call out my immediate family for this kind of stuff...  I lack the time and patience to go beyond that. 

    Takes a while.. but it works sometimes.  My dad posted a dumb, non sensical anti-immigrant thing on Facebook.    I tap into his notion of being 'smart' and ask very simple questions like "Honestly, what are you trying to say here."  And then just keeping asking questions and call out the really dumb answers that are provided. 

    Most folks tend to respond with something stupid because they can't muster the courage to say "Good point."  or  "Hey, you're right."   or  "Yeah, I'm wrong about that."   Every once in a while though....  they admit they're prejudice.  

    It took me an hour to convince my dad that no one is telling him he has to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."   An hour. 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I had a similar back and forth with my dad last week. My daughter won a gift card at a football game. I had to call and answer questions and at the end, a skill testing question. It then got me thinking....why do we have skill testing questions for winning prizes in Canada? During my research, I came across a lawsuit that a person with Down's Syndrome won after being denied a prize based on the fact they answered the skill testing question incorrectly. My dad disagreed with that decision. I employed the same tactic..."why do you think that's wrong?". Even as an intelligent man, he couldn't muster much more than "because it's just not right". He first mentioned cognitive ability. I said "what in the world does winning prize have to do with mathematical knowledge?". He couldn't answer it. Just that it was the rules. 

    I just boil this shit down to a generational viewpoint of people with intellectual disabilities not being "normal" and swept under the rug (or any other progression we've made in society in the last 30 years). I assume I will hold similar viewpoints when I'm 74 about things that weren't the norm in "my day". I just hope I progress with the times enough that it's not noticeable. lol

    But, the Alberta relatives are my age or younger. They just hate Trudeau and Singh because he doesn't want to subsidize their 5 vacation houses they got from "working my ass off in the patch". 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    would it be ok in your eyes to use blackface as a political statement against obama?
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    He also asked me in the same conversation:  "How do you feel about women wearing a face veil while getting a passport."  I was just like....   "I can't answer that because I don't feel anything. I can say what I DON'T feel.. I don't feel angry, or fearful or frustrated.  Why do you?"  And once again it was non sensical answers. 

    My wife gets discouraged and upset by it and  I try to explain that it's not an easy thing to admit and/or fix.. .and most people who hold these views have only known one set of friends and worked at one type of job which was also occupied by the same type of people with the same views. Creates on heck of an echo chamber.  I benefitted from broadening those horizons and also paying attention to the lessons of one Atticus Finch. 

    Nowadays... those same water coolers at jobs that were being done by the same types of people are now broadly on the internet. And it's generally fear and bullshit that motivates opinions.  

    I recall Jordan Peterson who is highly influential saying about 6 or 7 years ago that if we as a society continue being so "Woke" that we .. and I quote: "Won't be able to discuss gender."  At the time he was going off about pro nouns and such.  And I thought.... here's a 'smart guy' both self proclaimed and he has the credentials... yet he is basing an opinion on something that MAY happen in the future. 5 years later... that conversation happened. Free speech is still a thing.  People are very free to debate gender.  So what he was trying to make people afraid of at the time... never came to fruition. If he was so smart... he should admit that today.  And if he had ethics... he would stop fear mongering. (Spoiler alert: he has not stopped. lol) 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    when I saw peterson on rogan a long time ago, I admit he had me duped. some of what he was saying made some sense to me, but he obviously had toned down the rhetoric for the podcast to get people to listen. it was Jordan Light. After researching the shit he says to crowds who know who he is....wow. POS. 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    would it be ok in your eyes to use blackface as a political statement against obama?
    I don’t think I need to answer that because I’ve gone on at length about how wrong Trudeau was to put on blackface so many times he can’t remember. And you have been dismissive of those criticisms. (I must on this point admit an error. Apparently Trudeau didn’t study drama which would have exposed him to the history of blackface, he studied math, apparently.)

    So what is the acceptable way to represent a political leader who happens to be obviously of a certain ethnicity? If they had found an actual Sikh person to represent Singh would that have canceled your claims of racism? Do we only use generic white people holding signs representing the relevant party?
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    would it be ok in your eyes to use blackface as a political statement against obama?
    I don’t think I need to answer that because I’ve gone on at length about how wrong Trudeau was to put on blackface so many times he can’t remember. And you have been dismissive of those criticisms. (I must on this point admit an error. Apparently Trudeau didn’t study drama which would have exposed him to the history of blackface, he studied math, apparently.)

    So what is the acceptable way to represent a political leader who happens to be obviously of a certain ethnicity? If they had found an actual Sikh person to represent Singh would that have canceled your claims of racism? Do we only use generic white people holding signs representing the relevant party?
    the criticisms were valid. But I believed him when he said he was ignorant. I was as well. people also called me a liar and an apologist. (I honestly don't care much for JT anymore; I just think he's the best of our terrible choices right now-I really was ignorant)

    I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I understand the want to make a political statement and to be clear about what you are saying; but we also know in today's day, it is well established you can't dress up as another ethnic group and not be accused of racism or at the very very least, appropriation. 

    Do you not think that, at least at some level, that was meant to provoke anger amongst the left but also appeal to the racists who would approve?
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    and no, I don't think you're a terrible person for holding that position anymore than I'd hope people wouldn't think I a terrible person for giving JT the benefit of the doubt for blackface. we all have our biases/leanings that allow us a little more forgiveness for "our team" and a little more finger pointing of the other. 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    would it be ok in your eyes to use blackface as a political statement against obama?
    I don’t think I need to answer that because I’ve gone on at length about how wrong Trudeau was to put on blackface so many times he can’t remember. And you have been dismissive of those criticisms. (I must on this point admit an error. Apparently Trudeau didn’t study drama which would have exposed him to the history of blackface, he studied math, apparently.)

    So what is the acceptable way to represent a political leader who happens to be obviously of a certain ethnicity? If they had found an actual Sikh person to represent Singh would that have canceled your claims of racism? Do we only use generic white people holding signs representing the relevant party?
    the criticisms were valid. But I believed him when he said he was ignorant. I was as well. people also called me a liar and an apologist. (I honestly don't care much for JT anymore; I just think he's the best of our terrible choices right now-I really was ignorant)

    I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I understand the want to make a political statement and to be clear about what you are saying; but we also know in today's day, it is well established you can't dress up as another ethnic group and not be accused of racism or at the very very least, appropriation. 

    Do you not think that, at least at some level, that was meant to provoke anger amongst the left but also appeal to the racists who would approve?
    To your last paragraph, it’s entirely possible (I’ll even say likely) that you’re entirely correct, but I don’t know how else to represent what was desired (outside of my suggestion of generic politicians). As you said/implied there’s no easy answer.

     I appreciate your following post as well, and for what it’s worth I hope I never called you (or anyone else) a liar. All I can do is post/express my own truths and trust that others are doing the same. And that doesn’t mean I/we can’t be wrong every so often, lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    of course you didn't call me a liar. lol. that wouldn't be you. 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    What you're talking about I think fits the mould of a lot of issues to be honest. 

    It's narrow minded in a sense to ask "well how else is he supposed to make that point?" 

    So put yourself in the shoes of the person trying to make said point... which it seems like you're doing.  

    Analyze the point you're trying to make. Then... ask yourself if this plan could potentially offend anyone.  If the answer is yes... ask yourself if your point is worth making. 

    So... what was the point here? What was the purpose?   These folks wanted to bring public attention to the fact that Jagmeet is a Liberal lapdog.  Ok...  sure. To me it seems almost obvious when you look at what they've done in the House of Commons....  but these guys want to illustrate that further.  

    We exist in the age of social media.   How else are they supposed to point out the obvious? They could just say it.  They could post about it. They could wear a shirt that says "Jagmeet is Trudeau's puppett"   or visa versa. I could go on.  Point is... there are in fact many ways to show a point or bring light to an issue.  When one chooses an avenue that they know will offend people... there's really only one conclusion to that... it's rude. 

    So again... let's go back to these folks.  What "point" were they trying to honestly make here? That to me is particularly important. Because if whatever "point" they're trying to make here... if that point does not in any way require the need to represent Singh physically which would offend people... then why on earth are they doing it? 

    Hopefully I've answered your question... I'm curious and hopeful you can answer mine.  What was their point?  Why did they feel the need to physically represent Singh? 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,108
    Parksy said:
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    What you're talking about I think fits the mould of a lot of issues to be honest. 

    It's narrow minded in a sense to ask "well how else is he supposed to make that point?" 

    So put yourself in the shoes of the person trying to make said point... which it seems like you're doing.  

    Analyze the point you're trying to make. Then... ask yourself if this plan could potentially offend anyone.  If the answer is yes... ask yourself if your point is worth making. 

    So... what was the point here? What was the purpose?   These folks wanted to bring public attention to the fact that Jagmeet is a Liberal lapdog.  Ok...  sure. To me it seems almost obvious when you look at what they've done in the House of Commons....  but these guys want to illustrate that further.  

    We exist in the age of social media.   How else are they supposed to point out the obvious? They could just say it.  They could post about it. They could wear a shirt that says "Jagmeet is Trudeau's puppett"   or visa versa. I could go on.  Point is... there are in fact many ways to show a point or bring light to an issue.  When one chooses an avenue that they know will offend people... there's really only one conclusion to that... it's rude. 

    So again... let's go back to these folks.  What "point" were they trying to honestly make here? That to me is particularly important. Because if whatever "point" they're trying to make here... if that point does not in any way require the need to represent Singh physically which would offend people... then why on earth are they doing it? 

    Hopefully I've answered your question... I'm curious and hopeful you can answer mine.  What was their point?  Why did they feel the need to physically represent Singh? 
    Thanks for your insights, they do make a lot of sense.

    I’ll do my best to answer your questions, even if I just repeat myself, lol.

    As to the point they were trying to make, I think you nailed it that Singh is (currently) Trudeau’s lapdog. As far as how to represent Singh, I honestly don’t have an answer. On the one hand I don’t have a problem with caricatures (which is sort of what I see here), but I do also (belatedly, lol) acknowledge that there is an incredibly fine balancing act when it comes to caricatures and ethnicity. Since one party was represented by the leader (which makes general sense to me, in this case Trudeau) then it’s sensible to represent the other party by its leader. I’m very uncomfortable with the idea (not necessarily put forward by you or anyone else) that party leaders of minority ethnicities are off-limits for caricature/criticism.

    As far as offending people, I really think that we’ve generally become too sensitive. Many, if not most of the comedians I grew up listening to would be considered offensive these days, in fact sometimes that was the point (Eddie Murphy springing to mind).

    What’s the solution? I really have no clue, unfortunately. I often do feel out of sync with the times I live in, lol.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    Parksy said:
    I suppose I’m a terrible person for seeing this float as a political statement and not particularly racist. How else is one supposed to represent Singh to make their point?

    Of course here in Toronto we just had the Pride parade where the celebrants talked about how inclusive they were, never mentioning the fact uniformed police are barred from marching because someone might be triggered (but it’s ok to have them on the sidelines providing security for some reason).

    Maybe the solution is to ban all political statements and displays by everyone so no one ever gets offended?
    What you're talking about I think fits the mould of a lot of issues to be honest. 

    It's narrow minded in a sense to ask "well how else is he supposed to make that point?" 

    So put yourself in the shoes of the person trying to make said point... which it seems like you're doing.  

    Analyze the point you're trying to make. Then... ask yourself if this plan could potentially offend anyone.  If the answer is yes... ask yourself if your point is worth making. 

    So... what was the point here? What was the purpose?   These folks wanted to bring public attention to the fact that Jagmeet is a Liberal lapdog.  Ok...  sure. To me it seems almost obvious when you look at what they've done in the House of Commons....  but these guys want to illustrate that further.  

    We exist in the age of social media.   How else are they supposed to point out the obvious? They could just say it.  They could post about it. They could wear a shirt that says "Jagmeet is Trudeau's puppett"   or visa versa. I could go on.  Point is... there are in fact many ways to show a point or bring light to an issue.  When one chooses an avenue that they know will offend people... there's really only one conclusion to that... it's rude. 

    So again... let's go back to these folks.  What "point" were they trying to honestly make here? That to me is particularly important. Because if whatever "point" they're trying to make here... if that point does not in any way require the need to represent Singh physically which would offend people... then why on earth are they doing it? 

    Hopefully I've answered your question... I'm curious and hopeful you can answer mine.  What was their point?  Why did they feel the need to physically represent Singh? 
    Thanks for your insights, they do make a lot of sense.

    I’ll do my best to answer your questions, even if I just repeat myself, lol.

    As to the point they were trying to make, I think you nailed it that Singh is (currently) Trudeau’s lapdog. As far as how to represent Singh, I honestly don’t have an answer. On the one hand I don’t have a problem with caricatures (which is sort of what I see here), but I do also (belatedly, lol) acknowledge that there is an incredibly fine balancing act when it comes to caricatures and ethnicity. Since one party was represented by the leader (which makes general sense to me, in this case Trudeau) then it’s sensible to represent the other party by its leader. I’m very uncomfortable with the idea (not necessarily put forward by you or anyone else) that party leaders of minority ethnicities are off-limits for caricature/criticism.

    As far as offending people, I really think that we’ve generally become too sensitive. Many, if not most of the comedians I grew up listening to would be considered offensive these days, in fact sometimes that was the point (Eddie Murphy springing to mind).

    What’s the solution? I really have no clue, unfortunately. I often do feel out of sync with the times I live in, lol.
    While I don't disagree with what you're saying.. I honestly believe you're lacking an insight... that I myself lacked when I was younger. 

    Just to point out what you've said here: 

    "I don't have a problem with caricatures." 
    "I'm uncomfortable with the idea.... .... that party leaders of minority ethnicities are off-limits."  

    The key to me here is the focus on yourself.  In situations where people are being offended... it's not about you. Being empathetic isn't necessarily yourself having to sacrifice anything is it?  In terms of being off limits... I'm not sure why race or physical appearance should in any way be a factor into any kind of criticism.  There has to be a line by which we all adhere to for the respect of people.  It's like jokes. Some people can handle them, some people can't.  Some people aren't offended by anything some people are.  

    So because some are not offended, does that mean those who are should just have to accept that?  That seems like a dooshy way of going about things.  Are jokes themselves that important that we should just not care about offending people for the laugh?  Could we not find a different way to laugh?  Know what I mean? 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,509
    I'm still on the fence about offensive comedy. Recently, I found myself of the opinion that in comedy literally nothing is off limits. Then I saw the bit of Gary Shandling telling Ricky Gervais that if he can't be funny without being offensive, he's either a bad comic or a lazy one (paraphrasing). That actually kind of hit me. 

    I think Darth balanced his perspective out with his own and that of society's. I didn't find it to be self-centered. 
    I'm through with screaming...

    Darwinspeed, folks...I'm out


  • ParksyParksy Posts: 1,559
    I'm still on the fence about offensive comedy. Recently, I found myself of the opinion that in comedy literally nothing is off limits. Then I saw the bit of Gary Shandling telling Ricky Gervais that if he can't be funny without being offensive, he's either a bad comic or a lazy one (paraphrasing). That actually kind of hit me. 

    I think Darth balanced his perspective out with his own and that of society's. I didn't find it to be self-centered. 
    The way I look at it is....  the public doesn't see comedians as having some sort of higher standard or as a sort of established group of people who are exempt.  Same with actors and musicians... 

    It's kind of like saying well...  certainly people can't walk around with guns, but police can.  We generally understand that. (In Canada at least.)   When people watch comedians... and comedians get a laugh out of something relatively offensive... it translates into other people thinking that it's acceptable in public or at school, etc.  Perhaps if the people overall understood that comedians were just trying to get laughs... and that it's not acceptable other than on stage... even then I would skeptical but we're certainly not near that point. 

    And I say this... without knowing for sure... that Hugh and Darth are potentially white men.  So sure it makes sense for us to not be offended by anything... we've always been to some degree in a position of superiority.   It's like the Black Lives Matter versus All Live Matters.  Why the All Lives Matter crew is offensive to the Black Lives Matter crew is because one of those groups of people have suffered blatant racism and inequality whereas the other has not. 

    I've always found it odd that a lot of people choose what offends and what doesn't.  Like that scene from the greatest movie of all time... Road House...  "So.. what if someone calls my momma a whore?"   As a means to justify violence. He's basically outlining a circumstance that would offend him so egregiously that he will punch a man in the face essentially.  Well.. if he himself has a circumstance that would offend him,  how can he then turn around and dictate what would offend someone else?  This goes back to what Darth was saying...  so much seems to reflect what an individual thinks.  "I don't think that's offensive, therefore it shouldn't be offensive to anyone."   That just doesn't make sense to me other than people showing a lack of empathy. 

    The Will Smith thing is a good example. While it ended up being a lesson on tolerance and why and when not to slap a man in the face... it would have been a non-issue if Chris Rock just didn't mock Jada. Would a world without Jada Pinkett Smith jokes be such a bad thing??  So now we debate "She can't handle a joke."  Well... me personally I have a limit to what I will accept in terms of insults, etc. and if one were to say the wrong the thing to me... I'll likely get quite upset.   I want to believe that most people do. Is that my fault for getting upset or should the person just not say those things?   So any jokes or roasts at someone else's expense without their consent should generally be considered off limits.   With that in mind... and hopefully illustrates the point I'm trying to make....  if Chris Rock was the kind of person who can certainly handle a joke, or criticism, or a roast... that doesn't mean he gets to deem what's acceptable for other people. 
    Toronto 2000
    Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
    Boston I&II 2004
    Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
    Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
    Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
    Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
    Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
    Toronto I&II 2011
    Buffalo 2013
    Toronto I&II 2016
    10C: 220xxx
Sign In or Register to comment.