https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO1F8YxHTas&ab_channel=TheRationalNational
Speak English not jargon.
India Walton’s Brilliant Advice For The Left (David Doel, Rational Nation)
Sat, 2021-10-30 12:05
#1
India Walton’s Brilliant Advice For The Left (David Doel, Rational Nation)
Thu, 2021-11-04 08:09
#2
The above has been a theme of mine since I arrived. For those who don't watch it she speaks about how the left is being misunderstood. Part of it is language usage.
In post 193 of https://babble.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canadian-military?page... melovesproles considers complete lack of knowledge of WWI to be a bit weird.
The national survey of 18- to 24-year-olds shows that only 46 per cent of respondents knew Sir John A. Macdonald was the first prime minister, down eight percentage points from a decade ago. And 38 per cent knew that Newfoundland was the last province to join Confederation, compared with 51 per cent in 1997.
I knew about MacDonald and about Newfoundland being the last province to join. When I saw "Armistice day" I had a vague recall that it marked the end of the war but I would have guessed the WW2 unless it was multiple choice in which case I might have answered 1 intuitively.
But knowledge of military history appears to have increased: 37 per cent knew that Nov. 11 marks the end of the First World War, compared with 33 per cent who knew this fact 10 years ago.
In the study, 1,004 young people were asked 30 basic questions about Canada's past.
- (16 or more questions out of 30 answered correctly)
- B.C. 15%
- Alta. 22%
- Man./Sask. 29%
- Ontario 21%
- Quebec 9%
- Atlantic 13%
- CANADA 18%
- Male 24%
- Female 12%
That's the percentages that could answer 50%+ on 30 really basic questions like who was the first Canadian PM. I probably would have gotten an above average score.
I'm not bragging about my ignorance of history and foreign affairs but it is perfectly normal, and I graduated college and did 2 years of university.
The overarching goal of the left is to gain the support of the majority in order to transform society for the better for the grand majority of people.
To do that you have to speak the same language. Most of the left doesn't speak the language of the people. The right does.
It is no accident that the higher the education the more likely someone is on the left of the political spectrum. Real knowledge of history that goes beyond what we are taught at school to bolster our patriotism informs leftism. Without that knowledge right wing rhetoric makes sense. The right speaks the language of the people.
India Walton knows how to speak to the people. The majority on the left do not. If they did, they would be winning landslide victories one after another.
Thu, 2021-11-04 16:02
#3
India Walton was a grassroots trade unionist before politics. She didn't come up through the party ranks and we will see whether she can withstand the attacks she is getting from the political elites on both sides of the duopoly. I love grassroots politicians.
Thu, 2021-11-04 16:12
#4
She is great. Both sides of the duopoly ganged up on her to stop her becoming mayor of Buffalo. For the first time in history, the New York State Democratic Party refused to support the Democratic candidate for mayor of a significantly-sized town in the state.
Mon, 2021-11-08 09:47
#5
I said this in another thread. The connection is a little tenuous but it is on the same theme. Leftist communications with the 99%.
This whole thing about Taiwan is forcing me to rethink why I have agreed with common wisdom on the board..
I have several times wanted to know what Lascaris thinks on the topic. So far I agree with his every position. I would not necessarily just swallow his position unquestioningly but it's close. He has gained my trust.
I'm not sure I can make my point clearly. In fact I'm sure I can't. I'm trying to articulate why certain people are able to influence me to the point that unless I have a particular interest in a topic I just accept whatever their position is.
Mon, 2021-11-08 11:08
#6
She is great. Both sides of the duopoly ganged up on her to stop her becoming mayor of Buffalo. For the first time in history, the New York State Democratic Party refused to support the Democratic candidate for mayor of a significantly-sized town in the state.
It was a disgrace. She did receive the support of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand. But state officials sat on their hands or supported an ethically-challenged mayor.
Wed, 2021-11-10 13:12
#7
India Walton is being praised but her advice is being ignored.
Thu, 2021-12-02 20:04
#8
This topic somehow ended up in the NDP thread and now I am drifting in the same direction in the Rittenhouse thread. Instead of drifting off topic there I brought it here.
https://law.rwu.edu/news/news-archive/bogus-slavery-and-2nd-amendment
Thank you Josh. That was very interesting and not unbearably long. It's not something I would have come across on my own.
It's ironic that there was a debate over whether the US should even have a standing army and they debated a limit of 3000 men. Washington stage whispered something to the effect that Congress should also limit invading armies to 3000 men.
After listening to that it is obvious that the 2nd ammendment was all about slave control so I am 100% convinced that even if there were other arguments this was the deciding one. Now that I am convinced it will be very difficult for anyone to unconvince me even though I am not going to remember any of the details except maybe the stage whispering which isn't directly related. I won't be able to defend my position.
Before this I totally accepted that the reason for it was so the citizens had the right to revolt against government. It was easy to change my mind on that because while it was logical I was never exposed to any factual information that supported it so it wasn't an entrenched opinion that I had developed myself. Just misinformation.
But now if someone challenges me on it I have no argument but they still won't be able to budge me. I will know I am right even if they have an elaborate argument "proving" me wrong. It doesn't mean my opinion is fact free or logic free. I feel secure because I will remember that I did evaluate new information and came to my own conclusion. I trust me.
Theoretically, I think a lot of voters have just accepted certain conclusions without the facts. A lot is just accepted as obvious or makes sense, like the right to have guns to overthrow the government being important in the US because they revolted against the British government.
In my opinion, to shake people out of beliefs based on solely common sense logic or general knowledge, common wisdom, is to provide the facts that let them come to an actual common sense solution.
Years ago a read an article by a conservative who was sold on housing first programs because the data supported that it was cheaper to house people than to pay for shelters, emergency services, medical treatments due to not taking medications etc. and that more people were able to get jobs.
People are afraid that basic income will make people lazy because why work if you can sit at home and get paid? Common sense dictates that sitting at home beats a minimum wage job especially if you can make some money on the side under the table. No social justice argument is going to beat that.
The truth is some segment of the population will always be unambitious so yes basic income does provide them a better life as well as for people who have unrecognized or unproven barriers. However statistically most people don't go that route. Most people go to school or retrain or are part of the gig economy. The stability allows them to progress and contribute more to society than they otherwise would. There are statistics supporting basic income and putting an end to generational welfare. It is not economical for a country to put out fires instead of investing in the citizenry.
One really good simple fact is that we used to borrow money at zero interest. The right or neoliberals or free markets can argue all the complicated big numbers they want. Common sense tells people we would be far better off borrowing at zero interest. That SC case didn't get any attention at all in the MSM.
Then there are the statistics on who benefited from all the productivity gains, and who profited from Covid.
Many facts don't seep through to the general public, like zero interest, or they come in dribs and drabs that don't create a picture, just leave behind a generalized anger that we are getting screwed. That anger is drawn upon by the right and fed a steady diet of grievances against government and social progress and anti-immigrant sentiment. Because people don't have enough facts taken out of their surrounding arguments they don't break free of their conditioned beliefs and think it through for themselves. Hence, CEO's are job creators our economy depends on. Without facts it makes sense.