Canadian Politics Redux

Parksy

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

nice. 

https://twitter.com/airdronian/status/1540804917148798977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540804917148798977%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcalgary%2Fsundre-rodeo-racist-parade-float-backlash-liberals-1.6502224

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

nice. 

https://twitter.com/airdronian/status/1540804917148798977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540804917148798977%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fcalgary%2Fsundre-rodeo-racist-parade-float-backlash-liberals-1.6502224

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." 

HughFreakingDillon

I have some relatives in Alberta who would absolutely be this woman. 

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

HughFreakingDillon

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". 

DarthMaeglin

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?

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin 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?

would it be ok in your eyes to use blackface as a political statement against obama?

Parksy

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) 

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin 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?

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?

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin 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?

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?

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin 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?

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. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin 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?

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.

HughFreakingDillon

of course you didn't call me a liar. lol. that wouldn't be you. 

Parksy

DarthMaeglin 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? 

DarthMaeglin

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin 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.

Parksy

DarthMaeglin said:

Parksy said:

DarthMaeglin 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? 

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

Parksy

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.