Why do Americans consider Canada to be a left wing country?
09 May 2020, 6:29 pm
ironpony wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, so how is it determined which issues of freedom are the left issues, and which issues of freedom are the right ones?
That's complicated since, a lot of issues embraced by 'left' and 'right' parties aren't inherently either, and often it's the framing of the matter that's more important for who embraces it. Look at the ACA in the US, it's largely based on ideas from the Heritage Foundation, but Obama embraced it believing it would get Republicans on board. From that moment on it's been viewed as 'left wing' even though it was basically devised by people who would view themselves as conservatives.
If you want some basic ideas for what might make an issue more likely to be embraced by the left or right look into the nature of the freedom. The right tends to be more supportive of understandings of rights that lead to hierarchical outcomes; the left tends to be more supportive of understandings of rights that diminish hierarchy and privilege.
This isn't 100% how things play out in the real world though, because at least with Marxist- Leninists, often what happens is that one established hierarchy is crushed but a new one replaces it. The new one potentially offering more folks an opportunity to get in on the ground-floor so to speak, but also generally becoming just as cloistered, corrupt and detached as the one it replaced. That outcome also appears to be typical of reactionary/far-right states though and might help with defining where to split extreme conservatives from reactionaries. The latter are usually fixated on building their ideal image of the 'the old utopia' so firmly they will tear down the remnants of it to do so, and this plays into why historically conservatives have been skeptical of reactionaries. Not that that necessarily applies to the American right, America has always been a republic without any legally recognized nobility even if some portions of American society have had what amounted to an aristocracy (plantation owners being the earliest example, even more so when they started receiving an extra 3 votes for every five people they kept as property). That might play a role in why in the US the line between reactionary and conservative isn't as clear as late 1800s/early 1900s Europe.
Oh okay well the part where you say that the right prefers rights that are about hierarchy, I find to be confusing, because I thought that taking away people's guns and their free spreech was a hierachical outcome, isn't it?
Who's lost their freedom of speech? Generally when reichwingers spew bigotry they're sanctioned by private entities like people and social media websites. The government only rarely gets involved and generally only when threats, defamation or when the comments are made within a context where the bigot has power over the person they're victimizing (like workplace harassment).
How exactly is imposing the same restrictions on everyone creating hierarchy? It's not as they're saying United Empire Loyalists are entitled to bear arms, but everyone else can't. If you want an example of what I mean by creating hierarchy, if the USSC always ruled against Jeho's, Catholics, Jews, Muslims ect in decisions, but consistently ruled in favour of 'mainstream Protestant' churches in their decisions, that would be an example of creating hierarchy because it wouldn't be long until some churches had rights others did not.
One could point to land treaties as having the potential to create hierarchy, if Canada was to ever start over again I might be less supportive of such ideas, but since they're the very foundation of this country I'm willing to be a little hypocritical to ensure the theft isn't completed and they remain valid. After all, we didn't impose them on the Crown, they were imposed upon us, if the Crown doesn't like the terms they gave us, tough s**t - they wrote them, they chose the terms, their problem.
Oh well in Canada, there is all this political talk about how the government wants to make certain words and certain things illegal to say. I don't know if it's just talk right now, but it seems that it's a hierarchy to me, because you have people above everyone making the decisions. Same with gun control, people above everyone making the decisions.
But am I wrong, and that's not a hierarchy when you have people above, imposing restrictions on people below?
By hierarchy they mean the hierarchy among people "below". If one person "below" is allowed a gun and the other isn't, that would be an example of hierarchy. If everyone below are equally allowed or everyone below are equally forbidden, thats not hierarchy.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 7:12 pm
QFT wrote:
Are you asking me how did the laws historically got passed? In this case I don't know, I don't know much about Canadian history.
But that doesn't make what I said any less relevant. You asked "whose freedom of speech is restricted" and I gave you an example. So the point remains that the freedom of speech is restricted. The question of the history behind it is separate. But, regardless of the history, the fact remains, does it not?
But that doesn't make what I said any less relevant. You asked "whose freedom of speech is restricted" and I gave you an example. So the point remains that the freedom of speech is restricted. The question of the history behind it is separate. But, regardless of the history, the fact remains, does it not?
No, if it wasn't an issue that the Canadian left embraced, it's really not something that can be viewed as a leftist cause - even less so if it was championed by right wing parties.
ironpony wrote:
Oh well in Canada, there is all this political talk about how the government wants to make certain words and certain things illegal to say. I don't know if it's just talk right now, but it seems that it's a hierarchy to me, because you have people above everyone making the decisions. Same with gun control, people above everyone making the decisions.
But am I wrong, and that's not a hierarchy when you have people above, imposing restrictions on people below?
But am I wrong, and that's not a hierarchy when you have people above, imposing restrictions on people below?
Gun control really doesn't count. There isn't a state on earth that doesn't recognize that the state has some sort of interest in regulating what weapons are available to the general populace. Some are better and worse at enforcing regulation, some are more strict or less strict, but this principle is universally agreed upon, even by nearly all 2nd Amendment cultists.
Further, it's not as though they impose one set of regulations for an elite and another set for everyone else, essentially it's one standard for everyone except for government employees who's job explicitly requires them to carry and they may only carry while on the clock. Like, even when I've been arrested the first thing cops do when they get to the station is to lock their guns up outside. Why? Because all it takes is a moment for me to gain possession of somebody's tool and end up on the news and they'd prefer to eliminate that possibility. Taking that more reasonable approach means that the police don't all have to carry inside (with the risk of associated accidents) because they don't have to consider the possibility of having to deal with an active shooter inside the building that one of their coworkers allowed to become armed.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
09 May 2020, 7:23 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
No, if it wasn't an issue that the Canadian left embraced, it's really not something that can be viewed as a leftist cause - even less so if it was championed by right wing parties.
Regarding the end of your sentence, are you saying that the people in favor of this law "were" right wing, or are you just making a hypothetical?
ironpony wrote:
Gun control really doesn't count. There isn't a state on earth that doesn't recognize that the state has some sort of interest in regulating what weapons are available to the general populace. Some are better and worse at enforcing regulation, some are more strict or less strict, but this principle is universally agreed upon, even by nearly all 2nd Amendment cultists.
But, as you just acknowledged yourself, "some are more strict, some are less strict". So left wing wants to be more strict on guns, and right wing wants to be less strict. Yes, they both want to regulate, but they want different degrees of strictness.
ironpony wrote:
Like, even when I've been arrested the first thing cops do when they get to the station is to lock their guns up outside. Why? Because all it takes is a moment for me to gain possession of somebody's tool and end up on the news and they'd prefer to eliminate that possibility. Taking that more reasonable approach means that the police don't all have to carry inside (with the risk of associated accidents) because they don't have to consider the possibility of having to deal with an active shooter inside the building that one of their coworkers allowed to become armed.
Thats a bit surprising. What if the criminal happens to be physically stronger than the cops? If the cops don't have guns, what would make a criminal obey their orders?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 7:31 pm
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
No, if it wasn't an issue that the Canadian left embraced, it's really not something that can be viewed as a leftist cause - even less so if it was championed by right wing parties.
Regarding the end of your sentence, are you saying that the people in favor of this law "were" right wing, or are you just making a hypothetical?
i wrote:
Gun control really doesn't count. There isn't a state on earth that doesn't recognize that the state has some sort of interest in regulating what weapons are available to the general populace. Some are better and worse at enforcing regulation, some are more strict or less strict, but this principle is universally agreed upon, even by nearly all 2nd Amendment cultists.
But, as you just acknowledged yourself, "some are more strict, some are less strict". So left wing wants to be more strict on guns, and right wing wants to be less strict. Yes, they both want to regulate, but they want different degrees of strictness.
If it's universally recognized, it's not a left vs. right issue, even if American right wingers are still convinced it is. Yankee context isn't relevant for the rest of the world, throughout most of the world right wing parties are not as fixated on being anti-gun control as in the US.
I wrote:
Like, even when I've been arrested the first thing cops do when they get to the station is to lock their guns up outside. Why? Because all it takes is a moment for me to gain possession of somebody's tool and end up on the news and they'd prefer to eliminate that possibility. Taking that more reasonable approach means that the police don't all have to carry inside (with the risk of associated accidents) because they don't have to consider the possibility of having to deal with an active shooter inside the building that one of their coworkers allowed to become armed.
QFT wrote:
Thats a bit surprising. What if the criminal happens to be physically stronger than the cops? If the cops don't have guns, what would make a criminal obey their orders?
The fact that there's several of them who are still armed with tazers and other weapons. Further, the expectation that rule of law will be followed or additional consequences will be applied. You're not seriously asking, are you? You've so far seemed brighter than that.
They don't need guns to beat you to a bloody pulp, and having a gun that you can gain control over makes it less likely they'll succeed at that if they feel the need to, especially if they're not children who think 'durr, i just shoot t3h bad gaiz who no do what i want'.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 8:33 pm
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, well it comes to what issues are left and what issues are right, how do you determine which issues are for which?
You stop fixating on the silly labels and just start worrying how you actually feel and not just what the jersey you've put on says you might be expected to feel. At least, that's what I would try to do since I value integrity over ideological purity.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
09 May 2020, 9:03 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
If it's universally recognized, it's not a left vs. right issue, even if American right wingers are still convinced it is. Yankee context isn't relevant for the rest of the world, throughout most of the world right wing parties are not as fixated on being anti-gun control as in the US.
The controversy about guns, as well as the other topics mentioned on this thread, aren't just American but worldwide. Now, as was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, different countries label left or right differently. But that is still okay to pick any given country and rate worldwide opinions based off of the definition of the left or right of that particular country. I am totally fine taking Australia and rating the world (including America) based off of the Australian definition of left or right. By the same token, its fine to take America and rate the world based off of American definition of left and right. If you look at the title of the OP, they wanted to understand why America rates Canada a certain way. So that makes it very much on-topic.
funeralxempire wrote:
The fact that there's several of them who are still armed with tazers and other weapons. Further, the expectation that rule of law will be followed or additional consequences will be applied. You're not seriously asking, are you? You've so far seemed brighter than that.
Well, its the very first time in my life I heard that they don't have guns. I was always assuming that they did. So yes its a serious question.
So what is the difference between situations where they think guns would help them and the situations where they think they wouldn't? Wouldn't your argument about a criminal taking away the guns also apply to other situations as well?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 9:10 pm
QFT wrote:
Well, its the very first time in my life I heard that they don't have guns. I was always assuming that they did. So yes its a serious question.
So what is the difference between situations where they think guns would help them and the situations where they think they wouldn't? Wouldn't your argument about a criminal taking away the guns also apply to other situations as well?
So what is the difference between situations where they think guns would help them and the situations where they think they wouldn't? Wouldn't your argument about a criminal taking away the guns also apply to other situations as well?
They have guns while patrolling and they've got a bloody automatic carbine in the trunk of every patrol car. They just don't bring their sidearm into the same parts of the station where detainees are held. For all I know they may well have them retrieved from the lockboxes and brought around into other parts of the inside, but I had bigger concerns on my mind than asking too many question about how I could potentially steal her gun.
I would say the fact that you're generally in much closer quarters while detained within a station does make for a different calculation compared to when they're out on patrol. The much more confined spaces of a holding area make it much more likely you'll always be inside the 21' boundary. Look up what I mean by 21 foot rule if you don't understand why that distance matters.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
09 May 2020, 9:12 pm
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
No, if it wasn't an issue that the Canadian left embraced, it's really not something that can be viewed as a leftist cause - even less so if it was championed by right wing parties.
Regarding the end of your sentence, are you saying that the people in favor of this law "were" right wing, or are you just making a hypothetical?
ironpony wrote:
Gun control really doesn't count. There isn't a state on earth that doesn't recognize that the state has some sort of interest in regulating what weapons are available to the general populace. Some are better and worse at enforcing regulation, some are more strict or less strict, but this principle is universally agreed upon, even by nearly all 2nd Amendment cultists.
But, as you just acknowledged yourself, "some are more strict, some are less strict". So left wing wants to be more strict on guns, and right wing wants to be less strict. Yes, they both want to regulate, but they want different degrees of strictness.
ironpony wrote:
Like, even when I've been arrested the first thing cops do when they get to the station is to lock their guns up outside. Why? Because all it takes is a moment for me to gain possession of somebody's tool and end up on the news and they'd prefer to eliminate that possibility. Taking that more reasonable approach means that the police don't all have to carry inside (with the risk of associated accidents) because they don't have to consider the possibility of having to deal with an active shooter inside the building that one of their coworkers allowed to become armed.
Thats a bit surprising. What if the criminal happens to be physically stronger than the cops? If the cops don't have guns, what would make a criminal obey their orders?
Oh okay, I thought the larger the level of regulation there is, the more right it is, unless that's not so?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 9:16 pm
ironpony wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
No, if it wasn't an issue that the Canadian left embraced, it's really not something that can be viewed as a leftist cause - even less so if it was championed by right wing parties.
Regarding the end of your sentence, are you saying that the people in favor of this law "were" right wing, or are you just making a hypothetical?
ironpony wrote:
Gun control really doesn't count. There isn't a state on earth that doesn't recognize that the state has some sort of interest in regulating what weapons are available to the general populace. Some are better and worse at enforcing regulation, some are more strict or less strict, but this principle is universally agreed upon, even by nearly all 2nd Amendment cultists.
But, as you just acknowledged yourself, "some are more strict, some are less strict". So left wing wants to be more strict on guns, and right wing wants to be less strict. Yes, they both want to regulate, but they want different degrees of strictness.
ironpony wrote:
Like, even when I've been arrested the first thing cops do when they get to the station is to lock their guns up outside. Why? Because all it takes is a moment for me to gain possession of somebody's tool and end up on the news and they'd prefer to eliminate that possibility. Taking that more reasonable approach means that the police don't all have to carry inside (with the risk of associated accidents) because they don't have to consider the possibility of having to deal with an active shooter inside the building that one of their coworkers allowed to become armed.
Thats a bit surprising. What if the criminal happens to be physically stronger than the cops? If the cops don't have guns, what would make a criminal obey their orders?
Oh okay, I thought the larger the level of regulation there is, the more right it is, unless that's not so?
Folks who sympathize with more libertarian portions of the right would tell you you're dead wrong, but they're not entirely right either.
Instead of an explanation, I'd rather offer advice: stop trying to reduce complex and multifaceted discussions and understandings to a pair of binary positions. The binary understandings will always be (at best) deeply flawed oversimplifications that fail to hold up to real life scrutiny, often they won't even be that correct, they'll be even worse.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
09 May 2020, 11:07 pm
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Who's lost their freedom of speech?
In Canada holocaust denial can land you to jail. Now, I believe in the conventional holocaust narrative, but I still oppose arresting people saying something you disagree with.
Was that something supported by the Canadian left, or was that proposed and voted into effect primarily by the Grits and Tories?
It was enforced. For example, Zundel got into trouble for it.
I see you've failed to answer my question. It's nice to know the cops did their job, but were those laws proposed or championed by the Canadian left?
Are you asking me how did the laws historically got passed? In this case I don't know, I don't know much about Canadian history.
But that doesn't make what I said any less relevant. You asked "whose freedom of speech is restricted" and I gave you an example. So the point remains that the freedom of speech is restricted. The question of the history behind it is separate. But, regardless of the history, the fact remains, does it not?
There is some restriction on hate speech in Canada, but those are light restrictions and overall Canada still has freedom of speech: not absolute freedom, but pretty high freedom nonetheless.
There is also a constitutional protection for free speech, and the canadian constitution won't likely be opened again for a very long time.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
09 May 2020, 11:11 pm
Tollorin wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Who's lost their freedom of speech?
In Canada holocaust denial can land you to jail. Now, I believe in the conventional holocaust narrative, but I still oppose arresting people saying something you disagree with.
Was that something supported by the Canadian left, or was that proposed and voted into effect primarily by the Grits and Tories?
It was enforced. For example, Zundel got into trouble for it.
I see you've failed to answer my question. It's nice to know the cops did their job, but were those laws proposed or championed by the Canadian left?
Are you asking me how did the laws historically got passed? In this case I don't know, I don't know much about Canadian history.
But that doesn't make what I said any less relevant. You asked "whose freedom of speech is restricted" and I gave you an example. So the point remains that the freedom of speech is restricted. The question of the history behind it is separate. But, regardless of the history, the fact remains, does it not?
There is some restriction on hate speech in Canada, but those are light restrictions and overall Canada still has freedom of speech: not absolute freedom, but pretty high freedom nonetheless.
There is also a constitutional protection for free speech, and the canadian constitution won't likely be opened again for a very long time.
Yeah but it feels like a domino effect cause you start with a little speech restriction, and then the government wants, more and more and more, and it will just get worse more likely, or so that is how the Canadians I know, feel.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 11:28 pm
ironpony wrote:
Yeah but it feels like a domino effect cause you start with a little speech restriction, and then the government wants, more and more and more, and it will just get worse more likely, or so that is how the Canadians I know, feel.
It sounds like you know a number of misinformed and disinformed individuals.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
09 May 2020, 11:28 pm
Tollorin wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Who's lost their freedom of speech?
In Canada holocaust denial can land you to jail. Now, I believe in the conventional holocaust narrative, but I still oppose arresting people saying something you disagree with.
Was that something supported by the Canadian left, or was that proposed and voted into effect primarily by the Grits and Tories?
It was enforced. For example, Zundel got into trouble for it.
I see you've failed to answer my question. It's nice to know the cops did their job, but were those laws proposed or championed by the Canadian left?
Are you asking me how did the laws historically got passed? In this case I don't know, I don't know much about Canadian history.
But that doesn't make what I said any less relevant. You asked "whose freedom of speech is restricted" and I gave you an example. So the point remains that the freedom of speech is restricted. The question of the history behind it is separate. But, regardless of the history, the fact remains, does it not?
There is some restriction on hate speech in Canada, but those are light restrictions and overall Canada still has freedom of speech: not absolute freedom, but pretty high freedom nonetheless.
There is also a constitutional protection for free speech, and the canadian constitution won't likely be opened again for a very long time.
So, on the one hand, you acknowledged there are hate speech laws (however light they might be) yet on the other hand you say constitution protects free speech. Does it mean these laws contradict the Constitution? Or are you saying constitution doesn't protect all free speech but only most of it? If so, where do they draw the line? How does exactly constitution formulate it?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,202
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 May 2020, 11:40 pm
QFT wrote:
So, on the one hand, you acknowledged there are hate speech laws (however light they might be) yet on the other hand you say constitution protects free speech. Does it mean these laws contradict the Constitution? Or are you saying constitution doesn't protect all free speech but only most of it? If so, where do they draw the line? How does exactly constitution formulate it?
They largely limit defamatory speech, harassing speech and menacing speech. Your priest or imam can't preach about how the sodomites are all sinners who bring ruin to any nation they dwell in, even if he sincerely believes his imaginary friend agrees with him.
Should the right to maliciously threaten and defame others exist and be protected? Should that right only exist for groups who are traditionally politically correct, like it historically has?
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
