2015 Canadian Election

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby Admiral Piett » Wed 4 Nov 2015 21:09

Trudeau has just been sworn in and has announced his cabinet. A few new faces, including the defence minister, Harjit Sajjan. He was the first Sikh to command a Canadian Army Regiment. Stephan Dion as foreign minister seems like an odd choice. The guy was a ball of awkward, unassertive, stammering, incoherence when faced with anything remotely challenging.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby another505 » Wed 4 Nov 2015 21:36

Admiral Piett wrote:Trudeau has just been sworn in and has announced his cabinet. A few new faces, including the defence minister, Harjit Sajjan. He was the first Sikh to command a Canadian Army Regiment. Stephan Dion as foreign minister seems like an odd choice. The guy was a ball of awkward, unassertive, stammering, incoherence when faced with anything remotely challenging.

I read briefly about Harjit, seems like a big jump in career, a waaaay too big jump

He commands a regiment only, Lt-Col, never was a politician before
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby Mitchverr » Wed 4 Nov 2015 21:58

Seems that they are doing alot of left wing crazy instead.

It seems at this point at least people will just get a left wing version of the last government for when it comes to messing with personal freedoms etc. Hopefully they dont go to bad but they have said alot of stupid things such as being "100% against gamergate", for those whom dont know, the 1 thing that unites gamergate is their oppisition to biased media and unethical/corrupt reporting(theres different groups wanting different things but this is the only 1 that can be applied universally), AKA they want to have the media unbiased and to take neutral positions when it comes to reporting about the games industry (so in essance the new government says they want a biased media by saying things like that and given their other views, likely know full well this is the case and are on side with the biased media because it is biased to "their side").

Theres been a few other authoritarian things going around in the government too, so good luck Canadians :lol: hopefully it wont be to bad. (incase people dont notice, i really dislike authoritarian governments on either wing)
Image

User avatar
BeyondNight
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 20:33
Location: The Depths
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby BeyondNight » Wed 4 Nov 2015 22:32

another505 wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote:Trudeau has just been sworn in and has announced his cabinet. A few new faces, including the defence minister, Harjit Sajjan. He was the first Sikh to command a Canadian Army Regiment. Stephan Dion as foreign minister seems like an odd choice. The guy was a ball of awkward, unassertive, stammering, incoherence when faced with anything remotely challenging.

I read briefly about Harjit, seems like a big jump in career, a waaaay too big jump

He commands a regiment only, Lt-Col, never was a politician before


For the CF thats a good thing.
It breaks a trend that hasnt done us well, Also theres a White Paper coming, so rejoice!
Spoiler : :
Image

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby Frencho » Wed 4 Nov 2015 22:35

To the average citizen, Gamergate is a big misogynistic scandal of fat nerds harassing and abusing women in gaming. Only hardcore gamers who closely follow the gaming media care about it and know more or less what it is truly about.
Point in case, hardcore gamers are not the majority, nor the priority when it comes to politics.
My guess is (And I could be wrong) that pretty boy Trudeau, staying true to the electoral base that voted for him (Aka women) is here to be their shinning knight, fighting against geek machismo. It's gonna help bring up his approval polls.

Also, if people just ignored that Gamergate shit it would blow over. I'm a hardcore gamer and I don't even care about that silly scandal, did not know what it was really about until two gaming mates of mine whom are massive saarkesian haters (obsessed with her tbh) would not shut up about it. It's a whole lot of drama for nothing.

I think it can be a good thing to have an actual military man as defence minister. At least he knows where the funds need to go, less likely to purchase overpriced high-tech gimmicks.
Last edited by Frencho on Wed 4 Nov 2015 22:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BeyondNight
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 20:33
Location: The Depths
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby BeyondNight » Wed 4 Nov 2015 22:37

Mitchverr wrote:
Theres been a few other authoritarian things going around in the government too, so good luck Canadians :lol: hopefully it wont be to bad. (incase people dont notice, i really dislike authoritarian governments on either wing)



It should be fine IMO, Trudeau said hes going to involve his Cabinet a lot, and most of those cabinet members have a dog in the fight.
e.g. Minister of Health is a fmr Doctor, Minister of Science is an actual Scientist, Minister of Veterans Affairs is disabled ect...

They also seem to at least be making a lot of noise when it comes to being transparent.
Spoiler : :
Image

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby Mitchverr » Wed 4 Nov 2015 22:50

BeyondNight wrote:It should be fine IMO, Trudeau said hes going to involve his Cabinet a lot, and most of those cabinet members have a dog in the fight.
e.g. Minister of Health is a fmr Doctor, Minister of Science is an actual Scientist, Minister of Veterans Affairs is disabled ect...

They also seem to at least be making a lot of noise when it comes to being transparent.


Thats good, hopefully it helps to make sure no crazy goes forward.
Image

User avatar
rex88
Lieutenant
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015 12:18
Location: Land of Iced Cappuccino. Why buy a mattress anywhere else?
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby rex88 » Wed 4 Nov 2015 23:30

Mitchverr wrote:Seems that they are doing alot of left wing crazy instead.

It seems at this point at least people will just get a left wing version of the last government for when it comes to messing with personal freedoms etc. Hopefully they dont go to bad but they have said alot of stupid things such as being "100% against gamergate", for those whom dont know, the 1 thing that unites gamergate is their oppisition to biased media and unethical/corrupt reporting(theres different groups wanting different things but this is the only 1 that can be applied universally), AKA they want to have the media unbiased and to take neutral positions when it comes to reporting about the games industry (so in essance the new government says they want a biased media by saying things like that and given their other views, likely know full well this is the case and are on side with the biased media because it is biased to "their side").

Theres been a few other authoritarian things going around in the government too, so good luck Canadians :lol: hopefully it wont be to bad. (incase people dont notice, i really dislike authoritarian governments on either wing)


I agree that bias is hard to define, but how is pro circus eligible for defining what bias is? The group you are trying to defend also seems to have preconceived notions of what being neutral is, no?

So what is your stance on the harassment of women in gaming, care to explain?
Image
Thanks to kiheerSEDMAN for making this signature.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby Mitchverr » Thu 5 Nov 2015 00:29

rex88 wrote:I agree that bias is hard to define, but how is pro circus eligible for defining what bias is? The group you are trying to defend also seems to have preconceived notions of what being neutral is, no?

So what is your stance on the harassment of women in gaming, care to explain?


My stance is that of using pew research as a basis to find the actual levels, that everyone online is harassed, their actual investigation is pretty damn effective imo.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/o ... arassment/

Unlike say, the UN "women harassed" document that was being spouted till a man whom is basically a political comedian called BS on it which sadly was taken at face value (showing how you always need to read the fineprint).

And my stance? I think it obvious, i think harassment of anyone is wrong, be they male or female, but i also think it wrong to claim that harassment is different because of a persons sexual organs as that is sexist in and of itself, a person who harasses a woman is just as likely to do so to men, with the difference of some situational stalking which pew also covers due to the obvious basis here(not all stalkers do so based on sexual feeling, there are people whom stalk somebody because they just want to destroy their life etc). The main thing is that harassment is always taylored on whom the target is, you obviously dont call a white person a "n word" as you wouldnt call an indian a "insert insult for jews here", as such you will find people are less likely to use rape/sexual insults against men, but more likely to use violent threats vs men.

Harassment comes from the anonymity of the internet, as we see when a british news publisher met their most hated harasser for coffee, the 2 were perfectly civil in person, no insults and had a normal discussion, before it the man was blocked as he got so abusive, was unblocked at the meeting and then blocked again for returning to abusive messages. Thouh i feel we should have the total freedom of speech to say as we wish, i believe we have the right to block people whom are abusive also online and for private games to have rules to limit abusive behaviour i do not believe that governments should force into it (i am heavily against the laws in the UK limiting free speech, for example i condemn arresting of a man whom was jailed for a stupid joke and condemn the charging of hate speech vs the obviously sexist woman whom used the #killallmen slogan that is a "diversity officer" for a university(so diverse she thinks the minority males should be limited further, lol)).

Honestly though with that question (which imo is a loaded question, a better question is "what do you think of harassment in general" but heh) I dont see how you would expect much of a differing answer. What it leaves out is the massive level of harassment thrown out by "the other side" of the whole debate also, the people whom claim they are "fighting the harassment of women" whom do letter writing campaigns to get people fired (then when it backfires on them go to the news which doesnt mention that the people now "suffering" did it first and attempted to slander somebody to get them arrested by lying to local police), by sending messages to their familys again in many aspects lying about them or just outright doing the same insults toward somebody for holding a different viewpoint.

Though there are assholes whom will just be tits because "woman on the internet", that mentality is going away over time, and just isnt really that vital to try and paint entire culture of gaming with it.

TL;DR everyone is harassed, which is wrong.

(edit note: incase anyone was going to use it, dont use the UN report on harassment vs women online, it was taken down by the UN due to massive factual errors, its still up and in use by people whom would rather push a message then be using facts. Once it is updated and reviewed it "hopefully" will be okay)


Also, i didnt really defend gamergate(i aint got a anything in this though i wholeheartedly condemn the abusive people on both sides and the liars on both sides), i gave what their actual point is, also gamergate as a general rule has nothing to do with "harassing women", it calls out bsers for the most part, or are the women in gamergate really men in disguise? :lol: (and to be fair, theres alot of people whom bs about the gaming community, eg fullmcintosh :lol: )
Image

User avatar
rex88
Lieutenant
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015 12:18
Location: Land of Iced Cappuccino. Why buy a mattress anywhere else?
Contact:

Re: 2015 Canadian Election

Postby rex88 » Thu 5 Nov 2015 01:32

Mitchverr wrote:My stance is that of using pew research as a basis to find the actual levels, that everyone online is harassed, their actual investigation is pretty damn effective imo.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/o ... arassment/

Unlike say, the UN "women harassed" document that was being spouted till a man whom is basically a political comedian called BS on it which sadly was taken at face value (showing how you always need to read the fineprint).


Ok so I can paste the first snippet of their mission statement here:

Pew wrote:Our mission

We generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making. We are nonprofit, nonpartisan and nonadvocacy. We value independence, objectivity, accuracy, rigor, humility, transparency and innovation.


Ok so they are social positivists, and they don't capture the phenomenological aspects of being harassed. IMO, statistics cannot tell the whole of the story, and I for one get very suspicious when people insist that nothing must count except lines bars pies and regressions.

And this? Seems like Pew has its own ideas on who's important and who isn't.
Spoiler : :
this is pewpew.jpg
this is pewpew.jpg (46.25 KiB) Viewed 1142 times



Mitchverr wrote:And my stance? I think it obvious, i think harassment of anyone is wrong, be they male or female, but i also think it wrong to claim that harassment is different because of a persons sexual organs as that is sexist in and of itself, a person who harasses a woman is just as likely to do so to men, with the difference of some situational stalking which pew also covers due to the obvious basis here(not all stalkers do so based on sexual feeling, there are people whom stalk somebody because they just want to destroy their life etc). The main thing is that harassment is always taylored on whom the target is, you obviously dont call a white person a "n word" as you wouldnt call an indian a "insert insult for jews here", as such you will find people are less likely to use rape/sexual insults against men, but more likely to use violent threats vs men.


The original point was made in response to the gamergate incidents which you brought up. So no, it was not at all obvious to me what your stance was, except the seeming insinuation that right to safety and dignity is outweighed by right to speech, though ofc I could be wrong but that's what it seemed like.

Mitchverr wrote:Harassment comes from the anonymity of the internet, as we see when a british news publisher met their most hated harasser for coffee, the 2 were perfectly civil in person, no insults and had a normal discussion, before it the man was blocked as he got so abusive, was unblocked at the meeting and then blocked again for returning to abusive messages. Thouh i feel we should have the total freedom of speech to say as we wish, i believe we have the right to block people whom are abusive also online and for private games to have rules to limit abusive behaviour i do not believe that governments should force into it (i am heavily against the laws in the UK limiting free speech, for example i condemn arresting of a man whom was jailed for a stupid joke and condemn the charging of hate speech vs the obviously sexist woman whom used the #killallmen slogan that is a "diversity officer" for a university(so diverse she thinks the minority males should be limited further, lol)).


Again with the straw feminist... I recall we've been over this before.

Mitchverr wrote:Honestly though with that question (which imo is a loaded question, a better question is "what do you think of harassment in general" but heh) I dont see how you would expect much of a differing answer. What it leaves out is the massive level of harassment thrown out by "the other side" of the whole debate also, the people whom claim they are "fighting the harassment of women" whom do letter writing campaigns to get people fired (then when it backfires on them go to the news which doesnt mention that the people now "suffering" did it first and attempted to slander somebody to get them arrested by lying to local police), by sending messages to their familys again in many aspects lying about them or just outright doing the same insults toward somebody for holding a different viewpoint.

Though there are assholes whom will just be tits because "woman on the internet", that mentality is going away over time, and just isnt really that vital to try and paint entire culture of gaming with it.

TL;DR everyone is harassed, which is wrong.


Doesn't it seem problematic to you that every time some group is targeted by harassment, apologists red-herring the issue at hand by citing an "opposite group" (the notion of which is ridiculous) that seem to have suffered something similar. "Black lives matter" becomes "all lives matter". "Violence against women" becomes "violence against everyone". Both sentences are true but only one of them speaks to the particular situation. (And so much for freedom of speech, eh? Red herring sentences are better than critical sentences.) You accuse us of having no proof of anything but every time we cite an event either on the news or in a study you drown it out with some stupid "opposite example" that's meant to water down the event we're talking about. Also, even if you put a shallow poll on nice pretty graphs you're still covering up the REASON behind why each person was harassed. How much percentage of guys who get harassed suffer it BECAUSE they are guys? I don't see that getting talked about. But oh well, you probably already heard what I am getting at a thousand times elsewhere and if they can't get through to you then who am I to try.

Mitchverr wrote:(edit note: incase anyone was going to use it, dont use the UN report on harassment vs women online, it was taken down by the UN due to massive factual errors, its still up and in use by people whom would rather push a message then be using facts. Once it is updated and reviewed it "hopefully" will be okay)


See my point about statistics and sociological positivism in general. It's a framework that has been under sever scrutiny for years from within the discipline and there's like a dozen different schools of thought attacking it.

Mitchverr wrote:Also, i didnt really defend gamergate(i aint got a anything in this though i wholeheartedly condemn the abusive people on both sides and the liars on both sides), i gave what their actual point is, also gamergate as a general rule has nothing to do with "harassing women", it calls out bsers for the most part, or are the women in gamergate really men in disguise? :lol: (and to be fair, theres alot of people whom bs about the gaming community, eg fullmcintosh :lol: )


It seemed to me that you were defending their right to make others feel unsafe. Sorry if that isn't what you meant.
Image
Thanks to kiheerSEDMAN for making this signature.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests