Though this inquiry is specific to Canadian politics I think Wernick's opening statement to the House of Commons justice committee applies to the political climate in many western nations right...
Though this inquiry is specific to Canadian politics I think Wernick's opening statement to the House of Commons justice committee applies to the political climate in many western nations right now:
A lot has been said and written in the last few weeks and I think there are a couple of things that need to be clarified. I worry about my country right now, I’m deeply concerned about my country right now and its politics and where its headed. I worry about foreign interference in the upcoming election and we’re working hard on that. I worry about the rising tide of incitements to violence, when people use terms like “treason” and “traitor” in open discourse. Those are the words that lead to assassination. I’m worried that someone is going to be shot in this country this year during the political campaign.
I think that it’s totally unacceptable that a member of the Parliament of Canada would incite people to drive trucks over people, after what happened in Toronto last summer. Totally unacceptable and I hope that you, as parliamentarians, are going to condemn that.
I worry about the reputations of honourable people who have served their country — being besmirched and dragged through the market square. I worry about the trolling from the vomitorium of social media entering the open media arena.
Most of all, I worry about people losing faith in the institutions of governance in this country, and that’s why these proceedings are so important.
What's wrong with some people? But it's not surprising. The right-wing has a tendency for the extreme and they love to rile up their supporters with violent imagery of the left being destroyed.
Wernick, a career public servant who has worked in senior roles under both Conservative and Liberal prime ministers, said he finds recent remarks by Conservative Saskatchewan Sen. David Tkachuk at a recent rally particularly distasteful.
While addressing the "United We Roll" convoy of Alberta truckers who travelled to Ottawa this week, Tkachuk said, "I know you've rolled all the way here, and I'm going to ask you one more thing: I want you to roll over every Liberal left in the country."
The Saskatchewan senator said Liberals have "manufactured outrage" over his remarks in order to distract from the government's record on the oil and gas industry.
What's wrong with some people? But it's not surprising. The right-wing has a tendency for the extreme and they love to rile up their supporters with violent imagery of the left being destroyed.
both sides do have it happen, but let's be clear: this absolutely does not happen in equal proportion at really any level of politics and it shouldn't really be treated like a 'both sides' issue...
This stuff comes from both sides in the US. This is an extreme example. I realize Fox News gets a bad rep, but this article tells the truth. A Democrat representative in the Illinois House basically stated that she wanted a Republican who opposed her, and his entire family, to die from water poisoning.
both sides do have it happen, but let's be clear: this absolutely does not happen in equal proportion at really any level of politics and it shouldn't really be treated like a 'both sides' issue (as most things should not be). threats of violence or actual violence tend to be disproportionately a right-winger thing and not a left-winger one (at least, until you get to actual leftism and not just progressivism or liberalism), and while there are certainly some left-wingers who are like this (for example the congressional baseball shooter in 2017) you see right wingers plotting or acting on their beliefs a lot more often than you tend see left wingers do so.
there are a few out there, but alas i can't find any immediately. nonetheless, just from some basic googling around there are some independent tabulations of recent attacks which suggests that a...
there are a few out there, but alas i can't find any immediately. nonetheless, just from some basic googling around there are some independent tabulations of recent attacks which suggests that a significant plurality in recent memory are perpetrated by right-wing extremists (the majority, if you consider islamic terrorism to be far-right). see also these statistics tabulated in 2017 by the libertarian Cato Institute, and this article from last year by Washington Post.
Right wing, left wing, centrist; stating that anyone holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is not reasonable discourse, it's carnal. We are all better than that. Wanting that a human holding an...
Right wing, left wing, centrist; stating that anyone holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is not reasonable discourse, it's carnal. We are all better than that.
Wanting that a human holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is pure tyranny and all of the evils that it holds.
Matching algorithms might just be the most dangerous thing we've invented and adopted as a species. Most of the problems surrounding politics and human behavior in general can only be as prevalent...
Matching algorithms might just be the most dangerous thing we've invented and adopted as a species. Most of the problems surrounding politics and human behavior in general can only be as prevalent as they are with echo chambers behind them, sure we've always had a tendency to seek out echo chambers but in the past you'd almost certainly be forced to learn opposing views through some "dumb" medium, this is the first time in history where echo chambers actively seeks you out. It's a dangerous thing and nobody has been responsible enough (or aware) to do anything about it.
I don't really see an end to it, it'll certainly get a lot worse before it gets better and until it does we're going to be reading about shit like this way too often.
this is a nice like of thinking but, in light of some of the ideologies that do exist and do have followers, is it really a sustainable one? like, if the 'opposing viewpoint' is genocide of an...
Right wing, left wing, centrist; stating that anyone holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is not reasonable discourse, it's carnal. We are all better than that.
Wanting that a human holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is pure tyranny and all of the evils that it holds.
this is a nice like of thinking but, in light of some of the ideologies that do exist and do have followers, is it really a sustainable one? like, if the 'opposing viewpoint' is genocide of an ethnic group or the mass murder of ideological opposition, is it still unacceptable for people to express their desire that someone who subscribes to such beliefs be harmed or killed? is it still unacceptable to wish death upon someone whose ideology will literally lead to your murder or death if carried out? is it unacceptable for someone whose home nation was just glassed and brought to ruin, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, to wish death on the people who allowed it to happen and enabled it? is it still unacceptable if, when all is said and done, a party's policies will indirectly kill you and possibly tens of thousands of others?
to be clear, this is not me saying that Killing People is Good, Actually (because in an optimal world nobody would need to kill), nor do i think my statement would apply in the OP situation. but i find this idea that there is literally no valid reason for people to feel like their "ideological opposition" should die or be killed to reek of disconnected and disaffected white liberalism. speaking for myself for example, i do very much hope that fascists continue to either be maimed or die, because if they ever take power someone like me is going to be the first to be put against the wall, and people with the same idea as you sure as fuck aren't going to help me if or when that happens.
Though this inquiry is specific to Canadian politics I think Wernick's opening statement to the House of Commons justice committee applies to the political climate in many western nations right now:
source
What's wrong with some people? But it's not surprising. The right-wing has a tendency for the extreme and they love to rile up their supporters with violent imagery of the left being destroyed.
both sides do have it happen, but let's be clear: this absolutely does not happen in equal proportion at really any level of politics and it shouldn't really be treated like a 'both sides' issue (as most things should not be). threats of violence or actual violence tend to be disproportionately a right-winger thing and not a left-winger one (at least, until you get to actual leftism and not just progressivism or liberalism), and while there are certainly some left-wingers who are like this (for example the congressional baseball shooter in 2017) you see right wingers plotting or acting on their beliefs a lot more often than you tend see left wingers do so.
there are a few out there, but alas i can't find any immediately. nonetheless, just from some basic googling around there are some independent tabulations of recent attacks which suggests that a significant plurality in recent memory are perpetrated by right-wing extremists (the majority, if you consider islamic terrorism to be far-right). see also these statistics tabulated in 2017 by the libertarian Cato Institute, and this article from last year by Washington Post.
Right wing, left wing, centrist; stating that anyone holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is not reasonable discourse, it's carnal. We are all better than that.
Wanting that a human holding an opposing viewpoint be killed is pure tyranny and all of the evils that it holds.
Matching algorithms might just be the most dangerous thing we've invented and adopted as a species. Most of the problems surrounding politics and human behavior in general can only be as prevalent as they are with echo chambers behind them, sure we've always had a tendency to seek out echo chambers but in the past you'd almost certainly be forced to learn opposing views through some "dumb" medium, this is the first time in history where echo chambers actively seeks you out. It's a dangerous thing and nobody has been responsible enough (or aware) to do anything about it.
I don't really see an end to it, it'll certainly get a lot worse before it gets better and until it does we're going to be reading about shit like this way too often.
this is a nice like of thinking but, in light of some of the ideologies that do exist and do have followers, is it really a sustainable one? like, if the 'opposing viewpoint' is genocide of an ethnic group or the mass murder of ideological opposition, is it still unacceptable for people to express their desire that someone who subscribes to such beliefs be harmed or killed? is it still unacceptable to wish death upon someone whose ideology will literally lead to your murder or death if carried out? is it unacceptable for someone whose home nation was just glassed and brought to ruin, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, to wish death on the people who allowed it to happen and enabled it? is it still unacceptable if, when all is said and done, a party's policies will indirectly kill you and possibly tens of thousands of others?
to be clear, this is not me saying that Killing People is Good, Actually (because in an optimal world nobody would need to kill), nor do i think my statement would apply in the OP situation. but i find this idea that there is literally no valid reason for people to feel like their "ideological opposition" should die or be killed to reek of disconnected and disaffected white liberalism. speaking for myself for example, i do very much hope that fascists continue to either be maimed or die, because if they ever take power someone like me is going to be the first to be put against the wall, and people with the same idea as you sure as fuck aren't going to help me if or when that happens.
What do you mean going to be?