Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Classical Liberal Rex Murphy Rips the Green Party to Shreds


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Rex Murphy is one of Canada's most well-respected ivy-league commentators. Many see him as a east coast liberal, but he's also a economic and political pragmatist. He just wrote a piece in the Nationa

People of Canada are in fact partially responsible for where we are now and the reason is very simple and clear APATHY , We as Canadians believe that the moment we exit the voting station on election

I absolutely agree, but stupid and non-viable solutions should be rejected.   There ARE success stories around the world.  Solar panels work a lot better in places like Arizona, and wind-turbines

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Huh?  That's actually humour.  You can't picture a shape shifting Rex Murphy and NOT LAUGH.

He is a Draco. I know many personally, Celine, Harry and Meaghan, Nancy Pelosi, Kim Kardashian,  Phil, Liz, Chuck and Willy Windsor, Sophie Trudeau, you, and of course, Brad Pitt. DUH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 10:30 PM, Rue said:

Yah he did but that does  not mean a damn thing. The difference between provincial and federal political parties of the same name or parties of the same name in  different provinces is there for anyone to see.

Further the use of the name Liberal or Conservative for political parties does not make those parties liberal or conservative the position of their policies might. Come on. Murphy is like anyone else, a mix of many ideologies. 

In each province it probably means a slightly different thing. Clyde Wells’ Liberals were centrists by Canadian standards on most matters, if anything a little to the left given the economic realities of the province. Over the decades, I have seen Murphy’s views move to the right and his tone take on a much darker hue in the National Post. There’s not much of a mix to his ideologies now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In each province it probably means a slightly different thing. Clyde Wells’ Liberals were centrists by Canadian standards on most matters, if anything a little to the left given the economic realities of the province. Over the decades, I have seen Murphy’s views move to the right and his tone take on a much darker hue in the National Post. There’s not much of a mix to his ideologies now. 

Yah fair is fair. He is fixed right now in a dark space. Some people get bitter as they age. Drinking a lot will do it to you as well. I suspect both in this case. I do not mean to judge. I am a grouchy old fart. I just sense that darkness too and speculate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rue said:

Yah fair is fair. He is fixed right now in a dark space. Some people get bitter as they age. Drinking a lot will do it to you as well. I suspect both in this case. I do not mean to judge. I am a grouchy old fart. I just sense that darkness too and speculate. 

Sobriety can have that effect too. Too much blood in the alcohol system is not for every writer. Regarding age-related effects, political columnists should be given a choice of retirement at 65 or an entirely different subject to cover. A lot of them go off and end up repeating themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 8:39 PM, Michael Hardner said:

7) 8) I don't know what to make of this.  Are you saying because there's a culture war it doesn't matter ?  There's no mainstream ?  You making fun of academics is fair game ?  If so then fine.

9) True.  It's a reflection of him, though, and his inherent clownishness.  The 'generalization' I make about them is that they follow a clown.  He's worthy of disdain and therefore they are too, or maybe pity.

10) Crap.  You already said "it doesn't matter".  He has joined the culture war and therefore he isn't helping at all.  Take me for example, I was willing to listen to him at the beginning because this ridiculous culture war has to end.  Now he's part of it.

 

In short, you are either for the culture war or against it.  You sound like you're for it and Peterson is a good guy because he's going to help you win it.  Here's the news: nobody is going to win it.

Didn't check this over the long weekend...oops. 

I already mentioned "mainstream" wasn't a great choice of words.  While I'd agree with you that Peterson doesn't have "mainstream" support, I'd also argue that his opponents are almost just as far from the mainstream as he is.  If there's any "mainstream" in the "culture-war" as you call it, it's the intellectual path of least resistance.  By that I mean that most people want to avoid confrontation and will do what they can do to not ruffle feathers.  When a teacher or someone posts a link to a Toronto Star article lamenting how they have to buy craft supplies for their Kindergarten class, or how Doug Ford didn't want to attend the Pride Parade, woe unto anyone who brings up an alternative viewpoint.  What you end up with is a vocal left proudly proclaiming their ideology, fighting against only the most absurd idiots on the right who feel it's worth jumping into the mud to get skewered.  The middle ground and even the mildly-right stay far away.  Those poor naive souls who do try to pipe up innocently are sent back with their tails between their legs (and maybe onto 4dchan or some other troll site).   

Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in North American universities, except here it's formally institutionalized and given money and authority.  It's easy to dismiss Lindsay Shepherd's case as one of "mishandling" by the school, but she's far from the only embarrassing example we've seen in recent years.  I'll go through a list if you need me to. 

The real mistake is to assume that mainstream academic thinking is the actual mainstream - and this thinking has led to unfortunate consequences.  The combination of the politicization of research funding with overt censorship on campuses has raised fair criticism of echo-chamber thinking and this is the last place we want that to be happening.  Much of the criticism for academia is well-deserved, though I think it's worth noting that even at WLU a faculty petition to protect free speech was signed by around 50% of members (IIRC).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Moonbox said:

 1) While I'd agree with you that Peterson doesn't have "mainstream" support, I'd also argue that his opponents are almost just as far from the mainstream as he is. 

2) If there's any "mainstream" in the "culture-war" as you call it, it's the intellectual path of least resistance.  By that I mean that most people want to avoid confrontation and will do what they can do to not ruffle feathers.  When a teacher or someone posts a link to a Toronto Star article lamenting how they have to buy craft supplies for their Kindergarten class, or how Doug Ford didn't want to attend the Pride Parade, woe unto anyone who brings up an alternative viewpoint. 

3) What you end up with is a vocal left proudly proclaiming their ideology, fighting against only the most absurd idiots on the right who feel it's worth jumping into the mud to get skewered.  The middle ground and even the mildly-right stay far away.  Those poor naive souls who do try to pipe up innocently are sent back with their tails between their legs (and maybe onto 4dchan or some other troll site).   

4) Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in North American universities, except here it's formally institutionalized and given money and authority.  It's easy to dismiss Lindsay Shepherd's case as one of "mishandling" by the school, but she's far from the only embarrassing example we've seen in recent years.  I'll go through a list if you need me to. 

5) The real mistake is to assume that mainstream academic thinking is the actual mainstream - and this thinking has led to unfortunate consequences.  The combination of the politicization of research funding with overt censorship on campuses has raised fair criticism of echo-chamber thinking and this is the last place we want that to be happening.  Much of the criticism for academia is well-deserved, though I think it's worth noting that even at WLU a faculty petition to protect free speech was signed by around 50% of members (IIRC).  

1) I don't know who is opponents are, but there is a wide discussion of rights that should be had not just with 'opponents' but people who can be respected by the full spectrum of participants in that discussion.
2) Right.  But if you don't care if the other side is respected or treated fairly then they won't care if you are either.  That's why it's called a war.
3) Then come up with ways to keep the idiots out of the debate.   
4) Then come up with a way to fix it.  Culture wars will create enclaves such as universities as they are far behind enemy lines.  "Fixing" the universities isn't something people will be interested in, if the fix comes from the enemy.
5) Peterson is/was an academic so clearly the spectrum of opinions is represented in universities.

The discussion we are having is now about us pointing out obvious touchpoints in the culture war and probably isn't informative for either of us.  I suggest that people suggest fixes for their own sides, not the other one.  The fix for my side was going to be Jordan Peterson until he became a podcast star and self-help guru.

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

1) I don't know who is opponents are, but there is a wide discussion of rights that should be had not just with 'opponents' but people who can be respected by the full spectrum of participants in that discussion.
2) Right.  But if you don't care if the other side is respected or treated fairly then they won't care if you are either.  That's why it's called a war.
3) Then come up with ways to keep the idiots out of the debate.   
4) Then come up with a way to fix it.  Culture wars will create enclaves such as universities as they are far behind enemy lines.  "Fixing" the universities isn't something people will be interested in, if the fix comes from the enemy.
5) Peterson is/was an academic so clearly the spectrum of opinions is represented in universities.

The discussion we are having is now about us pointing out obvious touchpoints in the culture war and probably isn't informative for either of us.  I suggest that people suggest fixes for their own sides, not the other one.  The fix for my side was going to be Jordan Peterson until he became a podcast star and self-help guru.

I think you're missing the point entirely.  The universities-as-enclaves are not a product of the "culture-war".  They're one of the primary causes.  This is a deeply entrenched, reinforcing feedback loop of academia informing policy makers, who in turn (consulting with peer-reviews) are responsible for funding grants.  The funding grants are often what determine the longevity of a researcher, and there's a strong survivorship bias on those promoting the prevailing thinking.  The research being done, and thus the research being consulted by policy makers, therefore ends up being tilted in one direction.  The curriculum also reflects that.  

It's profoundly naive  to suggest that change is likely going to come organically from within this sort of system.  The insular nature of these institutions is obvious when we see the extent to which they're going to stifle and censor alternative viewpoints (however mild), both from their students and their faculty.  

The fact that Peterson is an academic doesn't prove the "spectrum" is represented.  That's extremely disingenuous.  He's a singular example and it's not a stretch to say he was punished for going against the grain.  Not only that, but his being an outlier and his subsequent notoriety have subjected him to the sort of scrutiny that his multitude of faceless critics never have to worry about.  It doesn't even matter what he says anymore.  

What's the solution? I don't know, maybe you can tell me? I'd argue that the system is fundamentally broken and close-minded, and that much of the federal funding being granted to social sciences is of dubious merit.  The natural progression of where this goes is to see the apparatus slowly torn down from outside by hostile book-burning policy makers, and the funding void will get filled with corporate/foreign entities (if at all).  

I don't like this solution, but it doesn't seem like there are a lot of folks grabbing the banner that JP left on the ground when he "sold out".  It's not like academia is showing a lot of perspective, humility or introspection when subjected to criticism.  The fact that you somehow felt it was okay to call JP supporters incels but then rankled at my comment of tweed suits (of all things) is, I think, indicative of the challenge people face with actually getting through.  

  • Like 1
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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...