Ikantski posted:

Maybe he considers his primary group to be conservatives and not gay people?

Hexigrammus posted:

I guess this is why Gretzky was stumping for HarperCo during the election. Not that he's been relevant to anything other than being rich for years.

Ikantski posted:

It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be.

Dallan Invictus posted:

"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!"
"Actually, the tax rate on dividends for corporations of that size is such that you save only minor amounts of money over the same amount as salary, here is a chart that specifically highlights this"
"Yes, but when you add INCOME SPLITTING* to that they become a huge tax dodge!"

Never change, CanPol.

*_{that program that nobody mentioned today until someone got called on their shitpost and that the incoming government has specifically promised to kill}

DariusLikewise posted:

People were trying to tell me last night that EMay has a legitimate chance of being named Environmental Minister tomorrow? I thought that idea was just some dumb Facebook petition?

Cultural Imperial posted:

Let's get back to Something Dumb one of you posted. Who here loving thinks Sikhs are exempt from the hindu caste system?

vyelkin posted:

I don't know if you've put this quite the right way. It's true that regressive shitheads assume white men are the most qualified at everything.

But there's also a second layer to this, which is the difference between equality of treatment and equality of outcome. Conservative when they talk about equality are almost always talking about equality of treatment, whereas when the left talks about it (I don't say liberals because I don't want to confuse it with the party) we talk about equality of outcome.

Equal treatment in choosing your cabinet means you would look at every MP you've got and decide who is the "most qualified", meaning who has the most experience, who has the most degrees, who has the most time in office, etc. By doing this you would end up with a cabinet dominated by white men, because historically white men have advantages such as being admitted to better schools, rising through corporate or military hierarchies faster, getting elected more often, and getting appointed to influential posts more often. Therefore the cabinet would end up mostly older white men because they have the most experience, but you would not be recognizing the fact that those men got their experience by having small advantages at every stage of their life. You would not necessarily be appointing the most "qualified" candidate for each office, because you are inherently biasing your selection towards people with advantages in life and away from people with disadvantages in life.

On the other hand, equal outcome in choosing your cabinet means you would try to achieve a balanced cabinet along gender, ethnic, etc. lines the way Trudeau did. You will not necessarily be appointing the most experienced person or the person with the most credentials, because you recognize that they may have received those credentials because of built-in advantages due to their gender or race, without actually being more qualified for the post than their competition. It also inherently assumes that women are as smart and competent as men, and minorities are as smart and competent as white people, and that even if you just randomly plotted the intelligence and competence of all your MPs on a bell curve it would be extremely unlikely that all the best ones would be white men. So you end up appointing people with less experience, but who may end up being more competent at their jobs because they might actually be smarter than the white guys who picked up more experience than them along the way.

But the problem is there's no way to measure competence and intelligence before someone is appointed. So when applying equality of outcome to a policy problem, whether it's picking a cabinet or affirmative action or anything else, you face the problem of measurement: it's easy to measure "this white guy has ten years of experience whereas the black woman only has five years" or "this white student has a 90% average whereas the First Nations student has an 85% average" and think it's unjust that the black woman gets picked for cabinet and the First Nations student gets the scholarship, without recognizing that it's easier for the white guy to get experience and the white student to get higher grades because of built-in advantages. But if you're someone who firmly believes that equality should mean equal treatment (David Cameron gave an important speech about this recently calling the British Conservative Party "the party of equality"), which a lot of the time implicitly means "give everyone a fair interview and then appoint the white guy because he has a better resume" then no amount of argument is necessarily going to convince you that a minority woman should get a job over a white man who has more measurable experience.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Why aren't any of you talking about Minister Bad rear end's ties to the World Sikh Organization? Melian, were asleep at your desk or something? Why haven't you deployed your jackbooted jarheads? If JT appointed a Palestinian with ties to Fatah how good would you all feel about yourselves?

Brannock posted:

What grade are you in?

Count Roland posted:

Yeah, but I want it to be actually legal. Decriminalization does not interest me. I'm very curious about how the Liberals will go about doing it, there are a few examples in the US and they're none of them the same. I know a lot about the subject so I feel like flooding the thread with my informed opinions on the matter instead of listening to diet advice.

Coolwhoami posted:

How many of these do you have to accord with in order to be a neoliberal? All? One? Is this a scale thing, where being really anti-labor means you're neoliberal unless you're also really positive in other categories? What is the scale, or are they just dichotomous?

Without those established, it's pretty easy to put everyone into that definition. You can have it be restrictive if you want, but you probably ought to make that clear to also clarify the level of ideological purity required to pass the bar. Otherwise setting down this list isn't really helpful to anyone. Especially since, for example, the arisement of labour disputes could be classed anti-labour because the leading party did things that were not to the benefit of the union. Possibly an absurd distinction, but possibly not either.

Coolwhoami posted:

This doesn't actually resolve my inquiry (I also think there are issues with linkage to neoliberalism, but i'm not concerned with them at this moment). Are you saying that engaging in any of these activities makes one a neoliberal? Does failing to eliminate these things make one a neoliberal? The fact that you state "Until I see otherwise" indicates there is a region in which a party can operate outside of this activity, so what is it? Note that I do not take issue with most of these being lovely things, but while these are nice prototypical examples, my concerns line more in the sort of issues where the application of your definition is conditional to the voracity in which you apply it. To reiterate, this matters mostly because without some sort of standard, the criteria becomes useless because it is not the criteria that matter, but how well one feels a government (or a person or a party) is in accord with them, which is a pretty arbitrary thing and makes the criteria themselves unimportant. This stuff is easy to apply when there is a nice dichotomy of action, but the world is most frequently not forthcoming with such things.

Ikantski posted:

Zenni is pretty good, it's nice to have a bunch of pairs of $12 prescription sunglasses in the summer and you can tint them fun shades.

Speaking of shady things... do you Ontarians like having a group of independent, non-partisan experts handling our electricity planning, transmission and procurement? Well gently caress you non-progressive thinkers. The OLP, having solved the rest of Ontario's problems and finding themselves with a little free time between bribing unions and flipping off autistic kids, have decided to handle the nitty gritty details of Ontario's electricity infrastructure themselves and will be relieving the OEB and IESO of any real decision making.

Cultural Imperial posted:

I can't wait until someone from the press finds out that one of JT's liberal party minions is posting private emails from outraged constituents because he thinks they're dumb. Yeah that's really respectful. The deserve to be made fun of because they disagree with my party!

PT6A posted:

Yes, as stated we don't need to worry yet; I was merely using those breweries as examples of actual bad things that could happen as a result of the new tax structure. Muskoka, the brewer that actually pulled out, probably sucks anyway.

I would be more fond of supporting Alberta brewers if they didn't all loving suck so goddamn much. Every new Big Rock product tastes like unpalatable garbage, and I still have no idea how Wild Rose manages to make every single one of their beers so abjectly terrible. Yet people drink them in huge amounts. It's a complete mystery to me.

THC posted:

MohawkSatan posted:

So unrelated to our government doing their normal thing and being fuckups, and the Cons being racist as poo poo, Canada's other racist as poo poo organization just decided to do their thing. So here's a crosspost from TFR:


Basically, the RCMP is deciding that they write the laws again. Because, y'know, that could never turn out badly.

MohawkSatan posted:

Even if you're anti-gun as all hell, you gotta admit that letting the RCMP start to make up laws, and invent poo poo nor actually present in Canadian law is a bad idea.

Dreylad posted:

I've noticed a ton of new breweries east of Toronto but 200 in Ontario alone? Holy crap that's a lot of craft breweries. I wonder how many the ~market~ can really support.

Was the big boom after 2007-2008? Because I don't really remember many before I moved to Quebec, but when I came back there seemed to be tons.