To get back to the core issue that started this discussion, it feels like we essentially need to up the game of left wing fact finding and truth telling.
Like Snopes is great, and some aspects of some media is nice like Colbert, Oliver, Stewart, Noah, Mercer, etc.
But we need to amplify them, without making them susceptible to right wing executive meddling ie: CBC
And yes, this means an escalation into a kind of propaganda battle, but it feels like we are already there but one side isn't really fighting back. Much like the Class Warfare battle.
That won't work. All of that is already branded to them as "fake news." Their epistemological bubble rejects it out of hand.
I'm not interested at this point in time of deprogramming large swathes of the country simultaneously. Just making sure there is a bright enough beacon to ward others from ruining themselves on the shores of hatred.
Well your complete misrepresentation of a significant portion of us who want to hold people who openly associate with neo-nazi's accountable is probably not helping matters.
No, go ahead, don't pay attention to what I'm saying. Just keep on your straight and narrow minded path. You're sure to win hearts and minds by declaring anyone on the right as a fucking nazi. No extremism there at all.
We are paying attention to what you are saying. You keep trying to act like the other side can't be that bad because you just don't want to believe it.
No you aren't. Nova's entire point is that there is hyper generalization going on here. The argument has been - for several pages - that there is more in the political right than JUST the alt-right, and too big a brush is being used to say "No, the alt-right is all there is." =_=
Support from the alt-right should not be considered acceptable and should be repudiated from the people receiving it because your party is not a Nazi-Sympathizer party. If you can't clear that low bar, and so actually value their support, then how is the alt-right not a welcome part of the Conservatives? Apathy in the face of oppression supports the oppressor. Don't be apathetic. Root it out and refuse to give it quarter. The UK's Labour Party is having a similar issue with anti-semitism, and I feel similarly disposed even though they are on my political 'side' as it were. Certain things should be tolerated. Nazis in you midst are among them.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
+1
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
No, go ahead, don't pay attention to what I'm saying. Just keep on your straight and narrow minded path. You're sure to win hearts and minds by declaring anyone on the right as a fucking nazi. No extremism there at all.
We are paying attention to what you are saying. You keep trying to act like the other side can't be that bad because you just don't want to believe it.
No you aren't. Nova's entire point is that there is hyper generalization going on here. The argument has been - for several pages - that there is more in the political right than JUST the alt-right, and too big a brush is being used to say "No, the alt-right is all there is." =_=
Support from the alt-right should not be considered acceptable and should be repudiated from the people receiving it because your party is not a Nazi-Sympathizer party. If you can't clear that low bar, and so actually value their support, then how is the alt-right not a welcome part of the Conservatives? Apathy in the face of oppression supports the oppressor. Don't be apathetic. Root it out and refuse to give it quarter. The UK's Labour Party is having a similar issue with anti-semitism, and I feel similarly disposed even though they are on my political 'side' as it were. Certain things should be tolerated. Nazis in you midst are among them.
Sure. I'm not going to argue with you that "Nazis are bad" and that a political party not comprised entirely of nazi-like persons should probably strive to keep them out. That's pretty common sense and nobody here disagrees with that.
There's unquestionably a sizable chunk of people who identify as conservatives who aren't aware that's what the party represents. I'm not going to call someone a nazi because they aren't educated or are politically apathetic or whatever else. As mentioned previously, doing so just puts people on the defensive and backs them directly into the "us VS them" space that isn't helping anything.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
Expansion is change. What was once neutral, non-partisan ground will be turned partisan by the very effort you're suggesting, because it will be the Liberals suggesting it.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Then provide some actual details because right now your entire solution is basically magic. Conservatives flipped their shit about a new method of teaching Math, you think they're not going to pile on top of the possibility of people learning that maybe "Conservative" doesn't mean balanced budget and whatever ever other tropes they sell every time?
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
Conservatism does not want an educated populace full stot. Remember the term Liberal elite = educated person to most on the right.
Do we think that Bernier starting his own thing is going to peel off the far right element to a point? Might give us a middle left party in the long run.
Education is the key to pretty much everything, IMO. But maybe greater education, earlier, in political science itself is not the answer but rather a much stronger and much earlier emphasis on critical thinking would be. Nobody wants indoctrination in Canadian schools.
More robust information gathering and the benefits of getting more than one side of a story, whether its politics or pop culture or whatever, before forming a opinion. These are the things that should be taught in elementary schools to a much greater degree and carried on as a kids goes through the system. Leave the proper political science education to the higher grades/university once the student understands how to think for themselves and has the resources to form their own opinions.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
Political parties are not created by circumstances of birth.
Yes, if you regularly seek the approval and company of racists, you are sending a pretty clear message about what you consider acceptable.
If you just occasionally talk to them, well, you are not a politician seeking votes and endorsement.
Once more, I loathe the CAQ, but they rejected the endorsement of white supremacists, and despite pushing for xenophobic policies, they are not Nazis. It's not a high bar to pass, so failing to do so is a very clear signal.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
If education worked we wouldn't be where we are now. Do you honestly believe that political science in high school is going to have the power to fight the deluge of overwhelming misinformation and lies on social media? I don't think you have a thorough grasp of what's happening if you think measures like what you're suggesting will be enough.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is an action. One must choose not to act. One is as culpable not acting in a situation that demands action as one is for acting.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
Do you make excuses for them and allow them to act as such without calling them out? If so yeah I'm going to lean toward you probably are. I mean I'm sure there is some "the benefits of associating outweigh the negatives" argument that will be made but it still means you're ok with it.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is action. One must choose not to act.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
If education worked we wouldn't be where we are now. Do you honestly believe that political science in high school is going to have the power to fight the deluge of overwhelming misinformation and lies on social media? I don't think you have a thorough grasp of what's happening if you think measures like what you're suggesting will be enough.
That's not at all what I've been arguing.
I've been arguing for more political education throughout all of school. Education itself is a democratizing force - surely there's nothing to be lost by sharpening the point on that and exposing people to it earlier in their education.
I don't know folks.... When I was younger i was able to deal with people's foibles more. Friends would say a racist joke or buddies would have some choice words for a cute waitress and I would just sit there.
I just can't anymore and have not been able to for a while. Someone says something idiotic I can't keep quiet. I don't talk to family members for this reason anymore (old school small town quebec xenophobes). You associate people being openly racist and don't confront them? You are validating their point of view.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is action. One must choose not to act.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
That's not what hippofant said at all? Like, he seemed pretty clearly trying to use language that doesn't say that.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
If education worked we wouldn't be where we are now. Do you honestly believe that political science in high school is going to have the power to fight the deluge of overwhelming misinformation and lies on social media? I don't think you have a thorough grasp of what's happening if you think measures like what you're suggesting will be enough.
Having a decade of conservative governments gut sciences of pretty much every stripe gives me no faith in them operating honestly. It's unfortunate because over the long term having them simply stop shitting on education would go a long way.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is action. One must choose not to act.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is action. One must choose not to act.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
That's not what hippofant said at all? Like, he seemed pretty clearly trying to use language that doesn't say that.
Nova has been misrepresenting the argument for a while now.
Yeah, I don't get the conflation of conservative politics with alt-right politics - or at least the unwillingness by some to separate the two. I mean, I understand the argument people make but it's honestly quite stupid.
Not to mention, when I'm talking about education I'm literally talking about educating youths wrt how the democratic process works. It can be completely politically agnostic.
The alt-right is conservative politics. It's just the newest face on the same ideas. Partially through shifts in what it turns out you can actually get away with, partially through generational turn-over. What's quite stupid is ignoring what's happening with right-wing politics across the western world.
And Doug Ford's education changes should pretty simply demonstrate why your belief that it's as simple as educating youths is not all that simple
or realistic just on it's own. The right gets to set the curriculum too.
Political Science is already taught nation-wide at the highschool level.
I'd also argue that the alt-right is not conservative politics, it is a bastardization of conservative politics.
The alt-right is not a bastardization of anything. It's just politics as practised by conservatives. It's really broader then the alt-right anyway since it's more a matter of "look what politics the right is actually pushing and supporting". And some particular facets of that we call the alt-right but really it's just conservative politics. It's the policies and ideas conservatives are pushing.
No it's not. The alt-right view is based solely on social issues - particularly the furthest right elements of the cons social agenda. The alt-right has almost no stance on any issues that don't relate to race, religion, or gender. They ignore an entire components of conservative politics that are extremely salient to the conservative agenda.
I'm not going to sit here and even argue this point with you. I seriously think the pov that all cons are alt-right loons to be one of the stupidest conclusions one can come to. I don't have time for dismissive, ridiculous ideas like that.
Yes, it is. Conservatism has stances on race, religion and gender that the alt-right, as a facet of conservatism, shares. They also have feelings on government regulation and the like.
Like, wtf are you even arguing? This is all conservative politics. It is the politics of right-wing voters and parties. We've seen the kind of candidates and politicies it supports and creates. Harper, Doug Ford, everything going on in Alberta right now, etc, etc. And that's just looking at Canada. You can look at a wider western world for other very similar examples.
There is nothing about the alt-right that is incompatible with mainstream conservative parties beyond image issues in the press and their members are often intermingling. The Soldiers of Odin example someone mentioned above is a good illustration there.
Your unwillingness to accept the obvious direction conservative politics is heading is just burying your head in the sand and is actively part of the whole problem since the longer we deny it, the worst it gets (not unlike climate change, the denial of which is yet another conservative plank). Just cause you don't want to engage with reality doesn't make it go away. (again, not unlike climate change)
Christ. This is such a bad take that I need to go take a nap.
Who gives a shit about nuance right? If one group agrees with a component from another group it does not mean they're the same thing. How do you explain issues where liberals and cons were on the same page? Are they then the same party? How do you reconcile that with your conclusions? Or does it only apply to the conservatives?
I think it's funny you keep saying it's a "bad take" but have no arguments against it that isn't you ranting about how much just reading the argument angers you. Reality doesn't give a shit if you don't like the answer.
Look out your fucking window and just see what the various right-wing parties of our great nation are doing. What policies are they pushing, what agendas, what candidates. It's all right there in front of your nose. And it's not unique to Canada either.
You're doing literally the same thing. I also did present arguments back.
There's literally no logical ground to stand on to say "These two things share the same 'values' wrt to one issue, therefore they are the same thing.".
It just doesn't make sense from a very basic standpoint. You're also ignoring the fact that political parties are made up of people and aren't actually living things on their own. Support of something doesn't mean someone buys into it 100%.
For example, there are people out there that vote conservative for purely economic reasons. That party still reflects their constituent'ss economic interest. These are people that vote strictly for economic reasons. It doesn't make sense for those people to turn on a dime and vote liberal - against their economic interests. That does not mean those people are nazis or nazi sympathizers.
Yes, it does. That's literally what those terms mean. When you are saying "I'm voting for the nazis because they will lower my taxes" what you are saying is that nazi policy is not a deal breaker. That it's fine. You are ok with it. Maybe not your #1 preference, but it's acceptable. It's a reflection of your beliefs.
Conservatism is as conservatives do. This is the only thing that makes sense from any standpoint. What these parties (which are just associations of people) do is a reflection of their beliefs. And we can see what they've been doing and what direction they've been moving and notice the trend. Political labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. Just cause you don't want to notice what's happening doesn't mean it's not.
The change in these political movements make this even more stark. As they shift we can see which values really matter and which ones don't. Which things are deal-breakers and which are acceptable. And the pattern is clear and simple: economic interests are flexible. Conservatives say a lot of things about economics but they don't need to follow through to maintain support.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
If education worked we wouldn't be where we are now. Do you honestly believe that political science in high school is going to have the power to fight the deluge of overwhelming misinformation and lies on social media? I don't think you have a thorough grasp of what's happening if you think measures like what you're suggesting will be enough.
Having a decade of conservative governments gut sciences of pretty much every stripe gives me no faith in them operating honestly. It's unfortunate because over the long term having them simply stop shitting on education would go a long way.
Right, if conservatives keep getting in power they will not help anything with education - they will even do the opposite.
I think what the internet has revealed over its relatively brief time here on earth is that we're awash in stupidity and ignorance. Conservative politics has eaten that up and knows how to run with it to what for them is astounding results. Liberal politics is still like 'well we should be nice and fair and isn't it the people calling others nazis who are the problem?'.
No, go ahead, don't pay attention to what I'm saying. Just keep on your straight and narrow minded path. You're sure to win hearts and minds by declaring anyone on the right as a fucking nazi. No extremism there at all.
We are paying attention to what you are saying. You keep trying to act like the other side can't be that bad because you just don't want to believe it.
No you aren't. Nova's entire point is that there is hyper generalization going on here. The argument has been - for several pages - that there is more in the political right than JUST the alt-right, and too big a brush is being used to say "No, the alt-right is all there is." =_=
There is more. There are also the people ok with associating with the alt-right. That distinction does not change the point at all.
I never thought as a child of the 80's that politics would turn so Anti-Science.
For a lot of people, there's a baffling (to me) divide between science and technology. Technology is the good stuff, that we want, cuz it makes our lives easier and puts video games in our pockets. Science is the bad stuff, the useless expensive nonsense that we pay for that doesn't influence our lives at all.
My dad and brother in law are racists. Am I a racist for associating with them?
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is action. One must choose not to act.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
That's not what hippofant said at all? Like, he seemed pretty clearly trying to use language that doesn't say that.
Have you been reading the thread? Because the past two pages are all about if you have any overlap wrt support in anyway (ie: if you're not actively fighting against and renouncing them whole cloth) then you are in fact one of them.
This is exactly why you can't always paint with a broad brush like many are doing.
The Wildrose split off from the PC's because even the PC's weren't willing to tolerate how far right they went. Then the party changed and now the leadership are all on the same page.
No, I'm asking you to read the last two pages and recognize how hostile the conversation is when it's only tangentially related to politics and maybe recognize that it may play a part in why some people don't want to engage.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
If education worked we wouldn't be where we are now. Do you honestly believe that political science in high school is going to have the power to fight the deluge of overwhelming misinformation and lies on social media? I don't think you have a thorough grasp of what's happening if you think measures like what you're suggesting will be enough.
That's not at all what I've been arguing.
I've been arguing for more political education throughout all of school. Education itself is a democratizing force - surely there's nothing to be lost by sharpening the point on that and exposing people to it earlier in their education.
Fine, yes, of course education is good and so is more of it. Still won't be enough for what's happening right now.
You're arguing to consistently engage someone on a topic you disagree with whenever it arises. This is antithetical to a functioning relationship.
I am not willing to start an argument every time I go fishing or have dinner with family so, as decreed, I will just have to live with the new standard of guilt by association.
I wonder what makes a good left wing voter? How purely good must one be exactly?
+4
Options
fRAWRstThe Seas CallThe Mad AnswerRegistered Userregular
You're arguing to consistently engage someone on a topic you disagree with whenever it arises. This is antithetical to a functioning relationship.
I am not willing to start an argument every time I go fishing or have dinner with family so, as decreed, I will just have to live with the new standard of guilt by association.
I wonder what makes a good left wing voter? How purely good must one be exactly?
If you're willing to sit there while they spout racist nonsense without saying anything because it's going to damage you're relationship then you are excusing it. Now if you could pull yourself down from your crucifix and stop misrepresenting us that would be great.
Posts
I'm not interested at this point in time of deprogramming large swathes of the country simultaneously. Just making sure there is a bright enough beacon to ward others from ruining themselves on the shores of hatred.
MWO: Adamski
Support from the alt-right should not be considered acceptable and should be repudiated from the people receiving it because your party is not a Nazi-Sympathizer party. If you can't clear that low bar, and so actually value their support, then how is the alt-right not a welcome part of the Conservatives? Apathy in the face of oppression supports the oppressor. Don't be apathetic. Root it out and refuse to give it quarter. The UK's Labour Party is having a similar issue with anti-semitism, and I feel similarly disposed even though they are on my political 'side' as it were. Certain things should be tolerated. Nazis in you midst are among them.
It has nothing to do with epistemological differences - which I'm not even sure why you keep bringing up in this context.
There's unquestionably a sizable chunk of people who identify as conservatives who aren't aware that's what the party represents. I'm not going to call someone a nazi because they aren't educated or are politically apathetic or whatever else. As mentioned previously, doing so just puts people on the defensive and backs them directly into the "us VS them" space that isn't helping anything.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It matters because your idea isn't feasible, it will be corrupted by the very political process you're trying to influence. If Liberals think changing education is a positive strategy for them, then the Conservatives will perceive it as a negative for them.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
My idea is already realized. Like I said before we already teach Political Science at the High School level. I'm suggesting the expansion of something we already know works, not some radical new approach to education.
Expansion is change. What was once neutral, non-partisan ground will be turned partisan by the very effort you're suggesting, because it will be the Liberals suggesting it.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
All we're saying is
1. What's the solution to combat the fake news epidemic and disengagement with politics?
2. Not all Conservatives are Nazi's and you don't help people to act rationally by writing them off.
Do we think that Bernier starting his own thing is going to peel off the far right element to a point? Might give us a middle left party in the long run.
Education is the key to pretty much everything, IMO. But maybe greater education, earlier, in political science itself is not the answer but rather a much stronger and much earlier emphasis on critical thinking would be. Nobody wants indoctrination in Canadian schools.
More robust information gathering and the benefits of getting more than one side of a story, whether its politics or pop culture or whatever, before forming a opinion. These are the things that should be taught in elementary schools to a much greater degree and carried on as a kids goes through the system. Leave the proper political science education to the higher grades/university once the student understands how to think for themselves and has the resources to form their own opinions.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Are you associating politically with them?
Political parties are not created by circumstances of birth.
If you just occasionally talk to them, well, you are not a politician seeking votes and endorsement.
Once more, I loathe the CAQ, but they rejected the endorsement of white supremacists, and despite pushing for xenophobic policies, they are not Nazis. It's not a high bar to pass, so failing to do so is a very clear signal.
This may be unpopular but I'd say that no, you're not a racist, but you are passively supporting their racism if you're interacting with them in a friendly, apolitical manner. If you're combating their racism in some way, great, but just chilling out with racists is just watching racism happen, and that's not really different from, say, watching murder happen.
Morally, inaction is an action. One must choose not to act. One is as culpable not acting in a situation that demands action as one is for acting.
This doesn't necessarily mean you deserve moral condemnation as a whole being, mind you. All of us are forced to let bad stuff happen in the world, one way or the other, but just because that overwhelmingly applies to all of us doesn't mean that we can just shrug off our responsibility for letting that bad stuff happen.
Do you make excuses for them and allow them to act as such without calling them out? If so yeah I'm going to lean toward you probably are. I mean I'm sure there is some "the benefits of associating outweigh the negatives" argument that will be made but it still means you're ok with it.
Wow.
I absolutely call out my father when he says something racist, but it hasn't really changed him. I don't expect to change him. And now I'm a racist because I still want to maintain a friendly relationship with my dad?
That's not at all what I've been arguing.
I've been arguing for more political education throughout all of school. Education itself is a democratizing force - surely there's nothing to be lost by sharpening the point on that and exposing people to it earlier in their education.
I just can't anymore and have not been able to for a while. Someone says something idiotic I can't keep quiet. I don't talk to family members for this reason anymore (old school small town quebec xenophobes). You associate people being openly racist and don't confront them? You are validating their point of view.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Having a decade of conservative governments gut sciences of pretty much every stripe gives me no faith in them operating honestly. It's unfortunate because over the long term having them simply stop shitting on education would go a long way.
No. Read post.
Nova has been misrepresenting the argument for a while now.
Yes, it does. That's literally what those terms mean. When you are saying "I'm voting for the nazis because they will lower my taxes" what you are saying is that nazi policy is not a deal breaker. That it's fine. You are ok with it. Maybe not your #1 preference, but it's acceptable. It's a reflection of your beliefs.
Conservatism is as conservatives do. This is the only thing that makes sense from any standpoint. What these parties (which are just associations of people) do is a reflection of their beliefs. And we can see what they've been doing and what direction they've been moving and notice the trend. Political labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. Just cause you don't want to notice what's happening doesn't mean it's not.
The change in these political movements make this even more stark. As they shift we can see which values really matter and which ones don't. Which things are deal-breakers and which are acceptable. And the pattern is clear and simple: economic interests are flexible. Conservatives say a lot of things about economics but they don't need to follow through to maintain support.
I think what the internet has revealed over its relatively brief time here on earth is that we're awash in stupidity and ignorance. Conservative politics has eaten that up and knows how to run with it to what for them is astounding results. Liberal politics is still like 'well we should be nice and fair and isn't it the people calling others nazis who are the problem?'.
There is more. There are also the people ok with associating with the alt-right. That distinction does not change the point at all.
For a lot of people, there's a baffling (to me) divide between science and technology. Technology is the good stuff, that we want, cuz it makes our lives easier and puts video games in our pockets. Science is the bad stuff, the useless expensive nonsense that we pay for that doesn't influence our lives at all.
Have you been reading the thread? Because the past two pages are all about if you have any overlap wrt support in anyway (ie: if you're not actively fighting against and renouncing them whole cloth) then you are in fact one of them.
This is exactly why you can't always paint with a broad brush like many are doing.
I am not willing to start an argument every time I go fishing or have dinner with family so, as decreed, I will just have to live with the new standard of guilt by association.
I wonder what makes a good left wing voter? How purely good must one be exactly?
This is what the world is like now, basically.
If you're willing to sit there while they spout racist nonsense without saying anything because it's going to damage you're relationship then you are excusing it. Now if you could pull yourself down from your crucifix and stop misrepresenting us that would be great.