CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Duck Rodgers posted:

Why would climate activists limit their tactics to the demand side only, especially when Oil companies have been some of the largest opponents to meaningful climate policy? Anything that hurts the bottom line of oil companies is a good thing, if only because they'll have less money to spend on lobbying. Plus climate change activism is multifaceted, it targets demand and supply.

I don't really know what the point of the bolded is. We should just sit back and relax because our relative contribution to climate emissions will eventually be a small part of the total? Climate change (and environmental problems in general) is a production and consumption problem first and foremost, not a population problem. Canadians use a huge amount of resources right now, and historically. We should fix that.

e: https://ricochet.media/en/893/court-solidarity-for-activists-who-took-direct-action-against-enbridges-line-9

Not to mention, by frustrating their ambitions and slowing their growth, it will weaken the oilmen's grip upon Canada's collective throat, even if only slightly. Building pipelines and exporting more oil will only make them more powerful, give them more control over the nation's agenda.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jan 27, 2016

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 04:10

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I guess there's a lot of benefits to provincial trade barriers. For instance, it means that we can protect small businesses from the economic hegemony of provinces like Ontario and BC.

Hmmm we could also do things like penalize people from Alberta who want to steal BC realtor and construction jobs from hard working British Columbians.

Also we wouldn't have to eat that awful white margarine from Quebec!!!!

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:16

The Duggler: Feb 20, 2011; I do not hear you, I do not see you, I will not let you get into the Duggler's head with your bring-downs.

Nobody cares about Alberta anymore

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:23

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

THC posted:

I don't particularly care if the shareholders are Canadian or foreign or how much they pay in tax. I don't care if the pipes leak or not, if the tankers have 2 hulls or 20. That carbon has to stay in the ground, and Canada needs to stop hinging its national ambitions upon an unburnable fuel source. That outweighs whatever monetary benefit might trickle down to me someday if the projects go ahead. (And let's be real, that benefit would amount to jack poo poo.) It would be better in the long run to just put all the labourers on welfare until they can find other work.

Pictured below: THC and associates

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:26

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Cultural Imperial posted:

I guess there's a lot of benefits to provincial trade barriers. For instance, it means that we can protect small businesses from the economic hegemony of provinces like Ontario and BC.

Hmmm we could also do things like penalize people from Alberta who want to steal BC realtor and construction jobs from hard working British Columbians.

Also we wouldn't have to eat that awful white margarine from Quebec!!!!

It would be pretty cool if we could have a national agency regulating securities like every other federation on earth, but you might be pleased to learn that calling Preston Manning a hypocrit doesn't require you to support everything he opposes.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:29

UnfortunateSexFart: May 18, 2008; ð» ððð« ð·ððð·
ð ð ð ð« ð®ð ð¾ð ð ð¡ððð

Cultural Imperial posted:

That said Canada has the most lol worthy border policy of searching it's own citizens for consumer products.

No other loving country in the world gives a poo poo if their citizens come back into the country over their consumer goods limit

My brother made himself into an immigration specialist to get out of doing milk/cheese duty south of Vancouver. They flew him to Toronto and put him in a hotel just to deal with Syrian refugees, your tax dollars at work.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:34

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

David Corbett posted:

Global warming is driven by the world's demand for energy, not its supply. A barrel of crude not extracted in Canada is simply going to get extracted and burned up somewhere else. The vast majority of oil's carbon emissions are produced at end use, not at extraction. Trying to end global warming by cancelling domestic pipeline construction feels to me like trying to end the drug trade by bombing a handful of cocaine fields in South America.

Besides, if priced properly, the extra money extracted from a domestic infrastructure will end up mostly outside of the upstream sector and so shouldn't boost production too much. If anything, shipping oil by pipeline rather than by rail and refining it in new plants might even cut carbon emissions.

Canada has less than 0.5% of the world's population. As standards of living increase, our contribution to global carbon emissions should eventually regress towards that amount. The story on anthropogenic global warming isn't going to be written here, no matter how hard we try.

nah brah, oil supply has long term effects on demand. Limiting the supply is an effective tactic to increase prices, limit demand and shift to other energy sources.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:35

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Wtf I guarantee you none of those refugees are trying to sneak in plates of kibbeh or exceeding their 1.4l of alcohol

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:41

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Reverse Centaur posted:

They flew him to Toronto and put him in a hotel just to deal with Syrian refugees, your tax dollars at work.

That doesn't sound particularly inefficient. The alternative would be to station him permanently in Toronto and have him sit around bored whenever there's not a whole bunch of refugees to process, I assume.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:42

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

BTW is your brother the loving tool who stands outside of his booth and wears black leather TACTICAL gloves at peace arch

Tell him I think he's a tool

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:44

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/no-the-tpp-wont-cost-canada-20000-auto-manufacturing-jobs/

quote:

No, the TPP won�t cost Canada 20,000 auto manufacturing jobs
The claim that the TPP will lead to massive job losses in the auto sector is built on dubious assumptions, and overlooks the deal�s benefits to consumers

The latest meme to circulate in Canadian economic policy circles is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership could cost 20,000 automotive manufacturing jobs in Canada. Unlike the oil bailout meme, the TPP automotive meme has an obviously identifiable source: my good friend Jim Stanford, the now-ex chief economist of Unifor. The estimate is a rounding from the Sept. 22, 2015, blog post �TPP: Renegotiating NAFTA, By the Back Door� where Stanford writes:

T]he industry could outsource approximately one-quarter of the value of its existing value-added activity to jurisdictions outside of the TPP, yet still preserve its made-in-the-TPP trade preferences. Applying the lower of these two weighted-average calculations (24 percentage points) to Canada�s existing automotive manufacturing footprint (and assuming that the dislocation for Canada�s industry is only proportional to the overall North American shrinkage, an assumption which is probably optimistic), allows us to generate an estimate of the potential scale of economic loss if the U.S.-Japan rules were implemented. Canada could lose 24,600 jobs (ie. 24% of existing automotive manufacturing employment), $6 billion in parts shipments, and a large chunk of its assembly footprint as well.

The blog post, along with Jim�s 2014 reports CETA and Canada�s Auto Industry and Canada�s Auto Industry and the New Free Trade Agreements are invaluable resources for anyone wanting to learn more about Canada�s automotive industry and recent trade agreements. That said, the claim that TPP could cost 20,000 jobs simply does not hold up to scrutiny, for three reasons. To understand why, a short primer on the industry is useful.

Canada�s automotive industry

In 2015, Canadians purchased roughly 1.9 million cars and light trucks and assembled roughly 2.4 million, causing a trade surplus in vehicles of around 500,000 units. Toyota and General Motors assemble the most vehicles in Canada, each representing 26 per cent of the market, with Chrysler at 23 per cent, Honda at 17 per cent and Ford making up the rest at nine per cent. Because Canada makes a limited set of models, around 80 per cent of cars driven by Canadians were imported from other countries, and 85 per cent of the cars assembled in Canada are exported to other markets, with the overwhelming majority destined for the United States. In 2014 (the most recent year with data), 68,000 Canadians were employed in �motor vehicle parts manufacturing�, 40,000 more were employed in �motor vehicle manufacturing� (assembly) and an additional 13,000 had jobs in �motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing� (Statistics Canada provides a useful historical comparison for these figures).

Assuming TPP does not affect the total number of cars and trucks sold in North America (in reality, the number of vehicles should increase somewhat due to the downward impact tariff removal will have on prices), TPP could affect employment levels in Canada through several mechanisms:

It could affect the number of vehicles that Canada manufactures for export (currently 1.5 million), as Canadian manufactured cars become more or less competitive than those assembled elsewhere.
It could affect the number of vehicles that Canada manufactures for domestic consumption (currently 0.4 million), as Canadians may substitute more (or fewer) Canadian-assembled cars for ones assembled abroad.
It could affect the level of Canadian part-content in cars manufactured in Canada (either for export or domestic consumption).
It could affect the level of Canadian part-content in cars manufactured in the United States or Mexico.
It could affect the market share for Canadian after-market part manufacturers.
With that context in mind, here are the three reasons why the 20,000 job loss estimate does not hold up to scrutiny.

1. It gets the counterfactual wrong

The Stanford estimate is based on comparing a world with TPP to one without TPP. But from Canada�s perspective, that is not the most relevant question, as Canada cannot unilaterally scuttle TPP. The more relevant question in the automotive employment context is �how many jobs will Canada gain or lose being inside TPP versus outside of it?� Examined this way, much of the possible routes of job loss are eliminated. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Canadian automotive assemblers will lose market share in the United States because American tariffs on cars assembled in Japan are lowered (and, again, this is only a hypothetical).

Those tariff reductions (and subsequent Canadian employment declines) happen regardless of whether or not Canada is a signatory to TPP, which is significant given that only a small percentage of Canadian assembled vehicles are for domestic consumption. Furthermore, Canadian assembly plants and parts manufacturers would be placed at a significant disadvantage if Canada is outside of TPP, as American and Mexican factories would receive beneficial rules of origin treatment under both NAFTA and TPP, while Canadian plants would only fall under NAFTA. A TPP-less Canada would be fighting with one hand tied behind its back when trying to attract automotive assembly or part-manufacturing mandates.

Even if the relevant counterfactual were a world with TPP versus one without, the 20,000 estimate would be highly problematic, but much of the potential for job loss falls away completely when the more pertinent counterfactual is used.

2. It is contradicted by economic studies on the issue

Jim and I are kindred spirits when it comes to the value of back-of-the envelope modelling of economic effects. In the absence of a detailed study, very simple models are incredibly useful in sketching out the possible effect of a policy, so I use them quite often. However, we are not limited to back-of-the envelope calculations as there exist two detailed studies of the possible automotive employment effect of TPP.

In �The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement, and then some,� Head and Mayer find a net gain of automotive assembly jobs in Canada, largely at the expense of Mexico:

The orange bars add the MP gains to the TPP (a rise of operating efficiency in another member state that we estimate to be around 6 per cent). From the point of view of Japanese workers, deeper integration is unappealing, as it reduces the gains in production by about 500,000 cars (1.1 versus 1.6 million). This occurs because TPP raises efficiency in Japanese plants in the U.S., Australia, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The response to this �γ effect� is big enough for Canada to convert a net production loss of 163,000 into a production gain of 229,000. The main changes are due to Canadian Toyota and Honda factories, which are predicted to ship nearly 100,000 fewer cars to the U.S. under shallow integration, while they increase their sales to the southern neighbour by more than 80,000 if the �γ friction� also falls. In contrast, the plants located in Mexico face greater erosion of preferences when serving the US and Canada as the TPP experiment applies deeper integration. This is due to the fact that Mexico already has a regional trade agreement in place with Japan since 2005. Therefore, the �γ gains� by Japanese brands operating in Canada or the US are very harmful to Mexican plants of the same brands, which do not experience any gains, and instead suffer from a strengthening of competition in their main markets.

Canada may also gain at the expense of Europe, as Head and Mayer suggest that �if TPP makes Japanese plants more efficient in Canada, it will contribute to an expansion of Toyotas and Hondas exported from Canada to countries inside and outside of TPP, in part at the expense of the exports of Japanese or EU-made Toyotas and Hondas.�

Using a different model, Van Biesbrock, Gao and Verboven estimate a small loss in Canadian assembly jobs:

The highest effect we ever find for Canadian trade policy is in the case of full unilateral elimination of tariffs for vehicles from all three trading partners�Korea, Japan, and the E.U.�and assuming a restrictive demand system. Even in this scenario, total loss of local production is estimated to be at most 14,407 vehicles, or 0.70 per cent of total domestic production. Using the average jobs-per-vehicle ratio for the entire Canadian automotive market, this translates into 660 jobs.

Neither model produces results even within an order of magnitude of a 20,000 job loss. Of course, these two models do not model every possible dynamic, so it is certainly possible that they are wrong and Stanford�s estimates are closer to the truth. However, given that these models are more sophisticated, consider more factors, and get to similar (though non-identical) results through very different means, my money is on the models.

3. The 20,000 estimate is highly sensitive to two rather dubious assumptions

It is helpful to return to Jim�s blog post to see where the 20,000+ job estimate comes from. Here are the details, direct from the post:

The weakening of auto content rules would facilitate the offshore outsourcing of about one-quarter of the total value of a finished vehicle by North America�s auto industry. The parts-content rule would be reduced by 30 percentage points (from 60 per cent to 30 per cent), and the finished vehicle rule by 17.5 points (from 62.5 to 45)�

Another way of calculating the proportional reduction in the content rule, is to consider the combined effect of the two thresholds. An auto part can qualify as TPP-made with just 30 per cent TPP content. A vehicle can qualify as TPP-made if 45 per cent of its content originate within the TPP � including auto parts which only had minority TPP content in the first place. This �double jeopardy� effect means that the theoretical minimum regional content for a finished vehicle to qualify for TPP trade preferences would be only 13.5 per cent(equal to 30 per cent of 45 per cent). That is a theoretical minimum; in practice, true content will be higher than that (in part because the deal would require final assembly within the TPP to qualify for tariff-free status). The equivalent value for NAFTA is 37.5 per cent (60 per cent of 62.5 per cent), hence the weighted average reduction in the regional content threshold is 24 percentage points.

By either method, the industry could outsource approximately one-quarter of the value of its existing value-added activity to jurisdictions outside of the TPP, yet still preserve its made-in-the-TPP trade preferences. Applying the lower of these two weighted-average calculations (24 percentage points) to Canada�s existing automotive manufacturing footprint (and assuming that the dislocation for Canada�s industry is only proportional to the overall North American shrinkage, an assumption which is probably optimistic), allows us to generate an estimate of the potential scale of economic loss if the U.S.-Japan rules were implemented. Canada could lose 24,600 jobs�

Emphasis added by me. There are at least three rather large problems with these assumptions:

It assumes that companies will seek to produce at the minimum possible level of content rules. But history suggests that will not be the case. As Stanford mentions, NAFTA has a 62.5 per cent minimum finished-vehicle rule. But currently the actual industry average under NAFTA is �closer to 75 per cent,� in part because it does not make economic sense for assemblers to run long and complicated supply chains all across the globe.
As Jim Stanford mentions in the above quote, he assumes that Canada�s �automotive manufacturing footprint� will remain in the same proportion to that of its NAFTA partners. But there is no reason why this should hold. NAFTA does not guarantee any assembly or parts manufacturing will take place in Canada; a vehicle could have no Canadian content whatsoever and still meet the rules of origin under NAFTA. As noted earlier, this causes problems if the United States and Mexico are in TPP but Canada is not, as parts and vehicles in those two countries would meet both NAFTA and TPP rules of origin requirements, but Canada�s would meet only NAFTA�s. Furthermore, Jim�s assumption also ignores Head and Mayer�s evidence that Canada gains at Mexico�s expense under TPP.
Finally, the assumptions ignore the fact that Japanese automotive imports into Canada and the United States currently have no rules-of-origin requirements. In order to receive beneficial tariff treatment under TPP, Japanese-assembled cars will need to ensure they meet TPP rules-of-origin requirements, which could help Canadian parts manufacturers.
The Stanford model is based solely on the dual assumptions of �companies source at the minimum� and �Canada retains NAFTA proportionality,� neither of which are at all realistic. The results of Stanford�s model should be seen as a mathematically possible but highly unlikely outcome.

Finally, there�s one big group that�s missing in all of this: the consumer. Head and Mayer find that:

Canadian consumers gain 6.8 per cent under deepest integration. This is because the reduced cost of distributing Japanese models in Canada leads to greater variety of Japanese models available at lower prices.

Greater variety and lower prices? That is a fantastic win for Canadians, even without considering the secondary effects of Canadians spending or investing those extra dollars.

Disclosure: Mike Moffatt is the co-owner of Nexreg Compliance, which provides regulatory consulting services to manufacturers, including several in the automotive industry. Mike has also had a number of helpful background conversations with the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada (who are not a Nexreg client) on trade issues. The opinions expressed in this piece do not necessarily represent those of Nexreg Compliance, its clients, or the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada.

sorry to interrupt the marxist circlejerk and weed potlatch gently caress heads

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 27, 2016 04:47

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Oh look a slight decrease in consumer prices (maybe), that's totally worth adopting American style intellectual property laws for medicine and media. Oh and maybe it won't crater auto-sector jobs overnight? Then I guess its ok to give international corporations a veto over our domestic legislation.

But thanks for posting some Macleans article about how a guy who gets paid by corporations disagrees with the guy who gets paid by unions about some job numbers that no one in this thread ever claimed to give a poo poo about.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:10

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

lol did you just slag off a UNIFOR economist

HERESY

by the way, Mike Moffat is one of Justin Trudeau's advisors but you knew that right

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:21

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

i find it hilarious that you guys are TOTALLY fine with telling international law to gently caress off when it comes to weed but when it comes to the TPP we're completely UNDER THE BOOT of FASCIST AMERICAN CORPORATIONS

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:25

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

You are comparing apples to oranges and I, of all people, shouldnt be the one pointing this out to you because I know youre smarter than that.

Like for fucks sake those laws were put in place during the War On Drugs^TM and based off archaic religious laws and beliefs. Following them in this day and age is as dumb as Americans following a 200 year old piece of paper written before the invention of the loving telephone.

Furnaceface fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jan 27, 2016

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:40

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The TPP has enforcement mechanisms with actual teeth. You're not actually stupid so you understand this but you are apparently drunk enough to think other people somehow won't.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:41

Tochiazuma: Feb 16, 2007

Cultural Imperial posted:

i find it hilarious that you guys are TOTALLY fine with telling international law to gently caress off when it comes to weed but when it comes to the TPP we're completely UNDER THE BOOT of FASCIST AMERICAN CORPORATIONS

For someone who bitches about weed being the topic de jour you sure bring it up a lot

From my reading the penalties for ignoring the anti-drugs conventions we've signed on to amount to a stern talking-to, versus actual monetary costs to being on the wrong side of a trade dispute.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 07:09

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

Tochiazuma posted:

Versus actual monetary costs to being on the wrong side of a trade dispute.

Or even being on the right of a trade dispute but USA knowing they're untouchable, so they can say "haha what the gently caress are you gonna do" like with softwood lumber.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 07:55

UnfortunateSexFart: May 18, 2008; ð» ððð« ð·ððð·
ð ð ð ð« ð®ð ð¾ð ð ð¡ððð

Cultural Imperial posted:

BTW is your brother the loving tool who stands outside of his booth and wears black leather TACTICAL gloves at peace arch

Tell him I think he's a tool

He's a bit of a tool (job requirement) but he's not the tactilol type.

PT6A posted:

That doesn't sound particularly inefficient. The alternative would be to station him permanently in Toronto and have him sit around bored whenever there's not a whole bunch of refugees to process, I assume.

Or they could just not send everyone to Toronto? I dunno, just seems weird to me. He was one of a large group from the west coast.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 09:45

brucio: Nov 22, 2004

So does #BellLetsTalk rub anyone else the wrong way or am I just being weird about corporate piggybacking on charity?

# ? Jan 27, 2016 15:23

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Bell's a pretty good fit for that sort of thing and nobody is probably going to say "Mental illness is a topic I feel strongly about so therefore I will switch to Bell Telephone" so I think this one's okay. But generally yeah, it feels icky when for-profit corporations huck charity so aggressively.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 15:33

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

#MonsantoLetsBlaze

# ? Jan 27, 2016 15:56

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

https://twitter.com/DeputySloly/status/692353461766193153

#LetsPointFirearmsAndYell

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:06

ChickenWing: Jul 22, 2010

Most corporations have a charity or two that they attach to and go pretty ham doing fundraising for.

A lot of places do United Way. I know CIBC does the run for the cure stuff.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:14

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Breast cancer awareness

Recognize that these charities are pretty much a scam.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:21

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

My favorite is when coca cola ran a campaign that cost millions of dollars to crowd source funding to help polar bear research in the arctic. Their total contribution per year was like $100k.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:29

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

On the subject of #bellletstalk I know we are having pictures of staff with quotes to push it too. Including my ugly mug.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:31

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

NAFTA, outsourcing jobs in the name of low prices for consumers. Let's repeat this with CETA, TPP, and FIPA because it is cool and good.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:37

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Cultural Imperial posted:

Breast cancer awareness

Recognize that these charities are pretty much a scam.

Wait, people get cancer there? Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for making me aware.

Here's an idea: Instead of buying pink poo poo you don't need, how about just sending money so the charities can do their thing?

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:41

Tan Dumplord: Mar 9, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

flakeloaf posted:

Here's an idea: Instead of buying pink poo poo you don't need, how about just sending money so the charities can do their thing?

It's harder to fetishize a tax receipt than a thing that you can show off.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:43

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

flakeloaf posted:

https://twitter.com/DeputySloly/status/692353461766193153

#LetsPointFirearmsAndYell

Sloly was actually one of the ones pushing for serious reform at TPS. If he's behind this, it's probably not all bad.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:48

Fried Watermelon: Dec 29, 2008

I feel as if the Let's Talk campaign gives people an "excuse" to point to when they are unsatisfied with their lives, instead of finding out the true cause of their issues.

Someone may be depressed because they are under the crushing boot of capitalism as a wage slave.

With the campaign they can see "oh it's not the system of society keeping me depressed, it's my own brain and there is nothing I can do about it".

Unfortunately I dislike the campaign because it really encourages people to "out" themselves, and as someone who struggles with mental issues it's something I'd like to keep to myself because it can really effect how people perceive and interact with you. The stigma is still around, it may not be as malicious, but it is almost infantilizing.

I have to question the end goal of the campaign, what do they hope to achieve? Getting people to accept that they have issues or to try and eliminate the issues?

# ? Jan 27, 2016 16:50

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

"Mental illness isn't real, it's just KKKAPITALISM!"

Meanwhile, apparently I'm the one with offensive opinions toward mental illness :rolleyes:

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:07

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

https://twitter.com/meschultz1010/status/692008608385613824

I'm no fan of mandatory minimum sentences, but gently caress Peter Brauti. A different class of people indeed.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:19

Marijuana Nihilist: Aug 27, 2015; by Smythe

Psychiatry in this society is like putting a bandage on a man bleeding out from a gunshot wound

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:20

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Jesus, people in this thread are so negative. Perhaps y'all should get checked out for depression. It's okay! #BellLetsTalk

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:21

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Fried Watermelon posted:

I feel as if the Let's Talk campaign gives people an "excuse" to point to when they are unsatisfied with their lives, instead of finding out the true cause of their issues.

Someone may be depressed because they are under the crushing boot of capitalism as a wage slave.

With the campaign they can see "oh it's not the system of society keeping me depressed, it's my own brain and there is nothing I can do about it".

Unfortunately I dislike the campaign because it really encourages people to "out" themselves, and as someone who struggles with mental issues it's something I'd like to keep to myself because it can really effect how people perceive and interact with you. The stigma is still around, it may not be as malicious, but it is almost infantilizing.

I have to question the end goal of the campaign, what do they hope to achieve? Getting people to accept that they have issues or to try and eliminate the issues?

Since you can't "eliminate" mental illness I'm going to guess it's the first one. It's a thing that exists and it's okay and knowing someone has a mental illness shouldn't change how you interact with them.

The best way to destigmatize something is to get it out in the open and make it okay to talk about. That doesn't mean I think that's what you personally should do because everyone copes differently, and being a member of a group shouldn't automatically make you one of its flagbearers, but on a bigger-picture basis it's the right thing to do.

I don't see how Let's Talk reinforces the notion that there's "nothing" you can do, because doctors and therapy are things that exist and it's perfectly okay to ask for that kind of care if one thinks one needs it. That's why Howie Mandel and Daniel Alfredsson and Clara Hughes and all of these other people are on every lit surface today: They're telling everyone that it's okay to talk about mental illness.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:26

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Fried Watermelon posted:

I have to question the end goal of the campaign, what do they hope to achieve?

Marketing and brand recognition. They net $2.2 billion a year, $15m only costs them $11m because they don't pay tax on it. If it boosts profit by half of one percent, it pays for itself. They eventually donate the money to different mental health organizations and grants but you don't know who because that's not what it's about. It's about Bell.

If you see yourself as being under the crushing boot of capitalism, think of this as the nice fedora of capitalism that Liberal staffers can doff at you and say "mental health exists!" while their colleagues continue to freeze hospital and mental health center funding.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:27

Tan Dumplord: Mar 9, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

PT6A posted:

Jesus, people in this thread are so negative. Perhaps y'all should get checked out for depression. It's okay! #BellLetsTalk

Then, when the mental health professional has nothing to rebut your claim that human existence is hollow and meaningless, kill yourself! Or don't, it really doesn't matter. #BellLetsTalk

# ? Jan 27, 2016 17:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 04:10

Ambrose Burnside: Aug 30, 2007; pensive

PT6A posted:

"Mental illness isn't real, it's just KKKAPITALISM!"

Meanwhile, apparently I'm the one with offensive opinions toward mental illness

i mean it seems v obvious to me that the way our society is organized economically is generally extremely good at both causing and also worsening extant mental illness

# ? Jan 27, 2016 18:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »