|
EvilJoven posted:I should move further west, I could use the increase in pay. gently caress off, we're full Seriously, though, beginning to see a ton of Ontario plates here in Alberta, again.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:15 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 21:04 |
|
Faded Mars posted:So in a move that will shock no one, the OPCs have stalled the planned Ontario minimum wage increase. To allow businesses to "catch up," lol. They will not say whether or not they will ever actually allow the raise to $15 (hint: they won't). And a business group is now lobbying Ford to repeal the Wynne government's pay equity bill and wage hike.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:15 |
|
Powershift posted:gently caress off, we're full Last year there was a flood of Alberta refugees flooding into the GTA, lifted pickups as far as the eye could see.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:27 |
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Last year there was a flood of Alberta refugees flooding into the GTA, lifted pickups as far as the eye could see. Seems like they're all in Victoria building condos now.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:40 |
|
EvilJoven posted:If the cons kept winning it might actually mobilize people to put a stop to their bullshit. Are you seeing a lot of people mobilizing to put a stop to the PC bullshit currently happening in Manitoba? Just wondering.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:41 |
|
Unfortunately no, not from what I've seen. There aren't a lot of people expressing a lot of faith in Wab Kinew's ability to win the next election and the Liberals are a joke of a party here. Over all the current meth epidemic, the increase in crime in both urban and rural areas and the dust not even being settled from the actions of Sellinger's administration have taken a lot of the wind out of the lefts sails. It's hard to promote leftist ideals under the shadow of the previous government's misdeeds while people are getting beaten and stabbed to death on the streets. There was some outcry about the cuts to our healthcare but I don't hear a ton now.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 15:51 |
|
InfiniteZero posted:Are you seeing a lot of people mobilizing to put a stop to the PC bullshit currently happening in Manitoba? Just wondering. https://www.scribd.com/document/385173882/Mainstreet-Mb-Aug1#from_embed PCs are ahead in every demographic in the province and the only thing that can be taken as a positive at this point is that the the split in Winnipeg among decided voters is PC 36.9 / NDP 33.3 / Lib 15.3. The PCs are hammering the NDP on the Bombers stadium loan right now(It's being written off) and the NDP is hammering the PCs on hospital wait times(They've gotten worse since the massive re-org). The best case scenario for 2019 is probably all the Winnipeg ridings flipping back to NDP/Lib and getting a NDP-Lib coalition.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 17:45 |
|
large hands posted:Seems like they're all in Victoria building condos now. Yeah we're still desperately short on trades in Victoria. I've been involved in a few projects that have been put on hold or scaled back to a multi-phase project due to lack of labour.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:07 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah we're still desperately short on trades in Victoria. I've been involved in a few projects that have been put on hold or scaled back to a multi-phase project due to lack of labour. Believe me, I know all about it lol
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:16 |
|
EvidenceBasedQuack posted:This is an excellent post. Thank you Thanks! Hand Knit posted:I'm not flummoxed by it or anything, I just find it weird and unpleasant. I actually think that the diagnosis isn't all that complicated. The public justification for incarceration tends to flow back and forth between retribution/punishment and rehabilitation. The public justification, while affecting some characteristics of incarceration, greatly underdetermines the nature of incarceration/punishment. Rather, the nature of I/P flows much more from the nature of state power, and broader features determining the state apparatus. The state (or power in general, when incarceration is not administered by the state) is able to use the language of public justification to support whatever system that either it wants to put forward or simply emerges. One thing I would add that may help clarify my ideas here is that the people who think this way do see a real point to the punishment. It isn't just a semi-sadistic desire to see criminals suffer, though that certainly exists and anyone who has ever gone into a comments section on a story about crime knows that. But there's a second motive you often hear, especially for the death penalty, which is the supposed deterrent effect of harsh punishment. When you factor this in, the brutality of retributive prison systems becomes a feature rather than a byproduct. Again, you see this a lot in popular discourse, where people make jokes about how criminals will get raped in prison. The implication, sometimes explicitly vocalized (you see this a lot in pop culture from the 90s and 2000s, for example), is that men are afraid of committing crimes because they're afraid of going to jail because they're afraid of getting raped. Without that threat, the idea is that the person in question would be out committing all the crimes they could. This is like a two-step understanding of crime and criminality: first, you separate humanity into criminals and citizens. As a citizen who would never commit a crime, it doesn't matter to you personally how brutal the justice system is because you don't have the innate affinity for criminality and so you would never commit a crime. In addition, you have faith in the justice system that you will not be falsely convicted and sent to prison for something you didn't do (not coincidentally, you'll find most people with these views are super white). The second step is how to think about all those people who aren't you, and the idea that a lot of people settle on is that making the penalty for committing a crime as painful as possible will deter people from committing that crime, because even criminals are rational. They might be inherently predisposed to committing crime but maybe they can still be prevented from actually doing so by making the punishment so severe that they weigh that against their desire to do crime and decide not to. This is patently absurd, of course. People are terrible at considering the long-term consequences of short-term behaviours in general, and even less so if placed in arduous and emotionally-distressing circumstances like extreme poverty, drug addiction, or personal trauma. In the moment of deciding to commit a crime and acting on it, you'll find almost no one is thinking about what the potential punishment is for that crime, which means the idea of punishment as a deterrent is an idiotic one. Still, it exists. So what you end up with at the end of this line of thinking is being against rehabilitation because a criminal is a criminal and can never be reformed, and for extremely brutal and harsh prison conditions and punishments because those criminals that have not yet committed crimes might be dissuaded from doing so if they're threatened with extreme violence (not coincidentally, this is very similar to the idea of posting a sign on your property saying you will shoot criminals who break in). In my opinion, both those premises are deeply flawed and fail to recognize the short-term and circumstantial nature of most motives for crime. Also, as an aside, I think morally that the state should not be in the business of killing or committing violence against its own citizens, no matter who those citizens are or what they have done. Besides the technocratic arguments about the demonstrably better social outcomes of rehabilitative rather than retributive justice systems, that's my moral argument for why I think harsh prison conditions and violence as punishment are inherently wrong no matter what the crime. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 27, 2018 |
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:20 |
|
Canuckistan posted:So it turns out that Trump really doesn't like Chrystia Freeland. Somehow that makes me feel better. I know it's vogue in this thread to label the Liberals and Conservatives as being basically the same, but I can't imagine that Scheer and whoever he'd surround himself with wouldn't just roll over for whatever Trump wants. There are a whole lot of reasons to be disappointed with the Liberals but the way they've been handling Trump and the NAFTA talks is a point in their favour and easily distinguishable from the way the Conservatives deal with the USA (ex: writing love letters to the NYT).
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:43 |
|
large hands posted:Believe me, I know all about it lol Are you building some things in town with your large hands?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:49 |
|
Trump: Give me what I want Scheer: Well, I don't know... Trump: Do it or else! Scheer: ok..
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:49 |
|
InfiniteZero posted:I know it's vogue in this thread to label the Liberals and Conservatives as being basically the same, but I can't imagine that Scheer and whoever he'd surround himself with wouldn't just roll over for whatever Trump wants. Reminder Scheer owes his leadership to dairy farmers and he won't win election/re-election without Ontario. I know that people just think the Conservatives are wanna-be Americans but you do realize that political parties are vectors for organized pressure groups to advocate for policy changes, right? There are specific organized groups like dairy farmers that co-ordinate to lobby / manipulate the Conservative party to protect their interests. The specific industries that the Conservatives are willing to protect or abandon might be different. I don't imagine them going to bat for culture industries in the same way the Lbs have. But the idea they'd just "roll over" for Trump is pretty simplistic. They're not idiots, they rely heavily on support from some of the groups Trump is threatening, and they also understand what it means for them when 80% of Canadians who are polled express negative views on Trump. The Conservatives suck for the same reason the Liberals suck: because they are the hand maidens of lovely business interest groups and FYGM suburbanites. It's not because they have some magical mind disease that just makes them do whatever the Republicans would want them to do. Materialism people! Material interests! They matter! Politics is about the distribution of resources and the conflicts that result. It's not an abstract ideological argument!
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:50 |
|
Like honestly if Harper had still be in charge he probably would have cut a stay-the-course deal with NAFTA (while maybe clobbering one or two industries that Harper thought were too pro-Liberal) by throwing Mexico under the bus on day 1.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:52 |
|
Harper probably would of conceded dairy immediately just like he did in the TPP, he also probably wouldn't give a poo poo about dispute mechanisms
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:54 |
|
Helsing posted:Reminder Scheer owes his leadership to dairy farmers and he won't win election/re-election without Ontario. Another example: backing the Ukraine. There is a large diaspora of Ukrainians in Canada that both the cpc and lpc count on to be elected.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:54 |
|
vyelkin posted:Also, as an aside, I think morally that the state should not be in the business of killing or committing violence against its own citizens, no matter who those citizens are or what they have done. Besides the technocratic arguments about the demonstrably better social outcomes of rehabilitative rather than retributive justice systems, that's my moral argument for why I think harsh prison conditions and violence as punishment are inherently wrong no matter what the crime. The state has a monopoly on the lawful use of violence. It can and should be used at times and there’s no way around that, and sometimes that’s going to include killing or violently disarming people who are clearly an active threat to others or to the government. Post-arrest you might be right overall, but the justice system also needs to consider the thoughts and desires of the victims and their friends and families. If the system ignores these too blatantly it will lead to vigilante actions and people taking the law into their own hands, because the justice system can’t be trusted to punish offenders. (Whether it should or not is irrelevant to this argument)
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:55 |
|
Helsing posted:Materialism people! Material interests! They matter! Politics is about the distribution of resources and the conflicts that result. It's not an abstract ideological argument! Change the CSS for this thread so that the POST button says DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM! instead and it would prevent a lot of arguments.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:58 |
|
DariusLikewise posted:Harper probably would of conceded dairy immediately just like he did in the TPP, he also probably wouldn't give a poo poo about dispute mechanisms That's possible, but if he did concede on Dairy it would be because he thought he had enough reliable New Canadian voters in the Ontario and BC suburbs to cancel out the loss of a few seats in rural Quebec, not because of some weird conservative gene that makes them all subordinate to America. I'm so loving tired of the lefty Canadian narrative about everything bad here somehow being America's fault. We have our own very lovely and selfish class of suburbanites, small business shitheads, rural morons and blue chip corporate wanna-be aristocrats. The neoliberalism is coming from inside the house. We can explain how our politicians behave without their weirdly self absolving narrative about all conservative ideas emanating from foreign sources. Conservatism is an ideology rooted in material interests (ed: obviously how these interests are defined and fought for is very ideological, and also dependent on shared group identity rather than commitment to something abstract like discrete political policies, probably was being a bit too simplistic here). It should be understood that way and opposed on that basis. Helsing fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 27, 2018 |
# ? Sep 27, 2018 18:59 |
|
Evis posted:The state has a monopoly on the lawful use of violence. It can and should be used at times and there’s no way around that, and sometimes that’s going to include killing or violently disarming people who are clearly an active threat to others or to the government. See but that's wrong, because punishment is expensive and debilitating. The state considers the desires of victims and their friends and families in general much too highly, and we walk down a path with longer and more certain jail terms because it's politically expedient to push for 'tough on crime' laws.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:00 |
|
You don't need to blame America when rural Ontario is so loving dire and the suburbs are overrun by xenophobic middle classers who both team up in their resentment of city centers and cosmopolitanism.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:07 |
|
Never forget that Canadians are garbage and would vote for garbage politicians independent of anything else, but also we can't just ignore the fact that we absorb an enormous amount of American political discourse. It's just as wrong to say that our politics is all America's fault as it is to say that none of it is America's fault. To provide just one of countless examples, look at how many Ford voters were shouting "Make Ontario Great Again" as an unofficial slogan even though Ford and everyone else in the OPCs weren't trying to make any explicit comparisons to Trump.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:11 |
|
Evis posted:The state has a monopoly on the lawful use of violence. It can and should be used at times and there’s no way around that, and sometimes that’s going to include killing or violently disarming people who are clearly an active threat to others or to the government. Once a person is in police custody there is no reason to ever inflict violence on them. Also the vast majority of people can be taken into police custody without any violence being used, and the police being trigger-happy idiots doesn't make that any less true.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:13 |
|
But it is also true that the vast majority of incidents of police violence are disproportionately committed against minorities, so that's a double edged sword.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:15 |
|
Toalpaz posted:See but that's wrong, because punishment is expensive and debilitating. The state considers the desires of victims and their friends and families in general much too highly, and we walk down a path with longer and more certain jail terms because it's politically expedient to push for 'tough on crime' laws. The first part of my post was relating to pre-arrest portions of the justice system. You can’t just get rid of the army/police’s ability to use violence. Try it (in some country I don’t live in) and see what happens. You can moderate it in some ways, but you can’t eliminate it. It’s also expensive to turn victims into vigilantes who start wanting payback because the state won’t punish offenders for them. That’s not to say you have to severely punish people or be “tough on crime” in the traditional sense, but if you abdicate all responsibility for punishing people and release them relatively quickly I don’t think that will be an overall success story.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:18 |
|
Evis posted:The first part of my post was relating to pre-arrest portions of the justice system. You can’t just get rid of the army/police’s ability to use violence. Try it (in some country I don’t live in) and see what happens. You can moderate it in some ways, but you can’t eliminate it. The post you responded to was talking about the death penalty and prison terms, presumably alongside policing. I just assumed you weren't nitpicking a portion of the post to respond to. Anyways the main sickness in conservative ideology is believing that humans are inherently vengeful rather than social and cooperative creatures. Just don't believe that and you'll find it's more easy to stomach other posters saying cops shouldn't beat up or kill people. It's also on the record that it costs a shitton of money to house people in prison and feed them 3 meals a day, rather than that off the cusp fantasy you concocted to make me seem naive. I'd like to think that if police didn't beat up people, and the prison system was less punitive we wouldn't dissolve in to literal lynch mobs.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:26 |
|
InfiniteZero posted:I know it's vogue in this thread to label the Liberals and Conservatives as being basically the same, but I can't imagine that Scheer and whoever he'd surround himself with wouldn't just roll over for whatever Trump wants. Yep, if the Liberals manage to isolate us from our largest trading partner and other markets, we can all finally agree they're the best conservatives. gently caress the USA, Saudi Arabia and China, take our stupid attitude towards milk and apply it to everything, Canadian is #1. The real vogue (the one with Trudeau on the cover) is that Liberals and Conservatives aren't the same, Liberals are way better at being Conservative and get more done, pipelines notwithstanding.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:26 |
|
No I was definitely picking out a portion of the post to respond to. People are a lot of things. Some of us are vengeful. Some are social and cooperative. Some are all of those. Some are none of them. I don’t think there’s really anything stopping us from turning into lynch mobs. We’ve done it before.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:29 |
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Yep, if the Liberals manage to isolate us from our largest trading partner and other markets, we can all finally agree they're the best conservatives. gently caress the USA, Saudi Arabia and China, take our stupid attitude towards milk and apply it to everything, Canadian is #1. The real vogue (the one with Trudeau on the cover) is that Liberals and Conservatives aren't the same, Liberals are way better at being Conservative and get more done, pipelines notwithstanding. Pipelines: Harper 0, Trudope ½
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:35 |
|
vyelkin posted:One thing I would add that may help clarify my ideas here is that the people who think this way do see a real point to the punishment. It isn't just a semi-sadistic desire to see criminals suffer, though that certainly exists and anyone who has ever gone into a comments section on a story about crime knows that. But there's a second motive you often hear, especially for the death penalty, which is the supposed deterrent effect of harsh punishment. When you factor this in, the brutality of retributive prison systems becomes a feature rather than a byproduct. Again, you see this a lot in popular discourse, where people make jokes about how criminals will get raped in prison. The implication, sometimes explicitly vocalized (you see this a lot in pop culture from the 90s and 2000s, for example), is that men are afraid of committing crimes because they're afraid of going to jail because they're afraid of getting raped. Without that threat, the idea is that the person in question would be out committing all the crimes they could. I think we're kinda talking at cross-purposes here. I'm talking about public justifications rather than what people believe because I think that often the causal arrow points the other way. People, by and large, have what they support and then form beliefs to affirm what they support. I seem to remember there's quite a bit of literature on this surrounding both the sorts of information that people seek (to affirm one's own beliefs), and the way that people understand empirical evidence (to contradict what others believe). So I don't think we're disagreeing about what you're describing, but I have a different story about how they relate to incarceration and punishment. Take the story you tell about harsh treatment and deterrence. There's an analysis* that shows this fits in pretty well with the story I'm telling about state power determining the shape of incarceration more than any logic about punishment or rehabilitation. It's called something like "below standards." Specifically, if incarceration (or criminal justice otherwise conceived) is to be a deterrent, it has to be worse than the worst possible life outside of incarceration. In a context with really low standards of living, incarceration has to be really vicious to stay below standards. If incarceration is truly vicious, then you need a logic to justify the treatment of the people so incarcerated; mere punishment won't do because the acts for which the incarcerated or being incarcerated can't merit such treatment. This is the pressure that gets you the citizen/criminal split. The incarcerated aren't being harmed because they're being punished for stealing, they're being harmed because the sort of person they are means they merit violence. Note that this also fits well with a hierarchical politics that holds some people are just morally better than others on an essential, indelible level. People can get marked as essentially criminals irrespective of what they've done, because criminality is the language chosen to justify their exclusion. I guess to go back to my original whining — this isn't punishment. It's a political violence that masquerades as punishment because it has stolen the language of dessert. A punishment-centred system would prohibit much of the treatment of the incarcerated in Canada (basically all of it in the US), and require a radical recalibration of the rest. *I read this like a decade ago so I can't really remember the names. Please be nice to me. I'm old. Toalpaz posted:See but that's wrong, because punishment is expensive and debilitating. The state considers the desires of victims and their friends and families in general much too highly, and we walk down a path with longer and more certain jail terms because it's politically expedient to push for 'tough on crime' laws.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:37 |
|
Also I'm just gonna fully repost something from early August because it bares repeating that white Canadians don't have a monopoly on being horrible suburban assholes:quote:Fists fly, and so does a megaphone, as refugee crisis inflames local politics in Toronto area quote:Anti-immigration groups at Parliament Hill protest demand apology from Trudeau quote:Multiple people approached by a reporter indicated they did not speak English. We're a multicultural rainbow-heued patchwork of suburban racists.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:38 |
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Pipelines: Harper 0, Trudope ½ Someone should do a full score card counting Bill Blairs, C-51s, houses for canoes built, etc
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:42 |
|
Why I didn't specify white people as the sole suburban xenophobes.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:42 |
|
Baronjutter posted:Are you building some things in town with your large hands? Yeah I'm involved with concrete construction in town. PM me if you want to talk shop.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:44 |
|
Hand Knit posted:The vast majority of self-styled victims' rights rhetoric seems to understand victims as people who are mostly just jealous of criminals, and would jump at the first opportunity to act the same. Understood in any way that foregrounds victims' well-being and rehabilitation, Canada's support for victims of crime is piss. I think that most of your post is splitting hairs like an academic with someone who would agree with you, if you just took the time to see that: 'oh yes, this person is advocating for a system of rehabilitation, which inflicts less political violence then the current system. Sounds good.' Instead now you're concerned with being right or understood for how smart you are. Anyways for a large proportion of crime crimes are victimless where the victim is society because you littered or jay walked or gambled or whatever. For another large percent crime is committed against businesses (and maybe demographics like the consumer) with insurance like property damage, fraud, arson, but basically some entity that can't feel personally hurt by crime. Then there's a like percentage of crime with victims that are people. Then there's burglary or robbery (with violence), or other violent crime that have a low single digit percentage in Canada. 'Victims rights advocates' typically focus on trying to legislate around the 1 or so percent of victims of violent crime, and apply that legislation broadly onto many other types of crime. That is how I've heard the term used and studied it in university in school at the very least. That's no way to legislate for social harms, because it leads to us becoming more punitive over statistical anomalies just because now we're prepping for worst case scenarios. Toalpaz fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Sep 27, 2018 |
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:57 |
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Why I didn't specify white people as the sole suburban xenophobes. Wasn't trying to imply that you did. That post wasn't intended as a direct response to your comment. There is a tendency among Canadian leftists - especially affluent young white people - to essentialize everything conservative in Canada as being a by product of whiteness or the conservatism of white people. Insofar as the kids wanna prod at white fragility online I couldn't care less and they're not altogether wrong but when it comes time to actually think concretely about enacting political change or even just analyzing the current state of things people need to wake the gently caress up and realize that middle class Canadians behave the way they do regardless of race because they have a shared class/geographic set of interests. They want highly priced homes, tough cops, cheap unskilled labour and car-centric urban planning, and they want an immigration policy that keeps away scary foreign "others" while suppressing labour costs. They don't like bikes or pedestrians, they don't believe in harm reduction, they're not interested in any form of economic redistribution larger than a boutique tax cut, and they'd prefer a "strong leader" to something as messy as actual democracy. They think unions are outdated and clap like a trained seal when they hear someone has "business experience" or is an "entrepreneur". Doesn't really matter who they worship or what colour their skin is or whether the regressive form of patriarchy they subscribe to is derived from Jesus or Confucius or whomever else. More importantly though, these policies are just expressions of their underlying shared identity as the hard working middle class, the actual real Canadians who do actual work. And being a member of the tribe in good standing, and only supporting politicians who are of the tribe and subscribe to its rituals, is a habit that often transcends race or religion. It's our post modern multi-culti replacement for the Waspy civic religion of the monarch and the empire, updated for 21st century Canada. And we ought to be talking about how to deal with the existence of this critical mass of reactionary voters rather than indulging in fantasies about how Conservatism is just some American white people mind virus when it's clear that woke white people or racialized Canadians are every bit as inclined toward small c conservative politics.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 19:59 |
|
Helsing posted:Also I'm just gonna fully repost something from early August because it bares repeating that white Canadians don't have a monopoly on being horrible suburban assholes:
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 21:04 |
|
guillotine the middle class
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 21:04 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 21:04 |
|
All this tells me is there’s still enough people doing well enough in the status quo that they benefit from the system remaining what it is. America meanwhile has fired their middle class. Our immigration system did not import unskilled labourers. We got a lot of doctors, engineers and educated people who were privileged back in their home countries. Speaking as an immigrant this was true for me as well. Now they have the resources to give their kids a free ride through university and assist them financially in various ways so only a subsection of the milenneials is really enduring the naked truth that without generational wealth a lot of them would be hosed. So a lot of people still have the resources and know how to bootstrap themselves and buy into the koolaid since they are totally unaware of the privileges they have.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2018 21:43 |