2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[ArmyRick]

“Nazis (as in the actual party) are bad” shouldn’t be a controversial statement.

It becomes a controversial statement when certain people (ahem, ahem) misuse the term "Nazi" and label everyone, every party, everything they don't agree with. When a term gets misused or used inappropriately, the term looses its sting. Like the boy who cried wolf. Or try accusing someone of racism nowadays, very few take it seriously.

@OldSolduer did a very informative podcast on what is a Nazi and when the term should be used.

 

[TacticalTea]

I would offer that, like any group of people, marginalization is felt less by some based on how closely they can blend into the dominant group.

The experiences of a white, cis-homosexual, male would vary entirely than say a BIPOC, trans-heterosexual woman. That is why the Rainbow Umbrella can be so fractured at times (i.e. Should police be welcomed at Pride events? Depends who you ask and it usually stems from where in the community your experiences with police are had...).

My beliefs are that "wokeism" has been a wedge of a larger issue: what does equality look like?

-Some believe it to be a true egalitarian society where the pieces are set, everyone plays the same game, and you win or lose based on the outcomes.

Or

-Equality is identifying the parts of society that are very much not equal and modifying the systems and "game" so that its accomodating to those who start it with a deficit.

My wife's need to use a wheel chair isn't her being "woke," but an identifiable need to be accomodated. There are still buildings in town that she cannot access because they're "heritage" and cannot be modified. So because "its just the way things have always been" means that someone in our society cannot have equal access. Now imagine that in a white, hetero-normative, Christian society. Its not stating that "well we need to have to tear down every building and start fresh? That's ludicrous!" No. Its identifying there is a need to allow modifications to enable equality of access for everyone. Even groups you don't necessarily think deserve to exist. Otherwise its eugenics and social regression to the 1930s.

Trans folks exist and we need to accomodate for that. Neurodivergent folks exist (I am one) and we need to accomodate for that. Indigenous Canadians have a slew of socio-economic issues that have been foisted upon them by our desire to "help" them... and that too needs to be accomodated for in our society.

None of this means we favour one group for the other, but it definitely means we are cognizant of the amount of folks that need a "ramp" in society. The fact that someone who uses a cane can get up the stairs just fine doesn't mean the building is accessible.

Its great that the leader of the Conservatives in Québec is a gay man; does not mean his struggles are the same for everyone in the community.

Its like me saying morale is fine, from the Officer's Mess, while the troops are chowing down on a hotdog in a leaky mod tent.

Interesting theory.

But you know damn well that's not how it works out in reality.

Fact of the matter is criminals are pushed back onto the streets because they have the right skin colour, while others are excluded from jobs, promotions, grants, etc because they have the wrong skin colour.

That is the essence of what Canada is today and it disgusts me. Canada is pissing on MLK's grave.

Ok hold on - acknowledging that there has been systemic discrimination, which in some respects still persists, is history, not a “disease of the mind”. As I noted above, there is a scale to being woke - not everyone is an extremist, like how I know that not all Conservative supporter is a far-right SoCon. I am a Fiscal Conservative.

No.

There is no credible evidence for "systemic discrimination". It's a term purposely made-up to be vague and unfalsifiable, aided by such phrases as "well you're privileged so you can't see it", often followed-up by "you're a straight white male so you shouldn't have the right to speak on this", and occasionally by "you're a straight white male so you're disgusting and you should die".

You can talk about historical legal discrimination against Amerindians and French-Canadians if you wish, it's just not particularly relevant in the most inclusive, bend-over-backwards-for-every-interest-group society to have ever existed in the history of humanity.

There might be a "scale" to being woke, but it's oiled up and slanted down forming a slippery slope that legitimizes this destructive, hate-based ideology and ultimately serves the extremists.

 

[Good2Golf]

Its not stating that "well we need to have to tear down every building and start fresh? That's ludicrous!" No. Its identifying there is a need to allow modifications to enable equality of access for everyone.

^ THIS!!

 

[ArmyRick]

My only concern is that this belief that getting rid of "woke" is a euphemism for dialing back social progress.

I hear ya. I look at my sons (ages 14 and soon to be 16) and their generation. I have a strong feeling that many of the rhetoric my generation was taught about the Rainbow community is pretty much gone. I was born in 1973, I feel our generation had a strong education in accepting of different cultures and steering clear of racism (There was still some, but much better than my parents born in the 40s)

I have a strong feeling and general observation that some progress can not be simply undone, at least not without a long deliberate effort.

Now I will come out and say, I have seen lots of open hate and bigotry against whites (I identify as such), males (again me) and heterosexual (third strike for me I guess) since about 2012-2016 starting of the woke era (They coined the term first and many proudly wore it).

There is fairness and then there is revenge. Lets not mistake the two.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is fairness and then there is revenge. Lets not mistake the two.

Another Gibraltar point.

 

[dimsum]

I agree that they are a fringe, but as I said earlier, they control the narrative in institutions and legacy media.

You are not allowed to question anything that they propose, or you will be labelled as some sort of "ist/phobe", with no way to defend yourself. The accusation is the unfalsifiable, as there is no way to definitively prove you aren't what you have been accused of. Once the accusation is made, and you happen to be from a "privileged" class, you suffer social and professional harm. No proof required, just a different opinion.

I agree that changes needed to be made, and broadly they have been made. There are always going to be things that can improve, but there also needs to be an acknowledgement that things will never be perfect. Some prejudices will never die out completely, and some things will require generations to die-off before they are gone.

Edit: Can we also take a moment to recognize that you brought up literal Nazis as a counterpoint to my post. It's kind of a perfect example of why things go off the rails so quickly. My post was a "maybe we should take a moment to recognize that things are actually pretty good, even if they can be better" and you went straight to Nazi.

Mea culpa - the Charlottesville incident was just what I was thinking at the time, because it was the first time (in a long time) when I thought “I assumed we sorted this out around 1945”.

 

[Furniture]

Mea culpa - the Charlottesville incident was just what I was thinking at the time, because it was the first time (in a long time) when I thought “I assumed we sorted this out around 1945”.

That's fair, it was a surprising thing for me as well. As it turns out, some ideologies are hard to kill.

 

[OldSolduer]

It becomes a controversial statement when certain people (ahem, ahem) misuse the term "Nazi" and label everyone, every party, everything they don't agree with. When a term gets misused or used inappropriately, the term looses its sting. Like the boy who cried wolf. Or try accusing someone of racism nowadays, very few take it seriously.

@OldSolduer did a very informative podcast on what is a Nazi and when the term should be used.

thank you - now I know who my listener is lol

Please listen to the podcast. I think its not too bad. The term "Nazi" has been misused by people who should know better.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I hear ya. I look at my sons (ages 14 and soon to be 16) and their generation. I have a strong feeling that many of the rhetoric my generation was taught about the Rainbow community is pretty much gone. I was born in 1973, I feel our generation had a strong education in accepting of different cultures and steering clear of racism (There was still some, but much better than my parents born in the 40s)

Totally agree with you here.

I have a strong feeling and general observation that some progress can not be simply undone, at least not without a long deliberate effort.

That we will disagree on. The support of trans-youth for gender-affirming care has been quashed with the stroke of a pen in numerous provinces, because reasons?

Those kids aren't going to be any less trans because their parents are now being contacted. Theyre just going to risk being abused, ostracized, or forced back into the closet if and when they're able to full express themselves.

Much like my kids will not be any less "Autistic" when they turn 18 and the supports for them disappear, it then creates an even larger problem of social supports needed to undo the issues caused by denying said supports earlier on.

Which of the two options is "thinking of the children?"
 

Now I will come out and say, I have seen lots of open hate and bigotry against whites (I identify as such), males (again me) and heterosexual (third strike for me I guess) since about 2012-2016 starting of the woke era (They coined the term first and many proudly wore it).

I too am a white, cis, het, male; with a bisexual partner, a trans daughter, a bisexual son, and 2 other kids who are very much too young to make any guesses.

I would be viewed as "part of the problem," but that too is generalization and bigotry.

There is fairness and then there is revenge. Lets not mistake the two.

Agreed. That works both ways now that the pendulum is on its way back the other direction.

 

[ArmyRick]

For trans youth, I feel strongly that it is the private affair of the parents (yes I feel parents must be involved), the child and the health care team, no one else business.
As for trans adult people, its their business and their health teams concerns, thats it.

Now, I don't like that the trans issue has been used as a political football. A political football used by activist, politicians, celebrities', etc.

A person who feels they are trans or has questions, needs to discuss with a doctor to start. And if a minor, absolutely parents must be involved.

I have also witnessed some unintended consequences about trans label being misused, abused or too easily applied (the term), as I witnessed with my sons peers. For example two years ago they learned about gender identity and within a week, a bunch of his peers identifed as "trans-X" and then like 2 months later, nope, they all changed their minds.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In my experience, the cure is worse than the disease.

Levelling the playing field is one thing.

Reversing the discrimination seems…counter-productive.

Good podcast that deals with some of this. To sum up Canadians are tired of being told we're bad and our country is systemically something bad. Because it's not.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Whoops double post.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe spending years studying something to the point that you’re an expert may cause you to have some…SME opinions on said subject.

"One who knows more and more about less and less."

The problem is that there isn't just one SME opinion about one thing to consider. There is a whole bunch of SMEs clamouring for different things, none of them competent to weigh the value of his opportunity against all of the others.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You think every scientist, engineer, doctor, etc out there is just "an activist in exist clothing"?.

Expert advice properly ends where decision making begins, assuming the experts are staff and not command. It's an easy threshold to identify, and consequently easy to see where activism begins.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Pretty quick litmus test of the seriousness of a PP majority will be if they pursue the idealogically and fiscally sound (but voter/ member/donor unpopular) low hanging fruit of accellerating OAS and CCB clawbacks

 

[brihard]

Pretty quick litmus test of the seriousness of a PP majority will be if they pursue the idealogically and fiscally sound (but voter/ member/donor unpopular) low hanging fruit of accellerating OAS and CCB clawbacks

That would go over like a fart in church, and would push greater costs onto pension plans with coordinated benefits. Not that that may not be sound policy, but it would certainly be a show of resolve on the CPC’s part.

An increase in retirement age for CPP/OAS is definitely called for at this point. I would support that although it would disadvantage me personally.

 

[ArmyRick]

Pretty quick litmus test of the seriousness of a PP majority will be if they pursue the idealogically and fiscally sound (but voter/ member/donor unpopular) low hanging fruit of accellerating OAS and CCB clawbacks

Did he say or even hint at doing this? If no, then why assume he might?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Pretty quick litmus test of the seriousness of a PP majority will be if they pursue the idealogically and fiscally sound (but voter/ member/donor unpopular) low hanging fruit of accellerating OAS and CCB clawbacks

That would go over like a fart in church, and would push greater costs onto pension plans with coordinated benefits. Not that that may not be sound policy, but it would certainly be a show of resolve on the CPC’s part.

An increase in retirement age for CPP/OAS is definitely called for at this point. I would support that although it would disadvantage me personally.

Just so in clear PP increasing the retirement age (raising it) would be sound fiscal policy? Do I understand this correctly ?

Why ?

 

[dapaterson]

Live expectancy is increasing. Pushing OAS/GIS qualification to the right (as they are paid out of current revenues, not being migrated to an asset base like CPP is) relieves future tax pressure. It's good policy, but bad politics. As opposed to GST cuts, which were solid politics, but bad policy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Live expectancy is increasing. Pushing OAS/GIS qualification to the right (as they are paid out of current revenues, not being migrated to an asset base like CPP is) relieves future tax pressure. It's good policy, but bad politics. As opposed to GST cuts, which were solid politics, but bad policy.

Gotcha. Are our retirement plans not healthy?