The people who voted for the Dumpster at least managed to take the most basic, simple first step in starting to fulfill their civic duty. I don't know if I can bring myself to laud that, but I've certainly no credit to award those who didn't even vote at all.
If so much as 10% of the nation is engaged and has so much as a spark of competence yet cannot bear to vote Democrat, where did all the 3rd-party and off-ballot votes go? Why are those still practically a rounding error, hovering around 2% every year but 2016?
Those who didn't vote at all ought to feel the most shame, because the laziness of abdicating all personal responsibility doesn't offer half the emotional shielding that idiocy does.
It's not effective at changing minds when it's done like that.
I had a rather lengthy response to Otter -- then I read their post more carefully, so you get one even longer. 🙄 This is why I normally lurk. Moderation is not my strength.
Propaganda is absolutely effective, but only significantly so when measured, diverse, and subtle, at least until already enjoying widespread majority support. The tactics that work involve obscuring bias or position behind oblique or selective framing. Bludgeoning people with facts tends to be counter-productive, even alienating people who already share the same views. That means the data was incorrectly measured, with a bias toward checking boxes/signaling virtue rather than actually exerting influence.
And there lies the deeper problem as well. How does one form "good journalistic practice" around such manipulative presentation of information, when that is partly how we define bad journalistic practice? Honesty/diligence and effectiveness are directly at odds with one another, and that's pretty hard to coherently codify. If you can't always be objectively right, then you have to always be honest and transparent -- to not exert influence that is not intrinsic to incontrovertible facts. And what today is ever incontrovertible to a general audience?
Journalism as a craft desperately needs the institutional trust it only ever earned by policing itself against such practices, so that it could leverage a trust that those who engage in more effective manipulations could not. And that didn't even protect the truth nearly so much as it did the status quo and established beliefs. The reality is we always needed critical thinking that has to come from somewhere greater in breadth and capacity than our own imagination, intuition, or narrow experience could ever train.
When the walls around publishing collapsed, we lost the good with the bad. I don't think the solution we need today can still (pretend to) exist within journalism/institutions, nor with a purely self-organized general public. Today, I find democratized aggregators like Lemmy helpful, but the quality is a direct consequence of its limited influence also limiting the incentive to subvert it. Even then it's only a relative boost to signal quality, not a new kind of signal.
A new mechanism is needed to filter and direct trust irrespective of subject -- perhaps as educational institutions once did to greater degree. If we don't figure it out soon, AI will create that solution for us its creator-owners by becoming the substrate through which all human knowledge gets filtered and approximately summarized. We've likely already met the next Rupert Murdoch.
I wouldn't have considered the noise pollution to exceed the scope of a nuisance and disruption to wildlife habitat, but Benn Jordan did a pretty good job demonstrating infrasound's capacity to impact human health.
Nothing projects a terminal deficit of imagination quite like "but baseline power!"
Grid-scale storage has never been cheaper at scale, and there's no floor in sight, nor much greater opportunity to build our economy with a local industry that directly consumes our own resources. Our grid layout could use another bridge or two, but is overall fairly resilient and stable, and smoothing out short-term fluctuations has never been easier. And we're even right next to a province going all-in on some of the most reliable wind energy on the planet.
The challenge isn't finding alternative solutions to more oil and gas -- it's picking one.
I, a colonizer by birth and person of average shittiness, care deeply about the environment, because I live in it. I'd have to be profiting pretty obscenely from destroying humanity's future to budge that balance of self-interest. But as a regular working-class person, nothing I earn in my entire lifetime could possibly outweigh -- nor secure -- personal access to clean air and water, healthy food, and the natural beauty of our land.
In this context, the only distinction I see between myself and a "noble savage" is that indigenous people have, if anything, a stronger and more legitimate sovereign claim to Canadian territory (along with a tradition of more direct reliance on it). Why wouldn't they care? And maybe they don't care more than anyone else, especially relative to how they're personally impacted. But whether from care or convenience, they are vastly over-represented among the people that actually show up and put their bodies on the line opposing environmental destruction. They're 5% of our population, yet as best I can estimate a plurality across front lines nationwide.
With the billionaire class consistently getting to do whatever they want to the planet, it's very easy to forget: Even in the face of so much pro-business propaganda permeating our media, environmental protection is actually one of the areas where the rest of the world is not very divided at all.
Besides...the more "civilization" I see, the more attractive the label "savage" becomes.
I have no problem with Canada Post operating at a loss, but not while that effectively means taxpayer dollars subsidizing the private businesses dominating all easy, high-volume routes using underpaid gig labor. CP are getting penalized at both ends, as are we. The only other way I can think to frame it is urban taxpayers subsidizing rural and especially remote communities, which I'm sure will be very popular while public transit remains wholly inadequate.
I don't know how to solve any of that internally, nor just within shipping. It's most likely far from feasible to mandate every shipping company ^and-who-counts-as-such?^ deliver to every corner of Canada, or even of just certain regions. But putting an end to gig work by closing the contracting loopholes would be a good start. And start forcing all employers with more than 10 employees -- including contracted sole proprietorships -- to maintain a supermajority of labor hours being supplied through salaried full-time positions. Even that disrupts actual independent professionals, but at least it would still be a level playing field.
Anyway, it seems to me like most of the real problems and their origins are external to Canada Post itself --- so it makes sense that there may not be any kind of internal solution.
This looks really promising. I was never at risk (during youth) because I was under the thumb of religious fervor, but I imagine I would have responded much more favorably to this kind of "know yourself" approach than the usual "everything is bad" propaganda. The latter is inherently self-defeating because it always contains some elements of both lying and hyping things that are non-issues on a personal basis. Both discredit any value delivered in the same package, and it's not a "messaging" issue or figuring out how to be cool enough to make kids listen.
I might go so far as to identify this kind of self-understanding as the most notable absence in the most egregious shortcomings of my education and overall upbringing. That probably shouldn't be so surprising, with western religion's adoration for "one size fits all" approaches to everything. But the key factor to maximizing reception and impact would be staying well clear of pseudoscience and limiting the program's ambitions to assessment backed by solid evidence.
Ah, so eastern social credit is the public(ish) policing private business. And that is very bad -- by which of course I mean it's targeting the people who most manipulate western public opinion.
But our western financial credit is private business policing the general public. "This is normal."
In political terms, I'm affected in so far as disaffected men are storming the halls of power and pursuing agendas that will make everything worse for all of us. In interpersonal terms, "I got mine." And in subsequent identity terms, saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me.
Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I'm getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I'm personally willing to invest while I'm supposed to be on vacation.
You weren't interested in generalities and I don't believe there's anything approaching hard data on this, so I personalized my point. I had my awakening, humbling, and re-habilitation of self-identity before any of this came up (for me), and it only did because I started noticing how increasingly harder it was for other men to to navigate that same path. I'm one of the lucky ones because of the support system I had before I "deserved" one.
Even then, I'd be perfectly happy sticking to my own tiny community, if not for my nation's willingness to join the broader movement nurturing backlash against growing hardship into grievance politics and the same steady slide right as every other major nation.
I miss having my head in the sand.
The only thing I could be credibly accused of resenting is the realization that I have to take more responsibility for the state of society around me, and start doing the work on behalf of people beyond my inner circle. For a long time, I said nothing in defense of men because it was very much not expedient to invite the associated judgements. Besides, there isn't exactly a shortage of (I used to think) higher priority groups to defend. Men still aren't the highest by a mile, but they're doing a good job of escalating it.
But I'll dock no points for jumping to the simple, stereotypical conclusion. It is, after all, a very popular psychoanalysis. ;)
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute "source demographic" with "individual in that demographic?" Because that's all it takes -- both for bigotry to take root and for it to be perceived by those individuals. In pop culture terms, I have no idea when if ever it stopped. Regarding men specifically, I only witnessed it start half-heartedly/infrequently in the last few years.
Power imbalance is a natural systemic issue in so far as it sometimes having natural sources/root causes, but more importantly it's inherent propensity toward positive feedback loops.
"Eat the rich" is an example of messaging that has completely lost the plot of systemic issues while highlighting the outgroup and not coming only from fringe extremists. Sure, it means "redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all" but it sure doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't have the power and popularity that comes from appealing to the baser, target-hungry instincts of all humans.
Also, I don't judge a group by its worst members and least of all its influencers. But pay attention to the actual direct, interpersonal behavior of the influenced majority and then decide whether quietly, non-verbally ostracizing (excluding, avoiding, presuming guilt of) men is a fringe position.
Given the safety/hazard factor, I can't even bring myself to cast blame. It only takes 1% of men victimizing women for 50% of women to eventually get victimized. But that is where fringe behavior is condemning an entire demographic. Every sufficiently large group has its Cro-Magnon influencers, which no reasonable person considers representative of that group.
I appreciate the considerable amount of left-leaning voices that avoid condemning men just for being, and even sometimes recognize the challenges they face and the limits of their agency as individuals. But the majority these voices are not, and I doubt even their audiences comprise the majority of people who align themselves anywhere left of center.
The further left I go, the more hostility I face from increasingly narrow purity tests. When performed in person, its often with a haughty air/attitude of expecting me to fail. (In other words, I'm talking about people who are clearly not afraid of me.) If that isn't stereotyping and prejudice, I don't know what is. And so I align with a set of values and political views populated by people I find no less miserable to be around than the bigots on the right. You can file that under "various reasons" to choose self-isolation.
And I'm certainly not the only person from the left pointing out that the left has a welcoming problem, either.
It's not just the right. It's anyone willing to associate systemic and natural (power imbalance) issues with some particular outgroup. Show me someone who doesn't do that and I'll show you someone who's a minority in every demographic they occupy.
Case in point: last I checked, it wasn't the "fuck your feelings" crowd that invented slogans like "eat the rich."
I'll hazard a guess. It's because male culture and masculine values are fucked. Older men are lonely because they either cannot find friends, or already reached the conclusion it was time to both stop looking and lose the ones they had, for various reasons. Younger men left in a cultural vacuum are reinventing masculinity as a toxic caricature guided by the only affirming male role models they can find outside the home: social media influencers.
Meanwhile, the predominant message from the left, as observed in generalities and absent nuance, is all the ways having a Y chromosome makes you evil. With an apparent choice between self-flagellation and asserting a sense of inherent superiority as both an emotional shield and path to an in-group with shared values, I really can't say I'd choose any better in my younger, immature form.
So here we are, in 2025 where the battle of the sexes is now a political movement and even one that's quite happy to pick your side for you if you dare present ambiguously. We're just a little fashion subtlety away from wearing arm bands, either to declare for the feminists or the anti-woke, or just to dodge social conscription.
You're very focused on what Poilievre does, even where it doesn't actually affect you and even though you have no control over his words or actions.
You have complete control over your own words and actions. Nothing any politician does will change who's character that reflects. That's power you are granting him, and it only diminishes yourself. But by all means, have another go at re-articulating your whatabout defense. Maybe the third time's the charm.
The people who voted for the Dumpster at least managed to take the most basic, simple first step in starting to fulfill their civic duty. I don't know if I can bring myself to laud that, but I've certainly no credit to award those who didn't even vote at all.
If so much as 10% of the nation is engaged and has so much as a spark of competence yet cannot bear to vote Democrat, where did all the 3rd-party and off-ballot votes go? Why are those still practically a rounding error, hovering around 2% every year but 2016?
Those who didn't vote at all ought to feel the most shame, because the laziness of abdicating all personal responsibility doesn't offer half the emotional shielding that idiocy does.
I had a rather lengthy response to Otter -- then I read their post more carefully, so you get one even longer. 🙄 This is why I normally lurk. Moderation is not my strength.
Propaganda is absolutely effective, but only significantly so when measured, diverse, and subtle, at least until already enjoying widespread majority support. The tactics that work involve obscuring bias or position behind oblique or selective framing. Bludgeoning people with facts tends to be counter-productive, even alienating people who already share the same views. That means the data was incorrectly measured, with a bias toward checking boxes/signaling virtue rather than actually exerting influence.
And there lies the deeper problem as well. How does one form "good journalistic practice" around such manipulative presentation of information, when that is partly how we define bad journalistic practice? Honesty/diligence and effectiveness are directly at odds with one another, and that's pretty hard to coherently codify. If you can't always be objectively right, then you have to always be honest and transparent -- to not exert influence that is not intrinsic to incontrovertible facts. And what today is ever incontrovertible to a general audience?
Journalism as a craft desperately needs the institutional trust it only ever earned by policing itself against such practices, so that it could leverage a trust that those who engage in more effective manipulations could not. And that didn't even protect the truth nearly so much as it did the status quo and established beliefs. The reality is we always needed critical thinking that has to come from somewhere greater in breadth and capacity than our own imagination, intuition, or narrow experience could ever train.
When the walls around publishing collapsed, we lost the good with the bad. I don't think the solution we need today can still (pretend to) exist within journalism/institutions, nor with a purely self-organized general public. Today, I find democratized aggregators like Lemmy helpful, but the quality is a direct consequence of its limited influence also limiting the incentive to subvert it. Even then it's only a relative boost to signal quality, not a new kind of signal.
A new mechanism is needed to filter and direct trust irrespective of subject -- perhaps as educational institutions once did to greater degree. If we don't figure it out soon, AI will create that solution for
usits creator-owners by becoming the substrate through which all human knowledge gets filtered and approximately summarized. We've likely already met the next Rupert Murdoch.Dang it, of course I'd post in the wrong spot. For the record, this was a copy of the other reply, not the one I mentioned not posting.
I wouldn't have considered the noise pollution to exceed the scope of a nuisance and disruption to wildlife habitat, but Benn Jordan did a pretty good job demonstrating infrasound's capacity to impact human health.
I wouldn't worry about that. Getting by presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote.
Nothing projects a terminal deficit of imagination quite like "but baseline power!"
Grid-scale storage has never been cheaper at scale, and there's no floor in sight, nor much greater opportunity to build our economy with a local industry that directly consumes our own resources. Our grid layout could use another bridge or two, but is overall fairly resilient and stable, and smoothing out short-term fluctuations has never been easier. And we're even right next to a province going all-in on some of the most reliable wind energy on the planet.
The challenge isn't finding alternative solutions to more oil and gas -- it's picking one.
I, a colonizer by birth and person of average shittiness, care deeply about the environment, because I live in it. I'd have to be profiting pretty obscenely from destroying humanity's future to budge that balance of self-interest. But as a regular working-class person, nothing I earn in my entire lifetime could possibly outweigh -- nor secure -- personal access to clean air and water, healthy food, and the natural beauty of our land.
In this context, the only distinction I see between myself and a "noble savage" is that indigenous people have, if anything, a stronger and more legitimate sovereign claim to Canadian territory (along with a tradition of more direct reliance on it). Why wouldn't they care? And maybe they don't care more than anyone else, especially relative to how they're personally impacted. But whether from care or convenience, they are vastly over-represented among the people that actually show up and put their bodies on the line opposing environmental destruction. They're 5% of our population, yet as best I can estimate a plurality across front lines nationwide.
With the billionaire class consistently getting to do whatever they want to the planet, it's very easy to forget: Even in the face of so much pro-business propaganda permeating our media, environmental protection is actually one of the areas where the rest of the world is not very divided at all.
Besides...the more "civilization" I see, the more attractive the label "savage" becomes.
I have no problem with Canada Post operating at a loss, but not while that effectively means taxpayer dollars subsidizing the private businesses dominating all easy, high-volume routes using underpaid gig labor. CP are getting penalized at both ends, as are we. The only other way I can think to frame it is urban taxpayers subsidizing rural and especially remote communities, which I'm sure will be very popular while public transit remains wholly inadequate.
I don't know how to solve any of that internally, nor just within shipping. It's most likely far from feasible to mandate every shipping company ^and-who-counts-as-such?^ deliver to every corner of Canada, or even of just certain regions. But putting an end to gig work by closing the contracting loopholes would be a good start. And start forcing all employers with more than 10 employees -- including contracted sole proprietorships -- to maintain a supermajority of labor hours being supplied through salaried full-time positions. Even that disrupts actual independent professionals, but at least it would still be a level playing field.
Anyway, it seems to me like most of the real problems and their origins are external to Canada Post itself --- so it makes sense that there may not be any kind of internal solution.
This looks really promising. I was never at risk (during youth) because I was under the thumb of religious fervor, but I imagine I would have responded much more favorably to this kind of "know yourself" approach than the usual "everything is bad" propaganda. The latter is inherently self-defeating because it always contains some elements of both lying and hyping things that are non-issues on a personal basis. Both discredit any value delivered in the same package, and it's not a "messaging" issue or figuring out how to be cool enough to make kids listen.
I might go so far as to identify this kind of self-understanding as the most notable absence in the most egregious shortcomings of my education and overall upbringing. That probably shouldn't be so surprising, with western religion's adoration for "one size fits all" approaches to everything. But the key factor to maximizing reception and impact would be staying well clear of pseudoscience and limiting the program's ambitions to assessment backed by solid evidence.
Ah, so eastern social credit is the public(ish) policing private business. And that is very bad -- by which of course I mean it's targeting the people who most manipulate western public opinion.
But our western financial credit is private business policing the general public. "This is normal."
https://archive.is/IywFZ
The trouble with
is that
In political terms, I'm affected in so far as disaffected men are storming the halls of power and pursuing agendas that will make everything worse for all of us. In interpersonal terms, "I got mine." And in subsequent identity terms, saying and doing nothing feels a bit like pulling up the ladder behind me.
Ok I'm signing off now. Cheers.
Maybe sleep on it and try coming back with fresh eyes. I'm getting exhausted just looking at all the threads to pluck in this comment. And I sincerely mean no disrespect nor judgement, but seeing this conversation through is starting to look like more work than I'm personally willing to invest while I'm supposed to be on vacation.
You weren't interested in generalities and I don't believe there's anything approaching hard data on this, so I personalized my point. I had my awakening, humbling, and re-habilitation of self-identity before any of this came up (for me), and it only did because I started noticing how increasingly harder it was for other men to to navigate that same path. I'm one of the lucky ones because of the support system I had before I "deserved" one.
Even then, I'd be perfectly happy sticking to my own tiny community, if not for my nation's willingness to join the broader movement nurturing backlash against growing hardship into grievance politics and the same steady slide right as every other major nation.
I miss having my head in the sand.
The only thing I could be credibly accused of resenting is the realization that I have to take more responsibility for the state of society around me, and start doing the work on behalf of people beyond my inner circle. For a long time, I said nothing in defense of men because it was very much not expedient to invite the associated judgements. Besides, there isn't exactly a shortage of (I used to think) higher priority groups to defend. Men still aren't the highest by a mile, but they're doing a good job of escalating it.
But I'll dock no points for jumping to the simple, stereotypical conclusion. It is, after all, a very popular psychoanalysis. ;)
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute "source demographic" with "individual in that demographic?" Because that's all it takes -- both for bigotry to take root and for it to be perceived by those individuals. In pop culture terms, I have no idea when if ever it stopped. Regarding men specifically, I only witnessed it start half-heartedly/infrequently in the last few years.
Power imbalance is a natural systemic issue in so far as it sometimes having natural sources/root causes, but more importantly it's inherent propensity toward positive feedback loops.
"Eat the rich" is an example of messaging that has completely lost the plot of systemic issues while highlighting the outgroup and not coming only from fringe extremists. Sure, it means "redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all" but it sure doesn't say that. If it did, it wouldn't have the power and popularity that comes from appealing to the baser, target-hungry instincts of all humans.
Also, I don't judge a group by its worst members and least of all its influencers. But pay attention to the actual direct, interpersonal behavior of the influenced majority and then decide whether quietly, non-verbally ostracizing (excluding, avoiding, presuming guilt of) men is a fringe position.
Given the safety/hazard factor, I can't even bring myself to cast blame. It only takes 1% of men victimizing women for 50% of women to eventually get victimized. But that is where fringe behavior is condemning an entire demographic. Every sufficiently large group has its Cro-Magnon influencers, which no reasonable person considers representative of that group.
I appreciate the considerable amount of left-leaning voices that avoid condemning men just for being, and even sometimes recognize the challenges they face and the limits of their agency as individuals. But the majority these voices are not, and I doubt even their audiences comprise the majority of people who align themselves anywhere left of center.
The further left I go, the more hostility I face from increasingly narrow purity tests. When performed in person, its often with a haughty air/attitude of expecting me to fail. (In other words, I'm talking about people who are clearly not afraid of me.) If that isn't stereotyping and prejudice, I don't know what is. And so I align with a set of values and political views populated by people I find no less miserable to be around than the bigots on the right. You can file that under "various reasons" to choose self-isolation.
And I'm certainly not the only person from the left pointing out that the left has a welcoming problem, either.
It's not just the right. It's anyone willing to associate systemic and natural (power imbalance) issues with some particular outgroup. Show me someone who doesn't do that and I'll show you someone who's a minority in every demographic they occupy.
Case in point: last I checked, it wasn't the "fuck your feelings" crowd that invented slogans like "eat the rich."
🍆 a 👢, 🔎⚖️.
I'll hazard a guess. It's because male culture and masculine values are fucked. Older men are lonely because they either cannot find friends, or already reached the conclusion it was time to both stop looking and lose the ones they had, for various reasons. Younger men left in a cultural vacuum are reinventing masculinity as a toxic caricature guided by the only affirming male role models they can find outside the home: social media influencers.
Meanwhile, the predominant message from the left, as observed in generalities and absent nuance, is all the ways having a Y chromosome makes you evil. With an apparent choice between self-flagellation and asserting a sense of inherent superiority as both an emotional shield and path to an in-group with shared values, I really can't say I'd choose any better in my younger, immature form.
So here we are, in 2025 where the battle of the sexes is now a political movement and even one that's quite happy to pick your side for you if you dare present ambiguously. We're just a little fashion subtlety away from wearing arm bands, either to declare for the feminists or the anti-woke, or just to dodge social conscription.
You're very focused on what Poilievre does, even where it doesn't actually affect you and even though you have no control over his words or actions.
You have complete control over your own words and actions. Nothing any politician does will change who's character that reflects. That's power you are granting him, and it only diminishes yourself. But by all means, have another go at re-articulating your whatabout defense. Maybe the third time's the charm.