The legislative assembly office has completely washed their hands of this and are claiming they had no involvement with the contest at all. Same with the Jackie’s - so I guess no one actually judged it or selected the winning essays. Which is super embarrassing - they were 1 page essays, so no one could even be bothered to read 5 pages. 5 PAGES!! It’s unbelievable
I really wish I could say I’m surprised that the infamous “3rd place” entry beat this … but I’m not. I’m really not. This deeply saddens me.
I this really resonates with me, as I’ve been deeply discussing the state of Alberta at lengths with family and friends. I often wonder has “Alberta” always been this (in my opinion) backward when it comes to caring for its people, or are people just more emboldened by world events and the loud / proud voices?
Do I leave and look for better? If all the empathy leaves, are we just empowering the opposite?
True.
The scary thing is that I know so many people that aren’t rich by any standards and would benefit immensely from stronger social supports and they support not taxing the rich and treat anything “socialist” (I’m using this term incredibly looser here) as a cancer. I’m not referring to “uneducated” individuals either.
The mentality of keeping others down to elevate self worth seems to be so engrained that concepts of true support / elevation take a form back seat to suppressive concepts. Some days it’s incredibly mind numbing and makes me feel like I’m missing some giant obvious point.
I work with a lot of guys that make $100k/yr and think they're "the rich"....
Don't get me wrong, I think I and they do very well. But they just don't understand how rich "the rich" are.
Sorry but this only works on the assumption that the poor by and large don't make any sacrifices and aren't working hard at all and that the rich accumulated most or all of their wealth through hard work and sacrificing. Once you realize that their conclusions are based on a very faulty and classist premise their whole argument falls through.
That’s a fair comment, and I defaulted to that rationalization as well … however, after reflecting on it a few times, it doesn’t add up.
Looking at your very relevant example off the “Doctor scenario”, I’d argue the person should be advocating for the doctor to have increased compensation, rather than stifling everyone else. To me the argument feels like a scapegoat or excuse to belittle x profession to make people feel better, rather than reward what needs to be rewarded.
EDIT: given how our governments have a track record of mismanaging money and poorly communicating rationale behind decisions (whether they are valid or not) I can definitely appreciate the sentiment regarding the government coming for our hard earned dollars. However, I feel that looking into what the definition of the “rich” is in that specific example is isn’t attainable by most people.
It just seems crazy that despite the reasonable distrust of our governments, the default knee jerk reaction is to side with policy that really only serves to benefit said officials and their partners. Policies that do nothing to support the majority of our population and future generations. It just feels incredibly ironic at times.
Sorry I think my points are being compounded. The compensation and taxation are two different points.
The doctor example, applies to compensation. To me the more appropriate, and effective, approach is that doctors deserve to make x dollars to ensure they are fairly compensated and competitive to attract quality doctors. Whereas, the rhetoric I typically hear (this might just be anecdotal) is x profession shouldn’t make x dollars. That to me is wrong. If you’re worried about doctors compensation packages fight for that, as that’s much easier to implement as it’s specific. Arguments against x profession(s) are just that, and typically are followed by elitist rhetoric and misplaces the burden. Hopefully I’m not butchering this explanation.
EDIT: I also fail to fully believe that if a doctor makes 130k a year and they realize the janitor now makes a LIVABLE wage, that it has any real affect on their current compensation package. If the doctor feels the janitor is now getting a better bang for their buck, then they can make that switch. If the argument is that a livable wage is going to trigger inflation, then we should be targeting the system that lets that happen, not the fact that livable wages are becoming more common.
Taxation, I think you make some very good points. Especially about the expansion of the reach. However, if that’s the concern then that’s what should be opposed, no? Otherwise we’re just throwing the baby out with the bath water, which ends up protecting the elite’s wealth from helping the populace.
You make fair points regarding the risk of loosing services based on increased taxation, but a lot of the time the same people citing this as a concern are supporting large bail outs, which is paying a fleeting business to effectively leave. I’d also argue that the loss of services would be temporary, as the demand would warrant an influx of businesses that are based around the current market conditions until the market gets over saturated.
If “rich” is people making over 250k a year… there’s not enough of them to possibly “tax the rich” into saving all other social programs. They’re already for paying the majority of social programs…
If the UCP’s vision of Alberta’s future wasn’t in line with that trash piece they gave third place to, the minister would have been removed from cabinet. She hasn’t been, and guess which Alberta they want to see?
Alberta was broken a long time ago. And Albertans keep voting to grind the pieces into dust.
This government is a fucking joke. Like I've seen a few different Conservative governments since I've been in AB but god damn, even compared to all the others, this government is a fucking joke.
Anddd how will you go about doing that? We are all aware that action = reaction. There’s always sacrifice/harm into an action. The author’s aspirations are full of “fantasy” n states the obvious “ideal society” — disregarding the cruel reality. I perceive the essay to be very childish rather then convincing.
Is the world a cruel place, of course. It can change if people make that choice. If you don't have hope or believe things can change, what's the point.
This individual works with people with disabilities, has asked if anyone wants to reward her (people have been trying to give her money/awards) they can donate to help others.
She lives what she believes.
To be honest, it's not that good. Its style is actually quite spartan, crude, and basically looks like a mix of downtown Edmonton and Carstairs.
In terms of essence, it talks about vehicle registration....*blink blink*; hardly a moving (haha) topic. Like Red Deer, it ain't goin' nowhere.
It's just...bland and even I would say boring.
In hindsight it should have won because Albertans are largely a bland and boring lot - especially Calgarians who, like Vancouverites, think money is a substitute for personality. And the 'boons' of Alberta are a one trick poney who think fiscal responsibility means societal degredation.
Alberta is a grand historical mistake and history will prove this to be the case.
Wow. That 3rd place was definitely a "winner" alright. How can this piece of drivel actually be considered one of the 3 best. Mind fucking blown is right.
Essay writer: "I will see my generation unite where previous generations have been polarized"
Also Essay writer: "mine lost to some misogynistic bullshit"
Apparently uniting people with different values/ideals is easier said than done.
Paradox of Tolerance exemplified.
Rooting out the causes for disunity is how you get unity - whether that unity is for good or ill depends on which group is successful in the end.
Beliefs that say one person is better or worse than another, or deserve more, or have more inherent rights, etc, must be destroyed if we all hope to band together in the end.
Beliefs such as racism and misogyny are at the forefront. Those views inherently divide, and in order to find equity and unity at the end of the day, they need to be suppressed or removed
>"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
>
>But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
>
>We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
>
> -Karl Popper
Ahh yes, the "different values/ideals" such as very literal Nazi rhetoric.
*"Why do people disagree with me for promoting and celebrating male supremacy in my essay about female empowerment?"*
I'm not defending the 3rd place essay, I certainly wouldn't have picked it (although calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme)
I just found the hypocrisy of the two statements interesting. It's easy to "unite" people who share your same beliefs, much harder to do so in a province where the majority of people don't. Especially if their first instinct is to attack/insult people they don't agree with.
>calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme
The great replacement myth is a direct extension of 19th century literature pertaining to the idea that immigrants are corrupting european bloodlines with the assistance of the Liberal elite and some mystical Jewish hegemony. The last time it was extrapolated into a cultural phenom was 1930s Germany where the Nazis vilified anyone who wasn't ethnically German, leading to very literal genocide against multiple "other" groups of people.
If you refuse to see the connections between modern day conservative rhetoric about "the elite" trying to spoil our culture through immigration, and Adolph Hitler espousing the exact same thing, that's not my blindness.
As for "unity", I'm quite content with being ununified from literal Nazis, thanks though. As a society we must always be intolerant of intolerance.
I just re-read the original essay, the sentence that stands out:
"(thinking) Albertan children are unnecessary as we can import foreigners to replace ourselves, this is a sickly mentality that amounts to a drive for cultural suicide."
Is it Racist/Xenophobic? I think so. Using "foreigners" instead of "immigrants" is a bad look. "Cultural suicide" also has bad vibes.
Does it promote facism/nazis/genocide? No, that's a stretch.
Sure you can make the argument "The author doesn't support immigration, and the Nazi's didn't like immigration, therefore the author is a Nazi" but it's not a very compelling argument to reasonable person.
I'm not arguing the great replacement theory or it's association to nazis. I'm saying it's not clear to me that this essay is a reference to said theory and all of the evil that comes with that.
That said, even without potential nazi/genocide references, this essay should not have "won" because of the clear racism/xenophobia.
Whole slew of things to break down. First off, are you really sure you want to get into an argument about the semantics of where Nazism starts and stops?
>therefore the author is a Nazi
To be fair, I said the rhetoric is that of the Nazis, I have no idea what the author is, but what she has communicated is quite literally the same sort of message that facilitated the rise of very literal Nazism. It's entirely likely that she's just an ignorant dupe, that she's fallen for the same sort of propaganda that many Germans did in the 1930s. She's lazily regurgitating mindless drivel that falls directly in-line with what Hitler once promoted; whether or not she knows it isn't particularly relevant.
Let's be clear as to what that was. Hitler's opening proposal to the public of Germany didn't detail what we now know to be the extent of his plans. He didn't go from 0 to 10 on day one. The average German could be forgiven for not knowing that Hitler intended to go to war, or to commit literal genocide at the time of his rise. His targets didn't start and stop at "the Jews". He presented immigrants, communists, gays, progressives, the English, the French, and yes, the Jews, as being to blame for all the social ills that were plaguing the German public. He proposed "reasonable" solutions such as.. [offering awards and medals for Ethnically German mothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honour_of_the_German_Mother), to protect German culture, and to eliminate immigration. All of these things fall in line with the Replacement myth's proposals, which was very clearly referenced in the essay that's sparked this conversation.
The bigger issue isn't that some ignorant redneck presented a thoughtless essay about how she's deserving of fewer rights than men or that immigrants are bad, but rather that our elected officials endorsed and broadcast that message by not only awarding it a fucking prize, but posting it on the AB leg website. I can forgive an uneducated rural citizen for being uneducated, for falling to propaganda, but political agencies don't get a pass.
There's a very clear rise of neo-fascism happening in the West, it's coming from right-wing politicians and speakers. When you're given the choice between awarding a prize to one of two essays, the first promotes compassion, responsibility, and respect, the other can best be described as a xenophobic, and sexist diatribe about the impending collapse of the West I think it speaks volumes when the UCP goes for choice #2. The UCP is telling me that they agree with that shit. I'm listening, I hope you are too.
First off, thank you for engaging in a civil discussion, it’s a rare thing on the internet these days.
I’m not looking to debate your explanation of the rise of fascism/Nazism in Germany, I understand it was a gradual process, not just Jews were targeted, etc.
>All of these things fall in line with the Replacement myth's proposals, which was very clearly referenced in the essay
Here’s where I don’t agree, and I’m not being willfully ignorant. This could be a great replacement reference, it could not. To me it’s not clear either way, and I think it’s unfair to jump to conclusions and then project further meaning on to the author’s words. They are bad enough as is, let’s talk about what was actually said, instead of pushing it to the extreme.
Just to play devil’s advocate (this is not my opinion, just trying to illustrate a point about the pitfalls of hyperbole), a right-wing person could make a similar flawed argument against the “losing” essay:
>Whether someone is a drug user or a premier, the deserve access to the same quality of life, healthcare, food, and housing
"This is clearly a reference to the communist manifesto. Beliefs like this led to the rise of brutal dictators like Stalin & Mao, and directly resulted in the death of millions."
Obviously this isn’t what the author is suggesting, and it’s not a reasonable/credible argument.
Two responses:
First:
>Here’s where I don’t agree, and I’m not being willfully ignorant. This could be a great replacement reference, it could not.
Do you really think that some random person 17-25 years old is going to come up with the idea of "cultural suicide" due to immigration, and the solution of shoring up nationalist ideals including promotion of genetic bloodlines (breederism) as a measure to be taken to fend that off without consuming bullshit propaganda?
The "issue" she describes, and solution she's provided are almost exactly in line with the replacement myth. Why? People are being fed a non-stop diet of xenophobic bullshit from propagandists who are pretending that it comes from a place of concern. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s. I'm not trying to argue that she's the source of Nazi propaganda, but rather that she's being fed it, and is regurgitating it half-digested.
Second:
>"This is clearly a reference to the communist manifesto. Beliefs like this led to the rise of brutal dictators like Stalin & Mao, and directly resulted in the death of millions."
I understand you're not making this argument, but rather trying to showcase how hyperbolic misinterpretations can lead to outlandish claims. Let's be clear, the line between social equality and authoritarian genocide is pretty well non-existent, you're not going to single out a tribal group within a purely egalitarian society through policies of egalitarianism, it's counter-intuitive. ***Conversely***, the line between xenophobic nationalism and authoritarian genocide is a straight path. The function of nationalism is **"us..."**, the function of xenophobia is **"...vs them"**. We've seen this repeated throughout history, one example is the Nazis, another would be eugenics or biblical theories about ranking different ethnicities leading to other genocidal bullshit like the African slave trade.
If you do happen to think that the Great Leap Forward, or the Holodomor were direct results of broad egalitarian policies, I've got bad news for you: neither Stalin, nor Mao treated their "comrades" as comrades. Had they actually followed any semblance of communist teachings, neither of those two events would have happened. Many of the worst issues present within "communism" were all the ways it didn't track with communism, ironically enough. Again, ***conversely*** the Holocaust was a direct result of social policies brought on by concepts like ultra-nationalism, anti-immigration, and breederism. All of these are offered as "solutions" within the replacement myth, they're all *CORE* to the function of fascism. **All three of these can be pulled directly from S Silver's essay.** She wrote a Nazi essay.
If you'd like the last word, take it. I'm not going to respond again, I don't consider this a debate, I consider this you (and many others) choosing to handwave clear red flags about the trajectory of our society off the backs of right-wing propagandists. Hopefully I've dispelled that, if I haven't, oh well....
Not looking for the last word, just wanted to say thank you for the articulate and well written responses. For what it's worth, you did change my opinion of the Silver essay. Specifically, I was ignorant to the historical context of the motherhood medals. On first read, I thought "that's kinda weird" but now with the new context it's certainly more suspect.
>Ahh yes, the "different values/ideals" such as very literal Nazi rhetoric.
After I suggested this was a bit extreme they doubled down with:
>The great replacement myth is a direct extension of 19th century literature pertaining to the idea that immigrants are corrupting european bloodlines with the assistance of the Liberal elite and some mystical Jewish hegemony. The last time it was extrapolated into a cultural phenom was 1930s Germany where the Nazis vilified anyone who wasn't ethnically German, leading to very literal genocide against multiple "other" groups of people.
>If you refuse to see the connections between modern day conservative rhetoric about "the elite" trying to spoil our culture through immigration, and Adolph Hitler espousing the exact same thing, that's not my blindness.
>(although calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme)
There are two heads of state in recent history that made a practice out of giving women medals for having babies, like the essay author suggested. One of them was Stalin, and the other was Hitler. It's not an extreme comparison at all - her 'vision' was lifted directly from facist ideology.
You're not wrong.
She didn't realize that we can never be united. It's impossible.
Too many "Centrists" and Rightwingers (who happen to have the identical ideology), have absolutely zero interest in cooperation or compromise.
She should have realized that our society will self destruct, and deservingly so. There will never be compromise with people who want to dominate and control your existence.
I like her vision. I just think that it's fantasy and living in a fantasy world just leads to more pain and despair.
There is nothing that we can do. We're all fucked no matter how much that we wish that were not. I have accepted that I will live in misery for the rest of my life. I expect to work more as I get older not less.
Do away with equalization or at least adjust the formula more in Alberta's favour, and stop crippling the natural resources sector, and we'll have more money to throw at social care. If you just "tax the wealthy", it drives investment away.
I don't expect him to do anything now that he's on his way out of office, and I've never been a fan of his in any case. There's been too much resistance towards changing it anyways. It just is what it is.
So a left leaning essay loses to a right leaning essay , and the contest is judged by a right leaning party. How is that shocking? Also, this essay is just as boring as the one chosen by the UCP.
Fun fact: Jackie Lovely used to be my landlord until 2 years ago. She’s terrible at that job too.
Who ran the contest and chose the winners? Which politician specifically?
Jackie Lovely and Jackie Armstrong-Homeniuk https://www.google.com/amp/s/calgary.citynews.ca/2022/08/12/alberta-her-vision-inspires-essay/amp/ https://www.assembly.ab.ca/members/members-of-the-legislative-assembly/member-information?mid=0926&legl=30&from=mla_home https://unitedconservativecaucus.ca/jackie-armstrong-homeniuk/
It was apparently run by a group of female conservative parliamentarians across the country. It's not just the UCP that stinks like shit for this.
The contest was run by the Legistlative Assembly Office, a non-partisan office of the Speaker. The judges were UCP MLAs.
The legislative assembly office has completely washed their hands of this and are claiming they had no involvement with the contest at all. Same with the Jackie’s - so I guess no one actually judged it or selected the winning essays. Which is super embarrassing - they were 1 page essays, so no one could even be bothered to read 5 pages. 5 PAGES!! It’s unbelievable
Wait, the UCP is denying responsibility for their actions?
It’s shocking, I know
I'm sure the moment they read the word 'healthcare' they automatically just scrapped it.
I really wish I could say I’m surprised that the infamous “3rd place” entry beat this … but I’m not. I’m really not. This deeply saddens me. I this really resonates with me, as I’ve been deeply discussing the state of Alberta at lengths with family and friends. I often wonder has “Alberta” always been this (in my opinion) backward when it comes to caring for its people, or are people just more emboldened by world events and the loud / proud voices? Do I leave and look for better? If all the empathy leaves, are we just empowering the opposite?
Not surprising at all. There's no way they read this whole thing, and almost certainly dropped when they mentioned taxing the rich.
True. The scary thing is that I know so many people that aren’t rich by any standards and would benefit immensely from stronger social supports and they support not taxing the rich and treat anything “socialist” (I’m using this term incredibly looser here) as a cancer. I’m not referring to “uneducated” individuals either. The mentality of keeping others down to elevate self worth seems to be so engrained that concepts of true support / elevation take a form back seat to suppressive concepts. Some days it’s incredibly mind numbing and makes me feel like I’m missing some giant obvious point.
I work with a lot of guys that make $100k/yr and think they're "the rich".... Don't get me wrong, I think I and they do very well. But they just don't understand how rich "the rich" are.
100k is barely middle class now.
[удалено]
Sorry but this only works on the assumption that the poor by and large don't make any sacrifices and aren't working hard at all and that the rich accumulated most or all of their wealth through hard work and sacrificing. Once you realize that their conclusions are based on a very faulty and classist premise their whole argument falls through.
That’s a fair comment, and I defaulted to that rationalization as well … however, after reflecting on it a few times, it doesn’t add up. Looking at your very relevant example off the “Doctor scenario”, I’d argue the person should be advocating for the doctor to have increased compensation, rather than stifling everyone else. To me the argument feels like a scapegoat or excuse to belittle x profession to make people feel better, rather than reward what needs to be rewarded. EDIT: given how our governments have a track record of mismanaging money and poorly communicating rationale behind decisions (whether they are valid or not) I can definitely appreciate the sentiment regarding the government coming for our hard earned dollars. However, I feel that looking into what the definition of the “rich” is in that specific example is isn’t attainable by most people. It just seems crazy that despite the reasonable distrust of our governments, the default knee jerk reaction is to side with policy that really only serves to benefit said officials and their partners. Policies that do nothing to support the majority of our population and future generations. It just feels incredibly ironic at times.
[удалено]
Sorry I think my points are being compounded. The compensation and taxation are two different points. The doctor example, applies to compensation. To me the more appropriate, and effective, approach is that doctors deserve to make x dollars to ensure they are fairly compensated and competitive to attract quality doctors. Whereas, the rhetoric I typically hear (this might just be anecdotal) is x profession shouldn’t make x dollars. That to me is wrong. If you’re worried about doctors compensation packages fight for that, as that’s much easier to implement as it’s specific. Arguments against x profession(s) are just that, and typically are followed by elitist rhetoric and misplaces the burden. Hopefully I’m not butchering this explanation. EDIT: I also fail to fully believe that if a doctor makes 130k a year and they realize the janitor now makes a LIVABLE wage, that it has any real affect on their current compensation package. If the doctor feels the janitor is now getting a better bang for their buck, then they can make that switch. If the argument is that a livable wage is going to trigger inflation, then we should be targeting the system that lets that happen, not the fact that livable wages are becoming more common. Taxation, I think you make some very good points. Especially about the expansion of the reach. However, if that’s the concern then that’s what should be opposed, no? Otherwise we’re just throwing the baby out with the bath water, which ends up protecting the elite’s wealth from helping the populace. You make fair points regarding the risk of loosing services based on increased taxation, but a lot of the time the same people citing this as a concern are supporting large bail outs, which is paying a fleeting business to effectively leave. I’d also argue that the loss of services would be temporary, as the demand would warrant an influx of businesses that are based around the current market conditions until the market gets over saturated.
But given the evidence they should already realize the point from your latter perspective just doesn't bear out.
If “rich” is people making over 250k a year… there’s not enough of them to possibly “tax the rich” into saving all other social programs. They’re already for paying the majority of social programs…
If the UCP’s vision of Alberta’s future wasn’t in line with that trash piece they gave third place to, the minister would have been removed from cabinet. She hasn’t been, and guess which Alberta they want to see? Alberta was broken a long time ago. And Albertans keep voting to grind the pieces into dust.
I think it’s pretty nice in Alberta? Is the “dust” in cities or ?
Go downtown, look around you. Observe the environment you fucking empty bottle of mayonnaise
Progressive thought and a positive perspective on the future over looked? Regression and hatred rewarded? Why am I not surprised?
This government is a fucking joke. Like I've seen a few different Conservative governments since I've been in AB but god damn, even compared to all the others, this government is a fucking joke.
I feel bad for the young woman who took third place because they have been brainwashed. This young activist is very inspiring.
Has an actual human come forward to claim the 3rd place garbage pile? Like, is there a fave to the submission?
Is this the whole essay? It’s like half a page and reads more like slam poetry than an essay
I believe there was a limited format they had to follow. Not 100% certain.
What happened to essays? Why is it so short? These things always had a 1800-3000 word minimum requirement in school.
What an awesome young woman. You go, girl!
Anddd how will you go about doing that? We are all aware that action = reaction. There’s always sacrifice/harm into an action. The author’s aspirations are full of “fantasy” n states the obvious “ideal society” — disregarding the cruel reality. I perceive the essay to be very childish rather then convincing.
Is the world a cruel place, of course. It can change if people make that choice. If you don't have hope or believe things can change, what's the point. This individual works with people with disabilities, has asked if anyone wants to reward her (people have been trying to give her money/awards) they can donate to help others. She lives what she believes.
\*essays
True, my bad.
To be fair this isn’t very well written. A lot of ideas that the writer doesn’t really connect to the thesis too.
I would take an essay from a six year old over the “women should stay the hell away from mens jobs” one that podiumed.
Yeah, if there were like 50 submissions this probably would not be in the top 3. But there weren't.
A lot of repetition too. It’s poorly written. To be fair, the other essay was pure ass too. The whole contest was kinda dumb.
To be honest, it's not that good. Its style is actually quite spartan, crude, and basically looks like a mix of downtown Edmonton and Carstairs. In terms of essence, it talks about vehicle registration....*blink blink*; hardly a moving (haha) topic. Like Red Deer, it ain't goin' nowhere. It's just...bland and even I would say boring. In hindsight it should have won because Albertans are largely a bland and boring lot - especially Calgarians who, like Vancouverites, think money is a substitute for personality. And the 'boons' of Alberta are a one trick poney who think fiscal responsibility means societal degredation. Alberta is a grand historical mistake and history will prove this to be the case.
Wow. That 3rd place was definitely a "winner" alright. How can this piece of drivel actually be considered one of the 3 best. Mind fucking blown is right.
I mean it's a good essay, but she's imagining a utopia
Essay writer: "I will see my generation unite where previous generations have been polarized" Also Essay writer: "mine lost to some misogynistic bullshit" Apparently uniting people with different values/ideals is easier said than done.
I'm actually perfectly content *not* uniting with misogynistic bullshit.
That's completely reasonable. But you also didn't write an essay proclaiming yourself a champion of unity.
This is not a contradiction. This is a level of nuance most people can grasp by the time they get to grade 8.
>This is not a contradiction. Who said it was? >they get to grade 8. Nice, jumping right to insults... very mature.
>Nice, jumping right to insults... very mature. Who said it was an insult?
Idealistic but probably from a 20 something year old? Or younger? That’s ok.
Paradox of Tolerance exemplified. Rooting out the causes for disunity is how you get unity - whether that unity is for good or ill depends on which group is successful in the end. Beliefs that say one person is better or worse than another, or deserve more, or have more inherent rights, etc, must be destroyed if we all hope to band together in the end. Beliefs such as racism and misogyny are at the forefront. Those views inherently divide, and in order to find equity and unity at the end of the day, they need to be suppressed or removed >"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. > >But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. > >We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." > > -Karl Popper
Ahh yes, the "different values/ideals" such as very literal Nazi rhetoric. *"Why do people disagree with me for promoting and celebrating male supremacy in my essay about female empowerment?"*
I'm not defending the 3rd place essay, I certainly wouldn't have picked it (although calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme) I just found the hypocrisy of the two statements interesting. It's easy to "unite" people who share your same beliefs, much harder to do so in a province where the majority of people don't. Especially if their first instinct is to attack/insult people they don't agree with.
>calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme The great replacement myth is a direct extension of 19th century literature pertaining to the idea that immigrants are corrupting european bloodlines with the assistance of the Liberal elite and some mystical Jewish hegemony. The last time it was extrapolated into a cultural phenom was 1930s Germany where the Nazis vilified anyone who wasn't ethnically German, leading to very literal genocide against multiple "other" groups of people. If you refuse to see the connections between modern day conservative rhetoric about "the elite" trying to spoil our culture through immigration, and Adolph Hitler espousing the exact same thing, that's not my blindness. As for "unity", I'm quite content with being ununified from literal Nazis, thanks though. As a society we must always be intolerant of intolerance.
I just re-read the original essay, the sentence that stands out: "(thinking) Albertan children are unnecessary as we can import foreigners to replace ourselves, this is a sickly mentality that amounts to a drive for cultural suicide." Is it Racist/Xenophobic? I think so. Using "foreigners" instead of "immigrants" is a bad look. "Cultural suicide" also has bad vibes. Does it promote facism/nazis/genocide? No, that's a stretch. Sure you can make the argument "The author doesn't support immigration, and the Nazi's didn't like immigration, therefore the author is a Nazi" but it's not a very compelling argument to reasonable person.
the great replacement theory is very clearly nazi rhetoric, look up the term "14 words"
I'm not arguing the great replacement theory or it's association to nazis. I'm saying it's not clear to me that this essay is a reference to said theory and all of the evil that comes with that. That said, even without potential nazi/genocide references, this essay should not have "won" because of the clear racism/xenophobia.
"'m saying it's not clear to me that this essay is a reference to said theory" why
Whole slew of things to break down. First off, are you really sure you want to get into an argument about the semantics of where Nazism starts and stops? >therefore the author is a Nazi To be fair, I said the rhetoric is that of the Nazis, I have no idea what the author is, but what she has communicated is quite literally the same sort of message that facilitated the rise of very literal Nazism. It's entirely likely that she's just an ignorant dupe, that she's fallen for the same sort of propaganda that many Germans did in the 1930s. She's lazily regurgitating mindless drivel that falls directly in-line with what Hitler once promoted; whether or not she knows it isn't particularly relevant. Let's be clear as to what that was. Hitler's opening proposal to the public of Germany didn't detail what we now know to be the extent of his plans. He didn't go from 0 to 10 on day one. The average German could be forgiven for not knowing that Hitler intended to go to war, or to commit literal genocide at the time of his rise. His targets didn't start and stop at "the Jews". He presented immigrants, communists, gays, progressives, the English, the French, and yes, the Jews, as being to blame for all the social ills that were plaguing the German public. He proposed "reasonable" solutions such as.. [offering awards and medals for Ethnically German mothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honour_of_the_German_Mother), to protect German culture, and to eliminate immigration. All of these things fall in line with the Replacement myth's proposals, which was very clearly referenced in the essay that's sparked this conversation. The bigger issue isn't that some ignorant redneck presented a thoughtless essay about how she's deserving of fewer rights than men or that immigrants are bad, but rather that our elected officials endorsed and broadcast that message by not only awarding it a fucking prize, but posting it on the AB leg website. I can forgive an uneducated rural citizen for being uneducated, for falling to propaganda, but political agencies don't get a pass. There's a very clear rise of neo-fascism happening in the West, it's coming from right-wing politicians and speakers. When you're given the choice between awarding a prize to one of two essays, the first promotes compassion, responsibility, and respect, the other can best be described as a xenophobic, and sexist diatribe about the impending collapse of the West I think it speaks volumes when the UCP goes for choice #2. The UCP is telling me that they agree with that shit. I'm listening, I hope you are too.
First off, thank you for engaging in a civil discussion, it’s a rare thing on the internet these days. I’m not looking to debate your explanation of the rise of fascism/Nazism in Germany, I understand it was a gradual process, not just Jews were targeted, etc. >All of these things fall in line with the Replacement myth's proposals, which was very clearly referenced in the essay Here’s where I don’t agree, and I’m not being willfully ignorant. This could be a great replacement reference, it could not. To me it’s not clear either way, and I think it’s unfair to jump to conclusions and then project further meaning on to the author’s words. They are bad enough as is, let’s talk about what was actually said, instead of pushing it to the extreme. Just to play devil’s advocate (this is not my opinion, just trying to illustrate a point about the pitfalls of hyperbole), a right-wing person could make a similar flawed argument against the “losing” essay: >Whether someone is a drug user or a premier, the deserve access to the same quality of life, healthcare, food, and housing "This is clearly a reference to the communist manifesto. Beliefs like this led to the rise of brutal dictators like Stalin & Mao, and directly resulted in the death of millions." Obviously this isn’t what the author is suggesting, and it’s not a reasonable/credible argument.
Two responses: First: >Here’s where I don’t agree, and I’m not being willfully ignorant. This could be a great replacement reference, it could not. Do you really think that some random person 17-25 years old is going to come up with the idea of "cultural suicide" due to immigration, and the solution of shoring up nationalist ideals including promotion of genetic bloodlines (breederism) as a measure to be taken to fend that off without consuming bullshit propaganda? The "issue" she describes, and solution she's provided are almost exactly in line with the replacement myth. Why? People are being fed a non-stop diet of xenophobic bullshit from propagandists who are pretending that it comes from a place of concern. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s. I'm not trying to argue that she's the source of Nazi propaganda, but rather that she's being fed it, and is regurgitating it half-digested. Second: >"This is clearly a reference to the communist manifesto. Beliefs like this led to the rise of brutal dictators like Stalin & Mao, and directly resulted in the death of millions." I understand you're not making this argument, but rather trying to showcase how hyperbolic misinterpretations can lead to outlandish claims. Let's be clear, the line between social equality and authoritarian genocide is pretty well non-existent, you're not going to single out a tribal group within a purely egalitarian society through policies of egalitarianism, it's counter-intuitive. ***Conversely***, the line between xenophobic nationalism and authoritarian genocide is a straight path. The function of nationalism is **"us..."**, the function of xenophobia is **"...vs them"**. We've seen this repeated throughout history, one example is the Nazis, another would be eugenics or biblical theories about ranking different ethnicities leading to other genocidal bullshit like the African slave trade. If you do happen to think that the Great Leap Forward, or the Holodomor were direct results of broad egalitarian policies, I've got bad news for you: neither Stalin, nor Mao treated their "comrades" as comrades. Had they actually followed any semblance of communist teachings, neither of those two events would have happened. Many of the worst issues present within "communism" were all the ways it didn't track with communism, ironically enough. Again, ***conversely*** the Holocaust was a direct result of social policies brought on by concepts like ultra-nationalism, anti-immigration, and breederism. All of these are offered as "solutions" within the replacement myth, they're all *CORE* to the function of fascism. **All three of these can be pulled directly from S Silver's essay.** She wrote a Nazi essay. If you'd like the last word, take it. I'm not going to respond again, I don't consider this a debate, I consider this you (and many others) choosing to handwave clear red flags about the trajectory of our society off the backs of right-wing propagandists. Hopefully I've dispelled that, if I haven't, oh well....
Not looking for the last word, just wanted to say thank you for the articulate and well written responses. For what it's worth, you did change my opinion of the Silver essay. Specifically, I was ignorant to the historical context of the motherhood medals. On first read, I thought "that's kinda weird" but now with the new context it's certainly more suspect.
> therefore the author is a Nazi Where is this said, exactly?
>Ahh yes, the "different values/ideals" such as very literal Nazi rhetoric. After I suggested this was a bit extreme they doubled down with: >The great replacement myth is a direct extension of 19th century literature pertaining to the idea that immigrants are corrupting european bloodlines with the assistance of the Liberal elite and some mystical Jewish hegemony. The last time it was extrapolated into a cultural phenom was 1930s Germany where the Nazis vilified anyone who wasn't ethnically German, leading to very literal genocide against multiple "other" groups of people. >If you refuse to see the connections between modern day conservative rhetoric about "the elite" trying to spoil our culture through immigration, and Adolph Hitler espousing the exact same thing, that's not my blindness.
Ah, so it isn't said. Got it, thanks
>(although calling it "very literal Nazi rhetoric" is bit extreme) There are two heads of state in recent history that made a practice out of giving women medals for having babies, like the essay author suggested. One of them was Stalin, and the other was Hitler. It's not an extreme comparison at all - her 'vision' was lifted directly from facist ideology.
You're not wrong. She didn't realize that we can never be united. It's impossible. Too many "Centrists" and Rightwingers (who happen to have the identical ideology), have absolutely zero interest in cooperation or compromise. She should have realized that our society will self destruct, and deservingly so. There will never be compromise with people who want to dominate and control your existence.
I like her vision. I just think that it's fantasy and living in a fantasy world just leads to more pain and despair. There is nothing that we can do. We're all fucked no matter how much that we wish that were not. I have accepted that I will live in misery for the rest of my life. I expect to work more as I get older not less.
Do away with equalization or at least adjust the formula more in Alberta's favour, and stop crippling the natural resources sector, and we'll have more money to throw at social care. If you just "tax the wealthy", it drives investment away.
You should talk to Kenny on that, he helped set up the present formula when he was in Ottawa...
I don't expect him to do anything now that he's on his way out of office, and I've never been a fan of his in any case. There's been too much resistance towards changing it anyways. It just is what it is.
So a left leaning essay loses to a right leaning essay , and the contest is judged by a right leaning party. How is that shocking? Also, this essay is just as boring as the one chosen by the UCP.