(August 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We're back to the "I met a guy once" theory of ideological classification. You may have met a guy once, Benny, but having met a guy once won't make anything you've said in this thread any more accurate now than it was before.

I get that you think you're supporting the right because liberty, blah blah blah. The vision of liberty they've sold you, that you've shared in this thread... is a con. I've repeatedly pointed out all the ways that it's a con.

Ironically, and fucking heinously, that vision of liberty has been used to created illiberty. Unjustice. Inequality. You clearly have a problem identifying where trends in politics comes from, you've been resisting the origin of your politics for some time. You failed to realize that an acknowledgement that identity poltics is being used doesn't mean that the person who acknowledges it is the one doing it.

But hey, the american right told you that the PC SJW left was comin forya, and making it all about Those People™.

-and you believed em.

You know, going back to Jordan Peterson, for all his obsession with using the Gulag Archipelago as a cautionary tale about what the PC left could do, he seems to be taking the worst possible takeaway from it. Do you know why it took 69 years between the publication of the Communist Manifesto and Russia finally trying to put Marx's solutions at rest? And why Marxism took root in places like Russia and China while America and Western Europe ultimately resisted it? Because in the intervening decades, some nations figured out that there were some potentially reasonable policies in the Marxist platform (child labour laws, the 8-hour work day) and the more moderate parties incorporated them into their own platforms, and, after this happened, this left the Marxists with their more nutty proposals that didn't sit well with the people. Those nations that stood fast against reforming their systems? Countries like the autocratic Russia and the very tradition-oriented China? Lenin and Mao got to them.

Trying to go back to the Good Old Ways, like Peterson suggests, is very likely to backfire.

Mao and Lenin and the Soviet Union as Well as Communist China were as divorced from Marx's original idea's as anything could get

(August 23, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Not for nothing..there's plenty to dislike the pc sjws for.  Like minimum wage increases.  

Maybe you got the wrong example but you don't have to get the right example to dislike the idea of minimum wage increases.  

Though, I have to ask...do you see minimum wage increases as incentive or entitlement?

I define "entitlement" as benefits which are offered without merit or contract.

By "without merit," I mean it's offered unconditionally-- for example, I believe all citizens (and maybe all residents tbh) should be accorded with free quality health care.

By "without contract," I mean that the person doesn't need to accept any personal responsibility in order to receive the benefit--no payments to keep up on, for example.  I would release a lot of people from jail, especially if they are there for crimes that are no longer crimes, or which might receive more moderate sentences if they were charged today.  But I'd offer them financial incentives, and very strong and meaningful ones, which scale with success-- working full time, doing community service of value, involvement in study or work programs, and so on. They'd also have to sign a contract-- something similar to probation but framed more as an employment agreement with the state.

Health care in Canada is an entitlement, or it was when I was still there.  EVEN IF I didn't keep up with my responsibilities to pay, I'd still be covered, and still get treatment.  They would later advise me I have to catch up on payments, or give me some vehicle by which I could apply for payment relief.  I'm not sure that's true today.


I'm not sure how I'd categorize minimum wage increases.  Pragmatically, they are both: they are given by a new policy, with nothing required on the side of the worker, but they certainly aren't handouts.  I'm not sure that governments offer them as an incentive either-- it's more about making sure people who DO work are at least better off than those on welfare or those who depend on criminal activity (at least I'd hope so).  But you'd think better money would inspire more people to get out and contribute to the society.

When I was a young kid (like still a minor but kind of emancipated), I was on welfare, and at that time there was a kind of jobs program in which the government contributed some of the pay, and the salary was enough that I could afford to save up a little and eventually get off of welfare. Since I was putting in a fair day's work, I felt some pride in it that I wouldn't have had if the same money was just handed to me in a cheque.
__

For me, I'd like to see a kind of fusion effort, especially with regard to welfare.  I'd like welfare to be better-- much more money; and for it to be a right of citizenship much like unemployment insurance.  By being a citizen, you don't even need to have a REASON if you need support for a month here or there.  But you also have a responsibility-- if you are on welfare too long, you will be given community service (at minimum wage) to pay for every penny of it, required to join professional training programs, and so on.

Now, two problems are immediately obvious-- dealing with handicaps, especially claims of social disorders making it impossible for people to do anything but play X-Box games (like almost all my cousins, which is BS in my opinion).

The other problem is that in America, the powers that be may make it extra hard for black people to even GET jobs, and then make the community service punitively uncomfortable, and then send them to jail when they fail to show up. I recognize that this is a reality there.

Here's the Senate hearing regarding C-16.  I did not know that Peterson had been involved in the hearing.

You can hear how the various political party representatives weigh in on many of the issues we earlier discussed.

Ya, he does alot of non-expert witness shit...which is as hilarious as anything else about the man.

Quote:Here's the Senate hearing regarding C-16.  I did not know that Peterson had been involved in the hearing.

And he showed just how embarrassingly ignorant he was 

Quote:You can hear how the various political party representatives weigh in on many of the issues we earlier discussed.

Yup and none of them match your description

Granted, it's hard to hate when someone grabs the mike and milks it.  Mans got bills to pay, and the ride won't last forever.

(August 24, 2018 at 6:42 am)Khemikal Wrote: Granted, it's hard to hate when someone grabs the mike and milks it.  Mans got bills to pay, and the ride won't last forever.

Oh yes he's the rights flavor of the week in 3 years no one will remember him

(August 24, 2018 at 6:15 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Here's the Senate hearing regarding C-16.  I did not know that Peterson had been involved in the hearing.

And he showed just how embarrassingly ignorant he was 

Quote:You can hear how the various political party representatives weigh in on many of the issues we earlier discussed.

Yup and none of them match your description

I haven't described the various political party representatives, so that statement seems a little bit strange.

Quote:I haven't described the various political party representatives, so that statement seems a little bit strange.

No but i have pretty strong inclination of it in relation to the "PC LEFT"