CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »

thehoodie: Feb 8, 2011; "Eat something made with love and joy - and be forgiven"

Helsing posted:

That doesn't exactly reflect well on the party.

Also the more you actually look at the record of the NDP any time it forms government the less reason there is to trust how they would govern.

I mean, this distinction also makes it the most progressive platform of any major party in recent memory. And they are certainly better than any alternative. Neither points being stunning endorsements, though.

In the absence of any better alternative, I'll just work to support individual candidates I believe in. Despite any shortcomings you may have about the party, there are many great candidates who are far left of the party itself. One way to get the party to adopt more progressive policy and be more accountable to it in government is to elect representatives that can shift the party from office.

Another option is to organize within the party and pass internal resolutions and get radicals elected to positions on the party executive. Don't know when the next federal convention is but that is certainly a goal for the BC Convention coming up in November(.

Yet another option is to organize with movement and community groups and force the party to adopt more progressive positions. This is simultaneously the easiest (easier to recruit people to the cause) and most difficult (no internal accountability, unclear leverage) option, IMO.

Anyway I know nobody asked about the above but the NDP are not going to get more progressive without intervention.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 21:55

Normy: Jul 1, 2004; Do I Krushchev?

They certainly aren't going to get more progressive if people don't show support when they do.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 18:40

folytopo: Nov 5, 2013

Normy posted:

They certainly aren't going to get more progressive if people don't show support when they do.

The party is internally in shambles right now and they have turned out bolder platform to regain some momentum. I think it might be an example of going in a little to late as the election was 4 months from the time of the announcement of that policy and that is not enough time to really build a social movement outside of that.

I think being organized outside the federal party is necessary because in order to actually change everything up it needs to be organized before hand. I think Courage is still limited because it focuses on the NDP and not getting a base outside of that with which to enter the NDP internal process. Getting MPs, MPPs,or MLAs who are left wing in office could be very good. In so much as you get a CA who gets to research the government and help find problems and expose them, but also that the leftwing person gets to do politics full time for their mandate. The key is making sure that the party they are a part of does not discipline them every time they try and push the overton window left. The previous NDP federal election expectations were that candidates are only ever on script and even could not rephrase many talking points. When there is that much control over individual candidates it does not matter much if you elect people with left wing personal politics. Being able to have a pot of available demonstrated labour available is a good way to discipline a party.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 18:56

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

The federal Liberals are polling higher than in the past few months in the GTA. Mostly because the provincial conservatives are so disliked. Cant wait for Trudeau to win another federal election.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 19:00

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

The Federal Conservatives are desperately trying to make Andrew into a Conservative strongman that will march around to everyone in the world and tell them how special Canada is and not to mess with us. They are completely failing at the one thing that wins them elections.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 19:04

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

DariusLikewise posted:

The Federal Conservatives are desperately trying to make Andrew into a Conservative strongman that will march around to everyone in the world and tell them how special Canada is and not to mess with us.

He looks more like the man who tells you he has to keep his spice rack in the fridge so the mayonnaise won't turn.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 19:07

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; Jaxxon: Still not the stupidest thing from the expanded universe.

flakeloaf posted:

He looks more like the man who tells you he has to keep his spice rack in the fridge so the mayonnaise won't turn.

I literally have been describing him as the human version of warm mayonnaise for months now.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 19:15

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

MR TRUDEAU, LAY THAT PIPE

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-pipeline-aboriginal-idUSKCN1TX2FL

quote:

CALGARY, Alberta/WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - An indigenous-led group plans to offer to buy a majority stake in the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from the Canadian government this week or next, a deal that could help Prime Minister Justin Trudeau mitigate election-year criticism from environmentalists.

The group, called Project Reconciliation, aims to submit the C$6.9 billion ($5.26 billion) offer as early as Friday, managing director Stephen Mason told Reuters, and start negotiations with Ottawa two weeks later.

Project Reconciliation said the investment will alleviate First Nations poverty, a watershed for indigenous people who have historically watched Canada�s resources enrich others.

Expansion would triple capacity of the pipeline carrying crude from Alberta to British Columbia�s coast, helping resuscitate an industry depressed by low prices and congested pipelines.

Trudeau�s government, which bought the pipeline last year after its owner, Kinder Morgan Canada, gave up on trying to get the expansion approved, has already been touting First Nations participation. A deal ahead of an October election could ease criticism from voters who have complained of broken promises on the environment and aboriginal rights.

Still, not all First Nations groups are on board. Some in British Columbia have pledged to keep fighting expansion of Trans Mountain, even with blockades and protests, saying ownership makes no difference to the risk of oil leaks.

�The greatest hope the government can have is they neutralize this topic. Imagine if a multinational gets ownership of the pipeline, or an indigenous consortium. The indigenous (option) is way less provocative,� said Ken Coates, professor of public policy at University of Saskatchewan.

When Trudeau approved the pipeline in June, he said his government would immediately consult indigenous communities on how they can benefit, including potentially buying the pipeline.

Mason declined to say how many communities support Project Reconciliation.

�There is a vocal minority (against the project). The majority are in favor especially if they have material ownership and a place at the table that allows them to be involved with environmental aspects,� Mason said. �If we own it, chances are we can quiet down the opposition.�

Project Reconciliation hopes to buy 51% of the pipeline this year for C$2.3 billion and roughly half the expansion project for C$4.6 billion. It would finance the deal through bank loans underwritten by commitments from oil shippers. The government would retain 49 percent.

Once expansion is complete, it intends to invest C$200 million of annual proceeds into an indigenous sovereign wealth fund.

�We have conversations about climate change. But tell me at what level climate change is a discussion when we have a lot of our people who are starving,� Delbert Wapass, Project Reconciliation�s executive chairman told a packed crowd at Calgary�s Petroleum Club.

FOR AND AGAINST
Indigenous people who support buying Trans Mountain say it offers a rare opportunity to own money-making oil infrastructure.

Before Chief Tony Alexis was born, Trans Mountain was built underground on Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation traditional land near Edmonton, Alberta, where the pipeline starts.

In the 66 years since, the community has received no benefits, Chief Alexis said, only risk. Now it could cash in.

�Our people have been ready to be in business for a long time,� Alexis said. �If we do this right, this is going to be a template for the future.�

Alexis is part of Iron Coalition, another indigenous group seeking to buy between half and 100% of the pipeline once it is built in 2022. It is discussing options with banks and plans to direct future profits to Alberta indigenous groups that join.

At the other end of the pipeline 1,150 kilometers (715 miles) away, British Columbia indigenous communities are digging in for a fight.

�Our sacred obligation is that we are stewards of this land, this water and our people,� said Chief Leah George-Wilson of Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, based along Burrard Inlet opposite Westridge Marine Terminal where Trans Mountain ends.

Tsleil-Waututh plans to appeal Trudeau�s approval of Trans Mountain�s expansion over concerns about spills and tanker traffic, George-Wilson said.

Coates, the University of Saskatchewan professor, said indigenous participation in the pipeline could allow Trudeau�s Liberals to retain more urban votes that will be critical to the election�s outcome.

The government is already promoting Trans Mountain as a means to improve aboriginal lives.

�Meaningful economic participation by indigenous peoples is an important way to respect ... people who are actually impacted along the line,� Finance Minister Bill Morneau said last month.

Conservatives have not decided how they would sell the pipeline if they win the election, said MP Shannon Stubbs of Alberta who has criticized the government over natural resources issues.

The Alberta provincial government said it welcomed interest from indigenous communities in becoming partners in the energy sector. British Columbia opposes the pipeline expansion, however, and Environment Minister George Heyman said indigenous ownership would not change its concerns about spills.

Opponents are planning litigation, blockades and protests, said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

�Who owns the pipeline is not the issue. It�s what goes through the pipeline,� he said.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 20:08

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

thehoodie posted:

I mean, this distinction also makes it the most progressive platform of any major party in recent memory. And they are certainly better than any alternative. Neither points being stunning endorsements, though.

In the absence of any better alternative, I'll just work to support individual candidates I believe in. Despite any shortcomings you may have about the party, there are many great candidates who are far left of the party itself. One way to get the party to adopt more progressive policy and be more accountable to it in government is to elect representatives that can shift the party from office.

Another option is to organize within the party and pass internal resolutions and get radicals elected to positions on the party executive. Don't know when the next federal convention is but that is certainly a goal for the BC Convention coming up in November(.

A few points here. I confess I'm sorta playing devils advocate but these arguments need to be had in my opinion.

1) You're acting as though the way to move the country left is to just pile up one progressive policy on top of another. I don't put much stock in that these days. Policies need to be backed up by an ideological framework that organically links into those policies, which the NDP no longer has and most certainly does not want to have.

2) You're overestimating the freedom of maneuvre for rank and file MPs. In our current parliamentary system the leader is all that matters. MPs are creatures of the leader, typically with less authority than the party leaders staffers. Furthermore, MPs have fought so hard to get where they are that they became naturally conservative. They think that after everything they struggled to get where they are it must have all been in service of something, so they make compromises. They stay quiet. They get comfortable. They become used to towing the party line. They start to really think that whatever compromises they made to preserve their career were actually necessary for the sake of the movement.

Put a great activist into an MP's seat and all you did was remove a really good activist. The idea that individual MPs can go against the wishes of their party just doesn't reflect reality anymore. All that energy you're dumping into getting good NDP candidates elected is just reducing the supply of activists and increasing the supply of loyal NDP foot soldiers.

3) You aren't accounting for the fact the NDP is no longer a membership driven party (insofar as it ever was). The NDP is every bit as top down and controlled as the Liberals and Conservatives, and therefore equally difficult to takeover from inside. The NDP may once have been a membership oriented party but those days are past.

quote:

Yet another option is to organize with movement and community groups and force the party to adopt more progressive positions. This is simultaneously the easiest (easier to recruit people to the cause) and most difficult (no internal accountability, unclear leverage) option, IMO.

Anyway I know nobody asked about the above but the NDP are not going to get more progressive without intervention.

This is the only way forward. I used to advocate doing this while simultaneously working with the NDP but I'm starting to think that any time spent on the NDP (other than maybe voting for them as the least worst option) is a waste of time and resources that could be better deployed on anything that isn't electoralism.

# ? Jul 2, 2019 20:56

ARACHTION: Mar 10, 2012

Jesus don�t read the comments of articles talking about the concentration camps at the US/Mexico border. Our country is filled with boomers edging themselves over how much they want us to become fascist too.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:26

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.

ARACHTION posted:

Jesus don�t read the comments of articles talking about the concentration camps at the US/Mexico border. Our country is filled with boomers edging themselves over how much they want us to become fascist too.

We are basically just Americans, and boy howdy are a lot of Americans a-ok with literal concentration camps. To the extent that when the horrific abuses of women and children are exposed they see them as a positive, or at least justifiable thing, because those people had the temerity to try to enter the country improperly.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:30

ARACHTION: Mar 10, 2012

Conservative responses are the following
1) Good, they deserve it, they are invaders.
2) Had they not wanted this kind of treatment, they shouldn't have come.
3) Sexist slurs about AOC
4) Democrats caused the crisis because they refused to have more money allocated to CBP.

I have a running checklist to see when America has descended into fascism and I believe we're there. You gotta feel for the poor CBP agents who join so they can dehumanize Central American migrants and instead get sent to the Peace Arch crossing.

ARACHTION fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jul 3, 2019

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:38

ARACHTION: Mar 10, 2012

infernal machines posted:

We are basically just Americans, and boy howdy are a lot of Americans a-ok with literal concentration camps. To the extent that when the horrific abuses of women and children are exposed they see them as a positive, or at least justifiable thing, because those people had the temerity to try to enter the country improperly.

Totally ignoring that all our ancestors had to do to get in legally* was show up.

*ancestors must be white and from Europe.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:39

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

infernal machines posted:

We are basically just Americans, and boy howdy are a lot of Americans a-ok with literal concentration camps. To the extent that when the horrific abuses of women and children are exposed they see them as a positive, or at least justifiable thing, because those people had the temerity to try to enter the country improperly.

That's one thing that I really struggle to understand. American Conservatives are known for being traditionalist to a regressive degree. But isn't beating Nazis as American as apple pie? How is it that a few generations ago we were drafting kids to go die in wars against Nazis, and now their children are building concentration camps and calling antifa terrorists, all the while referring to their ideology as conservative?

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:46

ARACHTION: Mar 10, 2012

xtal posted:

That's one thing that I really struggle to understand. American Conservatives are known for being traditionalist to a regressive degree. But isn't beating Nazis as American as apple pie? How is it that a few generations ago we were drafting kids to go die in wars against Nazis, and now their children are building concentration camps and calling antifa terrorists, all the while referring to their ideology as conservative?

There is a lot of conservative effort that has gone into somehow making the case that the Nazis were actually leftists. You see, they were National "Socialists". Also, I think the media has done a piss-poor job of showing all the brawls that have taken place between Neo-Nazis and antifa by both-sides-ing. A staggering amount of Canadians seems to be infinitely more afraid of antifa or black-block and any associated PrOpErTy DaMaGe than literal Nazis.

ARACHTION fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jul 3, 2019

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:52

folytopo: Nov 5, 2013

Helsing posted:

A few points here. I confess I'm sorta playing devils advocate but these arguments need to be had in my opinion.

1) You're acting as though the way to move the country left is to just pile up one progressive policy on top of another. I don't put much stock in that these days. Policies need to be backed up by an ideological framework that organically links into those policies, which the NDP no longer has and most certainly does not want to have.

2) You're overestimating the freedom of maneuvre for rank and file MPs. In our current parliamentary system the leader is all that matters. MPs are creatures of the leader, typically with less authority than the party leaders staffers. Furthermore, MPs have fought so hard to get where they are that they became naturally conservative. They think that after everything they struggled to get where they are it must have all been in service of something, so they make compromises. They stay quiet. They get comfortable. They become used to towing the party line. They start to really think that whatever compromises they made to preserve their career were actually necessary for the sake of the movement.

Put a great activist into an MP's seat and all you did was remove a really good activist. The idea that individual MPs can go against the wishes of their party just doesn't reflect reality anymore. All that energy you're dumping into getting good NDP candidates elected is just reducing the supply of activists and increasing the supply of loyal NDP foot soldiers.

3) You aren't accounting for the fact the NDP is no longer a membership driven party (insofar as it ever was). The NDP is every bit as top down and controlled as the Liberals and Conservatives, and therefore equally difficult to takeover from inside. The NDP may once have been a membership oriented party but those days are past.

This is the only way forward. I used to advocate doing this while simultaneously working with the NDP but I'm starting to think that any time spent on the NDP (other than maybe voting for them as the least worst option) is a waste of time and resources that could be better deployed on anything that isn't electoralism.

Well here is part of the case for at least some electoralism.

Your first argument stands up. It took the CCF many terms to implement medicare in Saskatchewan, and many of their other enterprises involve institution building which is not a short task. The ideological core is necessary to weather short term storms and to build power over time and the NDP does not advance a theory of change beyond vote for the NDP.

In terms of arguments 2 and 3, one thing to address is, if taking power in a political party matters than having some people on the inside is important. Unless there is a very long leadership race, mobilizing people takes a some time and establishment candidates have an advantage that takes time to overcome. Being completely outside a party makes it pretty hard to take it over when there is a moment of political opportunity.

The next is that you can still build power as a retail politician who has more radical politics. I would also question if currently there is going to be as strong of whipping of MPs as was done in the Layton Mulcair period. Maybe that level of party discipline will come back but if not, even the current environment lets MPs push.

Riding Associations (EDAs) do not set national policy and maybe there is no point to national convention, but an EDA is still an okay vessel for some local events. Political Parties get the best donation and tax treatment and are except from most of the SPAM laws so it is a bit easier to get going. Riding Associations can still do some local work.

I think there are some arguments for Electoralism generally.

1. Firstly, electoral processes are part of what many people understand politics to be. Contesting elections does let some of the ideas and ideology espoused move more into the conversation of society. It is one of the few times people are paying attention to politics in bigger numbers and one of the best opportunities to advertise. In the United States, Bernie and AOC and Ilhan Omar even if they are not enough by themselves have directed a lot of people to be active politically, and Bernie in particular has told people to join other social movements.

2. Contesting elections does at least teach you about list management and other skills and doing electoralism at least trains for many of the same skills as movement building. Additionally, it can help recruit people who know what they are doing to local campaigns. Unless someone believes in only revolution and not in any other process, eventually contesting elections is going to be required.

3. Sometimes the other options on the table are not much better than electoralism. If you are not in a situation to unionize your work place, or there are no effective socialist movements in your area. The environmental groups might also be in the vein of not left, not right forward. I think that the question, what is a good use of activism time in very contextual to the time and place. Maybe it is not worth it to engage in electoralism if you have a local leftist environmental group that is doing movement building. A single person cannot really create a movement by themselves consistently or if they have any other significant constraints in their life.

4. Any viable movement is probably going to need to at least be able to start influencing elections and dabbling in electoralism provides the necessary backround to understand what is required to be persuasive.

I think at the moment a dabbling in electoral politics is probably good. I think it makes it easier to jump in when power is at stake and can help make the ascendancy of a geniune leftist takeover of the NDP happen easier or help the rise of a new party.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 00:57

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

To be honest, both sides were evil. One was just better at it and went on to write history. The idea that allied states ever opposed eugenics or genocide is propaganda. That's why it's completely compatible for the conservatives of today to be the Nazis of yesterday. Our grandparents weren't drafted to fight against genocide, they were drafted to support our own genocide.

xtal fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jul 3, 2019

# ? Jul 3, 2019 01:01

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

xtal posted:

That's one thing that I really struggle to understand. American Conservatives are known for being traditionalist to a regressive degree. But isn't beating Nazis as American as apple pie? How is it that a few generations ago we were drafting kids to go die in wars against Nazis, and now their children are building concentration camps and calling antifa terrorists, all the while referring to their ideology as conservative?

A lot of Americans really loved Nazi Germany, at least until WWII itself. Nowhere close to a majority, but a lot more than you'd think.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 01:24

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

xtal posted:

To be honest, both sides were evil. One was just better at it and went on to write history. The idea that allied states ever opposed eugenics or genocide is propaganda. That's why it's completely compatible for the conservatives of today to be the Nazis of yesterday. Our grandparents weren't drafted to fight against genocide, they were drafted to support our own genocide.

Yeah, I dunno. It is certainly true that prior to (and after) WWII, the USA and other Western powers were actively complicit in genocides, eugenics, medical human rights abuses and more. But to say that was comparable to the Holocaust is to trivialise the sheer scale of the Holocaust.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 01:31

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.

"Has not yet institutionalized industrial scale murder" is definitely an interesting direction to go when defending the west.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 02:00

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

infernal machines posted:

"Has not yet institutionalized industrial scale murder" is definitely an interesting direction to go when defending the west.

When your starting point was "maybe EVERYONE were the real nazis?" you're going to get some weird arguments.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 02:54

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

The fact that we haven�t suspended our safe third country agreement with the states and just allowed people to make refugee claims at legal border crossing should tell you where Canada is at

# ? Jul 3, 2019 03:01

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

"Never again" basically just meant "never again will we allow a German named Adolf Hitler to murder millions of Jews", it didn't mean "never again will we tolerate genocide or crimes against humanity"

# ? Jul 3, 2019 03:02

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Yeah, I dunno. It is certainly true that prior to (and after) WWII, the USA and other Western powers were actively complicit in genocides, eugenics, medical human rights abuses and more. But to say that was comparable to the Holocaust is to trivialise the sheer scale of the Holocaust.

I had a semester where I took the sociology of genocide from a Dachau concentration camp surivour.

He was really explicit in his terminology that nothing else can use the world holocaust but very determined in the fact that no genocide in any variant or threshold should go unpunished or unnoticed. Had some very explicit points around how USA and the Western powers were headed down the same path and often just as complicit as their own atrocities.

Getting up at 5 am on a weekend to watch Shoah for extra credit was uh... something else.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 03:17

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

ARACHTION posted:

Totally ignoring that all our ancestors had to do to get in legally* was show up.

*ancestors must be white and from Europe.

You had to be the right kind of white too. My ancestors were from Eastern Europe, pale white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes but they were catholic and spoke with a non-English accent so they were definitely made aware that they weren�t welcome.

Even though my family has been here several generations I�ve been called a foreigner a few times by an old person with an English accent solely because of my last name.

Old British people can be really weird.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 03:38

incontinence 100: Dec 21, 2018; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

You guys know British Properties in West Vancouver and Shaughnessy has "no orientals" covenants on their land titles right?

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-won-t-remove-no-oriental-clause-on-thousands-of-properties-1.2382873

If only their current residents knew. :smugdog:

# ? Jul 3, 2019 03:58

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

incontinence 100 posted:

You guys know British Properties in West Vancouver and Shaughnessy has "no orientals" covenants on their land titles right?

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-won-t-remove-no-oriental-clause-on-thousands-of-properties-1.2382873

If only their current residents knew.

Whenever there�s an article on real estate on the CBC website, about a quarter of the comments are invariably some variation of �the Supreme Court should allow enforcement of land title covenants�.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 04:10

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.

Mr. Apollo posted:

You had to be the right kind of white too. My ancestors were from Eastern Europe, pale white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes but they were catholic and spoke with a non-English accent so they were definitely made aware that they weren�t welcome.

Even though my family has been here several generations I�ve been called a foreigner a few times by an old person with an English accent solely because of my last name.

Old British people can be really weird.

When my father came to this country, he was not white. By the time I was born he was.

It's a weird club

# ? Jul 3, 2019 04:25

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Ben Franklin hilariously called Germans and Swedes "swarthy", but he was just bitter about his German language paper failing.

In other not news, New Brunswick is hilariously corrupt. This time it turns out that all of MP Dominic Leblanc's friends and family got appointed as judges in provincial courts after completely unrelated donations to his failed leadership campaign and local Liberal riding association.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 05:36

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

STOP 👏 BUILDING 👏 PIPELINES 👏 YOU 👏 UTTER 👏 loving 👏 PSYCHOPATHS

https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/stat...r%3D133%23pti23

https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/stat...r%3D133%23pti23

# ? Jul 3, 2019 12:18

Danaru: Jun 5, 2012; 何 ??

I really like that over here in Nova Scotia, we have so much loving ocean and we're flat as balls so we have a ton of wind, but most of our power comes from coal and oil because some dumb gently caress sold off NS Power and now amazingly our power infrastructure is super expensive and also garbage.

At least theres a private company trying to develop turbines strong enough to withstand the bay off fundy but ffs our cup runneth over with renewable energy opportunities

# ? Jul 3, 2019 12:29

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

vyelkin posted:

STOP 👏 BUILDING 👏 PIPELINES 👏 YOU 👏 UTTER 👏 loving 👏 PSYCHOPATHS

https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/stat...r%3D133%23pti23

https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/stat...r%3D133%23pti23

No, but you see, it doesn't matter for us because we are so small and minor compared to other polluters and thus we need pipelines to generate wealth for the green transition and faaaaaaaaaaaaaart

Meanwhile, Canadians against accepting more refugees. Then why don't Canadians stop electing regressive troglodytes like Ford, Kenney, Legault or Scheer, whose selfish policymaking directly contributes to worsening conditions both domestically and internationally, thus guaranteeing an even larger flow of climate refugees? Oh, that's right, no politician can think beyond a 4 year electoral cycle, let alone the voters themselves.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:00

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Jan posted:

No, but you see, it doesn't matter for us because we are so small and minor compared to other polluters and thus we need pipelines to generate wealth for the green transition and faaaaaaaaaaaaaart

Meanwhile, Canadians against accepting more refugees. Then why don't Canadians stop electing regressive troglodytes like Ford, Kenney, Legault or Scheer, whose selfish policymaking directly contributes to worsening conditions both domestically and internationally, thus guaranteeing an even larger flow of climate refugees? Oh, that's right, no politician can think beyond a 4 year electoral cycle, let alone the voters themselves.

There's an underlying connection between your two statements, and it's the basic inability for these people to understand their impact on anything outside their extremely narrow visual range. You could draw a picture at a five year olds comprehension level of how their diet and large truck is going to kill them and their entire family, and they'll just shrug and go back to complaining about Muslims. They are fundamentally and inherently incapable of self reflection or critical thinking, and are driven by little more than the impulse to consume.

Discarding eugenics last century was a deathblow mistake for the entire species, is what I'm saying.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:05

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

Rime posted:

There's an underlying connection between your two statements, and it's the basic inability for these people to understand their impact on anything outside their extremely narrow visual range. You could draw a picture at a five year olds comprehension level of how their diet and large truck is going to kill them and their entire family, and they'll just shrug and go back to complaining about Muslims. They are fundamentally and inherently incapable of self reflection or critical thinking, and are driven by little more than the impulse to consume.

Discarding eugenics last century was a deathblow mistake for the entire species, is what I'm saying.

Easy there tommy douglas

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:07

just another: Oct 16, 2009; these dead towns that make the maps wrong now

Helsing posted:

2) You're overestimating the freedom of maneuvre for rank and file MPs. In our current parliamentary system the leader is all that matters. MPs are creatures of the leader, typically with less authority than the party leaders staffers. Furthermore, MPs have fought so hard to get where they are that they became naturally conservative. They think that after everything they struggled to get where they are it must have all been in service of something, so they make compromises. They stay quiet. They get comfortable. They become used to towing the party line. They start to really think that whatever compromises they made to preserve their career were actually necessary for the sake of the movement.

Put a great activist into an MP's seat and all you did was remove a really good activist. The idea that individual MPs can go against the wishes of their party just doesn't reflect reality anymore. All that energy you're dumping into getting good NDP candidates elected is just reducing the supply of activists and increasing the supply of loyal NDP foot soldiers.

Do you mind if I repost this somewhere? I think it captures a lot of what's frustrating teachers who had high hopes for the BC NDP.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:07

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.

Rime posted:

Discarding eugenics last century was a deathblow mistake for the entire species, is what I'm saying.

Nuclear take there broheim

You know what would save humanity? If we just killed off ~those~ people. You know the ones I mean...

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:09

Mr. Apollo: Nov 8, 2000

infernal machines posted:

Nuclear take there broheim

You know what would save humanity? If we just killed off ~those~ people. You know the ones I mean...

Yes, those people but also the other ones too.

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:43

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Well we're on track to kill those* people

*everyone

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:44

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

It'll be a long time before climate change kills off the suburbian voters who enabled it. Removing them from the picture to make room for climate refugees is egalitarian. Think of it as... exctinction socialism. :ocelot:

# ? Jul 3, 2019 16:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 21:55

thehoodie: Feb 8, 2011; "Eat something made with love and joy - and be forgiven"

Helsing posted:

A few points here. I confess I'm sorta playing devils advocate but these arguments need to be had in my opinion.

1) You're acting as though the way to move the country left is to just pile up one progressive policy on top of another. I don't put much stock in that these days. Policies need to be backed up by an ideological framework that organically links into those policies, which the NDP no longer has and most certainly does not want to have.

2) You're overestimating the freedom of maneuvre for rank and file MPs. In our current parliamentary system the leader is all that matters. MPs are creatures of the leader, typically with less authority than the party leaders staffers. Furthermore, MPs have fought so hard to get where they are that they became naturally conservative. They think that after everything they struggled to get where they are it must have all been in service of something, so they make compromises. They stay quiet. They get comfortable. They become used to towing the party line. They start to really think that whatever compromises they made to preserve their career were actually necessary for the sake of the movement.

Put a great activist into an MP's seat and all you did was remove a really good activist. The idea that individual MPs can go against the wishes of their party just doesn't reflect reality anymore. All that energy you're dumping into getting good NDP candidates elected is just reducing the supply of activists and increasing the supply of loyal NDP foot soldiers.

3) You aren't accounting for the fact the NDP is no longer a membership driven party (insofar as it ever was). The NDP is every bit as top down and controlled as the Liberals and Conservatives, and therefore equally difficult to takeover from inside. The NDP may once have been a membership oriented party but those days are past.

This is the only way forward. I used to advocate doing this while simultaneously working with the NDP but I'm starting to think that any time spent on the NDP (other than maybe voting for them as the least worst option) is a waste of time and resources that could be better deployed on anything that isn't electoralism.

I more or less agree with all of this - in fact, for mostly these reasons I've mostly tried (often unsuccessfully) to avoid electoral politics for the past few years, instead working in movements. But my experience with movements is that without some allies in government that have access to the balance of power, nothing the movement does will be really successful. I've definitely seen a lot of strong activists burn out because the government continually rebuffs attempts to enact anything we ask for.

Ultimately you're right that movements are the only way forward. Without movements, no political party or candidate is going to move their positions. Similarly, I think it is possible to use electoral politics to build movements - there are no shortage of recent examples of that. I think (in a good example of dialectics) balance between the two produces best results. Obviously most people are not full-time activists or organizers and don't have time to commit to both sides of things. In that circumstance I would probably counsel people to go do movement work. My point is that there is a place for electoralism.

Finally, if the NDP requires a coherent ideological framework from which to propose policy, again this does not arise without a combination of movements, activists, candidates, and bureaucrats/party staff.

Perhaps most of my thinking is a symptom of not yet having personally experienced the malaise of the internal workings of the NDP. Perhaps it is a lost cause. But I certainly do not think there is much appetite for a new party in this country. We still need the power to make real decisions that can have real impact on people and the NDP is the only thing that could even come close to exercising that power in the necessary way. To think that we can persuade elected officials to implement progressive agendas through movement tactics alone is utterly incorrect, in my view.

Of course, all this is inferior to :thermidor:

# ? Jul 3, 2019 17:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »