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?
Posts
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.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
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.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
MWO: Adamski
C-45 is kinda the breaking point for a lot of people.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
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.
But that's not complete starvation so fuck those guys!
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.
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.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
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.
Regardless, "solving racism" wasn't the criteria here. "Accomplishing something" was.
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.
Well shit. Why are we even trying then?
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.
@chanus
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
Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
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?
@chanus
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
Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
MWO: Adamski
A quick stock bump is of little value when your options vest over time (5 years is standard).
@chanus
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?
@chanus
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.
MWO: Adamski
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.
@chanus
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."
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
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.
@chanus
And what's the issue with this?