Why the coverage of the trucker protest should worry all Canadians(stuartparker.ca)
stuartparker.ca
Why the coverage of the trucker protest should worry all Canadians
https://stuartparker.ca/why-the-coverage-of-the-trucker-protest-should-worry-all-canadians/
84 comments
Keep in mind Canada has two parallel media spheres. One of them is completely controlled by the state and the other the private sector. Of course the government funded journalists working for the government approved and funded broadcaster are going to side with… the government! That shouldn’t surprise anyone.
What I find interesting are all the sighting of these “radical” protesters with Nazi and confederate flags that are fueling the narrative that this demonstration really is led by the alt right. All of them are masked and there has been very little progress in identifying them but they sure were amply photographed and used as evidence by the state media. How weird is it that nobody can ID most of them?
In the 1970’s the state media and government similarly tried to pin mailbox bombings to a group called the FLQ… until an RCMP agent was caught literally red-handed (with severe burns and a torn off fingers) planting bombs in a mailbox to pin it on the FLQ! [0] The feds then confessed to more than 400 illegal search and seizures, criminal trespass, breaking and entering and arson incidents and the bomb planter admitted he “had done much worse for the feds”.
Who was prime minister during that time? You guessed it, Justin Trudeau’s father. What a coincidence.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
What I find interesting are all the sighting of these “radical” protesters with Nazi and confederate flags that are fueling the narrative that this demonstration really is led by the alt right. All of them are masked and there has been very little progress in identifying them but they sure were amply photographed and used as evidence by the state media. How weird is it that nobody can ID most of them?
In the 1970’s the state media and government similarly tried to pin mailbox bombings to a group called the FLQ… until an RCMP agent was caught literally red-handed (with severe burns and a torn off fingers) planting bombs in a mailbox to pin it on the FLQ! [0] The feds then confessed to more than 400 illegal search and seizures, criminal trespass, breaking and entering and arson incidents and the bomb planter admitted he “had done much worse for the feds”.
Who was prime minister during that time? You guessed it, Justin Trudeau’s father. What a coincidence.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
It was reasonably common for the US left to show American flags where the stars were replaced by or covered by a swastika. The folks showing such flags were saying that the US and/or the US govt was fascist.
I mention that because some/most of the "swastika" flags in this case are a Canadian flag with the maple leaf covered or replaced by a swastika, the message being that Canada/the Canadian govt is fascist.
I mention that because some/most of the "swastika" flags in this case are a Canadian flag with the maple leaf covered or replaced by a swastika, the message being that Canada/the Canadian govt is fascist.
> One of them is completely controlled by the state
Ridiculously untrue.
Anyone questioning this, please Google “is the CBC controlled by the government” and take note of the sites making the claim and the complete lack of media analysis studies supporting the claim.
Ridiculously untrue.
Anyone questioning this, please Google “is the CBC controlled by the government” and take note of the sites making the claim and the complete lack of media analysis studies supporting the claim.
Wait, did you just repost the same comment that got flagged the first time?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30183406
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30183406
Reposted without the parts that were, I assume, cause for the flagging, because I’m not going to allow a false claim to go unchallenged.
> One of them is completely controlled by the state
A ridiculous lie.
Anyone questioning whether OP is a conspiracy-minded loon, or whether I’m correct in calling it a ridiculous lie, please Google “is the CBC controlled by the government “ and take note of the sites claiming that it is.
A ridiculous lie.
Anyone questioning whether OP is a conspiracy-minded loon, or whether I’m correct in calling it a ridiculous lie, please Google “is the CBC controlled by the government “ and take note of the sites claiming that it is.
> A ridiculous lie.
Who signs the check?
Who signs the check?
I found the intro a little confusing, but I think his conclusion is really strong and apt:
I am not writing this piece to advocate for the protest and its participants. I am writing this piece to ask Canadians like me whether we want our future protests to be judged and covered by standards applied to the truckers today. I am asking us to think about what happens to the horizon of possibility for mass organizing when we throw in with the idea that actual, authentic grassroots protests are a thing of the past and the only legitimate public demonstration is one choreographed from above, its participants carefully disciplined into reading from an identical script or into silence.
We should also think about the Proud Boys and Sons of Odin who have gone to the rally to radicalize its participants. The on-the-ground experience of regular folks participating will be of being called Nazis, traitors, Klansmen, bigots, etc. Not only will this place greater distance between the participants and urban Canadian society; it will make them look less unfavourably on others who are called Nazis and Klansmen. How bad could those guys really be, they will ask themselves? Were they also smeared as part of a bum rap by shills for the pharmaceutical industry?
They will wonder if those folks also came to be known as these things the way they did. As a person who, because I dissented from the progressive consensus on a single issue, has been smeared as a transphobe, homophobe, pedophile, white supremacist, racist and ableist in the past year and a half, I can no longer simply accept the opinion of centre-left media on whether someone is a dangerous, bigoted member of the alt-right. I can no longer trust the government-financed Canadian Anti-Hate Network on whether someone is a dangerous hatemonger because many of my comrades and I are on their list. And not everyone is going to be like me and check those claims against the facts. Most people will just start ignoring those claims.
There is a high price to pay when you decide to cry “wolf” over fascism in a political situation like our own, where the authoritarian threat is real and society-wide.
I am not writing this piece to advocate for the protest and its participants. I am writing this piece to ask Canadians like me whether we want our future protests to be judged and covered by standards applied to the truckers today. I am asking us to think about what happens to the horizon of possibility for mass organizing when we throw in with the idea that actual, authentic grassroots protests are a thing of the past and the only legitimate public demonstration is one choreographed from above, its participants carefully disciplined into reading from an identical script or into silence.
We should also think about the Proud Boys and Sons of Odin who have gone to the rally to radicalize its participants. The on-the-ground experience of regular folks participating will be of being called Nazis, traitors, Klansmen, bigots, etc. Not only will this place greater distance between the participants and urban Canadian society; it will make them look less unfavourably on others who are called Nazis and Klansmen. How bad could those guys really be, they will ask themselves? Were they also smeared as part of a bum rap by shills for the pharmaceutical industry?
They will wonder if those folks also came to be known as these things the way they did. As a person who, because I dissented from the progressive consensus on a single issue, has been smeared as a transphobe, homophobe, pedophile, white supremacist, racist and ableist in the past year and a half, I can no longer simply accept the opinion of centre-left media on whether someone is a dangerous, bigoted member of the alt-right. I can no longer trust the government-financed Canadian Anti-Hate Network on whether someone is a dangerous hatemonger because many of my comrades and I are on their list. And not everyone is going to be like me and check those claims against the facts. Most people will just start ignoring those claims.
There is a high price to pay when you decide to cry “wolf” over fascism in a political situation like our own, where the authoritarian threat is real and society-wide.
> I am writing this piece to ask Canadians like me whether we want our future protests to be judged and covered by standards applied to the truckers today [..] actual, authentic grassroots protests are a thing of the past and the only legitimate public demonstration is one choreographed from above, its participants carefully disciplined into reading from an identical script or into silence.
Obviously this is completely wrong - the author thinks there is any kind of principled consistency in how movements are covered. Protests have always been covered selectively by the media. If journalists or media conglomerates support the cause, they prominently feature the most sympathetic parts of the protests, and downplay others. If not, they do the opposite.
Had the author's views not been so in line with the establishment, he would have noticed this decades ago.
Obviously this is completely wrong - the author thinks there is any kind of principled consistency in how movements are covered. Protests have always been covered selectively by the media. If journalists or media conglomerates support the cause, they prominently feature the most sympathetic parts of the protests, and downplay others. If not, they do the opposite.
Had the author's views not been so in line with the establishment, he would have noticed this decades ago.
That is not "obviously completely wrong" for a number of reasons. One example of how there are novel aspects to this situation is a reversal of the politics of traditional establishment versus protestors. In the recent past, protestors were usually associated with liberal progressives, and the establishment upheld conservative (usually still within the realm of "liberal", though) principles.
Now we see the liberal-progressive establishment enforcing and narrating policies that concern conservatives (and many liberals - just my opinion). Additionally, the rhetoric used by the establishment is especially concerning, because the vitriol is coming from the highest levels without much effort to obfuscate.
Now we see the liberal-progressive establishment enforcing and narrating policies that concern conservatives (and many liberals - just my opinion). Additionally, the rhetoric used by the establishment is especially concerning, because the vitriol is coming from the highest levels without much effort to obfuscate.
Perhaps that is true. Or perhaps having an ideal of objectivity can increase objectivity, and abandoning such an ideal dooms us to exactly what you are describing.
Kinda odd why this comment is so downvoted, I was under the impression this was pretty common knowledge…
"Grassroots"
LMAO we are not even pretending anymore that Canada is a sovereign state. Regardless of one's views on the Canadian government COVID policy it is not okay for a bunch of foreigners to come in and disrupt society with violent protests.
Is Canada now another chess-piece in the great American culture war? Always have been.
LMAO we are not even pretending anymore that Canada is a sovereign state. Regardless of one's views on the Canadian government COVID policy it is not okay for a bunch of foreigners to come in and disrupt society with violent protests.
Is Canada now another chess-piece in the great American culture war? Always have been.
> LMAO we are not even pretending anymore that Canada is a sovereign state
It echoes what a Canadian working in America told me: "you get the privilege of paying 30% more and earning 30% less, and you get to vote for someone who’s not there when the real decisions happen in Washington".
It echoes what a Canadian working in America told me: "you get the privilege of paying 30% more and earning 30% less, and you get to vote for someone who’s not there when the real decisions happen in Washington".
What are you referring to? Are you suggesting most of the protestors/truckers aren't Canadians?
Of course they are Canadians. Only their narrative is imported.
So I went and looked up the radicalising incident: https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/09/23/BC-Ecosocialist-Leader-St... ; and without re-litigating the whole JKR controversy, he states as facts some things in that quoted post which are completely contrary to the reality of the treatment of trans minors, which is itself an extremely difficult treatment to access. It's not something pushed on anyone.
This is the "cancelled-to-alt-right-pipeline". Someone says a bunch of incorrect things that are harmful to a minority, is rudely corrected on social media, and decides to go hard to the other side.
This is the "cancelled-to-alt-right-pipeline". Someone says a bunch of incorrect things that are harmful to a minority, is rudely corrected on social media, and decides to go hard to the other side.
Thanks for sharing this context. It is ironic that the topic of Stuart's post was a call to stop canceling potential allies and pushing them to the alt right.
>he states as facts some things in that quoted post which are completely contrary to the reality of the treatment of trans minors
Coming at this with fresh eyes, He doesn't state anything as facts. He just summed up what JKRs position was and said this person is a potential trans ally.
As a result, he lost his political position and was canceled for begging people to think twice about canceling someone else.
>he states as facts some things in that quoted post which are completely contrary to the reality of the treatment of trans minors
Coming at this with fresh eyes, He doesn't state anything as facts. He just summed up what JKRs position was and said this person is a potential trans ally.
As a result, he lost his political position and was canceled for begging people to think twice about canceling someone else.
> He just summed up what JKRs position was
.. which was based on a set of wrong (and inflammatory!) claims about how trans healthcare works.
> and said this person is a potential trans ally.
Only in the sense that any alive person is a potential trans ally; you are not an ally simply because you claim to be, you have to actually do the work, and in JKR's case that means she would have to do a lot of work simply to undo the damage and hurt that she herself has caused to trans people.
You can't say "I would be an ally to those people if only they'd stop cancelling me!", that indicates a fundamental failure to understand what an ally is.
.. which was based on a set of wrong (and inflammatory!) claims about how trans healthcare works.
> and said this person is a potential trans ally.
Only in the sense that any alive person is a potential trans ally; you are not an ally simply because you claim to be, you have to actually do the work, and in JKR's case that means she would have to do a lot of work simply to undo the damage and hurt that she herself has caused to trans people.
You can't say "I would be an ally to those people if only they'd stop cancelling me!", that indicates a fundamental failure to understand what an ally is.
It seems like he said, JRK is opposed to these 3 things.
If the trans community is also opposed to those 3 things, why wouldn't or couldn't they be an ally? There should be violent agreement!
Further, if the community wants 100 things, and someone supports 97, and disagrees on 3, must they be an enemy?
The point does indeed revolve around different definitions of what an ally is. Is it someone willing to work with you to get what you want, or get some of what you want, or is it someone who holds identical views?
The topic has strong parallels to the title post. Can the green party march alongside radical communists to protest climate change?
If the trans community is also opposed to those 3 things, why wouldn't or couldn't they be an ally? There should be violent agreement!
Further, if the community wants 100 things, and someone supports 97, and disagrees on 3, must they be an enemy?
The point does indeed revolve around different definitions of what an ally is. Is it someone willing to work with you to get what you want, or get some of what you want, or is it someone who holds identical views?
The topic has strong parallels to the title post. Can the green party march alongside radical communists to protest climate change?
[deleted]
In the linked article there’s a Parker quote that doesn’t appear to be a list of facts - it looks like a summary of JKR’s position.
If he was booted for that then I believe he was just a casualty of a purity spiral.
If he was booted for that then I believe he was just a casualty of a purity spiral.
The federal Green party also expelled candidate Meryam Haddad from the party’s leadership race after for stating support for the BC Ecosocialists over the provincial Greens based on their climate policy, and then reinstated Haddad after she appealed the decision, and a provide a through condemnation of Parker.
> I am not writing this piece to advocate for the protest and its participants. I am writing this piece to ask Canadians like me whether we want our future protests to be judged and covered by standards applied to the truckers today. I am asking us to think about what happens to the horizon of possibility for mass organizing when we throw in with the idea that actual, authentic grassroots protests are a thing of the past and the only legitimate public demonstration is one choreographed from above, its participants carefully disciplined into reading from an identical script or into silence.
The main objection I have to this is that yes, I think I do want any protest whose organizers' demands are essentially "we'll take over for elected MPs and collectively this new government issue edicts to provinces" reported on in this way.[1]
> We should also think about the Proud Boys and Sons of Odin who have gone to the rally to radicalize its participants. The on-the-ground experience of regular folks participating will be of being called Nazis, traitors, Klansmen, bigots, etc. Not only will this place greater distance between the participants and urban Canadian society; it will make them look less unfavourably on others who are called Nazis and Klansmen. How bad could those guys really be, they will ask themselves? Were they also smeared as part of a bum rap by shills for the pharmaceutical industry?
This is a weak argument for a few reasons.
1. The "regular folks" here are decidedly in the tiny minority. "Regular folks" by the percentages in Canada got vaccinated and aren't harassing people who live near government buildings / borders. Ottawa and its immediate areas across the river in Quebec house about 1.5 million people collectively, and they were able to drum up about 20k at the peak, who all disappeared on Sunday.
2. While I think it's certainly possible some people out there somewhere have thought to themselves "well I guess I am racist, even though I think I'm not, and I guess it can't be all that bad", I've yet to see anything close to that actually happening. What I have seen happen is people who weren't vocal about *beliefs they already held* are now emboldened to share it, be it because they perceive the "others" to be responsible for their poor economic status or just because it's ingrained from upbringing.
3. The notes about the Proud Boys and the Sons of Odin joining the protest are interesting, because it's the same "not all protestors" thing that happens at ANY large protest. Is the suggestion that it's only the Sons of Odin and Proud Boys members laying on air horns for hours on end in the middle of the night?
4. This sets the bar as "unless it's an all out riot you can never judge a protest by the actions of its members." I don't agree at all.
There've been countless left- and right-side protests in Ottawa, and none that I know of have been like this. Consider: There has been a large March for Life protest pretty much every year since I left the city, and they do not turn violent or damage property: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/thousands-attend-march-for-life-do...
The reason it's getting the coverage it is is because it is deserved based on the actions of people associated with this particular cause.
The concept that the coverage there is only showing the worst behaviours is hilarious to me because of course it is. That's what the news media do. It isn't a left/right divide at all, it's a "what generates attention" divide.
[1]: https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined...
The main objection I have to this is that yes, I think I do want any protest whose organizers' demands are essentially "we'll take over for elected MPs and collectively this new government issue edicts to provinces" reported on in this way.[1]
> We should also think about the Proud Boys and Sons of Odin who have gone to the rally to radicalize its participants. The on-the-ground experience of regular folks participating will be of being called Nazis, traitors, Klansmen, bigots, etc. Not only will this place greater distance between the participants and urban Canadian society; it will make them look less unfavourably on others who are called Nazis and Klansmen. How bad could those guys really be, they will ask themselves? Were they also smeared as part of a bum rap by shills for the pharmaceutical industry?
This is a weak argument for a few reasons.
1. The "regular folks" here are decidedly in the tiny minority. "Regular folks" by the percentages in Canada got vaccinated and aren't harassing people who live near government buildings / borders. Ottawa and its immediate areas across the river in Quebec house about 1.5 million people collectively, and they were able to drum up about 20k at the peak, who all disappeared on Sunday.
2. While I think it's certainly possible some people out there somewhere have thought to themselves "well I guess I am racist, even though I think I'm not, and I guess it can't be all that bad", I've yet to see anything close to that actually happening. What I have seen happen is people who weren't vocal about *beliefs they already held* are now emboldened to share it, be it because they perceive the "others" to be responsible for their poor economic status or just because it's ingrained from upbringing.
3. The notes about the Proud Boys and the Sons of Odin joining the protest are interesting, because it's the same "not all protestors" thing that happens at ANY large protest. Is the suggestion that it's only the Sons of Odin and Proud Boys members laying on air horns for hours on end in the middle of the night?
4. This sets the bar as "unless it's an all out riot you can never judge a protest by the actions of its members." I don't agree at all.
There've been countless left- and right-side protests in Ottawa, and none that I know of have been like this. Consider: There has been a large March for Life protest pretty much every year since I left the city, and they do not turn violent or damage property: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/thousands-attend-march-for-life-do...
The reason it's getting the coverage it is is because it is deserved based on the actions of people associated with this particular cause.
The concept that the coverage there is only showing the worst behaviours is hilarious to me because of course it is. That's what the news media do. It isn't a left/right divide at all, it's a "what generates attention" divide.
[1]: https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined...
> The "regular folks" here are decidedly in the tiny minority. "Regular folks" by the percentages in Canada got vaccinated
I won't speak to the other arguments you made but conflating "People who are vaccinated" with "People who agree with COVID restrictions" is frustrating and misleading.
For some reason the media keeps failing to make this distinction, e.g. "The protestors are a fringe minority, and that is because 90% of the population is vaccinated". You can look at the statistics of how many people are boosted (41% of Canadians) to see that not everyone is onboard with current public health recommendations, even if they were OK with the idea of getting vaccinated initially. If you start to deconstruct the numbers and look at polling there are a lot of indicators that the majority is not in favor of restrictions.
I won't speak to the other arguments you made but conflating "People who are vaccinated" with "People who agree with COVID restrictions" is frustrating and misleading.
For some reason the media keeps failing to make this distinction, e.g. "The protestors are a fringe minority, and that is because 90% of the population is vaccinated". You can look at the statistics of how many people are boosted (41% of Canadians) to see that not everyone is onboard with current public health recommendations, even if they were OK with the idea of getting vaccinated initially. If you start to deconstruct the numbers and look at polling there are a lot of indicators that the majority is not in favor of restrictions.
Firstly, the full quote is actually:
> The "regular folks" here are decidedly in the tiny minority. "Regular folks" by the percentages in Canada got vaccinated and aren't harassing people who live near government buildings / borders.
That second part is significant and matters.
Secondly, in response to this:
> I won't speak to the other arguments you made but conflating "People who are vaccinated" with "People who agree with COVID restrictions" is frustrating and misleading.
As I noted above, I didn't do that. Let's discuss your example anyways. Canadians broadly support further restricting people who are not vaccinated.[1] Next, Canadians broadly support ending COVID restrictions and trying to return to normal.[2] In the same study ([2]) nearly half (49%) of those surveyed blame the unvaccinated for prolonging the pandemic.
It might be ugly but the general attitude these polls suggest is one of "if you're not working with us, you're working against us."
> For some reason the media keeps failing to make this distinction, e.g. "The protestors are a fringe minority, and that is because 90% of the population is vaccinated". You can look at the statistics of how many people are boosted (41% of Canadians) to see that not everyone is onboard with current public health recommendations, even if they were OK with the idea of getting vaccinated initially. If you start to deconstruct the numbers and look at polling there are a lot of indicators that the majority is not in favor of restrictions.
I addressed the latter part above. However, that 41% number is disingenuous for a few reasons.
1. The booster campaigns only began for the general population in December. In a number of provinces there is a minimum wait time for getting a booster shot after your second shot.
2. Each province handles health care on its own, so responses are different and rules are different all across the country. You can see numbers at a few places but there's a tracker at CBC that's still being updated.[3] The globe also has an article about the uptake slowing and suggests it's there's a variety of different reasons than just individual attitudes (though that is undeniably a factor for each vaccination).[4] On that page they chart out doses administered. Because supply was much higher the spike is much larger for the booster than dose 1 and the trend appears in most provinces to be following the second shot. Consider: 41% of Canadians got the booster within two months of the start of booster campaigns. This suggests it's actually pretty popular.
[1]: https://globalnews.ca/news/8532791/covid-unvaccinated-restri...
[2]: https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/
[3]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/track-how-many-people-have-be...
[4]: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-uptake-of-cov...
> The "regular folks" here are decidedly in the tiny minority. "Regular folks" by the percentages in Canada got vaccinated and aren't harassing people who live near government buildings / borders.
That second part is significant and matters.
Secondly, in response to this:
> I won't speak to the other arguments you made but conflating "People who are vaccinated" with "People who agree with COVID restrictions" is frustrating and misleading.
As I noted above, I didn't do that. Let's discuss your example anyways. Canadians broadly support further restricting people who are not vaccinated.[1] Next, Canadians broadly support ending COVID restrictions and trying to return to normal.[2] In the same study ([2]) nearly half (49%) of those surveyed blame the unvaccinated for prolonging the pandemic.
It might be ugly but the general attitude these polls suggest is one of "if you're not working with us, you're working against us."
> For some reason the media keeps failing to make this distinction, e.g. "The protestors are a fringe minority, and that is because 90% of the population is vaccinated". You can look at the statistics of how many people are boosted (41% of Canadians) to see that not everyone is onboard with current public health recommendations, even if they were OK with the idea of getting vaccinated initially. If you start to deconstruct the numbers and look at polling there are a lot of indicators that the majority is not in favor of restrictions.
I addressed the latter part above. However, that 41% number is disingenuous for a few reasons.
1. The booster campaigns only began for the general population in December. In a number of provinces there is a minimum wait time for getting a booster shot after your second shot.
2. Each province handles health care on its own, so responses are different and rules are different all across the country. You can see numbers at a few places but there's a tracker at CBC that's still being updated.[3] The globe also has an article about the uptake slowing and suggests it's there's a variety of different reasons than just individual attitudes (though that is undeniably a factor for each vaccination).[4] On that page they chart out doses administered. Because supply was much higher the spike is much larger for the booster than dose 1 and the trend appears in most provinces to be following the second shot. Consider: 41% of Canadians got the booster within two months of the start of booster campaigns. This suggests it's actually pretty popular.
[1]: https://globalnews.ca/news/8532791/covid-unvaccinated-restri...
[2]: https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/
[3]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/track-how-many-people-have-be...
[4]: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-uptake-of-cov...
And if the mainstream media channels are misrepresenting the protestors so blatantly - what other "news" has been propagated to us that they've misrepresented, even subtly?
The events of the last 20 years with accompanying media coverage have really made me question a lot of the "history" I was taught and accepted as fact.
Meanwhile there are some long-lasting situations like the Israel-Palestine conflict/crisis, yet there's clear, ongoing gaslighting occurring - in part due to political ties and economic relationships that bond, align interests; and societies and culture is held hostage and suppressed from responding if it's counter the mainstream narrative, mastering suppression, propaganda, and influence techniques.
> We should also think about the Proud Boys and Sons of Odin who have gone to the rally to radicalize its participants. The on-the-ground experience of regular folks participating will be of being called Nazis, traitors, Klansmen, bigots, etc. Not only will this place greater distance between the participants and urban Canadian society; it will make them look less unfavourably on others who are called Nazis and Klansmen. How bad could those guys really be, they will ask themselves? Were they also smeared as part of a bum rap by shills for the pharmaceutical industry?
Is there a name for this argument? I find myself making this same argument often, in a variety of situations. Something like "Failure to Consider the Externalities of Wrongful Accusation", but more succinct?
Is there a name for this argument? I find myself making this same argument often, in a variety of situations. Something like "Failure to Consider the Externalities of Wrongful Accusation", but more succinct?
I don't know (or care much) about the details of Canadian politics but these complaints sound like BS from my perspective.
E.g., if a group uses a statue to promote their cause -- probably specifically because people care about the subject -- is it fair to complain that people don't like it? As if they are entitled to positive attention for associating themselves with the statue, but somehow should be exempted from the negative attention? It makes no sense.
More laughable is the suggestion that it's unfair to believe protesters are associating themselves with Nazism when they use the swastika as a protest symbol. Maybe they just think it's a cool symbol, like sewing kid in the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode?
And the complaints about the narrative sound like a guy aggrieved that gravity is trying to hold him down! Narratives will emerge from a movement (unless it's simply ignored). That an unfocused movement with disparate groups/motives/goals, without strong leadership won't produce and sustain a focused, favorable narrative seems like a foregone conclusion. If your movement doesn't craft the dominant narrative, then someone else will. Can you really expect them to craft just the one you wanted? That's hopeless.
I think this guy is yelling at the clouds.
E.g., if a group uses a statue to promote their cause -- probably specifically because people care about the subject -- is it fair to complain that people don't like it? As if they are entitled to positive attention for associating themselves with the statue, but somehow should be exempted from the negative attention? It makes no sense.
More laughable is the suggestion that it's unfair to believe protesters are associating themselves with Nazism when they use the swastika as a protest symbol. Maybe they just think it's a cool symbol, like sewing kid in the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode?
And the complaints about the narrative sound like a guy aggrieved that gravity is trying to hold him down! Narratives will emerge from a movement (unless it's simply ignored). That an unfocused movement with disparate groups/motives/goals, without strong leadership won't produce and sustain a focused, favorable narrative seems like a foregone conclusion. If your movement doesn't craft the dominant narrative, then someone else will. Can you really expect them to craft just the one you wanted? That's hopeless.
I think this guy is yelling at the clouds.
He mentions cherrypicking, but the co-organizers of the gofundme/convoy seem to not like Muslims[0]?
Tamara Lich and B.J. Dichter, neither of whom are truck drivers, are currently listed as the organizers of the GoFundMe page. Dichter was a late addition, only added this week.
Lich, born in Saskatchewan, now hails from Medicine Hat, Alberta, where she served as an organizer for Yellow Vests Canada, a regional coordinator for the separatist Western Exit or “Wexit” movement in Alberta, and now as the secretary for the Maverick Party – another separatist movement and fringe political party.
Attending and boosting Yellow Vest events starting in 2018, Lich social media posts from the time show her, in one moment, calling out some hateful rhetoric within the movement, while also posting Islamophobic articles of her own, like conspiracies about the “Muslim Brotherhood” operating in Canada.
Dichter’s website shares The Quiggin Report, and Dichter himself shares similar Islamophobic sentiments in public. In 2019 he claimed that “Islamist entryism” is “rotting away at our society like syphilis.”
“[The Conservative Party of Canada] is suffering from the stench of cultural relativism and political Islam,” he said during the first PPC conference held in Gatineau, Quebec. “It is suffering from the stench of extremism that same way in third-world countries suffer from extremist groups, separatist groups, communist guerrilla factions, paramilitaries, organized crime, and more.”
I kind of wonder why we are seeing nothing but ad-hominem attacks on the protestors themselves rather than addressing the issue they are protesting. What does the white supremacist, anti-muslin, and xenophobic views of some of the protestors have to do with the COVID mandates that they are protesting?
Mixture of things -
First - what they are protesting is mandating vaccines as part of doing a job and general restrictions meant to curb Covid, at least that’s my understanding as both a non Canadian and someone only vaguely focused on it. So really what they are protesting is a disagreement about the ethics of a government taking actions to protect people during a pandemic and where the line should be drawn.
Second - if we assume my assertion above is correct it becomes relevant that these groups are being led by extremists because it undermines the belief they are arguing in good faith and not merely using the current situation for their benefit. If prior to Covid you advocated to secede from the national government over presumed grievances and now you’re leading some protest against it for something else I have to wonder if you’re not just an opportunist. (You here doesn’t refer to you but to the organizers)
Basically - I don’t trust that the leaders are operating in good faith. It falls similarly to hearing Tucker and the rest of the Fox crew rant against vaccines, vaccine mandates, and any sort of reasonable public health tools knowing full well they are vaccinated and have a far more strict vaccine mandate than most places. They are using people, and in some cases getting them killed, for their own motives. I don’t like that.
First - what they are protesting is mandating vaccines as part of doing a job and general restrictions meant to curb Covid, at least that’s my understanding as both a non Canadian and someone only vaguely focused on it. So really what they are protesting is a disagreement about the ethics of a government taking actions to protect people during a pandemic and where the line should be drawn.
Second - if we assume my assertion above is correct it becomes relevant that these groups are being led by extremists because it undermines the belief they are arguing in good faith and not merely using the current situation for their benefit. If prior to Covid you advocated to secede from the national government over presumed grievances and now you’re leading some protest against it for something else I have to wonder if you’re not just an opportunist. (You here doesn’t refer to you but to the organizers)
Basically - I don’t trust that the leaders are operating in good faith. It falls similarly to hearing Tucker and the rest of the Fox crew rant against vaccines, vaccine mandates, and any sort of reasonable public health tools knowing full well they are vaccinated and have a far more strict vaccine mandate than most places. They are using people, and in some cases getting them killed, for their own motives. I don’t like that.
>secede from the national government over presumed grievances and now you’re leading some protest against it for something else I have to wonder if you’re not just an opportunist.
Who knows if this is correct, but if true, this doesn't seem contradictory to me. If a group want to secede and have freedom from federal oversight, it seems natural that they would also want to limit the federal power as long as they are stuck within the system.
Who knows if this is correct, but if true, this doesn't seem contradictory to me. If a group want to secede and have freedom from federal oversight, it seems natural that they would also want to limit the federal power as long as they are stuck within the system.
I think the best bits from the article are:
> Right-wing commentators sought to discredit these protests [1980's peace movement] by heavily featuring and platforming the most off-topic or the most radical protesters and then seeking to paint all protesters with that broad brush. This approach generally failed and was mocked by the mainstream press, who depicted the diversity of protesters and homemade signs as a sign of the depth of its support.
...
> And, in progressive, urban Canada, this broad-brush guilt-by-association strategy exhumed from the 1980s appears to be working, no matter how intellectually lazy its journalistic practitioners are being. Let me rehearse the kinds of sloppy reporting we are seeing here:
> Right-wing commentators sought to discredit these protests [1980's peace movement] by heavily featuring and platforming the most off-topic or the most radical protesters and then seeking to paint all protesters with that broad brush. This approach generally failed and was mocked by the mainstream press, who depicted the diversity of protesters and homemade signs as a sign of the depth of its support.
...
> And, in progressive, urban Canada, this broad-brush guilt-by-association strategy exhumed from the 1980s appears to be working, no matter how intellectually lazy its journalistic practitioners are being. Let me rehearse the kinds of sloppy reporting we are seeing here:
loceng(1)
>More importantly still, I am trying to sound a cultural alarm bell about the exaltation of order, disciple and control as Canadians’ primary political values. The fact is that those values are authoritarian
They're not just Canadian values and not really authoritarian. Contest for power is and has always been the primary function of the political. Politics is the business of deciding who orders, the fact that someone does is not in question, and a bunch of peace protesters or truckers had never any meaningful impact on anyone. The internal party politics of whoever is holding power is what matters. That goes for private companies or governments regardless of how often they talk about participation or inclusion or whatever else.
So the actual observation here is that it isn't really relevant whether you're for or against the trucker cause, but and the author seems to agree, the only effect that the trucker protest has is that it makes them look exactly like what they're being caricatured as.
They're not just Canadian values and not really authoritarian. Contest for power is and has always been the primary function of the political. Politics is the business of deciding who orders, the fact that someone does is not in question, and a bunch of peace protesters or truckers had never any meaningful impact on anyone. The internal party politics of whoever is holding power is what matters. That goes for private companies or governments regardless of how often they talk about participation or inclusion or whatever else.
So the actual observation here is that it isn't really relevant whether you're for or against the trucker cause, but and the author seems to agree, the only effect that the trucker protest has is that it makes them look exactly like what they're being caricatured as.
The belief that politics is primarily a contest for power is a very limited view of politics. Politics is also a means for idea exchange, collective weighing of priorities, debate, the proposal and then choice between competing visions, etc.
Reducing it to being primarily about power is not only a disservice, but potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Reducing it to being primarily about power is not only a disservice, but potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>Politics is also a means for idea exchange, collective weighing of priorities, debate, the proposal and then choice between competing visions, etc.
That's what happens in a political community which has already established itself as such. That's not the fundamental character of the political. Collective weighing of priorities, debate, and so on can happen on a factory floor, or a science lab, or a lecture hall. It is not a distinguishing feature, but just a process. In fact a bunch of computers can weigh priorities and evaluate proposals.
What actually defines the political domain is the distinction between friend and enemy, that is to say who can exist within the group you deliberate with in the first place, and who is out, it's always a matter of identity. So not only is power, as in reserving the right to eliminate who isn't part of the community part of politics, it's the precondition for any community to actually have a political life.
That's what happens in a political community which has already established itself as such. That's not the fundamental character of the political. Collective weighing of priorities, debate, and so on can happen on a factory floor, or a science lab, or a lecture hall. It is not a distinguishing feature, but just a process. In fact a bunch of computers can weigh priorities and evaluate proposals.
What actually defines the political domain is the distinction between friend and enemy, that is to say who can exist within the group you deliberate with in the first place, and who is out, it's always a matter of identity. So not only is power, as in reserving the right to eliminate who isn't part of the community part of politics, it's the precondition for any community to actually have a political life.
I see it differently: when the distinction is between friend and enemy, there can be no politics, only war.
> The belief that politics is primarily a contest for power is a very limited view of politics.
I think it's spot on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
I think it's spot on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
"Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status."
It's a framing to see "making decisions in groups" as only a matter of power relations. Why view it as only adversarial, when it could just as easily be cooperative?
It's a framing to see "making decisions in groups" as only a matter of power relations. Why view it as only adversarial, when it could just as easily be cooperative?
you, politicians, militants, and others are using the term, "Power" wrong. your talking about, "Force." they are two entirely different things, you wont understand.
[deleted]
Care to explain?
Why turn HN into another political forum?
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I really enjoy the political discussions that show up on HN. It’s the only place online where I can see both sides of something being debated intelligently. It’s also the only place where I can post something that goes against the grain of the majority and still be upvoted.
That said I think the “if they’d cover it in the TV news…” is a good rule, just to limit discussions to novel topics.
That said I think the “if they’d cover it in the TV news…” is a good rule, just to limit discussions to novel topics.
I thought the piece was interesting, and not particularly political. It mostly focuses on rhetorical tactics in politics and begs the question of why do people knowingly use and accept strawmen arguments
loceng(1)
Daishiman(4)
The observations about the form of bias in question, as well as the observation about (lack of) dissent within the party, are really just minor details of a wider picture.
The root cause is that hyper connectedness has reduced cultural and intellectual diversity among the vast majority. I don't say that as a positive or negative, just as a fact. By "cultural and intellectual diversity", I mean that the more a particular topic is featured on social media, the narrower of a spread the opinions on that topic become. (Intellectual diversity in the sense of what topics are discussed has exploded, however. I'm part of a massive online group dedicated to discussing changes in zoning and public transit. Imagine that 30 years ago.)
This goes beyond politics too. I could write an essay about how games like MMORPGs are fundamentally different now that there's hyperconnected communities that distribute high quality information on playing optimally, and how game design has in turn responded to this. Effective use of reddit or discord or a wiki has essentially merged as part of the gameplay now for a very large percentage of users. The hyperconnected social internet fundamentally changed how we interact with ideas, from gaming to politics.