Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

Collectivist principles MUST be applied to Welfare, if nothing else. It's the only way those in need can be supported as they must. As long as Welfare is operated via capitalist principles (ie, from the most privileged mindset, and without discrimination), those in need will continue to suffer.

I have no interest in State Socialism.

 

But, you are still promoting socialism. You even said so.

And, you are NOT providing a solution for those in need. We are a capitalist nation and we are NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT, regardless of any down sides of capitalism that you might find.

You're just assuming that if help is refused it will magically not be needed.

Suggesting that help isn't needed is NOT A SOLUTION, because there is absolutely NO question that help is needed.

 

No, I don't. You keep declaring strawmen and attributing them to me.

I propose standing against rather than for gender and race based discrimination. Call it out wherever it is found. If you can show your own senators and congress critters engaging in outright racism and sexism as you claim, then doing something about them would be a good place to start. Doing it without equating their racism and sexism with them being white and male, as if other white male people must think as they do would be another excellent step. If you are setting out to call out racism and sexism, you can do it with empathy and calls for fairness and by holding the transgressors accountable for their transgressions (real ones, not imagined or assumed ones), instead of egging on an us vs them race war.

 

This isn't the thread for a socialism vs capitalism debate, but I say you need some of both. Either extreme is doomed.

Not in its most extreme form, no you aren't. You have some socialist aspects. You lack universal single payer health care, but you do have Medicaid and the VA. You lack UBI, but you did do a vaccine rollout without charging people for each dose. You have public roads; they aren't all toll roads. You have public police, libraries, military, fire department, etc, all owned and run by the state instead of by private firms. I believe you have public schools to a certain level as well? You also have some welfare programs last I checked. You are further along the spectrum towards Capitalism than Canada is, but you aren't all the way to the extreme.

 

1) Sure, in the context of WELFARE. That doesn't require State Socialism, it only requires a collectivist (work to eat) policy on social security.

2) And yes, this absolutely provides the 'solution' for those in need. Since it excludes the abuser, the exploiter, the opportunist, and the insincere - there is much more available for the needy. There is enough to provide them with a very solid pathway out of poverty.

3) I'm not assuming anything. A collectivist policy means that the opportunists self-exclude. When someone is starving, they don't 'refuse' rice and beans because they're hoping for lobster. If you think that's a reasonable thing to do, it means you support the abuse of resources which should be going to the needy.

4) Who suggested help isn't needed? I'm here stressing the importance of helping those in need - and you're here defending the right of abusers to exploit the system at the cost of those in need. What's going on in your head? Are you compartmentalising so hard that no two conflicting thoughts ever meet?

 

1. I'm not on the left.
2. That (highlighted) makes it even worse.
3. Full stop.

 

We're having a terminology problem here. In the US, social security is limited to those who have contributed as shown by tax records and have reached a certain age. It is not tuned to give the ability to live. There are exceptions, but it is not designed to ensure beneficiaries can eat or live indoors and it isn't designed to help through a downturn an individual has encountered.

And, one of the serious issues is those who can not work to eat or are finding immediate employment difficult, such as with the crash in service employment caused by COVID or other downturns that have had employment impact. "Work to eat" is very obviously not a solution.

?? Please explain the part of your plan that addresses your claims in 2 and 3.

OK, this is just plain false.

I'm not at all interested in guys like you who make false claims about me.

When you want to have an HONEST conversation, please apologize and let me know you're ready to start again.

 

Um, WillReadMore....

False allegation. Claimed no such thing.

False allegation. No such proclamation was made.

False allegation. No such claim was made about women. The opposite was actually stated and it was noted that lowering standards shows such a view of women.

False allegation. No such suggestion was made.

False allegation. Libellous. Nobody here posted any ideas that involve death threats.

False allegation.

Suddenly this is a problem when the shoe is on the other foot?

Long story short, many of us here can see it is wrong and sexist to ban individuals from nomination because of their gender, regardless of what their gender may be. You endorse such discrimination so long as it is against one particular gender, and try to tell us that your doing so is how to oppose sexist discrimination.

 

You're spending ALL your time here attacking a method of opposing sexism and thus supporting perhaps the strongest roadblock we have in slowing progress on racism and sexism.

When our parties give us racists and sexists as the only candidates that we can vote for, you either get to oppose that or you get to be charged with being fine with sexism and racism. There isn't some other direction.

Do you hate the Green party for presenting candidates who actively exclude those with major oil interests? Do you see that as "unfair"? Do you argue that if we want to reduce fossil fuel damage that the political parties should let anyone run and hope they come to their senses?

Do you think that Bloc Québécois must be terminated, because they choose candidates who tout what they believe?

If we need to reduce the sexism and racism that IS endemic in our government, it makes perfect sense to specifically select candidates who know that issue and will bring that issue with them.

Blocking that makes no more sense than telling the Green party that they can't select candidates that are aware of and are ready to present environmental issues.

>>So, yes. I'm absolutely going to suggest that you are NOT interested in the issue of reducing sexism and racism as is endemic in government today, certainly in the USA.

 

Banning individuals because of their gender is not opposing sexism, no matter how much you try to twist it. It is a openly and blatantly sexist policy.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Where you go wrong is in equating "racists and sexists" with all white men, which the rest of us see as blatantly racist and sexist. You would too if you took off the blinders.

Of course you are. And then you are going to whine when people make such false allegations against you. It's funny.

It would be doubly funny if you happened to be white while claiming all white people must be racist, and only people who aren't white can understand racism, to me, somebody who isn't white. Some white people actually do that.

And of course, you, as a self centered American, can't resist adding the bit about the USA at the end there too lol

 

1) Social Security is just another term for welfare.

2) I'm not talking about earning welfare by having contributed tax dollars at some time in the past. Work to Eat basically means you 'work each day, for each day's food'. That 'work' comes in qualifying for benefits in the first place - ie, ensuring you're able to demonstrate a history of financial responsibility and lawful behaviour, OR be able to demonstrate that your circumstances are a result of events beyond your control. Further 'work' comes in your commitment to the program, demonstrated by ongoing financial responsibility, lawful behaviour, and opportunity seeking. It's self-policing. The needy won't have a problem with this system, but cheats always will - thus it eliminates the cheats while favouring the needy.

 

In my experience, more than 'some' do it .. and they do it all the freaking time.

 

Woops - timed out on the edit to fix that.

The political parties of today ARE choosing old white men who have no interest in discrimination. That's just a fact.

We need candidates who actually know these issues. And, the parties have shown that they are more than willing to allow ALL other issues dominate over this issue.

Having a party that is willing to ensure that women get to be on the ballot is a HUGE improvement.

And, suggesting that is a problem is just you working to block progress on this issue. It would make as much sense as to castigate the Green party for excluding oil pipeline proponents.

As to your comment about me an the USA, I very clearly pointed out America as being WORSE than Canada on this issue.

In fact, with only two parties, there isn't any room for this issue. Our legislature is totally caught up in a R v. D fight to the death over issues like needed infrastructure improvement, the stupendous defense budget, etc., with the only consideration related to women being the demand that we make all abortions illegal.

THAT is who we get to choose between. No wonder we don't give a crap when police shoot kids in the back, choke black people to death, ignore the needs of families that Canada recognizes, etc.

I used America as a bad example, and you failed to even recognize THAT!

 

White guilt is so annoying, even when it benefits me, because it is so irrational.

 

PROGRESS! You're now saying "old white men who have no interest in discrimination" instead of just "old white men" equating that to "have no interest in discrimination". This creates hope that you may actually come around to understanding that some white men, even some old white men aren't that way.

Sure. Nobody has said otherwise.

Not if it is done by blatant gender discrimination against individuals who are male, just because they are male.

You really can't see the important difference there? That comparison only makes sense if all men are misogynists, which would be a very sexist belief.

 

1) Do you not even begin to see that you can't 'ensure' women do anything - unless you think women are under your control and power? Just enshrine gender equality in law (already done, years ago) and let women do the rest - if they freaking want to. If they don't want to, you need to make peace with that. It's not your call to tell them why they don't want to, either.

2) What families?

 

It's hellishly obnoxious. Having said that, I don't see it as guilt at all. To me it's just racism dressed up as something else, and driven by narcissism.

 

This is absolutely and TOTALLY false.

Social security is NOT welfare. It only returns support based on the legally contributions of the individual. And, it does not weigh need. A rich person does not get reduced payments. A poor person does not get boosted payments.

I don't know where you are from, but here in America "Social Security" is a major federal program that affects every employer and every citizen who works, and thus notices deductions from their paycheck.

You can't just decide to give it some other definition.

Of course that's what everyone wants the system to be like.

But, it is NOT the real world situation. We do NOT have total employment. We do NOT have wages that ensure someone can eat. We do NOT have a population where everyone is physically or mentally capable of working. We do NOT have a system where those who face discrimination unrelated to work capability can demand employment justice.

We are a capitalist nation. That means there ARE those who lose.

 

1) Dude, it's MY definition. I use the term SS in place of 'welfare' sometimes, because SS is the umbrella for Govt assistance in my country.

2) On the contrary, I hear far more objection, than approval of this model. And you're still hung up on working. I'm talking about a welfare system for the unemployed. Being physically incapable of working (assuming as a result of age or some other event beyond the individual's control) is grounds for full cover, so not relevant. And the system should only cater for 'mentally incapable' when the individual is diagnosed as profoundly impaired to the point of dependence for all daily functions - and where the condition is not a result of addiction or other self-inflicted harms. That just means medical certification, so would be no problem for the genuine. The person who claims to be 'too depressed to leave the house' would be plum out of luck, however.

3) Yes, because the people running the welfare systems as they are, are determined to undermine more and more of us. They keep feeding the candy to the kids, knowing that will be the result. And they don't care how much is taken from working stiffs to funnel that candy to greedy infantile mouths. And you cannot claim you do not have wages that allow people to eat. People get rich in America every freaking day, mostly as a result of WAGES.

 

Yes, you describe the disconnect here.

It's really great to not be a misogynist - but that is NOT what is needed.

It's even worse in America, as political parties are still pumping misogynists and white supremacists onto our ballots.

As long as that's all we get to choose between, NO progress is going to be made.

This is who one of our only two American parties promoted for president:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a42442/donald-trump-women-sexist-quotes/

And, the same stuff came from him on discrimination.

If we want to attack sexism an racism, the parties have to change. And, not just by finding candidates who don't happen to see women as sex objects.

Unfortunately, we're at a point where the PARTIES have to change. And, that is not going to happen by finding white men who happen to not be misogynists. We need to find capable candidates who KNOW this issue and who are ready to champion this issue.

While selecting only women is certainly a blunt instrument approach, trying to cut perfect lines has just plain failed. Dramatically.

The scale has to be tilted in the opposite direction in order to start developing balance.

 

And being white and male means you can't know this issue or be ready to champion this issue? That's blatant bigotry.

The scale has to be tilted against bigotry, not towards bigotry with other targets for victimization.

I want people in power to think like me, not look like me. I don't care what they look like.

Putting some token brown lady into office does nothing at all for me, unless she pushes for policy I'm in favour of. And if you think putting her there somehow makes things better for me, you are neglecting the actual issues.

 

"Enshrine gender equality in law" - yes, that's the objective. There are more specific objectives, of course.

The law is made by the candidates that the political parties select for us. While we get to chose which one to vote for, it is the parties that determined what the choice is.

The parties have to change in who they present, or we are not going to see this "enshrining" you propose.

Your 2 concerns the connection between issues that affect women and the issues that affect families. You can't pretend to care about families while ignoring sexism in our systems.

 

Do you think that Biden's sexist "I must pick a woman" (and brown woman) policy in selecting his VP, and Kamala saying "Don't come" at the border accomplished something great for brown women? More than say had he gone with Bernie Sanders, and platformed him and his policies? Did Andrew Yang's being Asian matter more than his backing of UBI?

Were you with Albright when she said there's a special place in hell for women who don't go for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, despite Sanders having policies that would have benefited more women? Do you think Hillary's self entitled "I'm with Her" gender hustling slogan was better than "She's with Us" would have been?

Bernie has a penis! Better to go with Pelosi or Liz Cheney, right? They have vaginas so they will be better for women?

 

Well, if you want to communicate clearly, you have to recognize that there are a LOT of Americans on this board, and we have a very strong and well defined definition for that term.

So, it's a question of how clearly you want to communicate.

Yes. But, that is clearly NOT good enough, obviously, as it is dedicated to excluding those who absolutely do need help, at least for a period of time.

I don't agree with you on this in any way.

It's seriously difficult to manage the mish mash of support programs we have in the US. But, that's not a matter of will on the part of any political party. It has much more to do with fundamental differences of opinion that lead to solutions that are patchwork. Legislators can agree on specific help for a specific problem. But, that ends up with those who need help having to apply to multiple agencies for a long menu of possible helps. And, that is hugely difficult to manage toward a sensible result.

Beyond that, this has nothing AT ALL to do with the fact that some become wealthy - something that nobody complains about.

And, I doubt your claim about getting rich through wages. Do the math. The wages of the vast majority are NEVER going to make anyone wealthy.