Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[Kragar]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Interesting question.  Maybe when we’re younger, we think of saving the world with social programs?  As we age, I think many people move right in their political thinking.  Don’t know why.  

Perhaps years of seeing what the government does with our money makes us think it can do more good in our hands than theirs?  You make a good point about becoming more conservative as we age, and I think that is irrespective of the moving goalposts I posited earlier.

[JM_]

54 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It’s not “their” parade.  It takes place on public streets, at tax payers’ expense.  If someone wants to support their parade, they should be absolutely welcomed.  There is no reason why UBC or the VPL would not have a great many supporters of the Pride parade, who would like to show their support through participating.  To rule those persons’ out, because the University and VPL have speakers opposed to the gay community is completely and utterly wrong.  What comes next?  Old people in red scooter aren’t allowed to watch?  Maybe I said a negative comment about gay people before?  Should I not be welcome at the parade now?  It’s a slippery slop when we start down this path of exclusion.  

of course its their parade Alf. 

 

They aren't excluding people either, just the institutions. 

 

People want to frame this as the only reason parade organizers are doing this is out of intolerance, like thats the only possible reason there could be for their decision. I think if people take a breath and try to ask why else they might be concerned about anti-LGBTQ speech you'd see their point.

 

57 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 agree with you

 

But....

 

Sadly I have to agree that lately Pride has taken an ugly turn in the community.  Edmonton being a prime example of who is and is not allowed to take part.  even within the community itself.  The irony of the push for equality is leaving groups further and further divided.  In Edmonton they refused to accept people of colour, after people of colour refused to accept people from the RCMP or military.  Not serving members, but literal people of LGBTQ orientation who happened to be serving.

 

This only gives filth like....well like we see in this and the other thread fodder to say the nonsense they do.  The more marginalized we se these groups become the more we see them moving further from equality.

 

It's kind of sad really because we came so far and now see  the entire movement sliding backwards due to their own infighting.  LGBTQ period, not LGBTQ for you, but not you because you're native, or you because you're in the armed forces and sorry; you're black gay AND an RCMP officer?  Ya none for you either.

 

That's sadly where the entire movement is heading and that is incredibly sad.  Because it demeans everything they fought for, but also because it gives the bigots and loud mouths talking points to claim sort sort of superiority over them.  See this thread or the other one for reference.

I think part of this is that people forget they had to fight every step of the way for pride to be seen as the inclusive thing it is now, so much so that non-LGBTQ groups feel excluded from it! now thats real irony.

 

But allowing this to be framed as free speech isn't correct either. Why should pride organizers be forced to include anti-pride views? makes zero sense, thats not what they fought for.

 

Somewhere there is a sensible middle ground, this will work itself out eventually. 

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Boeserker said:

 

I don't think so. They are applying social pressure on these public institutions to stifle people with differing view points.

 

Some those points of view deny some peoples very existence. If that were you in those shoes, maybe you'd fight too. 

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

of course its their parade Alf. 

 

They aren't excluding people either, just the institutions. 

 

People want to frame this as the only reason parade organizers are doing this is out of intolerance, like thats the only possible reason there could be for their decision. I think if people take a breath and try to ask why else they might be concerned about anti-LGBTQ speech you'd see their point.

 

I think part of this is that people forget they had to fight every step of the way for pride to be seen as the inclusive thing it is now, so much so that non-LGBTQ groups feel excluded from it! now thats real irony.

 

But allowing this to be framed as free speech isn't correct either. Why should pride organizers be forced to include anti-pride views? makes zero sense, thats not what they fought for.

 

Somewhere there is a sensible middle ground, this will work itself out eventually. 

 

 

Sadly in the case of Edmonton it was other people.  The people on the other side of the fence have used this as a talking point ad nauseam as an attempt to paint the entire movement as intolerant.

 

The idea of not allowing people to take part in an event that is supposed to be 100% accepting of everyone based on the roots of the movement, only to not allow members of the community based on their profession or what institution they work for is entirely sad.  It is also being done by a very fringe minority who are effectively making a mockery of the entire history of the fight 

 

There is entirely a middle ground, but some people take things to extremes no matter what and sadly they almost always find a platform for their intolerance.  

 

See Milo.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Sadly in the case of Edmonton it was other people.  The people on the other side of the fence have used this as a talking point ad nauseam as an attempt to paint the entire movement as intolerant.

 

The idea of not allowing people to take part in an event that is supposed to be 100% accepting of everyone based on the roots of the movement, only to not allow members of the community based on their profession or what institution they work for is entirely sad.  It is also being done by a very fringe minority who are effectively making a mockery of the entire history of the fight 

 

There is entirely a middle ground, but some people take things to extremes no matter what and sadly they almost always find a platform for their intolerance.  

 

See Milo.

I don't know the full details of the Edmonton thing - were the people vocal about a certain pov or just banned because they belonged to the rcmp e.g.? here I heard that its fine to show up just not in uniform.

 

I think there are a few things going on here. There's a lot of people including some feminists who have problems with the "T" part of LGBTQ, there are people on the right who want to "prove" they aren't the intolerant ones, and there are some people in pride organization going too far (which sounds like what maybe happened in Edmonton). That whole issue still needs to play out. My guess is in 20 years people will need to be reminded that anti-trans views was a thing. 

 

But free speech doesn't mean you get to say or do or go to anything you want to. Maybe its ultimately a mistake by organizers, maybe not, we'll see, but its their event and their choice. But to have someone clearly on the anti-pride spectrum trying to use this to prop up their views is kind of vile to me. 

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't know the full details of the Edmonton thing - were the people vocal about a certain pov or just banned because they belonged to the rcmp e.g.? here I heard that its fine to show up just not in uniform.

 

I think there are a few things going on here. There's a lot of people including some feminists who have problems with the "T" part of LGBTQ, there are people on the right who want to "prove" they aren't the intolerant ones, and there are some people in pride organization going too far (which sounds like what maybe happened in Edmonton). That whole issue still needs to play out. My guess is in 20 years people will need to be reminded that anti-trans views was a thing. 

 

But free speech doesn't mean you get to say or do or go to anything you want to. Maybe its ultimately a mistake by organizers, maybe not, we'll see, but its their event and their choice. But to have someone clearly on the anti-pride spectrum trying to use this to prop up their views is kind of vile to me. 

There was some ugly infighting in the leadership committee regarding race/affiliation and employ.  Honestly it was a mess between about 4 people and a lot of people got butt hurt over it and rightfully so

 

I think freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, as it is in our country.  If people espouse ugly views against the LGBTQ community and then get offended or upset at not being allowed to participate in the marches or parades I think they need to give their heads a shake.

 

As an extreme comparison, it would be like the holocaust memorial saying sorry Neo nazis, we don't want you here.  Then Neo nazis being upset about it.  Even though, they're "fine people"

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

There was some ugly infighting in the leadership committee regarding race/affiliation and employ.  Honestly it was a mess between about 4 people and a lot of people got butt hurt over it and rightfully so

 

I think freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, as it is in our country.  If people espouse ugly views against the LGBTQ community and then get offended or upset at not being allowed to participate in the marches or parades I think they need to give their heads a shake.

 

As an extreme comparison, it would be like the holocaust memorial saying sorry Neo nazis, we don't want you here.  Then Neo nazis being upset about it.  Even though, they're "fine people"

its interesting to see people try to take ownership of things when its convenient too. No one of the right cared about pride at best or hated it at worst not so long ago, but suddenly the Shaprio-clones are defending free speech? okie dokie.

 

I think there's lots of examples you can use as analogies too. Lots of people don't think theres such a thing as Metis. I doubt they would want to have an institution or people at one of their cultural events who held those views.

 

I think social media plays a lot into this too, now all we seem to be able to do is have these stupid triggered discussions and one-upping vs. taking a minute to see someones pov. 

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Sorry you don't understand the point?

 

Seriously?

 

You claim climate change is natural.  nobody is disputing that.  We're saying mankind is  seriously accelerating the process and man made climate change is real

 

Show me a credible scientist that denies man made climate change is real.  Show me a credible scientist that says humans are not creating a massive man made climate disaster.

 

How is that hard to understand at all?  If you don't see th4e point it is just because you obviously know that you cannot and you know you're speaking out of your hind end.

 

Cute attempt to spin this back to "centrist" politics though.  Again, you're not a centrist.  Like at all.  Stop pretending you're anything close because you're not.

 

Now show me a credible scientist that says man made climate change is not real

 

Edit*. Vancouver also never suggested a natural gas ban, but insisted LNG and construction in Vancouver be derived from responsible/renewable resources by 2050.  This is also a municipal level implementation and does not include the provincial or federal governments.

 

https://www.renewablecities.ca/vancouver/clearing-air-vancouvers-natural-gas-ban

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-natural-gas-ban-2050-1.3775085

 

I don't understand.   I have never said humans are not influencing climate.   I don't know any credible scientist that denies that but I can cite many who think the influence is vastly overstated and even more that think measures to address are being missed amongst a bunch of whiny political agendas.....largely from the left of the political spectrum.    I just find ways to address it both hypocritical and disingenuous when not downtright naive.   

 

Stop pretending you have any moral high ground because you support hypocritical measures.   Vancouver did propose a ban - no new natural gas heating for new construction was proposed - no idea if it was promulgated.   

 

You like to make things personal - you attack everyone in such a manner - try debating facts and you may find it keeps your blood pressure lower.       I have no issue with you being a left wing guy - there is room on planet for you and the right wing folk.   Just realize some of us find the extreme viewpoints full of hypocrisy and, yikes climate impact, full of hot air.

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

We teach our kids inequality?  

Certainly at the University level (you follow the news, but can provide you lots of examples from Canada if you wish let alone here where it is just as bad).   From family in Canada (Ontario and Alberta), I understand that even sports days now are all about equality of outcome.    That is insane let alone it is being taught in the social sciences.   Given how this emerging generation seems to have so many that feel that they are "owed" something by society, it is hard to see how that didn't happen without the education system playing a large role.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

It’s not “their” parade.  It takes place on public streets, at tax payers’ expense. 

the issue with that tho Alf is every event that got a legitimate permit would have to include anyone that felt like participating, just because its on public streets. Clearly thats not how things do and should work. Nazi's and Santa don't mix.

 

you're actually asking for 2 things here - to both have your free speech rights, and to infringe on someone else's event. 

 

This is the problem with the current alt-right, they like to try to use legitimate issues like free speech and convince you that something is being taken away from you. They want to personalize it so you sympathize with their pov, but when you dig just a little bit you usually find the real intolerance. 

 

Of course there's a debate to be had over inclusion, but its not about free speech and its not about public spaces. Both are red herrings. 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I don't understand.   I have never said humans are not influencing climate.   I don't know any credible scientist that denies that but I can cite many who think the influence is vastly overstated and even more that think measures to address are being missed amongst a bunch of whiny political agendas.....largely from the left of the political spectrum.    I just find ways to address it both hypocritical and disingenuous when not downtright naive.   

 

Stop pretending you have any moral high ground because you support hypocritical measures.   Vancouver did propose a ban - no new natural gas heating for new construction was proposed - no idea if it was promulgated.   

 

You like to make things personal - you attack everyone in such a manner - try debating facts and you may find it keeps your blood pressure lower.       I have no issue with you being a left wing guy - there is room on planet for you and the right wing folk.   Just realize some of us find the extreme viewpoints full of hypocrisy and, yikes climate impact, full of hot air.

How is that personal?

 

Calm down.

 

You've spent weeks claiming climate change isn't man made.

 

But you flopped.  Just now.

 

So again.  Provide one credible scientist who says it's not man made

[Lancaster]

50 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Perhaps years of seeing what the government does with our money makes us think it can do more good in our hands than theirs?  You make a good point about becoming more conservative as we age, and I think that is irrespective of the moving goalposts I posited earlier.

I think "responsible" might be the more accurate word.

As you go through life, you (hopefully) learn the value of hard work, money, etc.  

The realization that government, while good intention, leaves a lot to be desired.  Government is made up of people and they are looking out for themselves too, thus the created inefficiencies.  

 

It's better to be self-sufficient and/or rely on family and close friends instead of a handout by the government.  

 

[Boeserker]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

 agree with you

 

But....

 

Sadly I have to agree that lately Pride has taken an ugly turn in the community.  Edmonton being a prime example of who is and is not allowed to take part.  even within the community itself.  The irony of the push for equality is leaving groups further and further divided.  In Edmonton they refused to accept people of colour, after people of colour refused to accept people from the RCMP or military.  Not serving members, but literal people of LGBTQ orientation who happened to be serving.

 

This only gives filth like....well like we see in this and the other thread fodder to say the nonsense they do.  The more marginalized we se these groups become the more we see them moving further from equality.

 

It's kind of sad really because we came so far and now see  the entire movement sliding backwards due to their own infighting.  LGBTQ period, not LGBTQ for you, but not you because you're native, or you because you're in the armed forces and sorry; you're black gay AND an RCMP officer?  Ya none for you either.

 

That's sadly where the entire movement is heading and that is incredibly sad.  Because it demeans everything they fought for, but also because it gives the bigots and loud mouths talking points to claim sort sort of superiority over them.  See this thread or the other one for reference.

 

Everyone has the same rights now. 

 

 

3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Not the point, in fact I agree. What has changed is the people who believe that their values are the center, when they're not.

 

Well, to be fair, we are all at the centre of our own little universe. Some universes overlap nicely with a lot of others and some universes just seem way way out there on the fringe.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

This trend is a real concern.   It is simply due to the fact, like the note above, that somehow the social engineering of the left wants equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity.   While the extreme right's view of inequality for their benefit is no better, it is not as insidious and disguised as being a champion of human rights.   So many, as evidenced by some here on CDC, have swallowed that kool-aid and lined up for more.   The very notion that by knocking down qualified people to "level the playing field" it will benefit society - wow, just wow.   The only real optimism is all the fractures you see on both extreme ends...the looney left seem to be coming apart at the seam with their more moderate factions, the alt-right (if that is still a term) have been caught defending the undefensible.   I see potential for people to come to their senses and push for a society that truly does provide equal opportunity but stays very clear of meddling with outcomes......though still having the social grace and responsibility to take care of those who simply cannot take care of themselves (versus so much attention on those who simply choose not to and feel entitled).  

 

The basic theme is most who are whiny want something from someone else.   Perhaps the center is best defined by those who realize their lives are up to their own efforts and accomplishments without expectation of anything other than opportunity without bias (race, religion, sex, etc etc. etc.).    We are in a time where equality of opportunity has been so incredibly muffled....but, again, I remain optimistic logic will prevail within this generation.   Fingers crossed.   

Re: The bolded. That's GOLD.

 

 

2 hours ago, Toews said:

If this happened in front of children then I can see why they take issue. I am assuming this being the public library, they did have children present? When us as adults are having to reevaluate how we view trans rights as we learn more about the issue. I can't imagine a child is capable of handling such political discourse. We have seen some awful stories of how trans kids are bullied at school by their fellow students and the parents of these students.

 

If this event had an age limit and there weren't any kids present the Pride society need to get over themselves. We are more than capable of hearing dissenting opinions without being influenced entirely by them. 

 

 

Uhm, healthy open discussion is what I am raising my children on. How is it not ok to talk about things and expose your children to knowledge but it is ok (in some peoples universes) to expose their children to blatant public sexuality? Yikes.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

Perhaps years of seeing what the government does with our money makes us think it can do more good in our hands than theirs?  You make a good point about becoming more conservative as we age, and I think that is irrespective of the moving goalposts I posited earlier.

 

Ideals vs Realistic expectations. Sometimes it only comes from experience.

 

 

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

of course its their parade Alf. 

 

They aren't excluding people either, just the institutions. 

 

People want to frame this as the only reason parade organizers are doing this is out of intolerance, like thats the only possible reason there could be for their decision. I think if people take a breath and try to ask why else they might be concerned about anti-LGBTQ speech you'd see their point.

 

I think part of this is that people forget they had to fight every step of the way for pride to be seen as the inclusive thing it is now, so much so that non-LGBTQ groups feel excluded from it! now thats real irony.

 

But allowing this to be framed as free speech isn't correct either. Why should pride organizers be forced to include anti-pride views? makes zero sense, thats not what they fought for.

 

Somewhere there is a sensible middle ground, this will work itself out eventually. 

 

 

Re: The Bolded

 

 

 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

2 minutes ago, Boeserker said:

Re: The Bolded

 

 

 

 

But Jimmy's right though. 

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, Boeserker said:

Well, to be fair, we are all at the centre of our own little universe. Some universes overlap nicely with a lot of others and some universes just seem way way out there on the fringe.

Which was pretty much exactly my point. Hence someone lamenting that they are one of the very few centrists, surrounded by "extreme" right and left, is pretty much meaningless.

 

To most people, something they feel to be of utmost importance (eg. Climate Change) is hardly "radical" and therefore not even slightly left of center. We hold that Anthropogenic CC is fact (supported by the vast majority of the scientific community) and therefore not "radical" or "left" at all. In fact, we would look at CC deniers as "hard right", even though they might believe otherwise.

[Boeserker]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its interesting to see people try to take ownership of things when its convenient too. No one of the right cared about pride at best or hated it at worst not so long ago, but suddenly the Shaprio-clones are defending free speech? okie dokie.

 

I think there's lots of examples you can use as analogies too. Lots of people don't think theres such a thing as Metis. I doubt they would want to have an institution or people at one of their cultural events who held those views.

 

I think social media plays a lot into this too, now all we seem to be able to do is have these stupid triggered discussions and one-upping vs. taking a minute to see someones pov. 

 

I think you are out of touch on this. Nobody cares until is stuffed in your face every day for years on end and it really is a non issue. Everyone has the same rights. You are not going to stamp out bigotry by trying to drive it underground.

 

The majority of the population has stayed silent and basically agreed that people should be allowed to love one another. What is happening now is that A) People are tired of this "Story" and B ) The groups in question are becoming what they claim to fear the most.

 

Name me one person who doesn't "Believe in Metis"????

[Boeserker]

44 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

But Jimmy's right though. 

 

In what way?

 

The lgbtq etc's are trying to merely picking a battle with the Institutions of UBC, the Vancouver Public Library and The Vancouver Police? Because why? 

 

So if that is the case, I would suggest to you that they are trying to influence these public institutions into stifling opposing views (or maybe simply alternative views) and therefore freedom of speech.

 

Pretty obvious.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Boeserker said:

 

I think you are out of touch on this. Nobody cares until is stuffed in your face every day for years on end and it really is a non issue. Everyone has the same rights. You are not going to stamp out bigotry by trying to drive it underground.

 

The majority of the population has stayed silent and basically agreed that people should be allowed to love one another. What is happening now is that A) People are tired of this "Story" and B ) The groups in question are becoming what they claim to fear the most.

 

Name me one person who doesn't "Believe in Metis"????

There's lots of nasty treatment of Metis, you can go research that yourself.

 

What's 'stuffed in your face' precisely? 

 

No they are not becoming what they fear the most, that's nonsense. Are they jumping out of trucks and beating them to death? Chemically castrating anyone? Killing careers? Get some perspective. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Boeserker said:

 

In what way?

 

The lgbtq etc's are trying to merely picking a battle with the Institutions of UBC, the Vancouver Public Library and The Vancouver Police? Because why? 

 

So if that is the case, I would suggest to you that they are trying to influence these public institutions into stifling opposing views (or maybe simply alternative views) and therefore freedom of speech.

 

Pretty obvious.

It's not a free speech issue, you seem to not understand that basic idea.