stated succinctly, as always:
Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
and, yes - my views on speech have historically been considered left-wing. i cite chomsky because he's kind of an extremist on the topic. but, he's at the head of a long tradition of leftist thinkers that understood the primacy of speech rights.
it has historically been the right that has sought to limit speech rights, which is why the language that these "antifa" groups use is so frustrating. it's gotten so post-modern as to be post-truth. usually, they're doing it right - they're largely peacefully disrupting meetings taking place in public, which is their right, as a consequence of constitutions in both countries on this continent - but they're talking about and explaining it wrong. so, i could get into abstract debates about the value of speech with them, but it would ultimately be with the intent of having them see that what they're doing is only permitted because of free speech laws, rather than to convince them to do something else. and, i would largely not seek to interrupt their tactics.
obviously, things get a little bit different when we're talking about actual violence. violence does have a place, in context. but, you have to make sure you're actually attacking actual nazis, which aren't exactly a highly populated group at this moment. there are random idiots that are abusing the doctrine of self-defense, but they don't speak for their associated groups, and in many cases are probably undercover cops.
it has historically been the right that has sought to limit speech rights, which is why the language that these "antifa" groups use is so frustrating. it's gotten so post-modern as to be post-truth. usually, they're doing it right - they're largely peacefully disrupting meetings taking place in public, which is their right, as a consequence of constitutions in both countries on this continent - but they're talking about and explaining it wrong. so, i could get into abstract debates about the value of speech with them, but it would ultimately be with the intent of having them see that what they're doing is only permitted because of free speech laws, rather than to convince them to do something else. and, i would largely not seek to interrupt their tactics.
obviously, things get a little bit different when we're talking about actual violence. violence does have a place, in context. but, you have to make sure you're actually attacking actual nazis, which aren't exactly a highly populated group at this moment. there are random idiots that are abusing the doctrine of self-defense, but they don't speak for their associated groups, and in many cases are probably undercover cops.
so, hate speech is free speech, subject to specific caveats regarding threats and libel. there has to be at least some pretense to honesty, and attempts to materially harm or intimidate need to be kept in check.
but free speech doesn't imply the right to be heard, and it doesn't imply the right to run your mouth off without consequences for it.
so, the way this is supposed to work is that when people take the mic (in public spaces. this doesn't hold for private property.) and say things that the community doesn't want said, then they get shouted down and run out of town.
what our laws and traditions state is that the government has no role to play in regulating speech, unless somebody is under actual threat of legitimate harm.
but free speech doesn't imply the right to be heard, and it doesn't imply the right to run your mouth off without consequences for it.
so, the way this is supposed to work is that when people take the mic (in public spaces. this doesn't hold for private property.) and say things that the community doesn't want said, then they get shouted down and run out of town.
what our laws and traditions state is that the government has no role to play in regulating speech, unless somebody is under actual threat of legitimate harm.
it is generally the case with the discourse around speech nowadays that neither side of the discussion understands what they're talking about.
so, when forced to take a side between these antifa-type groups and these libertarian-right type groups, i will very rarely do so. it is usually the case that they're both hopelessly wrong, because neither of them understand the basic legal issues at hand.
abstractly speaking, i'm more with chomsky on issues of the sort: the most important speech to protect is the least popular speech. the way to defeat fascism is not to censor it but to deconstruct it, which is what a group like antifa is actually doing (whether they realize it or not). and, in fact, the government rarely intervenes in these cases, so there's rarely an actual speech issue to defend, despite what the libertarian-right groups might claim.
it is usually the case that if an issue to criticize arises then it is when the police are unconstitutionally called in to stop the protestors, who then have their speech rights violated, and who don't seem to understand the irony of it.
so, when forced to take a side between these antifa-type groups and these libertarian-right type groups, i will very rarely do so. it is usually the case that they're both hopelessly wrong, because neither of them understand the basic legal issues at hand.
abstractly speaking, i'm more with chomsky on issues of the sort: the most important speech to protect is the least popular speech. the way to defeat fascism is not to censor it but to deconstruct it, which is what a group like antifa is actually doing (whether they realize it or not). and, in fact, the government rarely intervenes in these cases, so there's rarely an actual speech issue to defend, despite what the libertarian-right groups might claim.
it is usually the case that if an issue to criticize arises then it is when the police are unconstitutionally called in to stop the protestors, who then have their speech rights violated, and who don't seem to understand the irony of it.
well, in theory, this might have been a speech issue, but only if the government had stepped in and shut it down. had that been the case, and the company argued against it, i would be standing up for the company.
as it is, the board is owned by a private company that took it down on it's own prerogative. as such, it's a property rights issue, not a speech issue - and perhaps a contract law issue, if the purchasing party feels an agreement was breached.
i would hope that bernier and his party were properly refunded. that is the only meaningful legal issue at hand.
but, people arguing that it's not a speech issue because of the content of the ad are wrong on their face, as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-27-2019-1.5260356/removing-anti-immigration-billboards-is-censorship-says-columnist-1.5260365
as it is, the board is owned by a private company that took it down on it's own prerogative. as such, it's a property rights issue, not a speech issue - and perhaps a contract law issue, if the purchasing party feels an agreement was breached.
i would hope that bernier and his party were properly refunded. that is the only meaningful legal issue at hand.
but, people arguing that it's not a speech issue because of the content of the ad are wrong on their face, as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-august-27-2019-1.5260356/removing-anti-immigration-billboards-is-censorship-says-columnist-1.5260365
on some level, he's actually right. but, if we outlaw abortion for these reasons, we'd might as well legalize cannibalism and human sacrifice while we're at it. and, then society will fall apart in no time.
the correct analysis is to realize that this is an example of cultural evolution.
but, he probably rejects evolution too, right?
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/457707-iowa-gop-official-calls-kings-rape-and-incest-comments-outrageous
the correct analysis is to realize that this is an example of cultural evolution.
but, he probably rejects evolution too, right?
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/457707-iowa-gop-official-calls-kings-rape-and-incest-comments-outrageous
the excuse she made to come over to see my new place when i moved to bronson was that she had to do feng shui. so, she made sure that i understood how important it was, and how important it may be to move some furniture around, if the energy insists on it.
i let her do it. but, let's all be clear on this point: when your ex-girlfriend shows up two years later and starts talking about moving furniture around, it's not about the psychic energy.
i let her do it. but, let's all be clear on this point: when your ex-girlfriend shows up two years later and starts talking about moving furniture around, it's not about the psychic energy.
and, no, i wasn't a "do gooder". i don't believe in morality, and i never did, which is just the point - there's nothing moral or immoral about sex. that's a conservative, religious perspective; i'm a godless socialist. if anything, i was actually the biggest badass. she didn't undress anybody else on a draw bridge on vancouver island, or pull anybody else into the santa claus exhibit in the wee hours of the morning. i'm sure other people have stories, but they're not like mine.
i keep pointing out that she didn't want to break up with me. i walked out on her. well, i didn't feel like i had a choice - the situation was driving me nuts. she'd literally take off for days, leaving me to the expectation of a break-up when she got back, and then, instead, fuck me when she did get back; my emotions were just off the chart from it, i was completely fucked up and confused by it. and, she came crawling back after. more than once. the reality is that the premise that she wasn't attracted to me is completely backwards; more accurate is that she had difficulties talking with me (she was very "spiritual", for example.) and that all she wanted to do was fuck.
in fact, that was her catch-phrase: i don't care what you're talking about, j, just shut up and fuck me.
she just had really weird issues with attachment, and, as mentioned, was coming from a pretty damaged capitalist culture where she kind of romanticized sluttiness as an ideal. pushing back against that isn't a question of morality. it's more a question of mental health. i was concerned about her self-worth. and, more than anything else, what i wanted was for her to go to fucking school.
one of the places we had sex after i moved out was in the sauna in the apartment complex i moved into. i just wouldn't let her move in. but, she did ask. i know: i moved out on february 1st because she wouldn't commit, and she was trying to move back into my new place by the start of march. and, yeah, that fucked me up; of course it did.
so, it actually seemed, at first, that nothing had really changed, except that i'd been kind of emancipated from being fucked up about the situation. i would have probably been relatively comfortable with a long-term fwb situation - going out on friend-dates a few times a month. it may have even been more healthy than the previous situation, and i remember pointing that out.
but, as mentioned, she then managed to get impregnated by an old man that she barely knew. and, that kind of messed everything up.
she was a vegan, at the time. so, i took her out for fajitas. and, she came over a few times to talk, when she was pregnant. it might have been the only time we ever spent together when there wasn't a lot of sexual tension. although...yes. once. she insisted. because she was pregnant.
one of the first things she did after giving birth was bike to my house to surprise me, but i wasn't home.
etc.
so, criticize me if you want. i can deal with that. but, get your facts straight. she actually, honestly wanted an open relationship, and i actually really, legitimately couldn't deal with it.
i keep pointing out that she didn't want to break up with me. i walked out on her. well, i didn't feel like i had a choice - the situation was driving me nuts. she'd literally take off for days, leaving me to the expectation of a break-up when she got back, and then, instead, fuck me when she did get back; my emotions were just off the chart from it, i was completely fucked up and confused by it. and, she came crawling back after. more than once. the reality is that the premise that she wasn't attracted to me is completely backwards; more accurate is that she had difficulties talking with me (she was very "spiritual", for example.) and that all she wanted to do was fuck.
in fact, that was her catch-phrase: i don't care what you're talking about, j, just shut up and fuck me.
she just had really weird issues with attachment, and, as mentioned, was coming from a pretty damaged capitalist culture where she kind of romanticized sluttiness as an ideal. pushing back against that isn't a question of morality. it's more a question of mental health. i was concerned about her self-worth. and, more than anything else, what i wanted was for her to go to fucking school.
one of the places we had sex after i moved out was in the sauna in the apartment complex i moved into. i just wouldn't let her move in. but, she did ask. i know: i moved out on february 1st because she wouldn't commit, and she was trying to move back into my new place by the start of march. and, yeah, that fucked me up; of course it did.
so, it actually seemed, at first, that nothing had really changed, except that i'd been kind of emancipated from being fucked up about the situation. i would have probably been relatively comfortable with a long-term fwb situation - going out on friend-dates a few times a month. it may have even been more healthy than the previous situation, and i remember pointing that out.
but, as mentioned, she then managed to get impregnated by an old man that she barely knew. and, that kind of messed everything up.
she was a vegan, at the time. so, i took her out for fajitas. and, she came over a few times to talk, when she was pregnant. it might have been the only time we ever spent together when there wasn't a lot of sexual tension. although...yes. once. she insisted. because she was pregnant.
one of the first things she did after giving birth was bike to my house to surprise me, but i wasn't home.
etc.
so, criticize me if you want. i can deal with that. but, get your facts straight. she actually, honestly wanted an open relationship, and i actually really, legitimately couldn't deal with it.
but, when you look at these different civilizations, like...
they don't all want the same thing. liberal naivete is a bad idea, here. you have to listen to what they're actually saying. if you treat the chinese the same way as the europeans, you shouldn't be surprised when you get spit on.
i do think there's a real dividing line between the east v the west, but it can be stated as defining the west as greek civilization and the east as chinese civilization. you have to essentially write off africa, australia and the americas as "indigenous barbarians" under this analysis, but the facts at least uphold an unequal level of development. another way to look at this is that the west is judaic in character, whereas the east is vedic. you would draw the line, then, somewhere through historical persia. a maximum extent of western civilization would probably be alexander's conquests; even the most minimal concept would fully absorb both islam and russia. on the other hand, both zoroastrianism and the historical celtic civilizations would be on the eastern side of the divide, which had it's maximum western extent during the hunnic and mongol invasions.
so, i consider the muslims to be a part of the western world, not a part of the eastern world. and, they're pretty clear on what they want: they want to eclipse. they want to be the hegemon, but not via conquest, so much as via transformation. their maximum extent may encircle the far west of the old world, up through spain to southern france on one side and pushing into vienna on the other, but europeans inevitably misunderstand the context: they were just completing their conquest of rome. they are barbarian usurpers, historically, as were the gemans, but islam is a successor culture of the roman empire. america's interaction with islam should be seen in terms of a conflict within western civilization, rather than in terms of a clash of self-contained civilizations. the fuckers were at least right about one thing: it is a battle for hearts and minds. and, you know what side i'm on. i suppose that if you are standing in america and are a muslim, you may have a different perspective on this issue than i do. but, i see this simply as a struggle between religion and secularism. the cultural and ethnic layers of it are mostly illusory - the muslims are just as greek, just as roman, just as judaic, just as european, and even just as white, broadly, as any other western subculture.
russia is also a part of the western world, and is the actual cultural successor of the eastern empire. they are the closest direct descendant of late greek civilization. and, despite america's best efforts to cast them as an adversary (something that is so old that thomas paine made note of it, even going so far as to erect russia as the new french, a concept that is particularly daunting in the context of the thousand year war between britiain and france over feudal land ownership), the russians do not hate us. the russians see us as lost cousins, which is what we truly are. they wanted to join nato, for fuck's sake. treating the russians as an enemy or a threat is largely ignoring the evidence.
the fact about india is that it is developing too slowly to have these discussions, yet. and, climate change will be particularly damaging to them, even as they keeping spewing the carbon out. from the vedas, through to alexander, to the mughals and the british, india has actually always remained in what is today called the global south. they have an ancient culture, but they are not an ancient empire. a united india is probably not going to make it through this century. the thing the west should be concerned about regarding india is the question of it's instability, and what that means in terms of things like migration.
but, the chinese are a different animal. they are a vedic civilization, like india, but they are also an empire. they have almost no shared historical norms with the west. they are not judaic, not greek, not roman, not carthaginian - and only persian in deep abstraction. so, they see the world through an entirely different concept of history. but, the thing i'm trying to get across is that they're actually pretty much our mirror reflection. like us, they are expansionist. they have a history of colonialism. they see the world outside of their borders as existing for their own benefit. they are an actual, legit alien civilization that is never going to see us as cousins or siblings. and, we will need to find a way to compete or co-operate, at least until we can effectively integrate.
they don't all want the same thing. liberal naivete is a bad idea, here. you have to listen to what they're actually saying. if you treat the chinese the same way as the europeans, you shouldn't be surprised when you get spit on.
i do think there's a real dividing line between the east v the west, but it can be stated as defining the west as greek civilization and the east as chinese civilization. you have to essentially write off africa, australia and the americas as "indigenous barbarians" under this analysis, but the facts at least uphold an unequal level of development. another way to look at this is that the west is judaic in character, whereas the east is vedic. you would draw the line, then, somewhere through historical persia. a maximum extent of western civilization would probably be alexander's conquests; even the most minimal concept would fully absorb both islam and russia. on the other hand, both zoroastrianism and the historical celtic civilizations would be on the eastern side of the divide, which had it's maximum western extent during the hunnic and mongol invasions.
so, i consider the muslims to be a part of the western world, not a part of the eastern world. and, they're pretty clear on what they want: they want to eclipse. they want to be the hegemon, but not via conquest, so much as via transformation. their maximum extent may encircle the far west of the old world, up through spain to southern france on one side and pushing into vienna on the other, but europeans inevitably misunderstand the context: they were just completing their conquest of rome. they are barbarian usurpers, historically, as were the gemans, but islam is a successor culture of the roman empire. america's interaction with islam should be seen in terms of a conflict within western civilization, rather than in terms of a clash of self-contained civilizations. the fuckers were at least right about one thing: it is a battle for hearts and minds. and, you know what side i'm on. i suppose that if you are standing in america and are a muslim, you may have a different perspective on this issue than i do. but, i see this simply as a struggle between religion and secularism. the cultural and ethnic layers of it are mostly illusory - the muslims are just as greek, just as roman, just as judaic, just as european, and even just as white, broadly, as any other western subculture.
russia is also a part of the western world, and is the actual cultural successor of the eastern empire. they are the closest direct descendant of late greek civilization. and, despite america's best efforts to cast them as an adversary (something that is so old that thomas paine made note of it, even going so far as to erect russia as the new french, a concept that is particularly daunting in the context of the thousand year war between britiain and france over feudal land ownership), the russians do not hate us. the russians see us as lost cousins, which is what we truly are. they wanted to join nato, for fuck's sake. treating the russians as an enemy or a threat is largely ignoring the evidence.
the fact about india is that it is developing too slowly to have these discussions, yet. and, climate change will be particularly damaging to them, even as they keeping spewing the carbon out. from the vedas, through to alexander, to the mughals and the british, india has actually always remained in what is today called the global south. they have an ancient culture, but they are not an ancient empire. a united india is probably not going to make it through this century. the thing the west should be concerned about regarding india is the question of it's instability, and what that means in terms of things like migration.
but, the chinese are a different animal. they are a vedic civilization, like india, but they are also an empire. they have almost no shared historical norms with the west. they are not judaic, not greek, not roman, not carthaginian - and only persian in deep abstraction. so, they see the world through an entirely different concept of history. but, the thing i'm trying to get across is that they're actually pretty much our mirror reflection. like us, they are expansionist. they have a history of colonialism. they see the world outside of their borders as existing for their own benefit. they are an actual, legit alien civilization that is never going to see us as cousins or siblings. and, we will need to find a way to compete or co-operate, at least until we can effectively integrate.
their discography is truly quite spotty.
but, this is really a legit opus.
i don't know what this is really about. it's almost more like he's using vietnam war era imagery to align with the psychedelic rock sounds, but it could just as easily be generalized to an attempt to neutralize an east v west mentality.
the chinese have one major thing going for them that makes them a preferable partner, moving forward: they don't believe in god. when you look around at the world for potential partners, that fact is very appealing to me.
but, this is really a legit opus.
i don't know what this is really about. it's almost more like he's using vietnam war era imagery to align with the psychedelic rock sounds, but it could just as easily be generalized to an attempt to neutralize an east v west mentality.
the chinese have one major thing going for them that makes them a preferable partner, moving forward: they don't believe in god. when you look around at the world for potential partners, that fact is very appealing to me.
i want people to be clear on this point: if china could they would conquer, invade and colonize us. and, they might even choose to slaughter most of us.
but, we'd do the same thing to them if we could, too.
in fact, the difference in this relationship is that we once tried to conquer and enslave them, and failed. they haven't had the chance yet.
but, that just demonstrates how important it is to try to bridge differences and work together. when the inevitable outcome of history unfolding is eventual conflict, you have to work as best you can to minimize it.
further, to blame "china", whatever that even means, for the economic reality in front of us is disingenuous. these rules were mostly written by white executives in western corporations. and, while things are better there now than they were, it is our own habits that fuel the worst abuses that exist in that country. vilifying the chinese on a racial or cultural level is not going to be productive in reforming global trade regulations.
but, don't be naive about it. if they could...
but, we'd do the same thing to them if we could, too.
in fact, the difference in this relationship is that we once tried to conquer and enslave them, and failed. they haven't had the chance yet.
but, that just demonstrates how important it is to try to bridge differences and work together. when the inevitable outcome of history unfolding is eventual conflict, you have to work as best you can to minimize it.
further, to blame "china", whatever that even means, for the economic reality in front of us is disingenuous. these rules were mostly written by white executives in western corporations. and, while things are better there now than they were, it is our own habits that fuel the worst abuses that exist in that country. vilifying the chinese on a racial or cultural level is not going to be productive in reforming global trade regulations.
but, don't be naive about it. if they could...
so, i don't think the amp is the cause of the smell.
but, it does reek.
so, i've taken it away from my typing area for a bit, meaning my structure is a little wobbly. it won't be for more than a few more days. i'll need to fully disassemble everything to properly clean in here, after i've sealed the baseboards, anyways...
i just want to be sure that i'm fixing the right problem, and the thing is just too rank. i guess i'll need to really scrub it down hard.
i should be tired, but i'm not, so i'm going to get back to work.
but, it does reek.
so, i've taken it away from my typing area for a bit, meaning my structure is a little wobbly. it won't be for more than a few more days. i'll need to fully disassemble everything to properly clean in here, after i've sealed the baseboards, anyways...
i just want to be sure that i'm fixing the right problem, and the thing is just too rank. i guess i'll need to really scrub it down hard.
i should be tired, but i'm not, so i'm going to get back to work.
it's a valid question.
what if they aren't actually agents provocateur?
what if they're really employees of the window cartel?
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2013/10/windowdoc.html
what if they aren't actually agents provocateur?
what if they're really employees of the window cartel?
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2013/10/windowdoc.html
i think that 30% is a low estimate.
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/global-ad-blocking-behavior-2019-infographic/551716/
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/global-ad-blocking-behavior-2019-infographic/551716/
so, this is a better idea than censoring facebook and bailing out postmedia (which is what the liberals are.....can i say threatening to do, rather than promising to do?).
i have one thing to interject.
i doubt that bernie spends much time reading news on social media. it's a generational thing. and, that's ok. but, while he's right to point out that the advertising model on social media is lopsided, a lack of experience might be obscuring him to what is actually a natural monopoly. and, if you're a smaller independent news source, you don't want to focus on bought advertising - you want word of mouth. you want sharing. and, you want it organic.
small news organizations absolutely require robust social media presences to survive today, which doesn't even mean that they have great pages or that they pay into the system much. what it means is that they have people like me that are doing what i'm doing right now, which is posting one of their articles in a place where people will see it. it's not the paid-for advertising that's important, it's the free advertising that is - the sharing.
and, as such, breaking up these social media sites would just make it harder for small organizations to exist.
i just posted a link to manufacturing consent. i completely understand where he's coming from, and he's absolutely right in focus. but, it is in many ways an old media critique of new media, and it needs a bit of a cross-reference to be more robust.
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/bernie-sanders-media-silicon-valley.php
i have one thing to interject.
i doubt that bernie spends much time reading news on social media. it's a generational thing. and, that's ok. but, while he's right to point out that the advertising model on social media is lopsided, a lack of experience might be obscuring him to what is actually a natural monopoly. and, if you're a smaller independent news source, you don't want to focus on bought advertising - you want word of mouth. you want sharing. and, you want it organic.
small news organizations absolutely require robust social media presences to survive today, which doesn't even mean that they have great pages or that they pay into the system much. what it means is that they have people like me that are doing what i'm doing right now, which is posting one of their articles in a place where people will see it. it's not the paid-for advertising that's important, it's the free advertising that is - the sharing.
and, as such, breaking up these social media sites would just make it harder for small organizations to exist.
i just posted a link to manufacturing consent. i completely understand where he's coming from, and he's absolutely right in focus. but, it is in many ways an old media critique of new media, and it needs a bit of a cross-reference to be more robust.
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/bernie-sanders-media-silicon-valley.php
Institutional critiques such as we present in this book are commonly
dismissed by establishment commentators as "conspiracy theories," but
this is merely an evasion. We do not use any kind of "conspiracy"
hypothesis to explain mass-media performance. In fact, our treatment
is much closer to a "free market" analysis, with the results largely an
outcome of the workings of market forces. Most biased choices in the
media arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalized
preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of
ownership, organization, market, and political power. Censorship is
largely self-censorship, by reporters and commentators who adjust to
the realities of source and media organizational requirements, and by
people at higher levels within media organizations who are chosen to
implement, and have usually internalized, the constraints imposed by
proprietary and other market and governmental centers of power.
you really should at least browse through this if you haven't before.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-NekqfnoWIEuYgdZl/Manufacturing+Consent+%5BThe+Political+Economy+Of+The+Mass+Media%5D_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-NekqfnoWIEuYgdZl/Manufacturing+Consent+%5BThe+Political+Economy+Of+The+Mass+Media%5D_djvu.txt
but, i wasn't the only person that predicted that the headgear would go over like a lead balloon.
are some people racist? of course they are.
but, the guy thinks he has a magic beard, amongst other things. there are legit competence questions that are not reducible to racial animus, and quebeckers - more so than other canadians - are not going to gloss over that as meaningless.
he's running for prime minister. it defines his mindset. it's not a triviality.
are some people racist? of course they are.
but, the guy thinks he has a magic beard, amongst other things. there are legit competence questions that are not reducible to racial animus, and quebeckers - more so than other canadians - are not going to gloss over that as meaningless.
he's running for prime minister. it defines his mindset. it's not a triviality.
the point is that those frustrated "anti-everybody voters" are probably mostly not conservatives.
first off, if they were, they'd tell pollsters that. they're not doing that. second, when you compare to recent elections - the fact is that the conservatives have struggled to get over 25% in quebec since the meech lake accords - they're clearly recent ndp and bloc voters, as both parties have taken huge hits.
at this point, if they were going to vote liberal, they'd probably just admit it. but, the fact is that they've avoided voting liberal for this long because they actually don't want to do that. canada is not a two-party system - there are many, many people that are fundamentally to the left of the liberals, base their entire identity on that fact and will never, ever vote for them. in quebec, 23% is probably an underestimate of this type of voter.
so, it's hard to believe they're going to vote for the conservatives all of a sudden. and, it's not much easier to believe that they'll vote for the liberals. likewise, maxime bernier is not likely to do well amongst this group of people - not for his views on immigration, but for his economic views. these people are leftists.
more believable is that they'll stay home.
first off, if they were, they'd tell pollsters that. they're not doing that. second, when you compare to recent elections - the fact is that the conservatives have struggled to get over 25% in quebec since the meech lake accords - they're clearly recent ndp and bloc voters, as both parties have taken huge hits.
at this point, if they were going to vote liberal, they'd probably just admit it. but, the fact is that they've avoided voting liberal for this long because they actually don't want to do that. canada is not a two-party system - there are many, many people that are fundamentally to the left of the liberals, base their entire identity on that fact and will never, ever vote for them. in quebec, 23% is probably an underestimate of this type of voter.
so, it's hard to believe they're going to vote for the conservatives all of a sudden. and, it's not much easier to believe that they'll vote for the liberals. likewise, maxime bernier is not likely to do well amongst this group of people - not for his views on immigration, but for his economic views. these people are leftists.
more believable is that they'll stay home.
sorry, maybe i should translate.
liberals - 30%
bloc - 16%
conservatives - 16%
ndp - 6%
but...
i'm not voting - 5%
i'll destroy my ballot -7%
undecided - 9%
no answer - 2%
so, 23% of voters are telling pollsters that they really don't like the options. and, given recent trends in quebec, most of them were probably bloc voters twenty years ago and ndp voters ten years ago.
if they all go back to the bloc, you get this:
bloc - 39%
liberals -30%
conservatives - 16%
ndp - 6%
which would be roughly the results of a random election in the 1993-2011 period.
if they all give up and stay home? that's what the conservatives are dreaming about.
but, if they all get really fed up and vote green....that's a shift, alright.
liberals - 30%
bloc - 16%
conservatives - 16%
ndp - 6%
but...
i'm not voting - 5%
i'll destroy my ballot -7%
undecided - 9%
no answer - 2%
so, 23% of voters are telling pollsters that they really don't like the options. and, given recent trends in quebec, most of them were probably bloc voters twenty years ago and ndp voters ten years ago.
if they all go back to the bloc, you get this:
bloc - 39%
liberals -30%
conservatives - 16%
ndp - 6%
which would be roughly the results of a random election in the 1993-2011 period.
if they all give up and stay home? that's what the conservatives are dreaming about.
but, if they all get really fed up and vote green....that's a shift, alright.
see, i think this is probably a better snapshot of quebec, and it's the same phenomenon i've been pointing to in canada for years - when the number of non-committal voters goes up, the conservative numbers get badly inflated.
there's a kind of naive narrative that quebeckers are going to vote for the conservatives because they don't like jagmeet singh's head gear. but, this is ignoring the fact that the ban on religious symbols was initially brought in by the quebecois left, before being rammed through by the right as a consensus policy. four years ago, the ndp would have been juggling potatoes on this, because they knew a lot of their voters supported it. if the issue is solely to do with the head gear, you'd think these voters would fall back to the bloc, which is where they came from.
instead, they're coming in as non-committal, which is inflating conservative numbers.
when these voters decide what they're doing - which is, in most cases, probably a choice between the liberals and bloc - the numbers will shift downwards for the conservatives.
but, i'd have to argue that these voters are probably much, much more likely to lean towards the bloc.
there's a kind of naive narrative that quebeckers are going to vote for the conservatives because they don't like jagmeet singh's head gear. but, this is ignoring the fact that the ban on religious symbols was initially brought in by the quebecois left, before being rammed through by the right as a consensus policy. four years ago, the ndp would have been juggling potatoes on this, because they knew a lot of their voters supported it. if the issue is solely to do with the head gear, you'd think these voters would fall back to the bloc, which is where they came from.
instead, they're coming in as non-committal, which is inflating conservative numbers.
when these voters decide what they're doing - which is, in most cases, probably a choice between the liberals and bloc - the numbers will shift downwards for the conservatives.
but, i'd have to argue that these voters are probably much, much more likely to lean towards the bloc.
consider the following outcome:
liberals: 145
conservatives: 141
bloc: 30
ndp: 15
greens: 7
145 + 15 + 7 = 167.
you need 170 votes to pass a budget.
and, the last time the bloc agreed to vote for a liberal budget, they got creamed in the next election.
you could also imagine something like this, if the greens kill the liberals in swing ridings and the ndp hang on just enough:
liberals: 130
conservatives: 141
bloc: 30
ndp: 30
greens: 7
130 + 30 + 7 = 167, still. but, the governor-general may let the conservatives form a government, because the bloc are unstable. and, it would be the liberals that the conservatives would be looking to help prop them up.
it is pretty clear that the ndp are not going to rebound in quebec, and i remain exceedingly skeptical of the idea that the conservatives are going to make a breakthrough there. the liberals surprised everybody by over-performing in quebec in 2015, which is how we get here (most people, including myself, predicted a strong liberal minority rather than a weak liberal majority; it was a difference of 15 seats). it's really the liberals v the bloc, there.
unless - and i'll point out again that this is not impossible - the greens show up out of nowhere and sweep, which ironically could save the government. it's remote, but quebec does crazy things like this fairly frequently: they vote tout ensemble, and they do so in protest.
liberals: 145
conservatives: 141
bloc: 30
ndp: 15
greens: 7
145 + 15 + 7 = 167.
you need 170 votes to pass a budget.
and, the last time the bloc agreed to vote for a liberal budget, they got creamed in the next election.
you could also imagine something like this, if the greens kill the liberals in swing ridings and the ndp hang on just enough:
liberals: 130
conservatives: 141
bloc: 30
ndp: 30
greens: 7
130 + 30 + 7 = 167, still. but, the governor-general may let the conservatives form a government, because the bloc are unstable. and, it would be the liberals that the conservatives would be looking to help prop them up.
it is pretty clear that the ndp are not going to rebound in quebec, and i remain exceedingly skeptical of the idea that the conservatives are going to make a breakthrough there. the liberals surprised everybody by over-performing in quebec in 2015, which is how we get here (most people, including myself, predicted a strong liberal minority rather than a weak liberal majority; it was a difference of 15 seats). it's really the liberals v the bloc, there.
unless - and i'll point out again that this is not impossible - the greens show up out of nowhere and sweep, which ironically could save the government. it's remote, but quebec does crazy things like this fairly frequently: they vote tout ensemble, and they do so in protest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)