Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Neil Austen

Scheer says he'd scrutinize CBC's work for Canadian emphasis if he becomes PM

Recommended Posts

You have got to be kidding! This guy is dangerous. "Scrutinize" means control. It is important to have the CBC because it is funded by the people for the people. While private media have their purse strings held by the rich or corporations. 
This is an important reason never to vote for a Conservative party. Just look at how Trump attacks the press in America. There is nothing as uneducated and undemocratic as to call the Free Press an enemy of the people. I still remember when Conservative Harper was touring northern Canada, Harper intimidated and coerced the press to such a degree that no Canadian journalist dared ask him any question of real merit. The Canadian journalists were so cowed that they got together, approached a visiting Chinese reporter, and implored him to ask a real question of Harper for them. Isn't that insane! Naturally Harper got his goon squad to eject the Chinese reporter before he got to ask it, so Canadians only got to read about how great the false Economic Action Plan is going. Not to mention, Harper had CSIS monitor and spy on reporters. Such a disgrace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil Austen said:

You have got to be kidding! This guy is dangerous. "Scrutinize" means control. It is important to have the CBC because it is funded by the people for the people. While private media have their purse strings held by the rich or corporations.

Sometimes on the weekends, I turn on the CBC and CTV all news channels as I eat my breakfast. They can go through their entire 15 minute news segment without any Canadian news being featured, or perhaps there'll be one or two minutes of that devoted to Canadian news. The rest is cheaply purchased video and reporting from the US networks on US storms, US crime, US politics, etc. Why are we so heavily subsidizing this network to simply rebroadcast American news?

In reality, what a conservative government ought to do is stop subsidizing them entirely, and put the CBC up for sale. It's a horribly inefficient organization which serves mainly as a job creation scheme for otherwise unemployable progressive activists.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC is gone so far down hill in recent years.  

I used to think the radio was decent, but if you listen to Rita Celli in Ontario, you swear it  was just a Liberal Party mouth piece.

I used to think the "National" and "On the Money" were decent non-partisan programming...  On the Money was cancelled and with the retirement of Peter Mansbridge and promotion of Rosemary Barton, It has gone down hill fast.   The rest seem fine though, but she has made me stop recording it.

That and like Angus stated,  It is what did Trump / republicans do today network.  I could care less...  The Abortion issue in the US....  Not more of a concern to  me than it is in other countries I do not live in.  I guess it may create more fear of CPC...  Otherwise, it should be pushing Canadian News!  Canadian who want US news can Watch Fox, CNN MSNBC for there US fill....    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Scheer, and his desire to use the CBC to push his values concerns me, but let's put things in perspective.

 

The Trudeau party has just implemented a $600 million payoff to the supposedly independent private media, in addition to a payoff to the CBC by increasing their funding by $150 million every year on their over $1 billion annual budget. On their supposedly independent panel, which will allocate the funding, they have appointed unifor, which is actively campaigning against the CPC.

image.thumb.png.0c0aa2ae0106956f655f5b90386a8789.png 

 

Trudeau has decided to give every journalist a $14,000 after tax incentive per year for 'independent' journalists to ensure he gets re-elected. And he's implementing it in an election year. This is an affront to democracy. Separation of media and state is essential to a democracy!

 

In addition, Trudeau's party is pushing through their internet 'charter' in which they will try to ban, or push social media companies to ban, anything they deem to be 'fake news'.

 

This is very concerning, and arguably should be the #1 issue this election.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Neil Austen said:

You have got to be kidding! This guy is dangerous. "Scrutinize" means control. It is important to have the CBC because it is funded by the people for the people. While private media have their purse strings held by the rich or corporations. 
This is an important reason never to vote for a Conservative party. Just look at how Trump attacks the press in America. There is nothing as uneducated and undemocratic as to call the Free Press an enemy of the people. I still remember when Conservative Harper was touring northern Canada, Harper intimidated and coerced the press to such a degree that no Canadian journalist dared ask him any question of real merit. The Canadian journalists were so cowed that they got together, approached a visiting Chinese reporter, and implored him to ask a real question of Harper for them. Isn't that insane! Naturally Harper got his goon squad to eject the Chinese reporter before he got to ask it, so Canadians only got to read about how great the false Economic Action Plan is going. Not to mention, Harper had CSIS monitor and spy on reporters. Such a disgrace.

Maybe if the leftist liberal fake news media would stop telling lies, and tell the real truth for a change people like Trump and Harper would not attack them so much. If the media is going to show bias and even hatred all the time against some politicians that they do not like, well then, what else do they expect? The media should be there to report the news and not report and promote their biases. 

And do not think that your prime mistake of Canada Trudeau is any better than Harper or Trump and that Trudeau does not do the same thing to someone from the alternative media who asks Trudeau a hard question. Trudeau does not like the alternative media asking him questions because they ask him real hard questions which he refuses to answer. The alternative media does not kiss his leftist liberal ass and he does not like that. 

This is an important reason as to why no one should ever vote for an NDP socialist or leftist liberal party. They both truly do not believe in freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I'm no fan of Scheer, and his desire to use the CBC to push his values concerns me, but let's put things in perspective.

 

The Trudeau party has just implemented a $600 million payoff to the supposedly independent private media, in addition to a payoff to the CBC by increasing their funding by $150 million every year on their over $1 billion annual budget. On their supposedly independent panel, which will allocate the funding, they have appointed unifor, which is actively campaigning against the CPC.

image.thumb.png.0c0aa2ae0106956f655f5b90386a8789.png 

 

Trudeau has decided to give every journalist a $14,000 after tax incentive per year for 'independent' journalists to ensure he gets re-elected. And he's implementing it in an election year. This is an affront to democracy. Separation of media and state is essential to a democracy!

 

In addition, Trudeau's party is pushing through their internet 'charter' in which they will try to ban, or push social media companies to ban, anything they deem to be 'fake news'.

 

This is very concerning, and arguably should be the #1 issue this election.

They do look like a fine bunch of Stalinist communist supporters, don't they? Communists do not know how to smile. They just like to look dumb and stupid. Those people in that picture scare the hell out of me. What some leftist liberal journalists won't do to keep their crummy suck hole jobs. They prefer to sell Canada down the drain to a liberal dictator rather than make Canada great and wealthy and free. I am surprised that the CBC has not changed it's name to CPC(Canadian Pravda Corporation)and be done with it. In the leftist liberal media there is no love for democracy in Canada. They only want to see communist tyranny and dictatorship for Canada and that is what we have today in Canada. Politically correct tyranny. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if Scheer (or Harper for that matter) had any balls, they would have run (or done) on the basis of shutting off the public taps to the CBC, not giving them hundreds of millions "to preserve the reporter's independence" (cough, choke, hack!!) on top of the annual $1.7 Bn.  Why is it that CTV, Global, etc. can run their business or add revenue, when CBC has the same amount of revenue slots but needs to drain the public purse to do nothing but be the propaganda tool for the PCLL???

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, cannuck said:

Look, if Scheer (or Harper for that matter) had any balls, they would have run (or done) on the basis of shutting off the public taps to the CBC, not giving them hundreds of millions "to preserve the reporter's independence" (cough, choke, hack!!) on top of the annual $1.7 Bn.  Why is it that CTV, Global, etc. can run their business or add revenue, when CBC has the same amount of revenue slots but needs to drain the public purse to do nothing but be the propaganda tool for the PCLL???

Well, from what I read, when CTV or Global shows up to cover a story there's usually one reporter and one cameraman. When CBC does it there's a producer, sound man, cameraman, editorial director, makeup artist, lighting technician, cameraman, and reporter. At a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 7:18 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

1) I'm no fan of Scheer, and his desire to use the CBC to push his values concerns me, but let's put things in perspective.

2) The Trudeau party has just implemented a $600 million payoff to the supposedly independent private media, in addition to a payoff to the CBC by increasing their funding by $150 million every year on their over $1 billion annual budget.

3) On their supposedly independent panel, which will allocate the funding, they have appointed unifor, which is actively campaigning against the CPC.

4) Separation of media and state is essential to a democracy!

5) In addition, Trudeau's party is pushing through their internet 'charter' in which they will try to ban, or push social media companies to ban, anything they deem to be 'fake news'.

6) This is very concerning, and arguably should be the #1 issue this election.

1) Agreed.  He's awful and should be trouncing Trudeau at this point.  And I don't trust him with the CBC.

2) The Globe & Mail promptly said 'thank you' for their 'payoff' by dropping a bomb called SNC Lavalin which put Trudeau in 2nd place and holding.  So there is such a thing as professional pride, it seems.

3) Yes, this is a bad idea.  But then again they have Corporations too.  But... the panel itself is a dumb idea.

4) Also true.  But you need media and you need good media.

5) This is a good idea as too many idiots are getting their ideas from fake memes.  We have populist idiots rising to the top because they harness the zombies who never vote early in the process.  Arguably, the situation could lead to smart outsiders coming in with fresh ideas.  Instead, we are getting worse politicians than we had 20 years ago even... 

6) Agreed, but something does need to be done to prop up traditional media without rewarding them for the utter failures they have been so far.  They are good journalists just bad business people.  Maybe reward them for readership - like government matching of subscriptions or something so they can concentrate on journalism.  I'm not sure though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) The Globe & Mail promptly said 'thank you' for their 'payoff' by dropping a bomb called SNC Lavalin which put Trudeau in 2nd place and holding.  So there is such a thing as professional pride, it seems.

It doesn't matter. The incentive structure that currently exists, where media organizations have a strong financial incentive to get one party elected over another, is too dangerous and needs to be destroyed.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) This is a good idea as too many idiots are getting their ideas from fake memes.  We have populist idiots rising to the top because they harness the zombies who never vote early in the process.  Arguably, the situation could lead to smart outsiders coming in with fresh ideas.  Instead, we are getting worse politicians than we had 20 years ago even..

The best way to counter fake news is with counter arguments and facts. One can do this by having a free market of ideas, where multiple media organizations compete with each other. That is far less dangerous than have the government determine what is the "real" news, and what is the "fake" news.

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6) Maybe reward them for readership - like government matching of subscriptions or something so they can concentrate on journalism.  I'm not sure though. 

No, we need separation of media and state. If the government starts determining, what counts as "real" journalism and then starts subsidizing it, or banning news it views as undesirable, that is far more dangerous for society. Especially if parties in power start viewing news that is favourable to them as the "real" news.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1) It doesn't matter. The incentive structure that currently exists, where media organizations have a strong financial incentive to get one party elected over another, is too dangerous and needs to be destroyed.

2) The best way to counter fake news is with counter arguments and facts. One can do this by having a free market of ideas, where multiple media organizations compete with each other. That is far less dangerous than have the government determine what is the "real" news, and what is the "fake" news.

3) No, we need separation of media and state. If the government starts determining, what counts as "real" journalism and then starts subsidizing it, or banning news it views as undesirable, that is far more dangerous for society. Especially if parties in power start viewing news that is favourable to them as the "real" news.

1) Not destroyed but redesigned.

2) I used to think that, but it's not working.  Paid agents take advantage of ignorant people and leverage them to get a stake in the democratic process.  Any market is like a garden, it has to be tended to.  

3) Power doesn't just reside in the state.  Powerful entities are skewing our democracy and 'marketplace of ideas' isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Argus said:

Well, from what I read, when CTV or Global shows up to cover a story there's usually one reporter and one cameraman. When CBC does it there's a producer, sound man, cameraman, editorial director, makeup artist, lighting technician, cameraman, and reporter. At a minimum.

Yeah...my life long best bud was a CBC camerman and later producer for his career.   Heard some incredible stories about how much they spend to do things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) I used to think that, but it's not working.  Paid agents take advantage of ignorant people and leverage them to get a stake in the democratic process.  Any market is like a garden, it has to be tended to. 

The analogy of a market being a garden is a bad one. Firstly, why does the tending need to be done by the government, as opposed to individuals? If we go with this analogy, then the government needs to tend to everyone's garden in every house across the country! Sort of like how the Soviets created the mass famine of Holomodor.

image.png.adcc8574d3a14685ebc67f359605a291.png

Secondly, government intervention isn't always justified for all markets. There needs to be an identified market failure, such as externalities, a public or common good, imperfect information, lack of competition, etc.

Thirdly, having bad ideas compete with good ideas for the support of the "ignorant people" is far preferable than having a government decide which views it views as in need of weeding out and which views it as the preferable views that the "ignorant people" need to follow.

 

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Power doesn't just reside in the state.  Powerful entities are skewing our democracy and 'marketplace of ideas' isn't working.

Firstly, we don't have a proper market place of ideas, due to all the restrictions being imposed on it by various governments around the world. Secondly, the market place of ideas works far better and is far less dangerous, than any government controlled environment of speech, be it Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1) The analogy of a market being a garden is a bad one. Firstly, why does the tending need to be done by the government, as opposed to individuals?

2) If we go with this analogy, then the government needs to tend to everyone's garden in every house across the country! Sort of like how the Soviets created the mass famine of Holomodor.

image.png.adcc8574d3a14685ebc67f359605a291.png

3) Secondly, government intervention isn't always justified for all markets.

4) There needs to be an identified market failure, such as externalities, a public or common good, imperfect information, lack of competition, etc.

5) Thirdly, having bad ideas compete with good ideas for the support of the "ignorant people" is far preferable than having a government decide which views it views as in need of weeding out and which views it as the preferable views that the "ignorant people" need to follow.

6) Firstly, we don't have a proper market place of ideas,

7) due to all the restrictions being imposed on it by various governments around the world.

8) Secondly, the market place of ideas works far better and is far less dangerous, than any government controlled environment of speech, be it Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I almost forgot about this post.

1) I like the analogy.  In it, a single gardener represents what the government does, or tries to do.  There are good gardeners and bad ones.  And some who are generally bad but good overall.  In the end it's hard to tell but you do like some gardens and not others.

2) No.  You have changed the analogy.  The garden really grows on its own but the gardener helps it.  The gardener doesn't "grow" the vegetables in fact.  They just need water and sunlight.

3) So by using the qualifying phrase "isn't always justified" you imply that it's sometimes justified and are buying into the analogy of the gardener.

4) Now we're talking about the gardener's skillset, knowledge and biases.  Yes, I agree.  And even conventional wisdom can be wrong.  Canadian Banks were too "conservative" then 2008 happened.

5) Generally, yes but there are some ideas that are poison... such as "so-and-such group is not human and can't be trusted" Dehumanization is a non-starter and anybody who engages in it should be given a time out.

6) Isn't that an argument FOR collective action ?

7) I think we can only limit collective action to the sphere of legislative influence, ie. Canada for most of us on the board

8) Yeah, you picked some bad gardeners there.   Do you really think it's apt to compare Canada to a country where you will be disappeared for disagreeing with the supreme leader ?  It's not a slippery slope.  We are a country that prints 'DO NOT EAT' on packs of silica gel and yet we expect this same gel eaters to digest what they can of the TPP and vote knowledgably on it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Scheer has no balls, just kill the CBC altogether.

Pretty unpopular suggestion.  I don't think you understand how politics works.  You have to do things people want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty unpopular suggestion.  I don't think you understand how politics works.  You have to do things people want.

Nope just kill the CBC, take the hit, f*ck popularity, slaughter that lefty sacred cow. The conservatives being liberal lite does not help them, if they want to win more elections in the future, killing the CBC would certainly help. Why they would support a propaganda outfit who blatantly supports their opposition, instead of killing it, makes no sense. Just shows Scheer is a lightweight with no balls.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Nope just kill the CBC, take the hit, f*ck popularity, slaughter that lefty sacred cow.

2. The conservatives being liberal lite does not help them, if they want to win more elections in the future, killing the CBC would certainly help.

3. Why they would support a propaganda outfit who blatantly supports their opposition, instead of killing it, makes no sense.

4. Just shows Scheer is a lightweight with no balls.

1. Like I say, you don't really get what politicians do. "Populists".  Think about it.

2. About 1 Canadian in 6 wants to reduce funding.  The backlash could make it worse.

3. The CBC isn't anywhere near as biased as that.  And Conservatives love The Rebel, so that says a lot about their thirst for objectivity.  Most Canadians aren't 'true believers' like that.

4. I really want Conservatives to keep nominating ballsy losers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Like I say, you don't really get what politicians do. "Populists".  Think about it.

2. About 1 Canadian in 6 wants to reduce funding.  The backlash could make it worse.

3. The CBC isn't anywhere near as biased as that.  And Conservatives love The Rebel, so that says a lot about their thirst for objectivity.  Most Canadians aren't 'true believers' like that.

4. I really want Conservatives to keep nominating ballsy losers.

 

The CBC is supremely biased, whether you or they can see it, or not. They like to front like they are unbiased, but that is obvious bullsh*t.

Just kill the CBC, sell it off it's assets, and suffer the short term backlash, the long term gains will be more than worth it. Government owned media is asinine on the face of it, pure propaganda is all it is.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. The CBC is supremely biased, whether you or they can see it, or not. They like to front like they are unbiased, but that is obvious bullsh*t.

2. Just kill the CBC,

3. sell it off it's assets, and

4. suffer the short term backlash,

5. the long term gains will be more than worth it.

6. Government owned media is asinine on the face of it,

7. pure propaganda is all it is.

1. Whatever.  Do you like The Rebel or not ?  If so, then why do you care about the CBC's slight bias ?  I don't read Mother Jones or NOW for news either.

2. 3. 4. 5. No.

6. I think almost every G8 country has a government broadcaster.

7. The Rebel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Whatever.  Do you like The Rebel or not ?  If so, then why do you care about the CBC's slight bias ?  I don't read Mother Jones or NOW for news either.

2. 3. 4. 5. No.

6. I think almost every G8 country has a government broadcaster.

7. The Rebel. 

The Rebel is not state run media, the CBC is, apples and oranges. There is zero reason to prop up state run propaganda with taxpayer money, The Rebel is not propped up with taxpayer money, the CBC is, their bias is much more relevant as a result.

Other countries having a government broadcaster is not a good reason for Canada to have one. State run propaganda is not something to be celebrated, it is something to be mocked and ridiculed. All the other government broadcasters are proof positive that you can't have one without extreme bias, not a single example of good journalism in the bunch.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The garden analogy is silly and ridiculous, thus my comparison of it to Holomodor. If you can't make an argument without some nonsense garden analogy then maybe that means you don't have a good reason to justify your position.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) So by using the qualifying phrase "isn't always justified" you imply that it's sometimes justified and are buying into the analogy of the gardener.

4) Now we're talking about the gardener's skillset, knowledge and biases.  Yes, I agree.  And even conventional wisdom can be wrong.  Canadian Banks were too "conservative" then 2008 happened.

No, what I stated is the classical/standard argument by economists supporting government intervention in some cases. It has nothing to do with your garden analogy.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) Generally, yes but there are some ideas that are poison... such as "so-and-such group is not human and can't be trusted" Dehumanization is a non-starter and anybody who engages in it should be given a time out.

If someone wants to argue that I'm a subterranean non-human lizard person then the best way to deal with that is by letting them make their case, and then refuting it with argument.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6) Isn't that an argument FOR collective action ?

No.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

7) I think we can only limit collective action to the sphere of legislative influence, ie. Canada for most of us on the board

Governments imposing too many restrictions on the free market place of ideas also includes Canada, especially as we do not have constitutionally protected free speech.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

8) Yeah, you picked some bad gardeners there.   Do you really think it's apt to compare Canada to a country where you will be disappeared for disagreeing with the supreme leader ?  It's not a slippery slope.  We are a country that prints 'DO NOT EAT' on packs of silica gel and yet we expect this same gel eaters to digest what they can of the TPP and vote knowledgably on it.

And you want to move closer to these "gardeners" by having the government ban speech it deems "unacceptable".

 

Putin's Russia recently passed laws that prohibit citizens for spreading "fake news" or making comments that are too "insulting" or "hateful" to the state, politicians, or Russian society. It's being used to crackdown on political dissidents.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1. The garden analogy is silly and ridiculous, thus my comparison of it to Holomodor. If you can't make an argument without some nonsense garden analogy then maybe that means you don't have a good reason to justify your position.

2. No, what I stated is the classical/standard argument by economists supporting government intervention in some cases. It has nothing to do with your garden analogy.

3. If someone wants to argue that I'm a subterranean non-human lizard person then the best way to deal with that is by letting them make their case, and then refuting it with argument.

4. No.

5. Governments imposing too many restrictions on the free market place of ideas also includes Canada, especially as we do not have constitutionally protected free speech.

6. And you want to move closer to these "gardeners" by having the government ban speech it deems "unacceptable".

7. Putin's Russia recently passed laws that prohibit citizens for spreading "fake news" or making comments that are too "insulting" or "hateful" to the state, politicians, or Russian society. It's being used to crackdown on political dissidents.

1. The Garden analogy is ridiculous because ?  Because it just is, I guess you're saying.  And yet I addressed your points above.  Also - The Holomodor reference was like a reverse Godwin.  We're talking about the government's role in economics and you just drop an atrocity into the mix.  Strange.

2. So ?  What's the problem with my analogy then ?  You seem irrationally offended by it.  How can you not say government intervention is like tending a garden. ? 

3. Well, I guess I agree with you but not if someone says "this group is subhuman and shouldn't be treated as human".  If you haven't been paying attention, someone is paying people to post that all over facebook.  And people respond positively to it.  The "bad ideas" die idea has died.

4. Why not ?  We don't have a proper market place of ideas.  I agree.  People are shitposting horrible ideas everywhere and good ideas aren't being discussed.  Maybe government can't fix it.  But it's not a horrible idea either.  Do you want Facebook to fix it ?

5. Horseshit and hyperbole.  You overstate the role of government.  Garbage ideas and misinformation are perpetuating and government has no role in that.  There's your free market.  Again - do you want Facebook to decide what truth to allow out there ?

6. Not really.  I want it to act against paid organizations who are gaming the legal definition of hate speech and propagating it on social media.  I don't care if people want to lie about global warming (and those same paid agents do plenty of that) but encouraging murder is maybe not a great industry to get a foothold.    Of course you will say that paid foreign agents posting lies about Muslims in Canada having an agenda to murder Christians is "free speech" and if we ban those paid agents then - my GOD - we're like North Korea.  Did I capture your position accurately there ?  

7. And they love coming here to sow dissent and provoke murder.  Have you figured out who the enemy is yet ?  It's not the Liberal party trying to stop these goons from provoking murder.  And they do - in Synagogues and Mosques everywhere.  Just like ISIS propaganda, they push marginal people to kill.  But of course you are afraid that you may be called out for using the n-word on Facebook.  God forbid your precious rights should be called into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBC is the king of garbage ideas of misinformation, government involvement does not lead to a more informed populace at all, it just leads to a more brainwashed populace. The government should not be involved in the market at all, kill the CBC.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The Garden analogy is ridiculous because ?  Because it just is, I guess you're saying.  And yet I addressed your points above.  Also - The Holomodor reference was like a reverse Godwin.  We're talking about the government's role in economics and you just drop an atrocity into the mix.  Strange.

2. So ?  What's the problem with my analogy then ?  You seem irrationally offended by it.  How can you not say government intervention is like tending a garden. ?

You are reversing the burden of proof, you are the one claiming that "a market is like a garden", I'm claiming it's not (at least not in all cases).

I could just as easily argue that the government needing to manage all markets, because "a market is like a garden", implies that the government should manage everyone's garden, be it their back yard or a farm, and tell people what to grow, what they can't plant and how to distribute the food. Such central planing has been repeated in many societies and leads to food shortages and famine, most recently in Venezuela. The reason I bring this up, is because I'm trying to use a reducio ad absurdum argument to get you to throw out this analogy and instead try to argue government intervention in the media on its merits.

Why don't we throw out the analogy and just discuss whether government intervention is good for a particular market in a case by case bases? I would argue that the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics justifies no government intervention in some cases, but Arthur Pigou's famous 1920 paper "The Economics of Welfare" justified imposing pigouvian taxes and subsidies in some markets to correct for negative and positive externalities.

 

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Why not ?  We don't have a proper market place of ideas.  I agree.  People are shitposting horrible ideas everywhere and good ideas aren't being discussed.  Maybe government can't fix it.  But it's not a horrible idea either.  Do you want Facebook to fix it.

In a free market, bad ideas should be able to compete with good ideas. There are millions of people discussing all sorts of ideas, I don't see how you can say/imply that no good ideas are being discussed anywhere.

On the facebook think, it appears that Trudeau is threatening facebook to get them to censor speech he doesn't like. This is very concerning.

 

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Horseshit and hyperbole.  You overstate the role of government.  Garbage ideas and misinformation are perpetuating and government has no role in that.  There's your free market.  Again - do you want Facebook to decide what truth to allow out there ?

One of the cases where government intervention can be justified is in the case of lack of competition in a market place. I am very supportive of competition laws, and I would argue that they should apply to large social media companies.

 

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. but encouraging murder is maybe not a great industry to get a foothold.

Encouraging murder is already conspiracy to commit a crime. That's illegal with out needing to resort to hate speech laws, even in the USA with its first amendment.

 

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. But of course you are afraid that you may be called out for using the n-word on Facebook.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...