Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canadian Politics: The North shall rise again?

24567101

Posts

  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Went to college with someone who fled the reserve, said it was slow death. Local band (when I lived in that town) was great about paying their bills (worked at a lumber yard that dealt with them) and put up some nice community buildings but the reserve itself was crummy; drove through it a few times when I worked for Hydro and had to do some painting for their transformer boxes. Saw something in the paper that INM is going to have a thing at one of the busiest intersections downtown; can't say that sort of thing builds any sympathy - it just screws over the average person who happened to be downtown at lunch.

    No one gives a shit about them otherwise. What sympathy do they have in the first place? At least this gets peoples attention.

    That attention is "fucking indians" and that's it.

    And how is that any different than how people normally treat them?

    People don't normally treat them any way at all. People just don't think about them at all most of the time.

    You are correct that they are brining attention to the first nations community. They are just bringing negative attention to it.

    So then how do they bring positive attention? You're so full of answers after all.

    Who says I'm full of answers?

    All I'm saying is tons of Canadians have no contact with first nations on a regular basis. Except for protests like this.

    It's publicity, but it's not good publicity.
    The whole point is to get people to stop frigging pretending the problem doesn't exist.

    Of course people are going to get angry.

    They aren't pretending the problem doesn't exist, they don't know what the problem even is. And frankly, are only aware it exists in the vaguest sense.

    My impression is that there's tons of Canadians who have basically no contact with first nation's people (or if they do, it's not in a way that makes them aware). The only time they do, it's when they are blocking a road or something and then they are just annoyed by them. They have some idea that reservations suck, but no idea beyond the vaguest what is actually going on. Beyond that, there's many who think "if it sucks, why don't they just leave?".

    [That's been my impression from southern ontarians, quebecois and east-coasters I know or from what I've seen personally living in those places. Didn't meet any when I lived in Edmonton, but I wasn't there super long, so if someone else says it happens, I'll believe them. The people I met who had the most contact with first nations were the northern ontarians and manitobans.]


    If you want to get attention to the issue with those people, you need to bridge the information gap. The suggestion of a media campaign above seems like a good one. Because most people being effected by a protest in, like, downtown Toronto or on the train tracks between Toronto and Montreal have no fucking idea what the situation actually is. All they know is these people are annoying the fuck out of them and screwing up their days. That's not going to help anything. No one comes way from that with a better idea what their grievances actually are, let alone with any sympathy.

    If the idea is to create political change, you need to play politics.
    I suppose. But who's going to pay for it? Who's issues take precedence?

    Honestly the fact of the matter is that a protest or blockade is one of the only tools a lot of these communities have.

    And who's to say it'll do any good? Last I checked the media is already encouraging a lot of these stereotypes, and is already in the process of crucifying a woman who lives in a double-wide trailer with her mother as a corrupt despot living in the lap of luxury.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    So what is going on with this meeting now? Some of the chiefs are threatening to not attend because it isn't a joint meeting between the PM and GG?

  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Went to college with someone who fled the reserve, said it was slow death. Local band (when I lived in that town) was great about paying their bills (worked at a lumber yard that dealt with them) and put up some nice community buildings but the reserve itself was crummy; drove through it a few times when I worked for Hydro and had to do some painting for their transformer boxes. Saw something in the paper that INM is going to have a thing at one of the busiest intersections downtown; can't say that sort of thing builds any sympathy - it just screws over the average person who happened to be downtown at lunch.

    No one gives a shit about them otherwise. What sympathy do they have in the first place? At least this gets peoples attention.

    That attention is "fucking indians" and that's it.

    And how is that any different than how people normally treat them?

    People don't normally treat them any way at all. People just don't think about them at all most of the time.

    You are correct that they are brining attention to the first nations community. They are just bringing negative attention to it.

    So then how do they bring positive attention? You're so full of answers after all.

    Don't use a 200lbs woman as your spokesperson claiming they're on a "hunger strike" while she continues to eat a liquid diet. Then when called out on it, don't have that same spokesperson hold a press conference where she claims the media is spinning her in a negative light and then run off without answering any questions.

    I don't know why anyone should care that she's on a soup diet. There's people out there right now who are voluntarily on a soup diet and they aren't getting any media attention. I've read stories of real hunger strikers that went on so long that the authorities arrested them, then force fed them to prevent them from dying.

    This woman is in no danger of dying currently. She's what, 30 days in and doesn't look like she's lost a pound. Most documentation I've seen says the body can last between 30-40 days without food. Theresea Spence does not look like she's 10 days away from death.

    Her dishonest hunger strike is hurting the aboriginals position and credibility. Had she actually gone off food entirely, I guarantee the response to her strike would have been much more positive.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Went to college with someone who fled the reserve, said it was slow death. Local band (when I lived in that town) was great about paying their bills (worked at a lumber yard that dealt with them) and put up some nice community buildings but the reserve itself was crummy; drove through it a few times when I worked for Hydro and had to do some painting for their transformer boxes. Saw something in the paper that INM is going to have a thing at one of the busiest intersections downtown; can't say that sort of thing builds any sympathy - it just screws over the average person who happened to be downtown at lunch.

    No one gives a shit about them otherwise. What sympathy do they have in the first place? At least this gets peoples attention.

    That attention is "fucking indians" and that's it.

    And how is that any different than how people normally treat them?

    People don't normally treat them any way at all. People just don't think about them at all most of the time.

    You are correct that they are brining attention to the first nations community. They are just bringing negative attention to it.

    So then how do they bring positive attention? You're so full of answers after all.

    Don't use a 200lbs woman as your spokesperson claiming they're on a "hunger strike" while she continues to eat a liquid diet. Then when called out on it, don't have that same spokesperson hold a press conference where she claims the media is spinning her in a negative light and then run off without answering any questions.

    I don't know why anyone should care that she's on a soup diet. There's people out there right now who are voluntarily on a soup diet and they aren't getting any media attention. I've read stories of real hunger strikers that went on so long that the authorities arrested them, then force fed them to prevent them from dying.

    This woman is in no danger of dying currently. She's what, 30 days in and doesn't look like she's lost a pound. Most documentation I've seen says the body can last between 30-40 days without food. Theresea Spence does not look like she's 10 days away from death.

    Her dishonest hunger strike is hurting the aboriginals position and credibility. Had she actually gone off food entirely, I guarantee the response to her strike would have been much more positive.

    Is she by chance eating Campbell's Chunky soup? If so I don't think she's in any danger of starving to death... gaining weight, possibly, but not starving.

  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Went to college with someone who fled the reserve, said it was slow death. Local band (when I lived in that town) was great about paying their bills (worked at a lumber yard that dealt with them) and put up some nice community buildings but the reserve itself was crummy; drove through it a few times when I worked for Hydro and had to do some painting for their transformer boxes. Saw something in the paper that INM is going to have a thing at one of the busiest intersections downtown; can't say that sort of thing builds any sympathy - it just screws over the average person who happened to be downtown at lunch.

    No one gives a shit about them otherwise. What sympathy do they have in the first place? At least this gets peoples attention.

    That attention is "fucking indians" and that's it.

    And how is that any different than how people normally treat them?

    People don't normally treat them any way at all. People just don't think about them at all most of the time.

    You are correct that they are brining attention to the first nations community. They are just bringing negative attention to it.

    So then how do they bring positive attention? You're so full of answers after all.

    Don't use a 200lbs woman as your spokesperson claiming they're on a "hunger strike" while she continues to eat a liquid diet. Then when called out on it, don't have that same spokesperson hold a press conference where she claims the media is spinning her in a negative light and then run off without answering any questions.

    I don't know why anyone should care that she's on a soup diet. There's people out there right now who are voluntarily on a soup diet and they aren't getting any media attention. I've read stories of real hunger strikers that went on so long that the authorities arrested them, then force fed them to prevent them from dying.

    This woman is in no danger of dying currently. She's what, 30 days in and doesn't look like she's lost a pound. Most documentation I've seen says the body can last between 30-40 days without food. Theresea Spence does not look like she's 10 days away from death.

    Her dishonest hunger strike is hurting the aboriginals position and credibility. Had she actually gone off food entirely, I guarantee the response to her strike would have been much more positive.

    Is she by chance eating Campbell's Chunky soup? If so I don't think she's in any danger of starving to death... gaining weight, possibly, but not starving.

    You... are aware that unless they're specifically trying to make a statement by killing themselves, most hunger-strikers still take liquids to keep themselves from actually starving to death inside of a week, right?

    Not to mention that what she is taking is fish stock, a serving of which is something like a half a tenth of a percent of the minimum healthy daily caloric intake a person needs to survive.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    The idea of going on a hunger strike to force the Harper governments hand in anything at all is a rediculous idea, considering how much bad press they have been willing to endure for far more important matters. (Not saying the issues that the tribe is facing arent important, rather, the chiefs diet plans are unimportant).

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    I'm not going to disagree. They've spent the past six years pretty much not giving a shit, at least when they're not actively setting back whatever scant progress that was already made.

    C-45 is kinda the breaking point for a lot of people.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Corvus wrote: »
    Making the general public angry is not going to make those same people help you pressure the government to give you what you want. It's going to make them hope the government suppresses the protest with force.

    Pissing off people who you should be trying to make your allies is a strategy failure.

    This may be true, but the general public's always fucking angry nowadays. Apple treats its employees like crap! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Apple products cost so much! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't teaching! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are teaching but not doing extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Schools won't let parents take over extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Kids are getting fat because they're not exercising! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are making parental choices for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't raising our kids for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble>

    At some point, certainly, you say, fuck all y'all's.

    hippofant on
    LoisLane
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Nosf wrote: »
    Went to college with someone who fled the reserve, said it was slow death. Local band (when I lived in that town) was great about paying their bills (worked at a lumber yard that dealt with them) and put up some nice community buildings but the reserve itself was crummy; drove through it a few times when I worked for Hydro and had to do some painting for their transformer boxes. Saw something in the paper that INM is going to have a thing at one of the busiest intersections downtown; can't say that sort of thing builds any sympathy - it just screws over the average person who happened to be downtown at lunch.

    No one gives a shit about them otherwise. What sympathy do they have in the first place? At least this gets peoples attention.

    That attention is "fucking indians" and that's it.

    And how is that any different than how people normally treat them?

    People don't normally treat them any way at all. People just don't think about them at all most of the time.

    You are correct that they are brining attention to the first nations community. They are just bringing negative attention to it.

    So then how do they bring positive attention? You're so full of answers after all.

    Don't use a 200lbs woman as your spokesperson claiming they're on a "hunger strike" while she continues to eat a liquid diet. Then when called out on it, don't have that same spokesperson hold a press conference where she claims the media is spinning her in a negative light and then run off without answering any questions.

    I don't know why anyone should care that she's on a soup diet. There's people out there right now who are voluntarily on a soup diet and they aren't getting any media attention. I've read stories of real hunger strikers that went on so long that the authorities arrested them, then force fed them to prevent them from dying.

    This woman is in no danger of dying currently. She's what, 30 days in and doesn't look like she's lost a pound. Most documentation I've seen says the body can last between 30-40 days without food. Theresea Spence does not look like she's 10 days away from death.

    Her dishonest hunger strike is hurting the aboriginals position and credibility. Had she actually gone off food entirely, I guarantee the response to her strike would have been much more positive.

    Is she by chance eating Campbell's Chunky soup? If so I don't think she's in any danger of starving to death... gaining weight, possibly, but not starving.

    You... are aware that unless they're specifically trying to make a statement by killing themselves, most hunger-strikers still take liquids to keep themselves from actually starving to death inside of a week, right?

    Not to mention that what she is taking is fish stock, a serving of which is something like a half a tenth of a percent of the minimum healthy daily caloric intake a person needs to survive.

    But that's not complete starvation so fuck those guys!

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    And before someone says "but she isn't just drinking water", that would kill you almost as fast as not drinking at all. You need the electrolytes along with the water.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    Making the general public angry is not going to make those same people help you pressure the government to give you what you want. It's going to make them hope the government suppresses the protest with force.

    Pissing off people who you should be trying to make your allies is a strategy failure.

    This may be true, but the general public's always fucking angry nowadays. Apple treats its employees like crap! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Apple products cost so much! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't teaching! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are teaching but not doing extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Schools won't let parents take over extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Kids are getting fat because they're not exercising! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are making parental choices for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't raising our kids for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble>

    At some point, certainly, you say, fuck all y'all's.

    Sure, if that's what you want. But this is apparently a protest movement that has goals and wants change. If you want those things, you need to choose a strategy that will work.

    :so_raven:
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Corvus wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    Making the general public angry is not going to make those same people help you pressure the government to give you what you want. It's going to make them hope the government suppresses the protest with force.

    Pissing off people who you should be trying to make your allies is a strategy failure.

    This may be true, but the general public's always fucking angry nowadays. Apple treats its employees like crap! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Apple products cost so much! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't teaching! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are teaching but not doing extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Schools won't let parents take over extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Kids are getting fat because they're not exercising! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are making parental choices for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't raising our kids for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble>

    At some point, certainly, you say, fuck all y'all's.

    Sure, if that's what you want. But this is apparently a protest movement that has goals and wants change. If you want those things, you need to choose a strategy that will work.

    /shrug. I'm not angry.

    Alternatively, this is apparently a public that's supposed to have goals and want change. If we want those things, we need to accept some inconvenience and put in some effort. Sometimes, you've got to piss people off in order to do the right thing. We continue to put the impetus on protesters to find some way of protesting and giving everybody cookies at the same time. I choose instead to turn it over on its head - the people who get pissed because they've been slightly inconvenienced by people fighting for their convictions and a larger cause (say, because they've been denied the use of a local park for a few weeks) are perhaps people with no real convictions themselves and no interest in society's broader well-being. They're part of the problem, really, but you can't train a dog to read Shakespeare.

    Protest is by definition inconvenient. Social change is by definition inconvenient. They're disruptions of the status quo. Those unable to appreciate that ... they aren't sane. The Great March on Washington was inconvenient, but if you can't empathize with its necessity, then I daresay you weren't and aren't ever going to be an "ally".

    hippofant on
    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    Making the general public angry is not going to make those same people help you pressure the government to give you what you want. It's going to make them hope the government suppresses the protest with force.

    Pissing off people who you should be trying to make your allies is a strategy failure.

    This may be true, but the general public's always fucking angry nowadays. Apple treats its employees like crap! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Apple products cost so much! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't teaching! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are teaching but not doing extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Schools won't let parents take over extracurriculars! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Kids are getting fat because they're not exercising! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers are making parental choices for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble> Teachers aren't raising our kids for us! <rabblerabblerabblerabble>

    At some point, certainly, you say, fuck all y'all's.

    Sure, if that's what you want. But this is apparently a protest movement that has goals and wants change. If you want those things, you need to choose a strategy that will work.

    /shrug. I'm not angry.

    Alternatively, this is apparently a public that's supposed to have goals and want change. If we want those things, we need to accept some inconvenience and put in some effort. Sometimes, you've got to piss people off in order to do the right thing. We continue to put the impetus on protesters to find some way of protesting and giving everybody cookies at the same time. I choose instead to turn it over on its head - the people who get pissed because they've been slightly inconvenienced by people fighting for their convictions and a larger cause (say, because they've been denied the use of a local park for a few weeks) are perhaps people with no real convictions themselves and no interest in society's broader well-being. They're part of the problem, really, but you can't train a dog to read Shakespeare.

    Protest is by definition inconvenient. Social change is by definition inconvenient. They're disruptions of the status quo. Those unable to appreciate that ... they aren't sane. The Great March on Washington was inconvenient, but if you can't empathize with its necessity, then I daresay you weren't and aren't ever going to be an "ally".

    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    CanadianWolverine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

    Oh fuck you're right.

    Its been a month and we haven't ended racism yet.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

    Oh fuck you're right.

    Its been a month and we haven't ended racism yet.

    Is ending racism even one of their goals? Because if it is, I daresay they're not making much progress in that direction. They're actually probably making it much worse.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

    Oh fuck you're right.

    Its been a month and we haven't ended racism yet.

    Is ending racism even one of their goals? Because if it is, I daresay they're not making much progress in that direction. They're actually probably making it much worse.

    I believe the mouse's point is that social change ain't Netflix.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    That doesn't even make sense.

    Regardless, "solving racism" wasn't the criteria here. "Accomplishing something" was.

  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

    Oh fuck you're right.

    Its been a month and we haven't ended racism yet.

    Is ending racism even one of their goals? Because if it is, I daresay they're not making much progress in that direction. They're actually probably making it much worse.

    I believe the mouse's point is that social change ain't Netflix.

    Perhaps not, but it can be an incremental affair, it doesn't have to happen all at once. The FN and protesters in general need clearly defined end goals and mid goals they can use to gauge their progress. Everything they do should be in service of reaching those goals, and anything that won't help just shouldn't be done.

    In this case, they've managed to get a high-level meeting, which is good, now they need to build on that. Blockading rail lines is not going to get the general public or the government on their side, so they shouldn't do that. If they need to raise awareness, then they have to find more constructive ways of doing so.

  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Which is all well and good I'm sure, but completely misses the point: the goal of protest is not to disrupt, it's to raise awareness and garner support and, just in general, create political change. Disruption is a way it can accomplish this, but it is not it's goal.

    These protests may disrupt some people, but the relevant question is are they effective at creating political change. I don't think they are.

    That's what you (pl.) always say.

    That's a real nice way of avoiding dealing with what I actually said.

    In what way has any of these protests or the like helped lead to solutions to the problems First Nations have? What is being accomplished?

    Oh fuck you're right.

    Its been a month and we haven't ended racism yet.

    Well shit. Why are we even trying then?

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    The point of protests is to inform the public and to agitate for change. Agitating for change can involve negative publicity by inconveniencing enough people to force the government to actually engage with the protesters. Some protests work, some don't, but that doesn't mean protests don't accomplish anything.

    Protests always accomplish something, although that thing may not be what the protesters expect.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The point of protests is to inform the public and to agitate for change. Agitating for change can involve negative publicity by inconveniencing enough people to force the government to actually engage with the protesters. Some protests work, some don't, but that doesn't mean protests don't accomplish anything.

    Protests always accomplish something, although that thing may not be what the protesters expect.

    Agreed. I don't think they are accomplishing the first and am uncertain if they are accomplishing the second.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The point of protests is to inform the public and to agitate for change. Agitating for change can involve negative publicity by inconveniencing enough people to force the government to actually engage with the protesters. Some protests work, some don't, but that doesn't mean protests don't accomplish anything.

    Protests always accomplish something, although that thing may not be what the protesters expect.

    Agreed. I don't think they are accomplishing the first and am uncertain if they are accomplishing the second.

    I would strongly disagree on the first. Ever since the New Year, the newspapers have been devoting 3-4 pages of coverage to these protests and the First Nations' problems every day, and probably more with editorial pieces. I dunno how many other people are paying attention to that stuff, but honestly, people aren't paying enough attention in general anyways.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I don't know how familiar anyone is here with the Canadian tax code, but it is ridiculously underdeveloped for the size of the country. For example, in Canada most forms of executive compensation other than options are prohibited, which makes compensation uniformly more expensive in Canada than almost any other country in the world. Canada also takes strange, idiosyncratic views on pass through entities, which, again creates enourmous complexity (and cost) for multinational companies operating on Canada. My understanding is that at least part of the problem is how leanly staffed the Canadian equivalent to the IRS is.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    I don't understand how this is bad stuff that does any more than make it a bit harder to earn $1 million a year poor monopolize an industry, butt I don't know tax law. Its working at keeping our income divide lower than yours anyway.

    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Doesn't limiting the exotic types of executive compensation indicate a well-developed tax code? An underdeveloped tax code would be one that allows any and all types of compensation under differing sets of rules and conditions....

    Kalkino
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Doesn't limiting the exotic types of executive compensation indicate a well-developed tax code? An underdeveloped tax code would be one that allows any and all types of compensation under differing sets of rules and conditions....

    Yeah. On a general point my cousin who works both in the US and Canada greatly prefers the former regime if just for administration cost. That is more related to small business rather than executive rules

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Yeah, I don't actually see that as a problem, in any way. All that fancy shit is just to get lower taxes. You'll also be horrified that capital gains income is treated as regular income for tax purposes (though currently only half is considered taxable)

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Doesn't limiting the exotic types of executive compensation indicate a well-developed tax code? An underdeveloped tax code would be one that allows any and all types of compensation under differing sets of rules and conditions....

    The tax code lacks the flexibility needed to deal with modern business structures. A well designed tax code would not force companies to set up separate corporations just for the purpose of issuing options to executives. The rest of the world allows incentive compensation for not corporate entities. The other alternative is just cash paid now, which I think we can all agree is less desirable as an incentivizer than long term equity awards that only have value if the company is successful, yes?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Doesn't limiting the exotic types of executive compensation indicate a well-developed tax code? An underdeveloped tax code would be one that allows any and all types of compensation under differing sets of rules and conditions....

    The tax code lacks the flexibility needed to deal with modern business structures. A well designed tax code would not force companies to set up separate corporations just for the purpose of issuing options to executives. The rest of the world allows incentive compensation for not corporate entities. The other alternative is just cash paid now, which I think we can all agree is less desirable as an incentivizer than long term equity awards that only have value if the company is successful, yes?

    I've always been of the opinion that compensation and performance are uncorrelated and while a long term equity thing might help, it might not. I think the execs are going to still be just as stupid as they currently are, maybe just not deliberately terrible for a quick stock bump

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    So are you saying the executives are unable to be paid in options at all? Or are they simply being taxed for their full value at issuance meaning they dont get a tax break for recieving options?

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Doesn't limiting the exotic types of executive compensation indicate a well-developed tax code? An underdeveloped tax code would be one that allows any and all types of compensation under differing sets of rules and conditions....

    The tax code lacks the flexibility needed to deal with modern business structures. A well designed tax code would not force companies to set up separate corporations just for the purpose of issuing options to executives. The rest of the world allows incentive compensation for not corporate entities. The other alternative is just cash paid now, which I think we can all agree is less desirable as an incentivizer than long term equity awards that only have value if the company is successful, yes?

    I've always been of the opinion that compensation and performance are uncorrelated and while a long term equity thing might help, it might not. I think the execs are going to still be just as stupid as they currently are, maybe just not deliberately terrible for a quick stock bump

    A quick stock bump is of little value when your options vest over time (5 years is standard).


    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So are you saying the executives are unable to be paid in options at all? Or are they simply being taxed for their full value at issuance meaning they dont get a tax break for recieving options?

    They can receive options on the stock of a corporation in a tax efficient manner. They cannot receive equity grants in other types of entities (like partnerships) without paying tax at grant, and the taxes due at grant can be very high. If someone told you that as an incentive they were giving you equity in a partnership which may increase or decrease in value and which you cannot sell for 5 years and will lose if you leave the company before then, would you really be happy about that uncertain reward knowing you must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes today?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    So are you saying the executives are unable to be paid in options at all? Or are they simply being taxed for their full value at issuance meaning they dont get a tax break for recieving options?

    They can receive options on the stock of a corporation in a tax efficient manner. They cannot receive equity grants in other types of entities (like partnerships) without paying tax at grant, and the taxes due at grant can be very high. If someone told you that as an incentive they were giving you equity in a partnership which may increase or decrease in value and which you cannot sell for 5 years and will lose if you leave the company before then, would you really be happy about that uncertain reward knowing you must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes today?

    At that point I would be pulling out the worlds smallest violin. From what I recall partnerships are already recieving tax breaks compared to corporations, so if someone is going to be recieving equity in a company that will keep them earning passive income for essentially as long as that company is solvent, and will already be taxed at a lower rate than a corporation, then they should be paying a larger portion of tax at issuance since they will be paying a lower amount over its lifetime.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So are you saying the executives are unable to be paid in options at all? Or are they simply being taxed for their full value at issuance meaning they dont get a tax break for recieving options?

    They can receive options on the stock of a corporation in a tax efficient manner. They cannot receive equity grants in other types of entities (like partnerships) without paying tax at grant, and the taxes due at grant can be very high. If someone told you that as an incentive they were giving you equity in a partnership which may increase or decrease in value and which you cannot sell for 5 years and will lose if you leave the company before then, would you really be happy about that uncertain reward knowing you must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes today?

    At that point I would be pulling out the worlds smallest violin. From what I recall partnerships are already recieving tax breaks compared to corporations, so if someone is going to be recieving equity in a company that will keep them earning passive income for essentially as long as that company is solvent, and will already be taxed at a lower rate than a corporation, then they should be paying a larger portion of tax at issuance since they will be paying a lower amount over its lifetime.

    That really isn't how this works. Partnerships don't pay taxes on their own, so the money flows up to the partners, who pay taxes at their personal income tax rates. Contrast a corporation where the corp pays taxes before distributing the money to shareholders. On net more tax is paid on those dollars, but the partner individual pays the same rate either way, the amount left to be distributed is just generally larger in a partnership. But the type of executive compensation I am referring to is subject to a risk of forfeiture, meaning that unless certain conditions are met, such as staying on for 5 years or hitting certain revenue targets, you get nothing. Also, partnerships are generally private entities, so you can only actually get liquidity by selling back to the partnership, and you will probably be forced to sell when you leave, so you are not looking at a lifetime income stream. You are being asked to pay taxes up front on the value of something you may never actually get, and which may be worth nothing even if you do get it.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • GrouchGrouch Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    The law doesn't seem to have stopped people from setting up partnerships or offering partnerships as incentives.

    Grouch on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Anyone else contacting the HRSDC to see if you're one of the 583,000 lucky individuals whose student loan information (SIN, contact info, name, DOB, loan amount) was "misplaced"? There's a set of instructions on this page, though from what I've heard of other people contacting them (planning on calling them later this afternoon) they're telling people they don't need a new SIN and to watch their credit reports on their own.

    At least for a bit of levity, the standard response by people who have heard of this story has been: "Well, if the people who stole/misplaced/forgot it could at least 0 out my student loan balance, then go nuts."

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Grouch wrote: »
    The law doesn't seem to have stopped people from setting up partnerships or offering partnerships as incentives.

    Actually, it does in many cases. Equity awards of partnership interests are exceedingly rare in Canada. The normal operating practice is to set up a separate corporation just for equity awards, but there are real business reasons not to want to do this.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Grouch wrote: »
    The law doesn't seem to have stopped people from setting up partnerships or offering partnerships as incentives.

    Actually, it does in many cases. Equity awards of partnership interests are exceedingly rare in Canada. The normal operating practice is to set up a separate corporation just for equity awards, but there are real business reasons not to want to do this.

    And what's the issue with this?

Sign In or Register to comment.