|
Looks like Kathy Dunderdale is going to resign as NL Premier. Haven't been following the story too closely but it looks like the caucus is turning on her, in large part because of her low popularity and the way she handled the recent power crisis after the storms.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
brennon posted:Before you criticize Kevin, he has provided a lot of value to consumers through his products and services. That's why he's rich. He didn't steal it, people willingly gave it to him. Secondly, he has certainly contributed a lot to charity. I agree he could have phrased it differently, but don't be so quick to bash. When things like O'Leary contribute to charity it is arguably often, if not always, a bad thing for society as a whole. And if you're seriously defending someone on the basic fact that they got rich through not stealing, well, if that's the case I don't think I want to hear anything you have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
I see the 'rich people are awesome because they provide money for jobs for everyone else' idea has now been expanded to 'rich people are awesome because they provide motivation for people to work'. I was going to stay home today from work but then I remembered how loving fantastic super-rich people are and how much I want to be like them! Thank you, rich people!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:When things like O'Leary contribute to charity it is arguably often, if not always, a bad thing for society as a whole. And if you're seriously defending someone on the basic fact that they got rich through not stealing, well, if that's the case I don't think I want to hear anything you have to say. Why is it worse for society as a whole if Kevin O'Leary spends money on charity instead of on himself or just sitting on it or whatever? That makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:When things like O'Leary contribute to charity it is arguably often, if not always, a bad thing for society as a whole. And if you're seriously defending someone on the basic fact that they got rich through not stealing, well, if that's the case I don't think I want to hear anything you have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Starks posted:Why is it worse for society as a whole if Kevin O'Leary spends money on charity instead of on himself or just sitting on it or whatever? That makes no sense to me. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: charity helps to perpetuate the present economic and social order by "cushioning" the full effects of massive wealth disparities. Someone who's in dire straits who receives enough from charity to survive, even if barely, isn't likely to support radical structural change (because they're already in such a precarious position), whereas someone with nothing to lose (e.g., their social infrastructure has collapsed, they can't get any food for themselves or their families) is far more likely to support radical structural changes. I don't think anyone's saying to abandon charity (unless they're accelerationists or something similar), but that charity in and of itself can be deceptively negative. The example Zizek uses is a chocolate laxative: you eat it for the laxative to relieve your constipation, but are then constipated by the chocolate in the laxative. Similarly, we have businessmen using their vast personal fortunes to ameliorate the effects of them collecting vast personal fortunes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Vermain posted:To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: charity helps to perpetuate the present economic and social order by "cushioning" the full effects of massive wealth disparities. Someone who's in dire straits who receives enough from charity to survive, even if barely, isn't likely to support radical structural change (because they're already in such a precarious position), whereas someone with nothing to lose (e.g., their social infrastructure has collapsed, they can't get any food for themselves or their families) is far more likely to support radical structural changes. Do people in this thread honestly think Kevin O'Leary gives money to charity with the idea in mind that he is preventing people from revolting?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Starks posted:Why is it worse for society as a whole if Kevin O'Leary spends money on charity instead of on himself or just sitting on it or whatever? That makes no sense to me. Philanthropic plutocracy. This argument is a bit complex and has many facets but basically it boils down to the idea that both in the political and social realm donations by the super rich give them a louder voice and more sway in society. This happens in two basic ways: 1) The super rich can dictate what is done with their donations more than the average joe (this argument goes beyond choosing which charities, more to influencing what the recipients of the money do with it). If they want to attach string to their dontations they can and organizations are often powerless to prevent their conditions from being included in their donation. It also waters down donations by smaller groups or individuals as organizations depend (or become dependant) on large donations. For example, if charity X gets 70% of their cash from thousands of Jane Everypersons and 30% from one John Billionaire, what John wants is more likely to happen than what the rest want. Furthermore, charities can become dependant on major donors and bend their will because of it (for example, PBS recently ran a documentary that discussed how awful the Koch brothers were. However, as one of the Koch donates millions to PBS they let Koch industries run a message at the end of the doc saying how much they disagree and there are rumours that they showed it to them and edited bits out, though I don't believe this last bit is confirmed). Recipient groups can afford to lose hundreds, if not thousands of small donors provided they keep the big ones. 2) Any major donation will come with a tax deduction (US) or credit (Canada) - this is more pronounced in the US but derail. To over simplify the argument, say John gives $1 million and gets a tax saving of $250,000. He is still directly donating $750,000 but a quarter is subsidized government revenue that is lost. So though technically that .25 million was never in the government's coffers it remains a chunk of funds that would under other circumstances be there and directed by a democratically elected and accountable government. Again, oversimplified (especially this coming claim) but in this example they are giving 1million to a charity of their choosing (and one that they may have direct influence over because of their giving) but a quarter of that is coming from the tax payers in an indirect way. There are other problems as well and this issue is by no means as black and white as I may be portraying it, but a lot of philanthropy isn't always good, or at least not nearly as good as it looks on its face. (and, though not all rich are self-centred asshats, if you think for one second that Human Waste here would be donating as much as he was if it didn't benefit him directly though influence, prestige, and [probably more so than the rest combines] tax relief, well, I have some things to sell you)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Vermain posted:To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: charity helps to perpetuate the present economic and social order by "cushioning" the full effects of massive wealth disparities. Someone who's in dire straits who receives enough from charity to survive, even if barely, isn't likely to support radical structural change (because they're already in such a precarious position), whereas someone with nothing to lose (e.g., their social infrastructure has collapsed, they can't get any food for themselves or their families) is far more likely to support radical structural changes. Though this is possible it dips too much into council of evil territory for my liking. Plus there is a much simpler explanation, IMO. When the rich want to perpetuate and justify massive wealth disparities they certainly open the pocket books but it doesn't go to charities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Though this is possible it dips too much into council of evil territory for my liking. Plus there is a much simpler explanation, IMO. When the rich want to perpetuate and justify massive wealth disparities they certainly open the pocket books but it doesn't go to charities. I think its this, more than anything else. IT's a self affirmation that they are good people, even as they poo poo all over the "undeserving" poor. VVVVV It's a comment from the article. Everybody calm down. Swear to god DnD is the easiest forum to troll. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
brennon posted:Before you criticize Kevin, he has provided a lot of value to consumers through his products and services. That's why he's rich. He didn't steal it, people willingly gave it to him. Secondly, he has certainly contributed a lot to charity. I agree he could have phrased it differently, but don't be so quick to bash. I know what Kevin O'Leary's problem is but why are you defending a narcissistic sociopath? edit: That's wonderful news. I'm perfectly calm thanks I didn't say what I did to insult O'Leary I meant it as it reads. I think he belongs in a psychiatric ward. Throwdini fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Do people in this thread honestly think Kevin O'Leary gives money to charity with the idea in mind that he is preventing people from revolting? No? I'm not positing that Kevin O'Leary is some kind of bourgeois mastermind, but that the effect of charity nevertheless helps to perpetuate systemic inequality by allowing that systemic inequality to continue via a reduction in its negative effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Though this is possible it dips too much into council of evil territory for my liking. Plus there is a much simpler explanation, IMO. When the rich want to perpetuate and justify massive wealth disparities they certainly open the pocket books but it doesn't go to charities. DnD has a lot of trouble grasping the fact that maybe, just possibly, it might be possible for bad people to do good things, or vice versa. This is pretty true of any community on the internet though, everything is either pure gold or absolute poo poo. Not a whole lot of room (or desire) for nuance when you're communicating via brief text posts anonymously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
I saw a commercial where I think O'Leary said his new passion is taking photographs and selling them for his charity to help young entreprenuers or something... I blacked out and woke up covered in vomit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Jonad posted:DnD has a lot of trouble grasping the fact that maybe, just possibly, it might be possible for bad people to do good things, or vice versa. I don't doubt that Kevin O'Leary or Bill Gates are doing charitable things because they believe in doing good things, but the reality of the self-perpetuating cycle that this creates still exists, regardless of their intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I don't doubt that Kevin O'Leary or Bill Gates are doing charitable things because they believe in doing good things, but the reality of the self-perpetuating cycle that this creates still exists, regardless of their intentions. I have to say, I hate O'Leary a lot more than I hate Gates though (don't really hate good ol' Bill). Gates doesn't host a show premised on arguing for wealth inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
There's charity and there's charity. Nobody with a working brain capable of empathy celebrates poverty. Philanthropy to capitalists is just another dominance display. I have what you need and I'm so powerful I can give some up and still be on top of you. Bill Gates? I dunno. Kevin O'Leary and his ilk? You better believe that. They don't care where that money goes. They care that get an award for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
I don't doubt O'Leary believes some of his poo poo but he is pretty blatantly a massive troll. I am amazed Lang is able to keep a straight face when 'debating' him, because some of the poo poo he says is just  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Not -really- the kind of endorsement our friend Steve-O really wants, methinks. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/21/sarah-palin-stephen-harper_n_4637584.html Byline: "Sarah Palin Really Loves Stephen Harper And His Stance On Israel"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Basically if you're rich, if you give to charity it's a display of dominance and if you don't you're an rear end in a top hat. It's a catch-22 I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Basically if you're rich, if you give to charity it's a display of dominance and if you don't you're an rear end in a top hat. Maybe not for all rich people, but certainly for rich people who thinking poverty provides motivation to better yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
There's a huge difference between the charity of Johnny Carson and the charity of Kevin O'Leary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Maybe the difference is not being a wealth worshipping shithead who, no matter what charitable acts he's done, went on national TV and lauded the idea of half the world being in abject poverty. It doesn't help to begrudge the rich for being lucky enough to end up on top in our system, I'm not lining up to give away my material comfort either. But it's shitheads like O'Leary, who celebrate the acquisition of money for its own sake and the fact that this causes suffering world wide that are the ones that should be reviled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
I've seen O'Leary getting so passionate about Capitalism that I wonder if he masturbates while thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I've seen O'Leary getting so passionate about Capitalism that I wonder if he masturbates while thinking about it. Hey now, there's a market out there for billionaire DNA even without the $75 sock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I've seen O'Leary getting so passionate about Capitalism that I wonder if he masturbates while thinking about it. Why do you think it's called the invisible hand? You can't see it because you've closed your eyes to better picture capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Maybe the difference is not being a wealth worshipping shithead who, no matter what charitable acts he's done, went on national TV and lauded the idea of half the world being in abject poverty. He's the most obvious of trolls. I'd thought that people would be easily able to spot this type of person now, but I guess I was just being optimistic. He's BAD at trolling. Maybe it's just that there are so many other people on the right (especially in the CPC) who have legitimately insane opinions that just sort of accidentally spill out - for example lately in a Jamaican accent. O'Leary is just trying too hard and there is a climate of weirdness out there right now that does it better without thinking about it (see: Ezra Levant, Rob Anders, etc. etc.). InfiniteZero fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:He's the most obvious of trolls. I'd thought that people would be easily able to spot this type of person now, but I guess I was just being optimistic. He's BAD at trolling. Maybe it's just that there are so many other people on the right (especially in the CPC) who have legitimately insane opinions that just sort of accidentally spill out - for example lately in a Jamaican accent. O'Leary is just trying too hard and there is a climate of weirdness out there right now that does it better without thinking about it (see: Ezra Levant, Rob Anders, etc. etc.). It's because O'Leary can never just come out and say that the poor should die in the street. He always pretends that everybody can be rich. It's to willfully naive to be real. Genuine conservatives don't hide their contempt for everybody not like them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Do people in this thread honestly think Kevin O'Leary gives money to charity with the idea in mind that he is preventing people from revolting? I certainly find the people revolting.  Also bahahahaha so long, Blunderdale. Wistful of Dollars fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
look at everyone getting mad at the villain from some cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Bank of Canada keeps the rate at 1% and now the Loonie has fallen below $0.91. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-sinks-as-bank-of-canada-holds-rate-at-1-1.2506316 quote:The Bank of Canada kept its benchmark interest rate steady at one per cent today, continuing its longest stretch of inaction on record.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:look at everyone getting mad at the villain from some cartoon. I think it's worth asking why a cartoon villain troll needs a plum spot on CBC, actually. It may be that O'Leary is really just trolling and his personal opinions are not actually that vile, but even just trolling that way is objectionable enough regardless of how he personally feels about it. If he is actually a saint in his personal life and is just being a shithead on national TV for personal gain, then that may be even worse than if he actually believes what he's saying. And don't for a second believe that there aren't plenty of Bay street types who do buy into his trolling 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:look at everyone getting mad at the villain from some cartoon. Are you saying O'Leary can't be dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:I don't doubt O'Leary believes some of his poo poo but he is pretty blatantly a massive troll. I am amazed Lang is able to keep a straight face when 'debating' him, because some of the poo poo he says is just When it first started occasionally she would be left straight up speachless after he'd say something nakedly spiteful of the poor. Now she's used to it and seems to realize she's been stuck in the "Coach's Corner" of business shows. Someone sub a script of Kevin railing on the poor v. rich and Don Cherry doing the same with russians v. canadians. it seems to be a formula that works for the cbc, even if it is shallow dreck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Bloody Holly posted:When it first started occasionally she would be left straight up speachless after he'd say something nakedly spiteful of the poor. Now she's used to it and seems to realize she's been stuck in the "Coach's Corner" of business shows. Someone sub a script of Kevin railing on the poor v. rich and Don Cherry doing the same with russians v. canadians. it seems to be a formula that works for the cbc, even if it is shallow dreck. As much as I adore Lang, she has her own stupid moments too. Then again, that works with your comparison of her to Ron McLean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Janet Churnin has been found guilty of not filling out the census. A dark day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
gently caress stats canada; I hope they are taken to the dump next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
What % of his money does O'Leary donate though? I'm a hell of a lot more impressed by some student donating 200$ than Kevin O'Leary donating 2 million, even if his money is doing "more"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Bank of Canada keeps the rate at 1% and now the Loonie has fallen below $0.91. Well, it looks like all that bitching and moaning about Dutch Disease was premature. I expect a full apology from Mulcair any day now, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Census ain't a census unless you get everyone...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 17:47
|
|
