Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's useless in the sense that a nation could have $200 trillion in GDP but if it's all in the local sex trade, and no foreigners engage in that activity [brining in their money] then that nation won't be contributing anything to the global economy and they won't be able to convince South Koreans to send them any cars. If that nation exports $10B worth of goods and brings in another $10B for tourism then they will have some leverage to bring in commodities from foreign countries. 

Much in the same way, you and your family could work all 40 hrs a week cleaning and renovating your house and fixing your cars and doing personal grooming, that doesn't convince the Hyundai dealership to give you a car. You'll need to be taking part in the local economy to provide something of worth in order to get money. 

There's a big difference between jobs in mining, agriculture, forestry, oil & gas industries, etc, compared to nail technicians, teachers, policemen, hairdressers, etc. 

Except you're wrong.  I understand what you're saying, and in the most basic sense you sort of have a point, but the idea that "stuff" is the only useful part of the economy is completely false.  Mining and natural resource extraction counts for 8.21% of GDP, and agriculture less than 2%.  It's not that they're not important, but they're a very small portion of our mostly service-based economy.  

An example that may make more sense to you is something like iPhones.  These are not built in the USA.  They're built in China and then imported to North America, and the assembly of Iphones is not part of American GDP.  Apple does, however, employ a lot of people in research and development, and Apple's capital appreciation and dividends have made a lot of Americans rich.  They proceed to spent their money in the economy and employ nail technicians and teachers, and that effect is multiplicative. 

In the simplest sense, a Canadian lumber jack could chop ONE tree down and sell abroad for $100.  If he spends that money quick enough, and the subsequent trades and exchanges of money can happen quickly enough, that $100 tree-chopping could lead to $100,000 of economic activity.  While my figures are not realistic, the point is that one of the main factors of economic prosperity and growth is the turnover of the money supply.  The faster and more often money exchanges hands, the more money everyone will make (unless, as Argus says, it's fueled by over-borrowing).  

As an alternative, consider that lumber jack taking his $100 and burying it in his back yard as savings for his daughter's wedding 20 years from now.  In that case, it's just a $100 sale and that money actually leaves the economy, thus contributing no value at all to anyone.  Actually, it's worse, because now we're down a tree.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 643
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anybody can be racist against any other race, but most people are not racist.  I guess that was what Day was commenting on.  Obviously intolerance goes far beyond mere racism.

I think we have given too many special interest groups a voice, and a stage to be heard, (more on the left side) and now today they are all screaming at the same time, and nobody is really hearing any

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scho

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Except you're wrong.  I understand what you're saying, and in the most basic sense you sort of have a point, but the idea that "stuff" is the only useful part of the economy is completely false.  Mining and natural resource extraction counts for 8.21% of GDP, and agriculture less than 2%.  It's not that they're not important, but they're a very small portion of our mostly service-based economy.  

An example that may make more sense to you is something like iPhones.  These are not built in the USA.  They're built in China and then imported to North America, and the assembly of Iphones is not part of American GDP.  Apple does, however, employ a lot of people in research and development, and Apple's capital appreciation and dividends have made a lot of Americans rich.  They proceed to spent their money in the economy and employ nail technicians and teachers, and that effect is multiplicative. 

In the simplest sense, a Canadian lumber jack could chop ONE tree down and sell abroad for $100.  If he spends that money quick enough, and the subsequent trades and exchanges of money can happen quickly enough, that $100 tree-chopping could lead to $100,000 of economic activity.  While my figures are not realistic, the point is that one of the main factors of economic prosperity and growth is the turnover of the money supply.  The faster and more often money exchanges hands, the more money everyone will make (unless, as Argus says, it's fueled by over-borrowing).  

As an alternative, consider that lumber jack taking his $100 and burying it in his back yard as savings for his daughter's wedding 20 years from now.  In that case, it's just a $100 sale and that money actually leaves the economy, thus contributing no value at all to anyone.  Actually, it's worse, because now we're down a tree.    

I'm not wrong at all. 

We can circulate our money around Canada as fast as we want. It is meaningless.

All of us Canadians can pick imaginary lice out of each other's hair and pass around $1,000 bills like monopoly money for it every day. It will make the GDP look enormous. We'll pay a lot of extra taxes, but that doesn't get us anything from foreign countries. It won't make for any export dollars, and it won't help us get China or America to give us a single iPhone.

If we extract $1B worth of oil and sell it to the US for $400M, as usual, we now have a global economy, and we can start to import iPhones. Get it? 

The gas and oil is 8.21% of our GDP stat is not as significant as the gas and oil is 25% of our global exports stat, from a national standpoint. 

We could kill the hair and nail sector of the economy by buying scissors and nail files and it wouldn't hurt our bottom line globally. Killing the gas and oil sector would cripple this country's economy - our exports would drop by 25%.

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

The "worst recession in generations", or the "Global Financial Crisis" happened in 2008-09. Harper was in power from 2006 to 2015, where he ran a deficit every single year. Thank you for showing an example of swarmy dishonesty

No he didn't run a deficit every year. He ran no deficits his first two years or his last year. And when you run the deficit up high it isn't a good idea to simply slice it down to balance in one year. His budget deficit shrank every year until it was back in balance. As opposed to Trudeau, whose deficits rose every year despite boom years, and now are going right off the freaking register. His deficit this year will be greater than all Harper's deficits combined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not wrong at all. 

We can circulate our money around Canada as fast as we want. It is meaningless.

All of us Canadians can pick imaginary lice out of each other's hair and pass around $1,000 bills like monopoly money for it every day. It will make the GDP look enormous. We'll pay a lot of extra taxes, but that doesn't get us anything from foreign countries. It won't make for any export dollars, and it won't help us get China or America to give us a single iPhone.

If we extract $1B worth of oil and sell it to the US for $400M, as usual, we now have a global economy, and we can start to import iPhones. Get it? 

The gas and oil is 8.21% of our GDP stat is not as significant as the gas and oil is 25% of our global exports stat, from a national standpoint. 

We could kill the hair and nail sector of the economy by buying scissors and nail files and it wouldn't hurt our bottom line globally. Killing the gas and oil sector would cripple this country's economy - our exports would drop by 25%.

Your analogy about picking lice out of each other's hair is daft.  Economists would agree that paying people to do something of no value, provides no value to the economy.  They usually call it "paying people to dig holes and then to fill them up".  It's usually used mockingly to counter balogna claims that government spending always benefits the economy (a common cry of the public sector workforce). 

Why are you so hell-bent on comparing the oil and gas industry to barbers and nail salons, by the way?  Kind of silly.  The 8.21% you quote for oil and gas isn't even correct.  That's the combined effect of all the mining, quarrying and oil/gas extraction in Canada.  Oil and gas, as a sector itself, is probably more like 4-5% of our GDP.  Compare that to 70% for the services sector.  The latter is FAR more important than the former, though I'd still say oil and gas are important. 

Your export numbers are kind of irrelevant too.  You seem to think that economics are a zero sum game, and that it's only the net of our exports vs imports that provides value to our economy.  That's so wildly off the mark it's not funny.  It completely ignores the value of the domestic economy and consumption and disregards money supply.  That last one is more of an Econ 201 topic though so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.  You're not even at Econ 101 yet.  

I'll give you a quick hint to jolt your thinking on these matters though - our national current account (accounting of our imports vs exports) is only one part of the overall economic picture.  TONS of activity and trade happens on a local, regional, provincial and national levels and LOADS of economic value is added outside of the international trade picture.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Argus said:

No he didn't run a deficit every year. He ran no deficits his first two years or his last year. And when you run the deficit up high it isn't a good idea to simply slice it down to balance in one year. His budget deficit shrank every year until it was back in balance. As opposed to Trudeau, whose deficits rose every year despite boom years, and now are going right off the freaking register. His deficit this year will be greater than all Harper's deficits combined.

and here's the problem with recent western policy-making.  Deficit spending can be good for stabilizing the economy in the short to medium term, but when you allow them to perpetuate and get structural they can become a huge problem.  Trudeau's deficits in themselves were perfectly manageable and he was right to say that as a share of GDP they weren't growing, but this thinking assumes the economy will expand faster than deficit spending and these theories got us in trouble in the late 70's and 80's.  It works...until something bad happens and then it doesn't. 

Moving forward now, we're piling on massive amounts of debt on to top of the debt that we didn't need to be accumulating, and the Bank of Canada is going to have to print money to get us out of it.  Look forward to inflation problems in 2025 and beyond.  

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

Your analogy about picking lice out of each other's hair is daft.  Economists would agree that paying people to do something of no value, provides no value to the economy.  They usually call it "paying people to dig holes and then to fill them up".  It's usually used mockingly to counter balogna claims that government spending always benefits the economy (a common cry of the public sector workforce). 

Why are you so hell-bent on comparing the oil and gas industry to barbers and nail salons, by the way?  Kind of silly.  The 8.21% you quote for oil and gas isn't even correct.  That's the combined effect of all the mining, quarrying and oil/gas extraction in Canada.  Oil and gas, as a sector itself, is probably more like 4-5% of our GDP.  Compare that to 70% for the services sector.  The latter is FAR more important than the former, though I'd still say oil and gas are important. 

Your export numbers are kind of irrelevant too.  You seem to think that economics are a zero sum game, and that it's only the net of our exports vs imports that provides value to our economy.  That's so wildly off the mark it's not funny.  It completely ignores the value of the domestic economy and consumption and disregards money supply.  That last one is more of an Econ 201 topic though so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.  You're not even at Econ 101 yet.  

I'll give you a quick hint to jolt your thinking on these matters though - our national current account (accounting of our imports vs exports) is only one part of the overall economic picture.  TONS of activity and trade happens on a local, regional, provincial and national levels and LOADS of economic value is added outside of the international trade picture.  

The 8.21 was your number, I don't give a crap about it.

What you don't get is that polishing people's nails and cutting people's hair contributes to GDP. It accounts for 0% of our exports. In the bigger picture, nail technicians and hole digger/refillers and lice-pickers contribute to the GDP equally if they get paid the same amount of money. 

Why do you think that drug dealers have girlfriends who are "nail techs" who work from home? They can claim legit income for doing nothing. "I made $60K this month." Nope, you just sat on your ass and your bf is laundering money through you. 

Not all services sector jobs are useless. Working in tourism is quite different from trimming hair because it brings in foreign money.

Our country is in huge debt. Killing the biggest export commodity our country has while accruing debt at record levels is so far from sensible that it looks a lot like treason. If you actually knew anything about economics you would know that. 

We can't import $10B worth of cars and $6B worth of electronics and give away billions to other countries and just not export anything of value to the world. Canada isn't a money tree. No one loves us enough to keep giving us stuff and taking our dollars as payment. They become Pesos. Empty cheques.

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Not all services sector jobs are useless. Working in tourism is quite different from trimming hair because it brings in foreign money.

Foreign money isn't what drives the economy.  That you think it does clearly shows you really don't know much of anything about how this stuff works.  I'm not saying that to be rude, but you're demonstrating a profound ignorance on the subject.  

Case and point:  

Compare Germany to the USA.  One the one hand, the USA has BY FAR the largest trade deficit in the world.  It imports loads more than it exports by about $466B each year.  Germany, on the other hand, exports FAR more than it imports, by about $266B a year.  

By your simplistic logic, that would mean that Germany's economy is far better, stronger and more successful than the USA's.  In reality, the opposite is true.  The US economy dominates Germany by virtually any measurement other than net exports vs imports, and will continue to do so into the future.  Why is this true?  Because digging stuff out of the ground or manufacturing knicknacks and selling them abroad is only one of many ways to create wealth.  

Another example would be somewhere like Cuba.  With all of the foreign tourism money pouring in, why does Cuba continue to struggle economically?  It's because all that foreign money coming in isn't being used effectively.  It's not generating dollar-for-dollar wealth and productivity increases.  Its domestic economy is pitiful.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Compare Germany to the USA.  One the one hand, the USA has BY FAR the largest trade deficit in the world.  It imports loads more than it exports by about $466B each year.  Germany, on the other hand, exports FAR more than it imports, by about $266B a year.  

Both of those countries have a strong enough economy that they won't ever lack anything. Their needs are different from ours. You need to compare a Canada with a gas and oil sector to Trudeau's dream country, where the oil sands are phased out.

We will no longer have USD coming in for oil. We will still be using petro products though. We'll just be buying from the Saudis, just like Trudeau's family business always has. We'll still be importing all of our clothing, cars and electronics, as usual. What will the strength of our dollar, to purchase foreign commodities, be based on? How much do you think our dollar will be worth without the money coming in from the oil sands?

Oh and the money coming from Alberta to the federal gov't will dry up. That's $21B per year less to the feds if AB becomes a break-even province. What if they're a net drain on the federal government, like the maritimes and Quebec have always been?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has a strong economy too.  Canada, US, Germany, China, UK, France, Bangladesh - all of them have different economies with their own unique challenges.  Economics apply to all of them equally.  

We're not losing the oil sands, and I don't think you even really understand what bitumen is or what it's used for.  A lot of Canadians seem to think we're pumping thick, sandy tar out of the ground and sending it to Houston to be refined into gasoline or something.  It's too expensive to refine for that, so unless we go back to the absurd prices we saw back in 2008, it's mostly not worth pumping for combustible fuel.  In reality, it's mainly used as a binding agent and most of it gets used for stuff like asphalt or reservoir linings, for which it's fantastic.   

If Alberta continues to struggle fiscally, they can do what the rest of Canada does and implement a sales tax.  You'll not find a lot of sympathy from the rest of Canada for crying about budget deficits when you don't tax as much as the rest of the country.  It's the same reason why much of the rest of Ontario gets frustrated with Toronto for whining about their deficits (their property tax rates are lower than everywhere else).  

Anyways, the oil market's collapse is a good example of why you don't make your economy a one-trick pony.  For the record, I'm strongly in favor of pipelines and the Alberta oil industry, and also get frustrated how the rest of the country (BC and Quebec in particular) are being obstinate with them.  From how much you were focusing on this, it seemed like you thought I was bashing it or something.  

Edited by Moonbox
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, It is very sad to see individuals that are struggling economically, addicts and idealists having their emotions used by these no roots marxists.

These individuals time and time again divide the masses thinking that this will bring the collapse of the system in order to achieve an utopia. Chasing this insanity time and time in history this philosophy made more victims than religion ever came close to. Then, also time and time as physics teaches us an equal reaction abomination arises. We can see it through fascism and ultra nationalism. I am debating in my head who is it, the chicken or the egg and is starting to lean one way and this is why is good to share experiences to ask for feedback in order to come to a middle point.

I am a firm believer you get what you think of (positive or negative). I was thinking too much of politics and I allowed all this negative energy to surround me. Is hard not to in a city like Toronto so this is what I had happened:  A couple of days ago I was taking a friend through downtown Toronto home due to not feeling well. We went inside a bus, the day prior I got a haircut through a friend, finally LOL, we all know the European cut, faded sides, is great for the summer. One drunk individual got in the bus coming from the protest, he looked straight at me made a comment about my haircut and made a gesture with his right hand up. I knew right away what he was doing and what he was hinting at. I right away got off the bus.

To be honest, I had to turn politics off for a few days, but the more I think about it, I wish I could find that guy and see if I can have a conversation with him when he is sober. I said on this forum before is good to have a lawyer and sue these individuals but what good will that do ? The guy is probably broke, drunk in the afternoon and these marxists sure found him a purpose.

This is beyond people struggling economically, addicts and idealists. You keep it up all you propagandists that divide people for your greed, is fun and games because the middle class is somewhat manageable but if you study history closely you will realize that the reaction came when the middle class, working people, people like me, the average Joe that works from day to night got their life affected and decided to stay silent. If we stay silent, wolves will eat you and there are a lot of monsters and criminals on the other side too just look at some pictures of the other creatures from the extreme right. 

P.S. I see what the auto correct option wants me to capitalize marxists, how about like this:      mARXISTS !  A little fun at the end of a hard working week :))) ! When you work hard your mind does not sit and thinks how to divide people. I recommend this medication to every bolshevik that wakes up every morning thinking how to use people.

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now even that venerable old NDP warhorse Stephen Lewis is starting to feel troubled at the way angry progressive shut down debate and mob anyone who dares to disagree with them. Mind you, he seems mostly upset when they do it to other left wingers...

I’m a boomer, and the circles I travel in lean pretty heavily social democratic. A lot of us are Canadians-for-Bernie types, readers of The Guardian and Vox, a bit ashamed about our fossil fuel consumption, enthused about long-overdue reckonings with racism, appalled by police brutality. Some of us march in Pride parades and donate to Médecins sans frontières. We are progressives, but I suspect that some would dispute that claim because our brand is insufficiently pure.

I’ve about had it with the way too many progressives go about their business. Liberal democracies are admirable precisely because they are liberal, in the classic sense. Freedom matters, especially freedom of expression. I am a John Stuart Mill liberal: the silencing of an opinion – even and especially one without much merit – robs humanity of “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

A sign that a movement has become sclerotic and dangerous is when it stifles debate and turns on its own. Totalitarians such as Stalin and Mao wrote the manual on silencing dissent and dissenters. The progressives have not sent Ms. Rowling to the gulag or Margaret Atwood to a re-education camp, but their hegemonic impulses flow from the same well.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jk-rowling-backlash-shows-how-progressives-are-turning-on-their-own/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Independent1986 said:

In revolutionary times is common for the members to turn on each other. Just look at the French Revolution. All they needed is: J'Accuse J'Accuse.

Why do you guys seem to think conservatives posses an ability to agree that the left doesn't?  Look at the different conservative factions we have in Canada that always seem to be attracted to he strongest looking populist that's edging farther to the right.  The same thing is happening in the US with the GOP and its Ross Perot, and Tea Party etc and even Trump isn't right-wing enough according to pundits like Ann Coulter.

It seems the times have been revolutionary for some time now and across a much broader spectrum.

I like to think what's really driving the divisiveness is a more fundamental struggle between those who govern and those who are governed.  Recall that question in the Political Compass quiz, In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.  It's not just a yes or no answer given the room left for the counter question why?  There are anarchistic desires on both the right and the left and if they ever manage to overcome their partisan differences we could see a new ideology and alignment of interests develop.  I'd argue we're seeing this same development struggling to emerge on the governing side as evidenced by the greater respect and accommodation being afforded dictatorships by democracies.  Governments are not exactly birds of a feather but they don't mind flocking together. 

Governed people need to start doing the same.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

In revolutionary times is common for the members to turn on each other. Just look at the French Revolution. All they needed is: J'Accuse J'Accuse.

2020 road to power: 1) Claim victim status, show fear and rage 2) imply a direct correlation between victim status and moral superiority, 3) use the moral superiority to vilify people so that their factual talking points are pre-emptively dismissed, 4) commit rioting, arson, looting and murder, to show rage 5) wait for Barack Obama's stamp of approval for your righteous anger 6) commit rioting, arson, looting and murder, to show rage 7) wait for Michelle Obama's stamp of approval for your righteous anger, 8) commit rioting, arson, looting and murder, to show rage.

CNN and CTV won't show balanced and fair coverage of these events. It's part of their liberal agenda to deflect criticism from rioters, murderers and looters, plus rioting and killing makes for great ratings if you're in the news media biz. All of that anger goes back to the first step, of proving your victim status. 

Here's the official statistic on victimhood via police killings, by race, for the US:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Oblama is a racist farce (that stands for [Only] Black Lives Matter)

 

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 12.26.23 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has turned diversity and anti-racism into a religion, and are what we are witnessing now are the zealots crusading against blasphemers and heretics.

Cary, N.C., June 7. Amidst nationwide Black Lives Matter protests, a black man and woman are seated on a park bench while a white woman wearing a sweatshirt that reads “LOVE” takes to her megaphone. “We repent on behalf of, uh, Caucasian people,” she says. A small crowd of white people comes to kneel before the two seated black folks, who are co-pastors of a local church. Some of the kneelers wash the feet of the black people. A white man with an English accent solemnly intones, “It’s our honor to stand here on behalf of all white people, . . . repenting, Lord, for our aggression, Lord, repenting for our pride, for thinking that we are better, that we are above.” Police officers join the ritual. Several people start audibly weeping, or keening, as the speaker continues. Roughly a rozen people join in the gesture and kneel before the black couple. “We have put our necks, put our hands, our knees, upon the necks of our African-American brothers and sisters, people of color, indigenous people,” says the English man. “Lord, where we as a church, a white church, have used you as a persecution towards black people, Lord, as we’ve burnt crosses, as we’ve burnt churches, . . . we’ve used it as a weapon against people of color.”

It’s been coming for some time, this transmutation of white guilt into a cult, a religion that borrows from and intersects with Christianity but substitutes its own liturgy.

Anti-racism is the most critical element of a broader new Woke Orthodoxy whose other elements include environmental apocalypticism, feminism, and a severing of sexual identity from genetic indicators. Settling on a term for the new religion will take some time. Wesley Yang’s suggestion (seconded by Ross Douthat) of “the Successor Ideology” is clunky, anodyne, and a bit euphemistic given the righteous, roiling fervor and unnerving credulousness that define the cult. As Dmitri Solzhenitsyn writes in National Review Online, a YouTube prankster named “Smooth Sanchez” who walks the streets of New York demanding that white people kneel before him and declare their privilege receives surprising compliance, even as he signals his charlatanry by referring to George Floyd as “George Foreman.” 

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/07/06/the-white-guilt-cult/#slide-1

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eyeball said:

Governed people need to start doing the same.

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!  Workers of the world, unite!  Is this the new ideology you are talking about ? Let's not beat around the bush, in capitalism there are winners and losers, that's how the game is being played and I am well aware of it, who knows, maybe tomorrow it will be me losing or not. The key is to always stay focused on producing and having a purpose.

The anarchists are individuals that are not willing to adapt to society's demands, society moves fast if you are not quick to adapt you will be left behind. So how do you deal with that ? You go in the streets especially if a catalyst like the criminal cop appears in the picture. 

Here is the equation:

Revolution = [(Anarchists + Communists + Idealists) * lack of productivity ] * criminal cop (catalyst)

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!  Workers of the world, unite!  Is this the new ideology you are talking about ?

No. you're so off the page I'm on you're not even in the same book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I found this an interesting read. It seems we are psycholochically conditioned to never be satisfied. And with regard to the Left, no matter how much racism is reduced, they will always find more to take its place.

How can intolerance be increasing when Western democracies are demonstrably more tolerant of historically marginalised identities than at any point in their history? It is, according to Douglas Murray, “a curiosity of the age” that as racial and sexual tolerance “at the very least appears to be better than it ever was, it is presented as though it has never been worse.” This paradox occurs because, as we address and overcome problems of intolerance and discrimination, we also expand the concept of intolerance to stigmatise new attitudes and behaviours. This makes it appear as if we are either making no progress at all or, worse, that we are becoming more intolerant. The upshot is that social problems appear increasingly irresolvable.

It is, of course, counter-intuitive to think of tolerance and intolerance increasing at the same time. Nevertheless, the idea is supported by a Harvard University study of human judgement, led by Professor Daniel Gilbert. In a series of experiments, Gilbert and his team of researchers showed that “people often respond to the decrease in the prevalence of a stimulus by increasing the concept of it.” He termed this phenomenon “prevalence-induced concept change.” In the first experiment, participants were shown 1,000 dots that varied on a continuum from very purple to very blue and then asked to identify the blue dots. After 200 trials, the number of blue dots was decreased for one group of participants but increased for another. In both cases, participants assessed the number of blue dots to be the same—the group with decreasing blue dots expanded their concept of blue to include dots they had previously excluded. This change was not altered by forewarning participants, by sudden decreases in prevalence, or by reversal in the direction of prevalence.

https://quillette.com/2020/06/19/the-purity-paradox-how-tolerance-and-intolerance-increase-at-the-same-time/

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

This also from quillette, where a woman of color describes her growing sense of irritation at 'white savours' who feel they know what's right for people of color and purport to speak on their behalf, always from a radical left perspective, and often about issues of which they know nothing.

She called herself Kalamity, though that’s not her real name. She’s the white woman who called me a racist for noting that Indigenous children who live in communities where parents own their homes tend to have a higher standard of living and care than those who live in reserve communities where property is owned communally. This was the day after she schooled me, a Desi, together with a Kenyan woman—the only two non-white individuals in our class—on the proper use of people-of-colour nomenclature.

“I’m not sure I like that phrase,” said the Kenyan woman.

I agreed. Of all the ways to describe oneself, why would I self-define as not white.

“Women of colour chose it,” Kalamity informed us. By this, I learned, she meant black intersectional feminists.

This wasn’t the first or last time that Kalamity treated us like elementary-school children in catechism class. I didn’t like this feeling.

Kalamity also called me out as racist for disagreeing with her pronouncement that those Charlie Hebdo cartoons from 2015 were racist. That Kalamity could not read French and was unfamiliar with both Charlie Hebdo and the French satirical tradition made no difference to her. Kalamity was acting like a good white person because she was saying the things that good white people are supposed to say.

One might call it White Saviourism. It nourishes the idea that those who have little melanin must adopt a heroic pose in regard to those who have much. So women like me require saving, regardless of whether we consent to it or not. Melanin people must know their low place in society, since the conceit of the white saviour depends on the existence of someone in peril. Otherwise, there’s no demand for white saviours to come charging in heroically on their white horses. Why does this remind me of some surreal form of colonization?

https://quillette.com/2020/06/17/white-saviors-need-to-leave-the-room/

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Spectator, the frenzy of online bullying and cancel culture seems to have reached an even higher zenith, as the mainstream media joins in.

‘Blackface incident at Post cartoonist’s 2018 Halloween party resurfaces amid protests’, reads the headline, a prelude to 3,000 words of groundbreaking work in the field of offense archaeology. 

Maybe this moment comes for every movement: a shift, as the earnest activists are joined by not-so-earnest opportunists who see these cultural touchpoints as a launching pad to catapult themselves into the spotlight, or to settle an old grudge by dressing it up in a matter of national urgency (or, as the meme goes, perhaps both?) Less explicable is how this petty quest for revenge became a feature-length story in the pages of a leading newspaper, with two reporters assigned to unpack a two-year-old incident in which a random middle-aged woman wore an offensive Halloween costume to a friend’s private party. 

The woman, Sue Schafer, ‘wore a conservative business suit and a name tag that said, “Hello, My Name is Megyn Kelly.” Her face was almost entirely blackened with makeup.’ The costume was evidently intended as a meta-joke to mock Kelly, who had come under fire that same week for arguing that blackface (in the ‘wearing dark makeup for cosplay purposes’ sense, not the ‘Bing Crosby in Holiday Inn’ sense) shouldn’t be considered offensive. But Lyric Prince and Lexie Gruber, two young women who were also guests, were horrified by Schafer’s appearance and (loudly) told her so. Schafer was reportedly humiliated, leaving the party in tears and apologizing to the host the next day, which to many would seem appropriate, both in terms of consequences suffered and remorse shown. But for Gruber, the incident apparently festered, leading her to contact the Washington Post in the hopes of seeing Schafer and her two-year-old error in judgment dragged back into the spotlight.  

Plenty of ink has been spilled already on the question of why, and how, the Post allowed Prince and Gruber to use it as a weapon in their quest to make Schafer suffer. But the insult-upon-injury of the piece is not just that it exists but that it opens with a gorgeous glamour shot of the accusers, staring boldly down the lens like a pair of modern-day riot grrrls (an amusing juxtaposition for a story about two women so fragile that they have spent the past two years of their adult lives tormented by the memory of a bad Halloween costume); the only thing missing are the strains of Fight Song soaring in the background. 

https://spectator.us/age-online-bullying-back-washington-post/

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

Ah yes, denouncing!  Always a good way to get back at someone, and maybe even deflect the accusing finger from one's self for a while.  I understand the Gestapo and the Stasi were big fans.

The accompanying cartoon was so good I posted it separately.

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

So I looked up the Washington Post article, and with some skillful mouse work, managed to bypass the firewall. 

Apparently at least two of the three people involved had to have therapy over the incident.  

Did we split into two separate species while I wasn't looking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So I looked up the Washington Post article, and with some skillful mouse work, managed to bypass the firewall. 

Apparently at least two of the three people involved had to have therapy over the incident.  

Did we split into two separate species while I wasn't looking?

We are in the age of the victim. Everyone wants to be one. These people are, at the same time, both emotionally fragile beyond belief and viciously, mercilessly abusive to anyone who disagrees with or offends them in even the slightest way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 10:12 AM, Argus said:

Now even that venerable old NDP warhorse Stephen Lewis is starting to feel troubled at the way angry progressive shut down debate and mob anyone who dares to disagree with them. Mind you, he seems mostly upset when they do it to other left wingers...

 

Why, it's almost like it isn't the "Left" at all. That premise was confusing when you used it to describe the oil company Stockwell Day worked for and Telus Mobility. I'm starting to think it's just a catch-all term used by people with a limited political lexicon and that it actually means nothing in this context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Why, it's almost like it isn't the "Left" at all.  

I am trying to figure it out, as a conservative.  It appears to mean anyone who speaks up against what they perceive as racism.  It's an attempt to shut down dissent by claiming that open forums and corporations (like Nascar, or Pepsi) are somehow repressing people. 

As a conservative and a Christian committed to social justice and personal freedom, I would like to return the dialogue to what our actual problems are: sustainable economies that benefit all people, creeds and genders.

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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...