from the communists at the financial post:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/counterpoint-ending-supply-management-didnt-help-australians-and-it-wont-help-canadians
the prices won't come down; the fuckers will just take the extra cash. it's obvious.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Saturday, October 12, 2019
would i actually vote bloc if i was in quebec?
it would really depend on the candidate.
i don't think this debate was likely to change anybody's mind, unless you were a green supporter - while may was plucky and aggressive in the english debate, she came off as whiny and annoying, here. singh came off as a clown in both debates, imo. trudeau does in fact continue to remind me of harper, but what do you do when the opposition is this bad?
that leaves blanchet, and while i'm not sure his performance would have swayed my vote, he didn't do anything to lose it - except that strange comment about supply management that i think should be followed up on.
so, i guess my takeaway is that if the election wasn't between trudeau and blanchet when the night started then it was by the time it ended.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it would really depend on the candidate.
i don't think this debate was likely to change anybody's mind, unless you were a green supporter - while may was plucky and aggressive in the english debate, she came off as whiny and annoying, here. singh came off as a clown in both debates, imo. trudeau does in fact continue to remind me of harper, but what do you do when the opposition is this bad?
that leaves blanchet, and while i'm not sure his performance would have swayed my vote, he didn't do anything to lose it - except that strange comment about supply management that i think should be followed up on.
so, i guess my takeaway is that if the election wasn't between trudeau and blanchet when the night started then it was by the time it ended.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the argument you hear from free marketers is that supply management inflates prices, but it's largely garbage.
abolishing supply management will lead to higher profits for the bourgeois layer, which is why they want to do it, and it will help american farmers, but it won't reduce prices; don't let the free market fundamentalists trick you into thinking it will.
market theory just simply doesn't describe the reality we live in, and you're not going to get much of anywhere trying to apply it to get meaningful results. all that following market theory will do is mislead you into making bad policy decisions.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
abolishing supply management will lead to higher profits for the bourgeois layer, which is why they want to do it, and it will help american farmers, but it won't reduce prices; don't let the free market fundamentalists trick you into thinking it will.
market theory just simply doesn't describe the reality we live in, and you're not going to get much of anywhere trying to apply it to get meaningful results. all that following market theory will do is mislead you into making bad policy decisions.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i get the idea that blanchet is maybe a little bit to the right of the last couple of bloc leaders and this is kind of well understood and being broadly overlooked. they're attracting swaths of ndp voters, many of whom were bloc voters a few cycles ago, but they seem to think it has more to do with legault. i think this is a miscalculation...
regardless, for them to come out against supply management out of nowhere would be a major policy shift, and i'm not sure anybody's had that discussion.
i think blanchet should clarify his position on the matter.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
regardless, for them to come out against supply management out of nowhere would be a major policy shift, and i'm not sure anybody's had that discussion.
i think blanchet should clarify his position on the matter.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm watching the french debate, and that jagmeet singh, it's...
he's facile.
i remember reading those mr and mrs. books when i was a kid, but it's a childish thing to say at a debate. and, how about the pledge to "personally" do everything he can to stop climate change, as though his costume is really just code that he's actually a superhero (apologies to cory booker).
the things he's saying are just ridiculous. i can't, for a second, believe that this is convincing anybody. but, how powerful is the concept of identity in the south asian community?
but, i'm posting more to draw attention to a sideswipe that yves blanchet makes at supply management, which really took me off guard.
is the bloc changing it's position on supply management? what the fuck was that all about?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
he's facile.
i remember reading those mr and mrs. books when i was a kid, but it's a childish thing to say at a debate. and, how about the pledge to "personally" do everything he can to stop climate change, as though his costume is really just code that he's actually a superhero (apologies to cory booker).
the things he's saying are just ridiculous. i can't, for a second, believe that this is convincing anybody. but, how powerful is the concept of identity in the south asian community?
but, i'm posting more to draw attention to a sideswipe that yves blanchet makes at supply management, which really took me off guard.
is the bloc changing it's position on supply management? what the fuck was that all about?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
when i agree with the ndp on social policy, it's usually by accident - they generally take a path that involves a lot of moralizing and soul-searching, whereas i just want to look at the evidence.
so, with the gays, for example.
the ndp were awful on queer issues for a long time, because they were a christian party. but, as the christian left has evolved, they've taken on your usual contrived christian-left positions. you love the sinner, but hate the sin. you accept god's creation. all that kind of bullshit.
so, you look at their policies on the surface, and they seem relatively decent, but when you scratch the surface, you realize they're actually awful.
trudeau's father had the famous line - the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. and, i'm far more in agreement with this than i am with some mental gymnastics about religious tolerance.
but, my actual position is that the science is pretty clear that we actually exist in nature - that this is just biologically normal.
this is just one example. these subtleties are across the spectrum of issues, and underlie my extreme discomfort in supporting so-called left-religionists - our agreement is actually quite shallow, and any coalition is unlikely to last very long.
i need to be supporting secularism as best as i can, not pretending i agree with these groups, when i don't.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, with the gays, for example.
the ndp were awful on queer issues for a long time, because they were a christian party. but, as the christian left has evolved, they've taken on your usual contrived christian-left positions. you love the sinner, but hate the sin. you accept god's creation. all that kind of bullshit.
so, you look at their policies on the surface, and they seem relatively decent, but when you scratch the surface, you realize they're actually awful.
trudeau's father had the famous line - the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. and, i'm far more in agreement with this than i am with some mental gymnastics about religious tolerance.
but, my actual position is that the science is pretty clear that we actually exist in nature - that this is just biologically normal.
this is just one example. these subtleties are across the spectrum of issues, and underlie my extreme discomfort in supporting so-called left-religionists - our agreement is actually quite shallow, and any coalition is unlikely to last very long.
i need to be supporting secularism as best as i can, not pretending i agree with these groups, when i don't.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, i want a secular party with a science-based policy agenda. let's look at the options.
1) are the conservatives a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they're a conservative values party with a religion-centered policy agenda. next.
2) are the liberals a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? you know, they used to be one, and they still talk that way. it's kind of up in the air. but, they at least have a history of it.
3) are the ndp a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they came out of the prairie gospel, built themselves up on the back of a christian eugenicist and are being led by a fundamentalist sikh. they've historically been the christian left, and they still don't seem to care much about science as an operating policy.
4) are the greens a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? i was hoping they would be. and, maybe they might become one. but, not with their "jesus is my daddy" current leader.
5) are the bloc a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? yes. but, i can't vote for them.
6) is the ppc a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they reject science, outright.
so, while i'm actually an anarcho-communist, i'm a natural liberal, here, in this spectrum. there's no bakuninist-kropotkinist party. as an anarchist, a secularist and an atheist, there are reasons i tend to lean towards the liberals - and not the so-called "christian left".
but, the liberals want to abandon their legacy, and the greens are not yet ready to move into it.
if i could find a way to get a secularist, science-focused green party to hover over trudeau until he's gone, that would be a step forwards. but, i don't want the "left-religionist" ndp hovering over him - that would be a step backwards.
the best i can do is do my part to put the liberals back in and keep shit disturbing.
and, the way they're going to win this is to take seats away from the conservatives and the ndp in ontario. i can make a difference. i should.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
1) are the conservatives a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they're a conservative values party with a religion-centered policy agenda. next.
2) are the liberals a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? you know, they used to be one, and they still talk that way. it's kind of up in the air. but, they at least have a history of it.
3) are the ndp a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they came out of the prairie gospel, built themselves up on the back of a christian eugenicist and are being led by a fundamentalist sikh. they've historically been the christian left, and they still don't seem to care much about science as an operating policy.
4) are the greens a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? i was hoping they would be. and, maybe they might become one. but, not with their "jesus is my daddy" current leader.
5) are the bloc a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? yes. but, i can't vote for them.
6) is the ppc a secular party with a science-based policy agenda? no. they reject science, outright.
so, while i'm actually an anarcho-communist, i'm a natural liberal, here, in this spectrum. there's no bakuninist-kropotkinist party. as an anarchist, a secularist and an atheist, there are reasons i tend to lean towards the liberals - and not the so-called "christian left".
but, the liberals want to abandon their legacy, and the greens are not yet ready to move into it.
if i could find a way to get a secularist, science-focused green party to hover over trudeau until he's gone, that would be a step forwards. but, i don't want the "left-religionist" ndp hovering over him - that would be a step backwards.
the best i can do is do my part to put the liberals back in and keep shit disturbing.
and, the way they're going to win this is to take seats away from the conservatives and the ndp in ontario. i can make a difference. i should.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i know i'm disenfranchised. i've known that for years.
i'm not looking for a party to identify with; there isn't one i'm going to identify with. they're all terrible.
i'm trying to methodically work through the options and, with very careful attention to evidence and logic, weigh out which option is the least worst.
so, don't misinterpret my vote as an endorsement. it's not one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm not looking for a party to identify with; there isn't one i'm going to identify with. they're all terrible.
i'm trying to methodically work through the options and, with very careful attention to evidence and logic, weigh out which option is the least worst.
so, don't misinterpret my vote as an endorsement. it's not one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the fundamental problem right now is that the liberals are having an identity crisis.
i'm the liberal, here.
trudeau's a fucking conservative.
so, how do we organize a way to let the liberals retake control of the liberal party? a minority government would be step one. but, these options are worse - i'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
brian masse is a douchebag and a waste of a seat in the commons. i'll be happy to see him go.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm the liberal, here.
trudeau's a fucking conservative.
so, how do we organize a way to let the liberals retake control of the liberal party? a minority government would be step one. but, these options are worse - i'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
brian masse is a douchebag and a waste of a seat in the commons. i'll be happy to see him go.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i mean, this isn't a new position. i've known this the whole time.
if what i want is secularism and a science-based society, then my best vehicle is the liberals - even if it means starting a fight internally. i'm not getting that from the conservatives.
my goal here the whole time was to force trudeau to resign, to trigger a leadership battle. i never really jumped ship. this was a tactic from the start. i am hoping that trudeau's replacement will be more committed to secularist values, and more interested in putting science at the centre of policy. trudeau talks the talk here, but it's lip service. i want somebody that takes these things seriously.
i'm not a christian. i'm not into saving the country's heritage (i'm not celebrating thanksgiving, this weekend). i don't want free markets. i don't want a petro-state.
i want full communism - and i actually think the liberals are the best way to get there.
so, i mean, i still want trudeau to resign immediately, even if i have to vote for him.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if what i want is secularism and a science-based society, then my best vehicle is the liberals - even if it means starting a fight internally. i'm not getting that from the conservatives.
my goal here the whole time was to force trudeau to resign, to trigger a leadership battle. i never really jumped ship. this was a tactic from the start. i am hoping that trudeau's replacement will be more committed to secularist values, and more interested in putting science at the centre of policy. trudeau talks the talk here, but it's lip service. i want somebody that takes these things seriously.
i'm not a christian. i'm not into saving the country's heritage (i'm not celebrating thanksgiving, this weekend). i don't want free markets. i don't want a petro-state.
i want full communism - and i actually think the liberals are the best way to get there.
so, i mean, i still want trudeau to resign immediately, even if i have to vote for him.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, why don't i just vote conservative?
because i'm a communist - i don't believe in free markets, i want high taxes for the rich, etc.
this is the fundamental point i'm trying to get across: the pseudo-left is too liberal, meaning not socialist enough. if the ndp and greens are just going to run as pro-market liberal parties, what's the point? just let the liberals govern.
i'm not a values voter. i don't want to "save the country's heritage". i'm an atheist - i want to move forwards into a science-focused reality.
the party with the neo-con christian minister doesn't seem very socialist to me; nor does the party with the straight edge sikh that is so religious that he won't cut his beard.
if there was an actual leftist party here that supported actual left-wing principles, i'd be all over it. but we don't have that - we have three liberal parties, and i'm more comfortable with the real thing than the fakers.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
because i'm a communist - i don't believe in free markets, i want high taxes for the rich, etc.
this is the fundamental point i'm trying to get across: the pseudo-left is too liberal, meaning not socialist enough. if the ndp and greens are just going to run as pro-market liberal parties, what's the point? just let the liberals govern.
i'm not a values voter. i don't want to "save the country's heritage". i'm an atheist - i want to move forwards into a science-focused reality.
the party with the neo-con christian minister doesn't seem very socialist to me; nor does the party with the straight edge sikh that is so religious that he won't cut his beard.
if there was an actual leftist party here that supported actual left-wing principles, i'd be all over it. but we don't have that - we have three liberal parties, and i'm more comfortable with the real thing than the fakers.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if you flip through this, you'll see i've made repeated reference to this idea of the ndp becoming an ethnic conservative party - "conservatives for brown people", more or less.
i thought that was a cycle or two away, though.
well, we have a hypothesis, anyways. i guess i can make some sense of it.
let's see where the numbers are on tuesday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i thought that was a cycle or two away, though.
well, we have a hypothesis, anyways. i guess i can make some sense of it.
let's see where the numbers are on tuesday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, yes - the conservatives tend to do well with, and sometimes outright win, the south asian vote. so, there's plenty of voters to potentially target based on identity.
the assumption for years amongst everybody was that this happens because they're inclined towards conservative value systems.
so, if that's the crux of the movement, it would have to be gut-driven, because he's not offering them anything they've historically been attracted to. i guess there could have been a mass epiphany in the south asian community, but you'd have to provide me with some evidence.
as mentioned: i'm skeptical. i think this is a blip. but, if it isn't, what is it? that's my guess - south asian identity voters moving from blue to orange.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the assumption for years amongst everybody was that this happens because they're inclined towards conservative value systems.
so, if that's the crux of the movement, it would have to be gut-driven, because he's not offering them anything they've historically been attracted to. i guess there could have been a mass epiphany in the south asian community, but you'd have to provide me with some evidence.
as mentioned: i'm skeptical. i think this is a blip. but, if it isn't, what is it? that's my guess - south asian identity voters moving from blue to orange.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, if you're going to take the data at face value, what's it actually saying?
i would guess that it's saying that there's a movement amongst recent immigrant voters away from the conservatives to the ndp, and it would be driven mostly by identity. how else do you parse that?
so, is it possible that a lot of recent indian immigrants turned on the debate and said "actually, i like the guy that looks like me better"?
i guess.
but, why were they voting conservative, then?
i know better than to get too rational about identity politics - they don't make sense, and you shouldn't pretend they do. it's voting with your gut. you can't work it out.
but, if that's what we're seeing, it's emergent - this is something we've never seen in this country, before.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i would guess that it's saying that there's a movement amongst recent immigrant voters away from the conservatives to the ndp, and it would be driven mostly by identity. how else do you parse that?
so, is it possible that a lot of recent indian immigrants turned on the debate and said "actually, i like the guy that looks like me better"?
i guess.
but, why were they voting conservative, then?
i know better than to get too rational about identity politics - they don't make sense, and you shouldn't pretend they do. it's voting with your gut. you can't work it out.
but, if that's what we're seeing, it's emergent - this is something we've never seen in this country, before.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i expect that they'll come back down to around 15% or so. that's what the mean seems to be.
so, it does seem to be that the firms having them in the lower end - 13 or worse - have been coming in a little out of bounds, and are underestimating them.
at 15%, they're still not likely to do very well, if it's still mostly localized in bc.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, it does seem to be that the firms having them in the lower end - 13 or worse - have been coming in a little out of bounds, and are underestimating them.
at 15%, they're still not likely to do very well, if it's still mostly localized in bc.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i just find the premise of voting for this guy to be too baffling to take seriously.
it seemed clear for a long time that we just weren't going to do that, and i don't see what changed over the last week, besides, perhaps, a lot of conservatives going to the cottage for the weekend.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it seemed clear for a long time that we just weren't going to do that, and i don't see what changed over the last week, besides, perhaps, a lot of conservatives going to the cottage for the weekend.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah. i'm sorry. i'm hungry, and sick, and impatient and jumpy - i should have looked at this a little more closely before i posted.
look at this picture:
it's movement from 13 to 18, if you start at 13. but, it's not movement from 13 to 18 if you start at 15, which is what should actually be done here. i (accidentally) cherry picked the data. a better picture of it indicates that, while 18 is at the top of the range, it's nothing to get excited about, just yet.
it's maybe the very beginning of movement. or it's maybe just a trick in the sample.
so, i'm not conceding a signal, after all; i'm only conceding that there is evidence of a signal developing.
you've gotta give this a few more days. so, let's lay down conditions before hand.
if the next batch of sample comes in and the ndp is higher than 20%, then that's signal. if it flops around at 18-19%, then the signal is fading. and, if it falls down, it's just fluctuation around the mean - and likely explained by the long weekend, rather than the debate or a bradley effect.
what that does, perhaps, is give us a better understanding of where they're actually at.
so, calm down.
we're not under imminent threat of the magic beard veto, just yet.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
look at this picture:
it's maybe the very beginning of movement. or it's maybe just a trick in the sample.
so, i'm not conceding a signal, after all; i'm only conceding that there is evidence of a signal developing.
you've gotta give this a few more days. so, let's lay down conditions before hand.
if the next batch of sample comes in and the ndp is higher than 20%, then that's signal. if it flops around at 18-19%, then the signal is fading. and, if it falls down, it's just fluctuation around the mean - and likely explained by the long weekend, rather than the debate or a bradley effect.
what that does, perhaps, is give us a better understanding of where they're actually at.
so, calm down.
we're not under imminent threat of the magic beard veto, just yet.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i mean, consider the premise, here.
i actually have to go out and vote to make sure that a guy that thinks he has a magic beard doesn't have a veto in government.
it's absurd.
we should have never got this far into the process in the first place, where i have to take this possibility seriously.
c'mon, canada. wake up.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i actually have to go out and vote to make sure that a guy that thinks he has a magic beard doesn't have a veto in government.
it's absurd.
we should have never got this far into the process in the first place, where i have to take this possibility seriously.
c'mon, canada. wake up.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't want a guy that thinks he has a magic beard holding the balance of power.
i didn't take him seriously enough to meaningfully worry about it, and at this point i'm kind of disappointed in the country for making me have to actually be afraid of that. yikes. but, so be it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i didn't take him seriously enough to meaningfully worry about it, and at this point i'm kind of disappointed in the country for making me have to actually be afraid of that. yikes. but, so be it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
there's something odd in the numbers, though - it seems like the ndp is eating more into the conservatives than the liberals. that's hard to make sense of in any other way besides a bradley effect, or just random fluctuations.
it's also a long weekend in canada.
yeah, i'm backing myself up on that - i'm retracting my statement. these numbers are weird. i want more data before i conclude there's a signal. it could just be that it's harder to reach conservatives this weekend, and easier to reach new democrats - because conservatives are going to care more about thanksgiving, and be more likely to go away and stuff like that.
i wish he'd post the regional breakdowns...
i have to concede that there is movement, and it is substantive. but, it's weird. and i'm not convinced it's real - this might be a bradley effect, and it might be a sample bias over the weekend.
we'll see how it works out.
but, it spooked me into committing to actually getting out to vote against singh, and i'm not backtracking on that.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's also a long weekend in canada.
yeah, i'm backing myself up on that - i'm retracting my statement. these numbers are weird. i want more data before i conclude there's a signal. it could just be that it's harder to reach conservatives this weekend, and easier to reach new democrats - because conservatives are going to care more about thanksgiving, and be more likely to go away and stuff like that.
i wish he'd post the regional breakdowns...
i have to concede that there is movement, and it is substantive. but, it's weird. and i'm not convinced it's real - this might be a bradley effect, and it might be a sample bias over the weekend.
we'll see how it works out.
but, it spooked me into committing to actually getting out to vote against singh, and i'm not backtracking on that.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
well, i guess it's just more evidence that the people in this country aren't that bright.
he came off as a complete idiot at the debate...
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-11.pdf
but, yeah - there's a signal developing. it's disappointing. and, it looks like i'm going to have to vote liberal to do my part to try to stop it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
he came off as a complete idiot at the debate...
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-11.pdf
but, yeah - there's a signal developing. it's disappointing. and, it looks like i'm going to have to vote liberal to do my part to try to stop it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
again - i don't have memories of head trauma. maybe that's the point, though? maybe i wasn't drunk; maybe i hit my head. naw....
there's no bumps. no scrapes. i had a couple of small bruises on my arms and legs that could have been from anything and are mostly healed. there's really no sign of this...
it's gotta be bacteria.
and, my mind keeps coming back to that shit that was floating in my beer.
i'm not even 40 yet, i shouldn't need penicillin, unless i hit it hard. maybe i hit a really crusty, diseased bong on friday at the earthless show. hey, kids. it's not a joke - you need to protect yourself from crusty bongs. crusty dongs, too. but, we're talking about crusty bongs...
bong condoms? well, we all want to reduce the risk, right?
and, dude, if you're reading this: clean your bong. your dong, too. but this is about your bong.
what if i'm allergic to penicillin, though? i'm trying to remember the last time i had some. wisdom teeth, maybe? that was, like, 2000 or something.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's no bumps. no scrapes. i had a couple of small bruises on my arms and legs that could have been from anything and are mostly healed. there's really no sign of this...
it's gotta be bacteria.
and, my mind keeps coming back to that shit that was floating in my beer.
i'm not even 40 yet, i shouldn't need penicillin, unless i hit it hard. maybe i hit a really crusty, diseased bong on friday at the earthless show. hey, kids. it's not a joke - you need to protect yourself from crusty bongs. crusty dongs, too. but, we're talking about crusty bongs...
bong condoms? well, we all want to reduce the risk, right?
and, dude, if you're reading this: clean your bong. your dong, too. but this is about your bong.
what if i'm allergic to penicillin, though? i'm trying to remember the last time i had some. wisdom teeth, maybe? that was, like, 2000 or something.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i mean, do you think that jagmeet singh is running for prime minister, and was elected leader of the ndp, on the strength of the merits of his legislative accomplishments?
i'll let you look those up.
so, if it's not the merits of his legislative achievements, what is the reason he's representing the ndp?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'll let you look those up.
so, if it's not the merits of his legislative achievements, what is the reason he's representing the ndp?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
does white privilege exist in canada?
again: this is an american concept, it's not a canadian one, and it's certainly not a universal one; you can't just take an idea that is specifically derived from the legacy of chattel slavery in a very small geographic area and apply it to a country and a culture where that never existed. that would be called "universalizing the specific", and is an error in logic. it's ahistorical. it's wrong...
so, if you want to talk about privilege in canada, you need to separate it from the legacy of slavery in the united states and place it in the context of canada's own race relations. in canada, we had the underground railroad, and we wrote our constitution specifically to restrict "states' rights". where anti-black racism existed, and it did, it was mostly carried out by citizens, and opposed and fought against by the state; our government almost always intervened on the side of the blacks, in an attempt to fight against the white supremacists. the history is almost totally reversed, in that sense.
does something like white privilege exist in canada? kind of. sort of...
in canada, privilege is mostly about our relationships with indigenous groups. we didn't have chattel slavery, but we did and still do have the indian act. the thrust of our colonial state was always directed at the indians, not at the blacks - who we went out of our way to free and help settle here, even though they chose not to stay for very long.
to an extent, privilege is more of a perception than a reality, and if you're convinced that it's real then it becomes real. it's a kind of solipsism, in that sense. so, it's really important to actually go out and talk to people about it...
for example, i had a conversation a few weeks ago with an asian person that was convinced he had asian privilege. there's some debate over this - is it a real thing? well, he was asian (i suppose he's still asian.), and he was convinced it did. that's his perception, i guess.
so, does somebody like jagmeet singh have asian privilege? he's not really black, of course. well, i don't know, i guess you'd have to ask him what his perception of that is. i can tell you what the statistics say about second-generation south asians in canada, and it's a pretty well off group.
and, i can point out that he's a 38 year-old with no meaningful life experience running for prime minister at the head of canada's historical third party - an opportunity that somebody with his background would be unlikely to get in pretty much any other place in the world, and that one wonders if he'd have here if he wasn't asian.
so, i don't exactly want to reject critical race theory. i'm broadly in support of critical legal theories, as ideas. but, we can't just take the american crt and apply it here. canada needs it's own crt, and nobody's really developed it, yet. i don't think...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
again: this is an american concept, it's not a canadian one, and it's certainly not a universal one; you can't just take an idea that is specifically derived from the legacy of chattel slavery in a very small geographic area and apply it to a country and a culture where that never existed. that would be called "universalizing the specific", and is an error in logic. it's ahistorical. it's wrong...
so, if you want to talk about privilege in canada, you need to separate it from the legacy of slavery in the united states and place it in the context of canada's own race relations. in canada, we had the underground railroad, and we wrote our constitution specifically to restrict "states' rights". where anti-black racism existed, and it did, it was mostly carried out by citizens, and opposed and fought against by the state; our government almost always intervened on the side of the blacks, in an attempt to fight against the white supremacists. the history is almost totally reversed, in that sense.
does something like white privilege exist in canada? kind of. sort of...
in canada, privilege is mostly about our relationships with indigenous groups. we didn't have chattel slavery, but we did and still do have the indian act. the thrust of our colonial state was always directed at the indians, not at the blacks - who we went out of our way to free and help settle here, even though they chose not to stay for very long.
to an extent, privilege is more of a perception than a reality, and if you're convinced that it's real then it becomes real. it's a kind of solipsism, in that sense. so, it's really important to actually go out and talk to people about it...
for example, i had a conversation a few weeks ago with an asian person that was convinced he had asian privilege. there's some debate over this - is it a real thing? well, he was asian (i suppose he's still asian.), and he was convinced it did. that's his perception, i guess.
so, does somebody like jagmeet singh have asian privilege? he's not really black, of course. well, i don't know, i guess you'd have to ask him what his perception of that is. i can tell you what the statistics say about second-generation south asians in canada, and it's a pretty well off group.
and, i can point out that he's a 38 year-old with no meaningful life experience running for prime minister at the head of canada's historical third party - an opportunity that somebody with his background would be unlikely to get in pretty much any other place in the world, and that one wonders if he'd have here if he wasn't asian.
so, i don't exactly want to reject critical race theory. i'm broadly in support of critical legal theories, as ideas. but, we can't just take the american crt and apply it here. canada needs it's own crt, and nobody's really developed it, yet. i don't think...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you might not like the fact that canadians don't like religion, and don't want to vote for religious people, or even have religious people hold positions of power.
but, you're going to have to come to terms with it.
it's not going to change - this is the future of the country.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, you're going to have to come to terms with it.
it's not going to change - this is the future of the country.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
no. stop.
when you live in a country where a thirty-something nobody - this guy literally has accomplished absolutely nothing in his short life - gets to run a major political party, however disastrously, then you have a lot of fucking nerve suggesting he's about to lose "because racism".
he was given an opportunity to run for an office he has no business running for - and that's a measure of the opportunity that exists here.
he's going to lose - badly - because he's a poor candidate, and because of the content of his character, as determined by proxy via his religiosity, and not because of the colour of his skin.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
when you live in a country where a thirty-something nobody - this guy literally has accomplished absolutely nothing in his short life - gets to run a major political party, however disastrously, then you have a lot of fucking nerve suggesting he's about to lose "because racism".
he was given an opportunity to run for an office he has no business running for - and that's a measure of the opportunity that exists here.
he's going to lose - badly - because he's a poor candidate, and because of the content of his character, as determined by proxy via his religiosity, and not because of the colour of his skin.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)