Canadians, what's the deal with "official party status"? I gather from the CBC that you need 12 seats to achieve it, but what does it actually do, what's the reasoning behind it, and do people generally like this system?
For context, here in Australia party status is decided pre-election, and only requires you have 1500 active members, or at least 1 incumbent. To my knowledge the only thing it gives you here is more flexibility with respect to campaign financing.
I am so glad we don't have to worry about that here in Aus.
But I do find it kinda curious. This seems a little different from how things played out in the UK. Over there, the anti-conservative vote didn't always go to Labour, but instead would tend to go to Labour or Liberal Democrat, depending on the seat. You'd expect if an incumbent is non-conservative, the strategic anti-conservative vote would be to re-elect the incumbent. That should play in BQ's favour in terms of retaining their seats. And yet that apparently isn't what happened.
Are the early polling votes from last week not counted already
In one province they were allowed to start counting those 6 hours before polls closed. In all others, they could start 2 hours before, but it is optional and up to each riding's returning officer. So some ridings have it, some don't. CBC made it sound like they don't even know which ones have and which have not.
And they updated some of the levelling to work more like Skyrim, because the Oblivion system sucked in comparison
Updated how exactly? Oblivion and Skyrim both have pretty serious flaws. I believe there are popular mods to fix the Oblivion system in a way that still feels like Oblivion, though it's been a long time since I've read in to any of it.
The Rest is History. Good banter between the hosts. Huge backlog on a variety of topics.
Origin Story. This one might be a little outside your wheelhouse, or might not, depending on what you're after. Specifically, it talks about the origins (and thus the history) mostly of political ideologies like neoliberalism and zionism, political figures like Thatcher, Churchill, and Jordan Peterson, and movements or terms like the Suffragettes and the term "woke".
There are so many ways to use fingers to count, while the one common in Europe the simplest one possible
But this isn't about counting on fingers. It's about counting fingers. As in, the fingers themselves are what's being counted when you talk about your "middle finger".
I don't agree. The paradox of tolerance, or if you prefer, the Nazi Bar allegory, tells us that in order for genuinely good spaces to exist, they need to be strict about removing bigots. Otherwise quickly, only bigots will feel welcome, and non-bigots will be forced out of the platform.
"Freedom goes both ways" only works if you exclusively look at freedom as a negative thing. Freedom from moderation. Instead of, as you should, acknowledging that it must also entail freedom to be safe from harassment and bigotry.
The only time I've seen someone promote Odysee it was someone who couldn't say what they wanted on YouTube because it was too racist. So I'm inclined to see Odysee as being to YouTube what Voat was to Reddit.
Did something happen in her past that makes her so hateful on this issue
I can't guess as to the full extent of her transphobia, but I can point to a couple of elements of it.
She did suffer domestic abuse of some sort before and around the time the first Harry Potter book came out. This was a cis man who did it, but I think in her mind there's no difference between cis men and trans women.
There's also a well-studied psychological phenomenon where people tend to double-down on their prior beliefs when challenged, unless those challenges come in a very narrow form. Her earliest transphobic comments may have been her being tepid about expressing her true beliefs, but they may genuinely have been the sort of misinformed casual transphobia that a much, much wider segment of the population has which may have gone no further if she were a normal person. But because lots of well-intentioned peopleâlargely some of her most dedicated fansâtried to educate her and help her to be better, she may have doubled down and got into the reactionary feedback loop that so many transphobes, racists, and members of the alt-right got into. They perceive constructive criticism, especially when it comes in large volumes, as a personal attack, and the people who aren't attacking them instead encourage them to double down on their beliefs, and reward them when they do.
Her books show a very strong liberal bias. Liberal in the sense that it's not regressive per se, but it's also strongly opposed to analysis of problems as stemming from systemic issues rather than One Bad Actor. SPEW is the easiest to point to, but the lack of systemic change in the governance of the Wizarding World post-Voldemort is more significant, in my view. The problem was one Minister of Magic who was just ignorant of the problem of Voldemort, followed by another who actively covered it up. These individuals are the bad guys who need to be defeated. It wasn't, as the books tell it, underlying racism and classism of wizarding culture. So it seems that Rowling is not good at spotting systemic injustice. Such as the higher suicide rates among trans people (especially if they're not accepted), higher rates of DV and other violence, and other problems faced are not factoring into her calculations. Which makes it so much easier to cast trans people as the bad guys.
But I find it hard for these to adequately explain either the initial spark of transphobia per se, or the rather extreme extent she's gone to. So yeah, like you I'm a little curious if there's more to it.
but basically just donât count for any laws like â50% of company board members must be women to receive this tax breakâ.
Which, idk, seems reasonable to me.
I have no idea how that's reasonable. The point of such laws is to promote equality. And even if you choose to count trans women as a completely unique third category (which you shouldn't...the word "women" in "trans women" is there for a reason), they are certainly a minority gender, so counting them for the purpose of pro-diversity incentives seems like a no-brainer.
There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex
Ideally, maybe. In a future perfect society. But let's remember that the court case that triggered this was about whether trans women count as women for the purposes of meeting laws that require gender quotas. Quotas that most of us should support because of their importance in combatting existing gender inequalities.
Nah, that doesn't apply in this case. The UK is a world leader in transphobia, acting not because the US does things, but because they're entirely transphobic on their own.
Sure, but we don't say you have one middle finger, we talk about the two middle fingers. As in, one per hand. It's not the middle of all your fingers, it's the middle of the fingers on that hand.
We don't count the gabs because that's...not how counting things works. When delivering a bag of apples, you don't count how many gaps between apples there are, you count the number of apples. You have to know that your second paragraph here is a stretch that would make a Republican lawmaker seem sensible, don't you?
It's pretty normal to count the thumb as a finger. I find it strange that you would not.
If you were asked "how many fingers do you have", would you answer 8, or 10? Surely, everyone knows the answer is 10 (assuming no physical abnormalities)? On a fingering chart, music will instruct you to play a note with your thumb with the number "1" and your pinky with the number "5".
Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone Posts 164Comments 3,644Joined 2 yr. ago
Canadians, what's the deal with "official party status"? I gather from the CBC that you need 12 seats to achieve it, but what does it actually do, what's the reasoning behind it, and do people generally like this system?
For context, here in Australia party status is decided pre-election, and only requires you have 1500 active members, or at least 1 incumbent. To my knowledge the only thing it gives you here is more flexibility with respect to campaign financing.