Moonlight Graham
-
Posts
10,678 -
Joined
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonlight Graham
-
-
Just now, Black Dog said:
LOL this is just a pu$$y's way of getting out of an argument they're losing.
Evidence or STFU.
Just now, Black Dog said:Yeah but I'm not lying like you do.
Yeah you're lying. Someone in the trades doesn't sit at home all day everyday rage-posting on the internet.
-
3 hours ago, Black Dog said:
Again, if you're too stupid to understand that political worldviews can come through in ways other than overt indoctrination, there's no conversation to be had.
Insults are what people do when they don't have an actual argument. You're just showing us that you've got NOTHING. So we're going to reject your argument.
[quote]I literally did lmao.[/quote]
And I'm black.
-
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. I think I agree with the first guy, but two things:
- His message is not for a mass audience, it's not so much a moral message as it is directed at policy makers and a "public" discussion
- Probably shouldn't have used the term "call a spade a spade"
2. Love how Maher says "no other show will talk about this..." meanwhile The View had Hughes on...
-Message is not for a mass audience either, and as such having an audience that APPLAUDS points is stupid. I haven't watched this show because I find Maher to be a blowhard
I agree with the manner of discussion in both of these clips - and they're well positioned to inform a public of various sides of an issue. Only thing I don't like is audience applauding points that they morally agree with...1. How are the messages not for a mass audience? What is wrong with saying "calling a spade a spade"?
2. Audience applause is probably a bad format if the goal of a show is objective discussion. The audience will typically side with the host because why would they show up if they didn't like the host? So then remove the audience I guess. Might work for The View, but Maher is also part comedy show so they want the laughs.
Maher has an ego but is one of the few moderate and reasonable political hosts on US TV
-
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
🎯 Bullseye.
We are all surprised when the system works. But it does sometimes. But also not completely...
It didn't work. The whistleblower was harassed through retribution by an authority over her by getting kicked out of her job, then her party, and when she ran as an independent she wasn't re-elected, and the Liberals got re-elected into government. Thus far I don't recall Trudeau or the head of the Privy Council being punished.
We're just lucky that JWR was an honest enough person to put her ethics and our democracy above her own career. Every other MP chose their own careers over our democracy when they voted her out. It was vile.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Black Dog said:
You could go re-read the posts and get an appropriate adult to explain it to you. I dunno how much more clear I can get than this:
And we all know that's a bunch of hogwash. Becoming a lawyer or engineer or computer scientist with all that conservative indoctrination in the classroom that doesn't exist and you've shown zero evidence for....oh noes! Circular argument.
Check your white privilege and dictionary definition of racism and take the L, you and your radical ilk are a bunch of nutters. You're a perfect example of the stupidity that western universities have been churning out. But i'm sure you went to trade school right?
-
Coleman Hughes demonstrates how to express and debate the problems with today's leftwing racial identity politics ("woke" ideology) using logic while remaining calm and respectful and finding common understandings where possible. @Michael Hardner this is our guide to elevate discussion.
Here's he's confronted on The View:
On Bill Maher, where he finds disagreement and agreement with another reasonable person regarding police racial issues. Great discussions!
-
Yes, bad grades discriminate against people who don't achieve good grades.
-
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:
Why would i provide evidence for a claim I never made, dummy?
So your claim has nothing to do with what we've talking about? Ok great then we'll just ignore it since it's totally irrelevant. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.
-
2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
your link shows intended major not actual major. Do you have any data as to what the breakdown of majors is for students who have attended for 2+ years. Most freshmen change their major. They come in with high ideals and then practical reality changes your views. Your starting combing job ads and after a few months of this.. you discover some majors do not translate to a job directly.
I tried. You're free to do a search.
-
43 minutes ago, Black Dog said:
If you're an engineer, you've just proven my point.
Even if he's an engineer you haven't proven anything. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Your logic is "Computer Science students watch anime more than the average student, therefore computer science is teaching pro-anime propaganda in the classroom".
-
2 hours ago, Black Dog said:
I'm talking about grads, you're talking about majors, which can and do change. I'm not even sure your numbers are accurate tbh.
It goes to show how stupid and child-minded you are that you think something can't have a political slant if there's not explicit propagandizing involved.
Actually I have no idea that your numbers are correct. Mine come directly from Harvard themselves:
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics
Feel free to throw around childish insults, it's just cover for the fact that you still haven't provided ANY evidence that the fields you listed have a rightwing political slant being taught in the classroom over the last decade or so. "They must have a political slant because because engineers are frat boys" isn't evidence. Unless you're one of those "math is racist" loons.
In fact, if the most popular fields in academia were pushing a bunch of Trumpster chud nonsense that every student came out parroting and implementing in most corporate, NGO, and government workplaces you'd be freaking out and Hardner would be slamming it, as you should, and so would I.
-
6 hours ago, Black Dog said:
lol more than 60% of Harvard grads end up in conservative-leaning fields like finance, consulting, tech, engineering and law. More than half make six figures right out of the gate. Hardly the marks of a institution producing cadres of hardcore social justice warriors.
Social sciences and the humanities represents less than 30% of Harvard grads and that's if you stretch it to include Health and Academia. Those "certain fields" where students of elite educational institutions are being exposed to left wing concepts represent a minority of programs and produce comparatively few grads, but you wouldn't know it from the amount of time right wingers spend crying about them.
44% of Harvard students major in fields of social science and the humanities. Another 30% take science and math. That there's no job title called "social justice warrior" after university doesn't mean someone isn't one. But nice try with this load of nonsense.
Would love to hear about the conservative-leaning electrical engineering theory being taught at Harvard, or the patriarchy involved in C++ textbooks. A certain field being a stereotypical sausage-fest simply based on the differing interests between genders doesn't make the material taught in the classroom "conservative".
-
3
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
No hatred for Peterson just to point out that he is known for speaking of things he's not expert or even TRAINED in. Just read that first paragraph.
And the only reason he's in the public arena, was another dire warning (compelled speech) that he had to retract when he appeared before parliament.
People need to hold public figures accountable for what they say, especially experts.
I don't think JP is wrong here, but I also agree with you that he's not an official expert in this field.
Per the retraction you cite, can you provide a link, I don't remember this. Seems to me that his comments on compelled speech have been vindicated with the gender harassment laws in Canada.
-
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:
Not beating the drug-induced brainrot allegations by including an 850 word digression about ancient Mesopotamian cosmology in an article ostensibly about higher education.
Anyway, the idea that elite colleges and universities are churning out student radicals who emerge to destroy the system and aren't simply factories for reproducing institutional power is completely at odds with the entire history of these places.
That's nonsense. Nobody comes out of university as a conservative, at least not since the 1980's Milton Friedman days. They now come out talking about microaggressions, white fragility, patriarchy, and decolonization because that's the theory being taught in the classrooms and texts.
I don't have any issues with anyone talking about those theories, but clearly leftwing theories like those dominate the social sciences/humanities while others are ignored or not talked about nearly as much. This represents the biases of the professors and students (who then become TA's and professors). The profs are the ones choosing 100% of the classroom reading materials. There's no "approved curriculum" like in high school.
It's simply a fact that in certain fields in post-secondary you're almost certainly going to be propagandized to an extent based on the beliefs/biases of the profs. You can't rail against FOX News propaganda and then deny this fact.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. I was also going to bring up Mulroney, but also Bill Clinton and christia freeland come to mind.
2. The people you're describing, all the ones I know, vote NDP.
3. You want me to prove you're wrong, but since it's an opinion I can't by definition.
2. Except for Justin Trudeau, i assume he votes Liberal
-
Housing prices and rent prices are determined by supply and demand. We either need to increase the supply or reduce the demand.
Increasing supply is complicated, and probably not a lot the federal government can do. Regulations and red tape are probably more on the provincial/city level.
On the demand side, the central bank has already fiddled with interest rates, which is outside the fed gov's control. Demand-wise you can also control the rate of population growth since much of it is based on immigration, foreign students/workers etc. Some level of gov also needs to reduce the incentive for housing speculation, i suggest taxes. We need to stop buying 2nd and 3rd homes etc as investments en masse. Invest in the markets, your own home, and your RRSP like people used to do. The people who buy homes should live in them.
-
18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. Ok - there's a lot I agree with in this paragraph, and maybe it constitutes our resting point: socially and culturally, there's a leftist veneer to the Liberals' politics; the NDP has successfully lobbied for two big social benefits, and the Liberals work for wealthy stakeholders.
2. You should. How could Canada's most successful PM, by many measures, the late Mulroney not be seen as elite ? How could Harper, Poilievre... people who spent virtually their whole careers in the politics not be seen as elite ?
3. Carefully laid out opinions are different than carefully laid out facts. How can I possibly challenge your opinion that Liberals are yuppies ? I can't.
----
4. Like I say, with the modified terms and my understanding of your feelings - and this is mostly about feelings - here, we are likely at a resting point if not agreement on many points.1. Ok, some progress.
2. Yes they're all elites, but some more than others. Spending your whole adult life in politics is much different than literally growing up as a child at 24 Sussex and being the wealthy son of Canada's version of JFK and having Fidel Castro, the Aga Khan, and many other of the most powerful and well-connected people in the world as "family friends". Brian Mulroney's dad was a paper mill electrician, there's little comparison here besides the connections they both made while in politics. It's like comparing you and I to Prince Harry if we all ran for public office. How do you govern a country properly when you've never in your life experienced most of the problems of the average Canadian? Let them eat cake!
3. Which voters do you think share more values with Justin's Liberal Party. Young, urban, well-educated, fashionable and wealthy types that drive Tesla's and use Apple products for the social cred, or middle-aged plumbers who live in small towns? We can agree to disagree if you like.
4. Yes of course these are my opinions. Subjective opinions are typically supported by evidence and logic, and aren't objective facts. Marxism and wokeism and darwinism and E=MC2 are all just "theories" too, not sure what your point here is. And yes i'm comparing my opinions to Einstein's, jk.
-
10 hours ago, herbie said:
It can't be considered that one supports the party's policies over another's. It's all about the cult of personality. The only time a party leader ever ran in the riding I lived in I was too young to vote, so I never got a chance to vote for a Prime Minister.
Hard to discuss things with people who can't distinguish between a Prime Minister and a King or Emperor.Technically yes, in reality no.
-
9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1a. While I can get behind the general description of left-wing politics it remains to be seen how 'wokism' moves to a classless society.
1b. It's more of a liberal take on how to treat people... nobody is proposing affirmative action programs for trans people or black people for that matter, anymore.
1c. Most of the squawking about wokism is how it asks people to normalize treatment of certain groups and to frame our thinking of social relations. "Equality of outcome" refers to material well-being, not social acceptance. Marxism doesn't have anything to say about DEI hiring, because that was a thing that couldn't have been conceived of at that time. It's more of a liberal social program to spread public spending around between ethnic groups more
2. The data in both of those examples is "anonymized" meaning that individuals are not monitored, only the overall trends and aggregate qualities of the data. Compare that to Harper's Terrorism Bill (once again which I SUPPORT) that allows arrest of individuals if the government *thinks* they are going to commit a crime, and allows more surveillance and actions to share data with the police, non-anonymized.
https://canadians.org/analysis/whats-harpers-proposed-bill-c-51-security-canada-legislation/
1a. I never argued that. I'm not saying we're turning into a Marxist classless economic state, but i'm saying this government has been creeping to the far-left in some ways socially and culturally, using anti-liberal means, and it has ideological similarities in the moral sense to Marxism.
1b. That's not true at all.
1c. Look up what "equity" means and then compare it to "equality of outcome".
2. I didn't agree with some things in Harper's bill either.
Quote6. At least I am making my mind up on the issues and not following some paranoid and brainless slogan equating the Liberal Party with Marxists. And when I defend things, I tend to do so on conservative principles or, otherwise, pragmatic ones such as the Harper surveillance bill.
7. I like that you are at least redefining terms when challenged. Yes, authoritarian governments that restrict your right to travel and ultimately to leave are seen as more unethical than countries with freedom of movement. This is because it's thought to be ethical to allow the maximum personal freedom of an individual. Marxism and Communism aren't the same thing and you start to get into the weeds the more you try to put everything in the same box - let alone Liberal Party policy.
8. Are you, then, acknowledging that there isn't a drift to the left ? That we're not "going" Marxist and that we're actually moving to the right ? Because with that statement it sure seems like it.
9. Realpolitik. Who started Trade with Red China ? Trudeau or Nixon ? But I won't deny that the Trudeaus were as partial to authoritarians as Nixon or Reagan were.
10. I suspect you are falling into that familiar trap where people think that because I don't tolerate soft-brained criticisms and moronic statements like "Canada is going Marxist" ... that I actually LIKE Trudeau. Why are you asking me to defend him ? I won't. Some of your criticisms reveal your lack of understanding of your own dilemma though. If you think that Liberals and Conservatives aren't both elitists then you shouldn't vote. If you think wealthy people don't support Conservative tax cutting, trust loopholes, and such then you're brainwashed. For that matter, I will bet I have probably voted Liberal less often than you have based on your comments.
-----
Think with your brain, not your heart. Trudeau, Poilievre and the rest are the personification of a large body of national political intent - for the purposes of our consideration of them. There's really no point in hating on any of them. They're not here to make big changes to anything6. The OP is stupid, we probably agree on that.
7. I didn't equate Marxism and communism, in fact I specifically used the terms separately for that reason.
8. Socially and culturally this government has moved the country quite a bit to the left. The NDP has moved us a bit to the left also with the federal dental, pharmacare programs etc. The Liberals work for their rich paymasters economically, while spending debt money to try to buy votes without the need of having to actually do anything that might sustainable solve many of our problems.
10. I'm not comparing the Liberals to the CPC here. If don't disagree with the terms I used to describe the Liberal Party then I'll take it to mean you concede the point. All of the terms I used were carefully and thoughtfully laid out, despite what you assume. Trudeau is probably the worst PM in the country's history and has eroded this country in a wide variety of ways, he deserves a lot of criticism.
-
1
-
-
On 3/20/2024 at 11:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:
5. I already responded to the social Marxism point above. It sounds like stupidity to me, and you sound like a dupe. If you don't like social progressivity, if you want to call it wokeness then that sounds much smarter than stupifying Marxism down to make it sound like witchcraft.
6. Marxism is unethical? Ok...
7. NDP has moved far to the right in the last 50 years.
8. You can admire a country without admiring its system. You can admire a system for the good things that it provides, and still not think it's a better system than yours. Case in point Trudeau admiring China's ability to ban lead in gasoline with a stroke of a pen. Or Stalin admiring the US. I don't think anyone would call Stalin an American sympathizer
9. Hey, you know what I'm starting to think maybe you don't like this Trudeau guy 🤔
Seriously, if I don't like someone do I have permission to call them anything negative that I can think of? Even if the definition doesn't apply?
5. You sound like a dupe for going along and defending all the woke nonsense. Social Marxism is social equality of outcome. That's what wokeism is. If you don't like the term "social/cultural Marxism" then fine. Call it something else, like "social equality of outcome. It doesn't change the point being made. It's anti-liberal nonsense.
6. Well communism is. Communism is Marxism put into practice. The only way communism can work is through tyranny. You need to build walls to keep people inside the country by force because anyone with any ability to make more money than the average person will want to leave.
7. They're still a bunch of far-left wingnuts.
8. The Trudeau's admire Castro's system, which is communist and authoritarian. You don't befriend a foreign leader and lick his balls for half a century if you dislike the system he enforces while thumbing your nose at your American allies who had a trade embargo with Cuba.
9. The results speak for themselves. Please explain how anything I said is untrue. To review, I called the Liberal Party "highly corrupt wealthy urban yuppie elitists who are communist-sympathizing social/cultural Marxists and economic neoliberals with some authoritarian anti-liberal tendencies centered around their "white knight" leader's own narcissistic cult of personality."
So if you disagree, please explain how the Liberal Party aren't:
- highly corrupt
- wealthy urban yuppies
- elitists
-communist-sympathizing socially far-left wokesters
- economic neoliberals
- have some authoritarian anti-liberal tendencies
- are centered around their "white knight" leader's own narcissistic cult of personality.
-
On 3/20/2024 at 11:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:
2. Ok I never thought of that angle.
3. Harper's government brought in the surveillance bill that would allow this to happen. That was in the wake of 9/11 and I supported it and then I still do. As for the other things, you have to provide a cite. I'm aware of the financial tagging of convoy financers, but I've never seen a detailed explanation of who was impacted.
4. I'm okay with everything that they did in response to the pandemic. Extraordinary circumstances result in extraordinary responses and extraordinary errors. Nothing was egregious as far as I can see.
3. Cites of the mentioned anti-liberal behaviour by the Liberal Party:
4. You have many political views that are counter to liberalism and liberal democracy and our Charter of Rights so of course you're ok with it. Have you ever in your entire life cared when an authority treated you unfairly, or is your natural reaction to comply with authority without questioning it? Do you understand that sometimes authorities abuse their power, and that some people don't like that and choose to stand up for their rights, and that a healthy liberal democracy depends on this or else we'd still be ruled by the whims of tyrannical kings and queens?
-
On 3/20/2024 at 11:32 AM, Michael Hardner said:
To draw a line between bodies of thought and theories simply because some people believe in one or the other makes no sense. And to say, the origins of something are somewhere else might be true, but it doesn't mean that the seed idea is gaining traction.
Scientists of all stripes believe in evolution, but would you say that because climate science is being followed, evolution is gaining traction?
Furthermore, some of groups that you see as connected, have ideas that negate Marxism. Postmodernism negates classical thoughts such as Marx's.
If somebody wants to say that Marxism is taking hold in Canada, they have to show actual reasons. Reasons. You can't say that a Marxist came up with some other theory, and then feminism used that theory somehow.
They want to make ideas into flavors of things you like or don't like, and it contributes to the mounting level of stupidity.
That includes wokeism too, and examples heard of woke people asking black folks why they would listen to a white man like Karl Marx...
It's not so much "Marxism" that's taking hold in Canada, it's the far-left moral philosophy behind it, which is equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity.
Let's break it down. Leftwing politics is defined as such by wikipedia:
"Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Leftwingers want to break down hierarchies of power that hold back those deemed disadvantaged. The way liberals have done that for the past several hundred years is through liberalism via human rights and equality of opportunity. Liberalism is the basis of our liberal democracies and is defined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
It means "All men are created equal..." per the Declaration of Independence. Black civil rights in the US was based on this, as are LGBT rights like gay marriage and other anti-discrimination laws. Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same rights so don't discriminate against people based on their group identity. People are treated as individuals and equal, not treated based on their group.
What the far-left focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Marxism is morally based on equality of outcome. Marxists want a classless society without rich or poor. But when left to their own devices, people will naturally form hierarchies, including economic hierarchies, because some have different abilities and make different choices than others. So the only way to ensure equality of outcome is to by using force, like taking the wealth of the people with higher ability and giving it to the ones on the bottom.
Woke politics is similarly about equality of outcome. Someone on the far-left sees women or blacks/hispanics making lower salaries than white or asian males and they automatically assume some kind of injustice like discrimination is happening, and there can be no other variables involved. Again, when left on their own different people and groups will have different results for various reasons. The only way to ensure every race or gender will have the same outcomes is by taking by force from the people/groups at the top of the hierarchy and giving it to the ones towards the bottom. Equality of outcome is a disgusting concept because it involves using discrimination to tear people down in order to build others up, whether it's deserved or not. Equality of outcome is anti-liberalism. It's against the very foundation we've built our societies around (liberalism, equality of opportunity).
-
They deserve it, great job they're doing all around
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
The thing I see from this is that they're aware that there's a big problem. To fix it, though, they have to impact the revenue of a significant part of the economy.
People paying high unaffordable rents is far, far more important than the extra income for people who can afford investment properties they rent out. Imagine someone caring more about people who own 1, 2 or more properties vs someone who owns zero properties.
The high rents and high housing prices are destroying the standard of living of Canadians. If incomes don't keep up with rent and mortgage increases then people are literally poorer. It means the vast majority of other industries in the country are going to suffer because working people have less money to spend because more of their paycheck is going to to their rents and mortgage.
No matter what, one group is going to lose here, and it's either going to be new renters and new home owners or current property owners. The richer group should not win here over the poorer group.
-
1
-
Coleman Hughes on race & "woke" identity politics
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted · Edited by Moonlight Graham
1. But how does this answer my question. How is this message not consumable by the masses, as opposed to identity politics messaging?
2. True, but that's not where the phrase comes from, it has ancient greek origins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
"The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans,[15] which was not recorded until 1928."