[LinearPhilosopher]

D, on 18 March 2018 - 05:14 AM, said:

I don't even know what Derridas is. All his bizarro crackpotting aside, when he said students aren't taught any of this stuff in high school... that bit I agree with 100%

An interesting though obtuse frenchmen.

[Khazduk]

Bourdieu, Derrida, Althusser, Foucault and the rest... I read quite a lot of them while working on my disseration. (In the end I went the opposite way and took refuge in Max Weber.) The frenchies are all just basically playing with words and concepts, to show that you can get anything to mean anything. They are all very confusing, very annoying intellectual snobs. They do have quite a few valid points, though, but global mind-altering hegemonical masterminds... not so much. (Althusser killed his wife though and got sent to the loony bin for it.)

[Gothos]

Hm. I must say I'm a bit disappointed by the tone of some of your criticisms of Peterson. Crackpot, loon, delusional, scummy... Really? It's not like we're dealing with flat earthers or anti-vaxxers here, think we should keep some sense of scale!

Look, there's plenty he says I don't really agree with (first and foremost being a need for a supreme being), but at the very least he's very civil about his points. This brings me joy because political 'discourse' in my own country
usually descends into "NO U" screaming matches within 5 minutes of starting. I would hazard a guess that none of you are exactly happy about hearing people shriek and claw and spit at political rallies while throwing memorized slogans
that they read on some blog. I've more sympathy for someone I can disagree with in a civil manner than someone I can agree with that behaves like a rabid animal.

While his conclusions may often be somewhat off, the points from which he starts his theories are (at least from my point of view) just as often true. I mostly like to hear his psychology stuff (side note: it's annoying how people keep
spamming fragments from his lectures on youtube with completely misleading titles), and from that - growing popularity of being a victim in western society, an interesting view on 21st century class war (from ownership vs labor to white straight males vs anyone else in existence) and the resulting growth of group identity over individuality (in groups that are, on paper, supposed to fight for individuality). I also liked when he spoke that the growing far left is leading to an analogous growth on the far right - I can tell you for sure from my own country that, wether it's baseless or not, the 'ordinary folk' do feel threathened and under siege by 'progressives' and this does lead to an almost allergic reaction of society - a growing popularity of populist factions... just saying, it's a fair point.

Now, not to derail the topic too much, I think I won't go deeper for now... but hey.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Gothos, on 19 March 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

Hm. I must say I'm a bit disappointed by the tone of some of your criticisms of Peterson. Crackpot, loon, delusional, scummy... Really? It's not like we're dealing with flat earthers or anti-vaxxers here, think we should keep some sense of scale!

Look, there's plenty he says I don't really agree with (first and foremost being a need for a supreme being), but at the very least he's very civil about his points. This brings me joy because political 'discourse' in my own country
usually descends into "NO U" screaming matches within 5 minutes of starting. I would hazard a guess that none of you are exactly happy about hearing people shriek and claw and spit at political rallies while throwing memorized slogans
that they read on some blog. I've more sympathy for someone I can disagree with in a civil manner than someone I can agree with that behaves like a rabid animal.

While his conclusions may often be somewhat off, the points from which he starts his theories are (at least from my point of view) just as often true. I mostly like to hear his psychology stuff (side note: it's annoying how people keep
spamming fragments from his lectures on youtube with completely misleading titles), and from that - growing popularity of being a victim in western society, an interesting view on 21st century class war (from ownership vs labor to white straight males vs anyone else in existence) and the resulting growth of group identity over individuality (in groups that are, on paper, supposed to fight for individuality). I also liked when he spoke that the growing far left is leading to an analogous growth on the far right - I can tell you for sure from my own country that, wether it's baseless or not, the 'ordinary folk' do feel threathened and under siege by 'progressives' and this does lead to an almost allergic reaction of society - a growing popularity of populist factions... just saying, it's a fair point.

Now, not to derail the topic too much, I think I won't go deeper for now... but hey.

I think this is a symptom that in your country the bar is set considerably lower. Yes he's not a flat earther or a climate change denier, but if thats your point of reference, there's a bigger problem here.

I Can't speak of what the basis is for many of his point but the feeling i get is someone disassociated from reality. He claims women and men can't work in the workplace together because we don't "know the rules". (meanwhile i've worked with plenty of women in my career, never once had an issue (keep your hands to yourself at the workplace for example)). Or the controversy over the fact someone politely asked him to refer to themselves with a different pronoun and he rejected it. (it became a very public issue)
http://www.macleans....s-smart-person/
The article below makes some pretty amusing point about referring to people as they wish.

I will admit there is much one can learn from the fellow


just a question of learning the important bits

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 19 March 2018 - 11:38 AM

[Gothos]

LinearPhilosopher, on 19 March 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

I think this is a symptom that in your country the bar is set considerably lower. Yes he's not a flat earther or a climate change denier, but if thats your point of reference, there's a bigger problem here.

Could you elaborate on the bar and the bigger problem?

Quote

http://www.macleans....s-smart-person/

Boy, doesn't that author hold her nose high in the air! It reads like one big "so you're saying" sentence, with bonus points for multiple lines suggesting if you don't completely disregard the guy,
you're just stupid and a healthy dose of ridicule. Top notch journalism! No counterpoints, just heaps of "look at this, how boring/dumb/ridiculous!".

Quote

Video's broken for me

[QuickTidal]

Gothos, this guy is a bad guy. Any way you slice it. He's presenting bad (sometimes seditious) ideas, in a smart-sounding way to try to fleece the dumber amongst the populous to fall for his rhetoric whole hog. And a lot of them do, and will. That's the problem.

Here is a guy who, in one of his more benign-sounding rants, is essentially CHALLENGING our fucking Charter of Rights. That's not cool, and that's part of the reason he gets so much airplay...and he knows it.

He does all this on the level he does it...because just like Trump, he KNOWS it gets a rise out of a certain sect of the population. Keeping him (at least to his mind, and that of the media) relevant....when he should be no more relevant than your crazy uncle who says racist shit at Thanksgiving.

[Gothos]

QuickTidal, on 19 March 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

Gothos, this guy is a bad guy. Any way you slice it.

Awww, shame on you. Don't be the 'they are the bad guys!' man! Come on! This isn't a hollywood blockbuster, it's real life. People and issues are a bit deeper than a bad guys speech. Say he's a fraud manipulating people into buying his stuff, say he's a cynical bastard, say he's a bigot, but please don't do the 'bad guy' thing!

Quote

He's presenting bad (sometimes seditious) ideas, in a smart-sounding way to try to fleece the dumber amongst the populous to fall for his rhetoric whole hog. And a lot of them do, and will. That's the problem.

Wouldn't think 'seditious' would be used here as a negative . Sedition is, after all, the origin of most of current western civilization .

Quote

Here is a guy who, in one of his more benign-sounding rants, is essentially CHALLENGING our fucking Charter of Rights. That's not cool, and that's part of the reason he gets so much airplay...and he knows it.

He does all this on the level he does it...because just like Trump, he KNOWS it gets a rise out of a certain sect of the population. Keeping him (at least to his mind, and that of the media) relevant....when he should be no more relevant than your crazy uncle who says racist shit at Thanksgiving.

And yet challenging established ideas is, at least to me, the cornerstone of a modern, progressive world, as well as the very basis for scientific progress. Challenging should never be 'not cool'. Even if you see a movement as ridiculous, baseless, stupid, silly, etc. - dismissing and/or ignoring it can spell disaster. We've seen this happen in the US of A where the 'snobby' public sneered and laughed at Trump all the way to his victory in the elections. It looks to me like some people still view this event as some sort of statistical anomaly, or a joke, and avoid addressing the issues that paved his way to presidency.
If he's finding such fertile ground for what he says, it's not happening by some accident, it's not happening because 'haha dumb shits'. Now, understand that it doesn't matter if this state of affairs is true, what matters is that those people believe it to be true. It's happening because a growing number of people feel ignored, bullied and excluded. People feel threatened and ostracized. They feel patronized. Not taken seriously. In the United States, this feeling was strong enough to elect the most notorious pathological liar to ever hold office in any country that has starbucks. In the UK, this feeling was strong enough to set the country on a course to its own withering and marginalization, all on a wave of power-tripping rhetoric and just straight up lies. In Poland, this was enough to give the reins into the hands of psychopaths and, again, pathological liars.
In all three of these instances you can trace back their success to the 'establishment's' errors. Hillary Clinton was an abysmal counter-candidate and her campaign completely failed to address or even comprehend the anti-establishment movement. In the UK, David Cameron made a play to increase his own political capital and establish his position within his party just to have it blow up in his face when he lost the referendum. Here, first Komorowski in the presidential election, then his mother party PO in the parliamentary election, completely dropped the ball by underestimating their opposition and radiating smug complacency that was infuriating even to their supporters - all because their strategy boiled down to 'if you don't vote for us, you vote for them!!!11!'.

To sum up this rapidly growing post... ridicule and dismissive attitudes will not make this go away. They may not be right, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a conversation.


Damn, I sound so preachy.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Gothos, on 19 March 2018 - 12:37 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 19 March 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

I think this is a symptom that in your country the bar is set considerably lower. Yes he's not a flat earther or a climate change denier, but if thats your point of reference, there's a bigger problem here.

Could you elaborate on the bar and the bigger problem?

Quote

http://www.macleans....s-smart-person/

Boy, doesn't that author hold her nose high in the air! It reads like one big "so you're saying" sentence, with bonus points for multiple lines suggesting if you don't completely disregard the guy,
you're just stupid and a healthy dose of ridicule. Top notch journalism! No counterpoints, just heaps of "look at this, how boring/dumb/ridiculous!".

Quote

Video's broken for me

ill gladly respond when you quote me within context. Im not going to spend 10 minutes re copy pasting everything to shine light on the proper context.


Also try now

ACK: just copy past this into youtube
How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument - Jordan Peterson

This post has been edited by D'rek: 19 March 2018 - 02:32 PM
Reason for edit: Fixed your media tags

[D'rek]

You're right Gothos. He's not a crazy guy, he's just espousing 'crazy' ideas (not all of them - as mentioned I find lots of his ideas actually right, but others seem very... uh, radical/ludicrous), but he is doing so in a reasonable and rational manner, which is good. I was wrong to label his overall personality as such.

Though your comparison to anti-vaxxers is interesting. There have been plenty of anti-vaxxers who have approached their cause similar to Peterson - done polite speeches and interviews where they approach the subject from an academic revelation sort of stance, citing (supposedly valid) research to back up their anti-vax claims, etc.

QuickTidal, on 19 March 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

Here is a guy who, in one of his more benign-sounding rants, is essentially CHALLENGING our fucking Charter of Rights. That's not cool, and that's part of the reason he gets so much airplay...and he knows it.

What are you talking about?! Every element of our society, our laws, our nation is open to challenge, so long as that challenge is done in a lawful manner.

QuickTidal, on 19 March 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

He does all this on the level he does it...because just like Trump, he KNOWS it gets a rise out of a certain sect of the population. Keeping him (at least to his mind, and that of the media) relevant....when he should be no more relevant than your crazy uncle who says racist shit at Thanksgiving.

Same accusation could be leveled at any sort of pro-choice activist in Utah - they know they'll get a rise out of a certain sect of the population. Are they a "bad guy", too? I don't see the problem or fault with having a controversial opinion... IMO the onus is on the other side to present a strong, convincing rebuttal (instead of just making shouting mobs).

[QuickTidal]

D, on 19 March 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

What are you talking about?! Every element of our society, our laws, our nation is open to challenge, so long as that challenge is done in a lawful manner.

His ranting about not wanting to change verbiage of the Charter to include rights to signifiers. He's essentially saying "Leave the Charter as is, if you change it, we may get in trouble for being dicks to people"

It's the equivalent of the PC's ranting about the Sex Ed Curriculum including teaching about Trans people, or same sex couples, or anal sex...something they want to roll back.

Peterson is on board to STOP such a change to our Charter because he and his ilk might get themselves in trouble. To me that's an attack ON our Charter for the very reasons you just stated. I just probably worded it poorly.

D, on 19 March 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

Same accusation could be leveled at any sort of pro-choice activist in Utah - they know they'll get a rise out of a certain sect of the population. Are they a "bad guy", too? I don't see the problem or fault with having a controversial opinion... IMO the onus is on the other side to present a strong, convincing rebuttal (instead of just making shouting mobs).

For the same reason Bell is now legally not allowed to go door to door fleecing old people without a computer out of money for Unlimited Internet services they won't use and don't understand. Just because free speech exists and is protected, doesn't mean we need to (or should) suffer the demagogues like Peterson with a smile on our face and a blasé attitude as they walk around with the power he wields as a professor at one of our more prestigious Universities (and one in which he might be reaching tenure soon), corrupting young minds. Nope. Fuuuuuuck that.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 March 2018 - 02:41 PM

[Gothos]

D, on 19 March 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

Though your comparison to anti-vaxxers is interesting. There have been plenty of anti-vaxxers who have approached their cause similar to Peterson - done polite speeches and interviews where they approach the subject from an academic revelation sort of stance, citing (supposedly valid) research to back up their anti-vax claims, etc.

I'm a bit biased. I know this makes me a hypocrite, but I can't bring myself to keep a level head when the anti-vaccine movement is involved. All my self-control breaks. I'm grinding my teeth even thinking about it here.
It's a potentially grave threat to survival and I've a pretty strong stance on the issue: I think that propagating anti-vaxxer propaganda should be treated by law as calls for genocide. Even in my backwater piece of land, this 'movement' is gaining ground fast and already there's a visible rise in new cases for diseases covered by vaccines.
The case here for me is that EVEN IF all those things the anti-vaxxers are citing WERE TRUE, not vaccinating yourself or your children is STILL not a good trade-off by MILES. I don't even have children, but the potential disaster caused by a vaccination gap in society is terrifying to me. All this while vaccination campaigns have been able to cut child mortality rates in sub-saharan Africa by half in the last 15 years or so, to boot!

[D'rek]

Gothos, on 19 March 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

D, on 19 March 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

Though your comparison to anti-vaxxers is interesting. There have been plenty of anti-vaxxers who have approached their cause similar to Peterson - done polite speeches and interviews where they approach the subject from an academic revelation sort of stance, citing (supposedly valid) research to back up their anti-vax claims, etc.

I'm a bit biased. I know this makes me a hypocrite, but I can't bring myself to keep a level head when the anti-vaccine movement is involved. All my self-control breaks. I'm grinding my teeth even thinking about it here.
It's a potentially grave threat to survival and I've a pretty strong stance on the issue: I think that propagating anti-vaxxer propaganda should be treated by law as calls for genocide. Even in my backwater piece of land, this 'movement' is gaining ground fast and already there's a visible rise in new cases for diseases covered by vaccines.
The case here for me is that EVEN IF all those things the anti-vaxxers are citing WERE TRUE, not vaccinating yourself or your children is STILL not a good trade-off by MILES. I don't even have children, but the potential disaster caused by a vaccination gap in society is terrifying to me. All this while vaccination campaigns have been able to cut child mortality rates in sub-saharan Africa by half in the last 15 years or so, to boot!

Personally, I completely agree, but it's easy for us to say when we're on the established side. If somehow anti-vaxxers were right (or even more right, and it *was* a good trade-off) giving them no ground to espouse their views (rationally or otherwise) would ultimately be bad for us and unjust for everyone.

Evidently QT feels that Peterson and his ilk should be treated the very same as anti-vaxxers - absolutely zero ground given, the fabric of society risks being undone even from just allowing them to speak politely.

But there are many, many such anti-status-quo "movements"... how do we decide which ones should and shouldn't be allowed to have a platform? Should anti-circumcision proponents be allowed their platform? Should economists who think Keyneisian economics aren't a good way to handle recessions be stifled? Farmers who don't like the Dairy Board system? Advocates of electoral reform?

Which movements wanting to change the status quo are allowed their platform and which are the "bad guys" ? What's a fair way to decide without the benefit of hindsight?

QuickTidal, on 19 March 2018 - 02:38 PM, said:

D, on 19 March 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

What are you talking about?! Every element of our society, our laws, our nation is open to challenge, so long as that challenge is done in a lawful manner.

His ranting about not wanting to change verbiage of the Charter to include rights to signifiers. He's essentially saying "Leave the Charter as is, if you change it, we may get in trouble for being dicks to people"

It's the equivalent of the PC's ranting about the Sex Ed Curriculum including teaching about Trans people, or same sex couples, or anal sex...something they want to roll back.

Peterson is on board to STOP such a change to our Charter because he and his ilk might get themselves in trouble. To me that's an attack ON our Charter for the very reasons you just stated. I just probably worded it poorly.

Back in 1986 there were attempts to enshrine "rights for fetuses" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Was everyone who "ranted about not wanting to change the verbiage of the Charter" at that time a "bad guy" ?

Obviously you don't agree with his opinions. But that doesn't make him arguing against changing the Charter a bad thing. Everyone should be allowed to argue for or against changing the Charter, no matter what their cause is.

[QuickTidal]

Ok. Sure.

[QuickTidal]

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

Now watch for the Ford/Cons counterstrike... i'm expecting something epic.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 28 March 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

Now watch for the Ford/Cons counterstrike... i'm expecting something epic.

It's Doug Ford....he'll have a hard time not saying "Well, women should be at home looking after kids anyways..."

LOL

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

They could've started this at any time in the last 4 years. That they're waiting until right before an election to announce it and only as a "this will happen in two more years only if we're re-elected" doesn't sit well with me and doesn't inspire much confidence that it will actually happen.

Didn't Wynne promise to reduce health care wait times right before the 2014 election? That didn't happen. Balancing the budget was a huge part of her campaign platform and that sure didn't happen. Etc etc

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

Abyss, on 28 March 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

Now watch for the Ford/Cons counterstrike... i'm expecting something epic.

It's Doug Ford....he'll have a hard time not saying "Well, women should be at home looking after kids anyways..."

LOL

Y'know, 'this is unfair to stay at home moms i mean parents' is more than likely what they will go with.

D, on 28 March 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

They could've started this at any time in the last 4 years. That they're waiting until right before an election to announce it and only as a "this will happen in two more years only if we're re-elected" doesn't sit well with me and doesn't inspire much confidence that it will actually happen.

Didn't Wynne promise to reduce health care wait times right before the 2014 election? That didn't happen. Balancing the budget was a huge part of her campaign platform and that sure didn't happen. Etc etc

And therein lies the rub... no matter how attractive the daycare budget promise is, her credibility may be so shot with sufficient people that it may not be enough to turn things so long as Ford manages to keep his mouth shut.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 28 March 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, the Liberals (and Wynne) have just solidified my vote. I said weeks ago that "daycare" costs was my BIGGEST campaign/platform issue, and what they are proposing (free child care from age 2.5 until Kindergarten) is going to alleviate a LOT of stress in my household (daycare is around 24k/year per kid in the infant stage, and only a few grand less for toddler...it's a fucking MORTGAGE payment).

That's it, and I'll wager the Liberals win back ANY (if not all) young parents who are struggling with daycare costs who were on the fence at the prospect of more Liberal Ontario gov't, because this is a HUGE incentive to want them in charge. It also helps our birth rates, allows people to still work and raise kids (more taxes paid), and would very likely have a positive effect on the deficit. I personally feel like a Quebec subsidized system (where we pay $8 per day or whatever) is an even better option, but this works too.

They could've started this at any time in the last 4 years. That they're waiting until right before an election to announce it and only as a "this will happen in two more years only if we're re-elected" doesn't sit well with me and doesn't inspire much confidence that it will actually happen.

Didn't Wynne promise to reduce health care wait times right before the 2014 election? That didn't happen. Balancing the budget was a huge part of her campaign platform and that sure didn't happen. Etc etc

And yet it's STILL the best option I'm being given to help with skyrocketed daycare costs in Ontario. I get that it's a last ditch effort/bribe....and if it never comes to fruition that will VERY much paint my voting in the future with regards to the Liberals in Ontario....but for now, it's the only thing I'm being offered that's worth my vote. I can see it for what it is...but that doesn't mean that I'm going to back down off my "This is the ONE platform issue that is most important to me" stance. I gotta go with what's on offer, and I HIGHLY doubt the PC's are going to introduce anything better...

Re: Health Care wait times...that's not exactly as black and white as it seems to the outsiders. My wife is in the health care industry in Ontario, and there is a LOT of red tape, corporation nonsense, union infighting, and a myriad of other things that prevent that from being fulfilled that the gov't can't really help. Trust me on this, it pisses my wife off because her clients aren't getting the care they need in the time they need and she's followed that up the chain and seen what causes it. It's not the gov't.

Abyss, on 28 March 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

And therein lies the rub... no matter how attractive the daycare budget promise is, her credibility may be so shot with sufficient people that it may not be enough to turn things so long as Ford manages to keep his mouth shut.

The bolded bit is a joke right? The Ford's have NO idea how to keep their mouths shut. They had a damned radio show FFS.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 28 March 2018 - 05:34 PM

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 28 March 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

Abyss, on 28 March 2018 - 05:18 PM, said:

And therein lies the rub... no matter how attractive the daycare budget promise is, her credibility may be so shot with sufficient people that it may not be enough to turn things so long as Ford manages to keep his mouth shut.

The bolded bit is a joke right? The Ford's have NO idea how to keep their mouths shut. They had a damned radio show FFS.

Doug isn't as far gone as Rob. He's been more or less under the wider (outside TO) radar since Rob died. Or at least he hasn't appeared in any online vids licking his crack pipe.
He may actually be intelligent clever enough to shut up and let Wynne sink herself. Or else his handlers may be.

Maybe.