"do you think my faith is a joke?'
yeah.
pretty much.
listen - if you're easily offended by sacrilegious jokes, the conservative party is over there.
Monday, May 14, 2018
the term "corporate democrats" conjures up a disconnect between finance and populism, and that makes sense in the united states.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
but, what if the corporate democrats were actually pretty liberal about it? i mean, the new deal wasn't charity for the sake of it - it was intended to promote a corporate agenda.
i've hit back at elizabeth warren pretty hard for being too right-wing, but that's in a spectrum where you only have two parties, and you consequently need to pull the democrats as far left as is potentially possible. in a three-party spectrum, you have that centrist path.
kathleen wynne is more like elizabeth warren than she is like hillary clinton. and, elizabeth warren is in truth a wall street democrat. they share the idea that finance doesn't need to be abolished, it can be regulated for the public good. and, they both think like corporate tax lawyers.
the ndp tend to be more fiscally conservative, because workers movements have always had that conservative strain. it's ultimately a religious thing, and there's a few different levels to it. but, it's rooted in some anachronistic worldviews about the source of wealth in the economy - anachronistic worldviews that are widespread amongst workers on both sides of the border of this continent. sanders also had that fiscally conservative streak, if you listened to him carefully, and he was just as wrong about it as the ndp broadly are.
i would have easily supported sanders over warren, but the context is dramatically different. the united states does not have a single-payer system, for example, and warren was flaky on that - as i actually expect wynne would be, if it didn't already exist. so, it's not as simple as just lining up positions.
but, this is the dynamic: the liberals are a corporatist party, and they think like a corporation does, but their perspective on the value of government is more like adam smith than it is like milton friedmann; the ndp are a populist worker's party, and that seems attractive at first glance, but what that means is that they don't always fully understand what they're talking about at the same level as the lawyers in the liberal party do.
i'm an educated lower class anarchist. i don't fully identify with either. but, my brain usually tells me that the liberals are a better idea, in the context of what already exists.
in corporate finance, when a company identifies a means of maximizing profit, and does not do so, it is considered lost revenue. it's a part of the trade agreements built into the new world order; if a province passes an environmental regulation that prevents future profits, the province becomes liable for "lost profit" - and merely demonstrating the potential for lost profit is enough to win a settlement in these clown courts set up by the agreements.
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.
i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.
that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.
the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit
but, yeah...
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
it's a guess. i don't have detailed data on undecideds.
but, i think that what's happening is that a lot of liberal voters are carefully studying the situation, and essentially trying to avoid splitting the vote, and that this is the only serious poll movement right now.
that's exactly what i'm doing, too.
the danger is that, if this is true, then there's enough people trying to avoid splitting the vote that we could swing it. oops.
your riding is unique. you can't generalize the specific; you can't take province-wide polls and try to cram them into your riding, with whatever local issues exist amongst whatever demographics. you need to know your riding's voting history (wikipedia helps.) and try and figure out what the zeitgeist is in it, right now. talk to your neighbours.
but, if your riding is a traditional liberal-tory battleground, then it probably still is, and you're probably better off voting liberal. and, if the ndp usually polls better, you shouldn't expect that to change now, either.
where we all need to be extra careful is in ridings where the liberals and ndp are usually at the top, and the conservatives are down a bit. a bad read could accidentally elect conservatives in these kinds of ridings.
but, there is not currently a strong argument that the kind of large shifts that we saw in the last federal election are happening in ontario right now. that could change. however, the evidence right now is toward stasis, even if people wish that the options were better.
don't believe the media. don't believe the hype.
the media has been telling us for months that the liberals are going to lose, with little evidence to back it up.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
so, liberal voters are now uncommitted.
but, neither of the other parties are actually gaining any support - liberal voters are just panicking that their party is going to lose and intent on voting strategically, to make the best of a bad situation. pragmatic. careful. very liberal, in canada.
if the liberals can get this across to them, they'll get those votes back. but, that's hard to do in a few weeks.
what is happening is really a powerful example of what happens when you have a media oligopoly focused on the interests of a specific party. and, the lesson that the liberals need to learn is that they can't let the tory media dominate the narrative like they have been.
mainstreet does good polling, so long as they publish the full results.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the conservative numbers are about where they always are; it's not at all clear that ford has expanded outside of the traditional tory base at all, but i do suspect you've seen some swapping in and out amongst the specific demographics i've pointed to: less upper class white voters, more middle class urban ethnic voters.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
this is some reliable polling. finally.
and, this is what the headlines should say.
the ndp, once again, seem to be about steady.
but, the liberal support is caving - albeit not in any direction. and, this is the major thing that is happening: the conservatives and ndp seem to be holding steady to their base, while the liberal vote is really totally up in the air.
i normally talk about how not publishing the undecideds inflates conservative support, but, in this election, it appears to be inflating ndp support as well.
so, here's my conclusions about this poll:
1) the media narrative seems to be getting to liberal voters, who are being led to believe that they will need to vote for a different party if they want their vote to matter. they are not committing to anybody. but, they will decide the election - and they could still stick with the liberals, in the end.
2) this swath of undecided liberal voters is inflating numbers for both of the other parties.
but, this is the same place we were at six months ago.
i don't know who these undecided liberals are, so i don't have a lot of suggestions on what to do to get them. in past elections, it's been clear that we've been dealing with the disillusioned left of the party, but, right now, this appears to be manufactured dissent: voters in a panic to make sure their votes count, as a consequence of their preferred party unravelling.
the media created this story as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and here it is happening, in front of us.
there is some chance they could settle down, that they're just panicking.
one would actually expect the undecideds to start falling right now, not start increasing. the pollsters may tell you it's weak support, but it may be more about weak confidence than weak support. liberals are going to be a little less ideological and a little more pragmatic, because that's what they are; but, that pragmatism could lead them back rather than pull them away, in the end.
i have no deep insight into this other than to state it bluntly: liberal voters are up for grabs right now, and it's not entirely clear what they want.
but, they might be more afraid of ford than anything else.
if horwath has no interest in a coalition government with the liberals, it logically follows that she will allow a conservative minority government to take power - that's what she's saying, that if we're in a scenario where she's monarch-maker, she will pick the conservatives over the liberals.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
if you've been following horwath's career, you actually shouldn't be surprised by this.
but, i find the pledge to be very disappointing.
and, it may be a defining reason to vote liberal, in the end.
i know that the campaigns want to defy reality and project their own, but i'm not interested in this kind of magical thinking. we will have a conservative government or a coalition government. and, if horwath is ruling out a coalition government, and ensuring a conservative government, then that's a reason to ensure her party remains in third place.
if she's bluffing, she still has several weeks to face up to reality and produce a more honest reaction. but, i have no reason not to take her at her word, on this.
i'm a post-feminist in a patriarchal society, a society that seems more intent on redefining language than it is in redefining behaviour.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
but, i'm also a liberal. and, that means that i don't take responsibility for your emancipation - i expect that you will take the initiative to fight for it, yourself.
and, if you won't, that's not my concern.
my concern is myself, and my own behaviour, and my own emancipation from patriarchy.
Aug 31, 2011
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
so, i experienced the princess paradox today.
again.
it's something i have to deal with fairly often. *most* men will likely have to deal with it at least a few times in the course of their life, but i get it on a weekly basis. it's likely the result of the obvious gender identification mismatch, it's exaggeration with princesses and the irrational things that princesses do to men's brains. i'll get to this...
for now, what is the princess paradox? i'll provide a definition and an example to explain it.
definition: the princess paradox is the condition where princesses demand unequal treatment from men and cry sexism when they don't receive that unfair treatment. it is a neat label to describe how it is that treating princesses with regular levels of egalitarian respect is paradoxically perceived by them as sexist, likely largely due to their conditioning of being treated with superiority due to their status as princesses. only exceptionally good treatment from men, which is by definition non-egalitarian, is perceived by them as not being sexist.
example...
so, this is what happened today.
i walk into a bank with a cheque. i want that cheque cashed immediately. i can't use a machine because they'll hold it. so, i bring the check and my card up to the counter. counter attendant? princess.
"i need to check to see if your name's on a list. you've been through this before, right? should just take a second."
"what? uh, no. why would you need to check if my name's on a list?"
"i can't cash government checks unless you're on the list."
"well, nobody's ever had to do that before. is it a new procedure?"
"just wait here while i check if your name's on the list."
(i wait a few minutes)
"your name isn't on the list. have you ever cashed a check here before?"
"listen, i don't think you need to check if my name's on a list. can you ask somebody for some help?"
now, my tone of voice was admittedly a little bitchy, and there was "you don't know what you're doing" tonality to it. you know what? she *didn't* know what she was doing, and she *did* need to ask somebody for some help.
regardless, that was a sin. men are allowed to question the competency of other men, and even of less attractive women, but never of princesses as that obviously implies superiority, regardless of the level of incompetency.
in the background a second princess chirps in...
"you don't have to be so patronizing, she's just learning."
a strong man appears out of nowhere..
(i'm exaggerating slightly)
man: "hi sweetie. is this horrible man bothering you?"
princess: "i think i can hand..."
man (to me): "if you don't stop giving her a hard time, we'll have you thrown out of here and banned forever. she's a new employee and she just needed a little help."
me: "well, yeah, that's what i suggested."
man: "do you understand me?"
(pause)
me: "no, not really. she needed some..."
man: "if you don't stop being such an asshole.."
me: "listen, i don't really know what you're talking about. can you help her cash the check?"
princess (to man): "i mean, i didn't even say i wouldn't cash it."
man (to me): "can't you see what you've done?"
(pause)
me: "accomplish my task of getting somebody to help her with cashing the check?"
man: "if you don't show some more respect i'm going to throw you out of here."
me: "listen, i just want to get the transaction done with quickly and get out of here."
as mentioned, i've exaggerated slightly, but you can see the underlying point: even fairly timid, indirect levels of frustration that would be totally normal in a female-female professional conversation are completely taboo in a male-princess conversation. i run into this all of the time: princesses that get upset when i talk to them like adults rather than like children.
this is a slightly boring example, too. i have one very vivid recollection of a princess walking into a door because i didn't hold it for her as she expected and then *yelling at me*, *blaming me for it* as though it was my fault that she didn't look where she was going, as though she *didn't* make the stupid, entitled assumption that it was my responsibility to hold the door for her.
i bet that would be a neat experiment, actually. how many women would follow what they think is a nice gentlemanly boy into work, make the assumption that the door will be held and then literally walk into it when it isn't?
what underlies this? what causes the princess paradox?
i've dealt with it enough to come up with some conclusions.
basically, i think that princesses are so used to being talked down to by men that when one *doesn't* it's such a strange occurrence that they don't know how to parse it. it's just a once in a blue moon thing for them. they're so used to men grovelling and trying to get laid that they interpret the lack of grovelling as a lack of respect. it's quite amazing really; those rare circumstances of communication with actual egalitarians become painful loss-of-status experiences, with the point of torture itself being precisely what they experience so rarely: somebody that sees them on an even level and isn't talking down to them in the expected, safe way. it's the very process of humanization itself that seems alien.
...and, it's actually quite sad when placed in that context.
it probably, ultimately, stems from sexist fathers.
i think that, within the princess' response, there may also be a bit of a reflexive psychological defense mechanism to attempt to masculinize me as my perceived feminine guyness would be naturally and instinctively interpreted as a trojan horse, due to a least risk algorithm, and rejected as anomalous. so, not only is the princess paradox demanding of unequal treatment, it is possibly suspicious of movements that promise equality under the fear that they will lead to inequality at less advantageous terms.
that's a complicated pseudo-syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)