[HN Gopher] Florida governor to investigate GoFundMe over Canada...
___________________________________________________________________
Florida governor to investigate GoFundMe over Canada trucker
donations
Author : throwawaysea
Score : 149 points
Date : 2022-02-05 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| johncena33 wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please do not add hellish nationalistic flamewar--which is what
| this comment points straight into--in addition to the
| ideological flamewar we've already got with this topic. These
| things are not what HN is for. We want _curious_ conversation
| here.
|
| We detached this comment from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30224349.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Gofundme is in the trust business. You have to have a lot of
| trust in them or you won't use them. They seem to be pivoting to
| a strategy that encourages distrust.
|
| This is pretty much how a lot of people view gofundme now:
|
| https://babylonbee.com/news/gofundme-freezes-funds-for-child...
|
| They are a joke.
| culi wrote:
| I don't know if that's true. I think the participation of many
| white nationalists in the trucker movement was a disaster
| waiting to happen for GFM. Ultimately the police were the ones
| who told them to take it down and they agreed the threat of
| violence violated their TOS
|
| They followed their standard protocol to offer refunds and then
| donate any unrefunded money to charities of the choosing of the
| main organizers. And they've even changed their policy to issue
| direct refunds instead. I think they're clearly still in the
| business of trying to maintain their trust
| gdsdfe wrote:
| dane-pgp wrote:
| You raise an interesting point. Who will end up controlling the
| self-driving truck fleets, and what will the laws end up saying
| about how those fleets can be used?
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| And the next time the government will want to force you to do
| something you disagree with, who is gonna fight it, the
| spineless white collars that we pretty much all have become?
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait
| comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, and we ban
| that sort of account.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jonahlyn wrote:
| gruez wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please do not take HN threads further into hellish ideological
| flamewar. We want curious conversation here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ratsmack wrote:
| I find it strange that people opposing funding the Canada
| truckers need to resort to a DDOS of GiveSendGo[1].
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/GiveSendGo/status/1489983077912924160
| dang wrote:
| All: if you're going to post in a thread like this, where the
| topic is inflammatory, please make sure you're up on the site
| guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html --
| and do one of the following:
|
| (1) post thoughtfully and substantively, with respect for the
| people you disagree with,
|
| or
|
| (2) don't post.
|
| We want _curious_ conversation here.
| user249 wrote:
| evv555 wrote:
| Your attempted explanation is wrong. Trump won the rust belt in
| 2016 because neoliberals sold out the working class and their
| unions. This behavior by the administration is a half hearted
| attempt to roll some of that back.
| user249 wrote:
| > is a half hearted attempt to roll some of that back
|
| That's just assumed and is normal politics so I didn't see it
| worth mentioning. You didn't refute my other point that
| President Biden does not see Musk as a political ally
| robertoandred wrote:
| Yeah, it's totally the Republicans who are pro-union.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Famously, the two main parties switched their roles in the
| South in the 1960s and 1970s.
|
| It may happen with the unions too. Especially with the blue
| collar private sector unions. I do not expect this change
| for public sector unions to happen.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| That's your cognitive dissonance speaking; it's a
| demonstrable fact that Trump took a large part of the blue
| collar/union electorate in 2016.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| But he wasn't appealing to those voters on the basis of
| increasing the power of unions against rich business
| owners.
|
| The question is whether those voters wanted other things
| more than that (and whether Trump managed to deliver
| those other things to their satisfaction).
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| I don't buy that the neo-liberals sold-out the rust belt:
| This was a slow death march over decades and across party
| lines.
|
| After all, slave labor is cheap and lets the wealthy pool
| wealth, while feeling good about pouring money and industry
| into third-world countries. Best of all, it left the
| purchasing power of the middle class intact.
|
| For a time.
|
| I do agree though, that the liberals turned a blind eye when
| things were becoming unsustainable in the rust belt (fly-over
| country).
| astraloverflow wrote:
| It might be more accurate to say that the democrats started
| taking the rust belt for granted. And it's hard to ignore
| the left's shift (in primary focus) from blue collar
| workers issues towards race and gender issues.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| This I agree with.
|
| I cringed when my co-workers talked about "fly-over"
| country, but I was equally shocked when Hillary Clinton
| lost.
|
| As much as I hate to say it, Trump getting elected (wrong
| person, but gets a point across) shows the system sort of
| works.
|
| Edit: Just to be clear, I'm a liberal at the end of the
| day but anyone who thinks "their side" doesn't have
| problems, I can't really agree with.
| ananonymoususer wrote:
| Using a political office to effect political change is
| against the law.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act
| jonathankoren wrote:
| That's a weird way of describing the Hatch Act. What is the
| point of political office if not to effect political
| change? That's their whole rationale.
|
| The Hatch Act is primarily about using political office for
| _campaigning_ for political office, with the president and
| Vice President notably excepted.
| ananonymoususer wrote:
| They are not excepted. They must abide by restrictions on
| the use of government resources during their political
| activities.
|
| https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1007/100797.us.us.2.html
| gruez wrote:
| > Using a political office to effect political change is
| against the law.
|
| From your linked article:
|
| >using this language to specify those who are exempt:[10]
|
| > (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the
| Executive Office of the President; or
|
| > (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with
| the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is
| located within the United States, who determines policies
| to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide
| administration of Federal laws.
|
| I'm sure that "the administration" that evv555 was talking
| about involves either of those people, instead of some
| random civil servant.
| ananonymoususer wrote:
| Neither i nor ii above apply to political (elected)
| officials. They are absolutely covered by the Hatch Act.
| If an elected official were to direct one of the exempted
| classes to perform a political act, the act of directing
| them would be a crime.
| gruez wrote:
| >Neither i nor ii above apply to political (elected)
| officials. They are absolutely covered by the Hatch Act.
|
| From the linked article again:
|
| >Its main provision prohibits civil service employees in
| the executive branch of the federal government,
|
| Do "political (elected) officials" count as "civil
| service employees in the executive branch of the federal
| government"? My memory from civics class is a bit hazy,
| but I recall that elected officials are in the
| legislative branch, not the executive branch?
| ananonymoususer wrote:
| The president and vice president (executive branch) are
| elected officials.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30224008 and marked it off
| topic.
| magicjosh wrote:
| Anyone have commentary on how cryptocurrencies will step in to
| this space? Platforms like GoFundMe provide such a thin veneer of
| value. It's easy for them to overstep their bounds to the point
| where it's not worth it. If I were a journalist raising funds for
| a documentary I would be wary of such platforms.
|
| (Didn't see this mentioned elsewhere in the thread)
| temp8964 wrote:
| GoFundMe should be political neutral, but it openly turns left. I
| recommend a long post explaining this phenomenon:
| https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/why-is-everything-libe...
| filed wrote:
| pessimizer wrote:
| > GoFundMe should be political neutral
|
| Why? Are you advocating for ISIS to be able to do a gofundme?
| jstanley wrote:
| Why shouldn't they be able to? Gofundme shouldn't be in the
| business of picking winners and losers. If someone wants to
| collect money for a cause, then Gofundme should be a neutral
| platform for that.
|
| It's up to individuals whether they want to donate to any
| particular cause.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| There is a whole world of opinions besides leftism and
| islamic extremism.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Very interesting explanation, thanks.
| belltaco wrote:
| So many words and nothing about the urban-rural and the
| religious divide which explain many things.
|
| I should have stuck to my rule about stopping reading at 'woke'
| but I wanted to give it a chance.
| temp8964 wrote:
| I have no idea why the urban-rural and the religious divide
| is relevant to the specific topic.
| mindslight wrote:
| Anyone complaining about some big "left" collusion is
| essentially bashing a straw man. The actual truth is that there
| are more than two groups of political interests. Corporate
| interests are biased towards _corporate interests_ , period.
| They're basically indifferent on social issues, and so from the
| right they appear "left" because they echo the broadest appeal
| as a marketing technique. Shoehorning everything that you
| disagree with into a single category and then thinking the
| whole world is ganging up on you is a completely broken model,
| but it is unfortunately lucrative.
| rayiner wrote:
| The article is, in fact, doing the opposite of "complaining
| about some big 'left' collusion." It's an explanation of how
| a vocal minority can produce similar results without any sort
| of conspiracy.
|
| > They're basically indifferent on social issues, and so from
| the right they appear "left" because they echo the broadest
| appeal as a marketing technique.
|
| The notion that this stuff has the "broadest appeal as a
| marketing technique" doesn't hold water. Why are Hispanics
| suddenly "Latinx" now, when virtually no Hispanics identify
| with that term?
| https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-
| in...
|
| Last year, they had "Black Trans" posters at our local mall.
| My county is half Republicans, and a lot of the Democrats are
| middle class Black people who definitely do not have socially
| progressive views on gender identity.
| rayiner wrote:
| The article is, in fact, doing the opposite of "complaining
| about some big 'left' collusion." It's an explanation of how
| a vocal minority can produce similar results without any sort
| of conspiracy.
|
| > They're basically indifferent on social issues, and so from
| the right they appear "left" because they echo the broadest
| appeal as a marketing technique.
|
| The notion that this stuff has the "broadest appeal as a
| marketing technique" doesn't hold water. Why are Hispanics
| suddenly "Latinx" now, when virtually no Hispanics identify
| with that term?
| https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-
| in.... Last year, they had "Black Trans" posters at our local
| mall. My county is half Republicans, and a lot of the
| Democrats are middle class Black people who definitely do not
| have socially progressive views on gender identity.
| mindslight wrote:
| The article explores some mechanics while still focused on
| this idea that corporations are inescapably left.
|
| I'd say the larger difference is left activism is pro-
| social, or hyper-social in the extreme. "Black Trans" is
| promoting one specific identity, but not at the expense of
| others (apart from dilution). Whereas what is perceived as
| right activism has to rise to the level of being anti-
| social - a simple picture a happy heteronormative
| traditional family does not suffice (since it is taken for
| granted as the norm). Rather it defines itself by
| explicitly opposing left activism, and such overt conflict
| is a commercial non-starter.
| mistercheph wrote:
| Okay, so you are the first person to discover that
| corporations are not politically motivated but only
| financially motivated, and they manufacture the appearance of
| political concern to pursue their financial interests. Nice,
| cool.
|
| Now explain to me what is wrong with political factions
| publicly criticizing corporations under the guise of wanting
| political and moral change at the corporation, when in
| reality, they are attacking the corporation's financial
| interests, and their goal is to render their own brand of
| politics the one that commercial interests bend the knee to.
|
| You have made the empiricist's error: conflating what he
| discovers to be, with what ought to be.
| dang wrote:
| Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. You
| can make your substantive points without that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's worse than that. It's that right-wing conspiracists
| already vote for everything that they support, so there's
| absolutely no need to pander to them. In fact, you can fund
| them while pushing woke PR. It's the potentially class-
| conscious who should be pushed to see the world as a bunch of
| benevolent corporations pushing fairness against the "white
| working class" forces of darkness.
| pstuart wrote:
| Vaccines didn't used to be political.
| 8note wrote:
| People didn't used to disagree with the politics.
| peteradio wrote:
| Mandates will always be political.
| brokensegue wrote:
| At least in the US lots of vaccines are mandated (of
| children) and it's not political.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It is a little bit political, usually doesn't reach the
| national level though.
| tomp wrote:
| For diseases that actually hurt children.
|
| See this article by Dr Peter Attia (and embedded graph
| under heading _" OBSERVATION 4"_) about how dangerous
| COVID is for children (and adults < 35).
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/a-follow-up-to-my-article-on-
| vaccin...
| brokensegue wrote:
| I'm replying to someone who claimed mandates will always
| be political by pointing out a counter example.
|
| The covid mandate in the US at least was of adults. All
| of whom are at some risk (especially if you include long
| covid).
| peteradio wrote:
| My point is this: If you have a vaccine its inherently
| non-political, its just a medical intervention. But when
| it becomes mandated now you introduce a process by which
| some people can decide for some other people what must be
| done. That is politics.
| brokensegue wrote:
| That is not what people generally mean by "political".
| klyrs wrote:
| I don't know what decade you were born in, but I have
| cousins aged 18 and 20 that have never been vaccinated
| because of their mom's political beliefs.
| landemva wrote:
| For their health when older, I hope they look into
| getting exposed to chicken pox ASAP.
| klyrs wrote:
| Their grandma just died of covid, and while part of me
| would hope that it would be a wakeup call, the kids are
| all home-schooled, so they've probably swallowed the
| narrative that nothing different could have been done; it
| was just her time to meet Jesus.
|
| I hope they don't get chickenpox, personally. I hope they
| get some life experience that opens their eyes to how
| ignorant they are.
| brokensegue wrote:
| just because some people disagree with a policy does make
| it "political". I know someone that opposes seatbelt laws
| but that doesn't make them "political".
|
| That said I don't think it's productive to debate what
| "political" means.
| User23 wrote:
| All policy is political by definition. Also the shared
| etymology is a bit of a hint too. Observe thar policy-
| makers is used as a synonym for politicians.
| brokensegue wrote:
| I don't think that's what people mean when they say an
| issue is political. They generally mean it's contentious
| or split partisanly.
|
| Your definition would suggest public water utilities are
| "political" which sounds silly to me.
|
| Google offers the definition
|
| >relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular
| party or group in politics.
| [deleted]
| pstuart wrote:
| Likely because of a mistaken assumption of fears of
| autism. Politics only entered into this under Trump.
|
| https://slate.com/technology/2021/02/smallpox-vaccine-
| bioatt...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| This isn't a protest over vaccines though.
| 16012022 wrote:
| It's a private company, it absolutely does not need to be
| neutral. They can choose any side they want. If you don't like
| it, don't use their platform. Gosh, when did the notion of
| private firms got so mixed up with so-called political
| neutrality? Are people this naive?
| gruez wrote:
| >It's a private company, it absolutely does not need to be
| neutral
|
| You're talking past each other. OP said _should_ , you're
| talking about "needs".
| 16012022 wrote:
| The point stands. No private company should be neutral.
| krapp wrote:
| The point doesn't stand for much, it's just your personal
| opinion.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > It's a private company, it absolutely does not need to be
| neutral.
|
| Then state that they're not neutral on the TOS and don't
| accept funds.
|
| They accepted funds and then tried to straight up steal them.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Yeah I'm flabbergasted that any company feels so
| comfortable and relaxed with stealing 9 million dollars in
| donations.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| It's because Canadian politicians suggested they
| should... Thankfully there's enough people in the US who
| are rightly disgusted by it and GoFundMe is a US company.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| In a free society, businesses shouldn't be able to suppress
| or punish customers for their political views. We already
| require businesses to not just do whatever they want in many
| ways. That's what anti discrimination laws do, for example.
| We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as
| well.
|
| Apart from that, we also regulate a lot of private companies
| to be neutral. Your power utility may be private but can't
| deplatform you. Telecom carriers are similar. Social media
| companies are just common carriers and public utilities that
| have avoided regulation so far with careful political
| donations. Payment companies (Visa, MasterCard, Stripe,
| PayPal, and yes, GoFundMe) are all just basic payment
| utilities and should also be treated as public utilities in
| many ways even if they remain private otherwise.
| [deleted]
| golemiprague wrote:
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >In a free society, businesses shouldn't be able to
| suppress or punish customers for their political views.
|
| >We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class
| as well.
|
| I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post in
| some time.
|
| GoFundMe is not a grocer, or a transit provider. It isn't a
| power company. It is a luxury service in a free market with
| low capital requirements.
|
| Under no circumstance should arbitrary businesses be
| required to cater to people of all political persuasions.
|
| Protected classes exist based on attributes of ourselves
| which are immutable. You can't change being a woman, being
| old, or being a particular ethnic group. You certainly
| "choose" your political opinions.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Yeah, I despise general deplatforming, but "mandating
| that businesses accept everyone no matter the politics"
| is just as bad. Not everything needs a law.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _> >We just need to make political viewpoint a protected
| class as well.
|
| > I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post
| in some time._
|
| How else can a democratic republic preserve the diversity
| of viewpoints required for such a society to function?
| This really shouldn't be a controversial idea.
|
| Differences of opinion are not only okay, they are
| essential!
|
| Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone
| who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first
| place?
|
| _> Protected classes exist based on attributes of
| ourselves which are immutable. You can 't change being a
| woman,_
|
| I can't phrase this any less provocatively... Are you
| saying that all rights against discrimination end if one
| has a gender transition because it's no longer immutable?
| I really don't think immutability is the right line to
| use to decide who gets rights.
|
| Religious belief is protected, and also mutable. Ask me
| how I know. Political affiliation needs the same
| protection.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone
| who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first
| place?
|
| No, but housing is already protected. How can you
| possibly think GoFundMe and housing/food are the same
| thing?
|
| I simply struggle to understand why a decent person
| should have to serve someone who wants to kill
| minorities, or who wants to end democratic government in
| this country.
|
| Furthermore, you act like if you don't enact this
| protection you're defending, no one will serve people of
| different political opinions. The truth is you're making
| a mountain out of an anthill. Most places serve people of
| differing political views. I go to a bar with a "Fuck
| Greg Abbott" sign at the front of the bar, and they'll
| happily serve a Conservative as long as they aren't being
| hateful. I happen to go to a bar owned by a Trumpian,
| anti-worker, anti-vax conservative (I happen to respect
| some of the bartenders, and the food is good). I am
| allowed to eat there despite the lack of your proposed
| legislation.
|
| P.S.
|
| >How else can a democratic republic preserve the
| diversity of viewpoints required for such a society to
| function?
|
| It's functioned for close to 250 years, and the more I
| read American history, the more I realize that the
| current tumult and animosity is actually the norm, and
| the "peace" of the postwar period was the outlier.
| 8note wrote:
| That's a misunderstanding of what the transition is - the
| transition is on how the gender is presented, not the
| underlying gender.
|
| That's not to say immutability is a great method to
| determine rights. Mind you, I don't think political
| affiliation needs such protections. Freedom of expression
| and association already handle interactions with
| political affiliation. The government guarantees your
| ability to have a political opinion, but not for other
| people respect it or to help you promote it. What people
| do with their business is still part of their view points
| - the real solution is to decentralize power more, so
| that even if you get thrown out for your political
| opinion, you can always work somewhere else that likes
| your politics
| mistercheph wrote:
| >Gosh, when did the notion of private firms got so mixed up
| with so-called political neutrality? Are people this naive?
|
| When all speech, commerce, and art became transmitted by the
| permission of a small number of private firms whose combined
| powers exceed that of any nation-state.
| chr1 wrote:
| When you have several groups of people who distrust and
| dislike each other, and you start using your business as a
| means to support the fight of one group against the other,
| you only increase the enmity between the groups and harm all
| businesses by starting a process that forces everyone to
| choose which group to support.
|
| It does not matter whether the reason for initial distrust is
| religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or political
| beliefs. You should not start such "economic war" unless your
| goal is complete elimination of the other group, which, i
| think, is a rather stupid goal to have.
| 8note wrote:
| This is not to say that businesses should not do this, only
| that they have to position themselves to profit from this
| change in the market.
|
| Selling to both sides can be a profitable venture, which
| encourages neutrality, but so is locking in customers by
| something other than the quality or price of your product
| chr1 wrote:
| I am saying that if we condemn such behavior in all cases
| (even when neutrality is violated in our favour) we'll
| reduce the situations when that second strategy becomes
| profitable, and that will benefit everyone. We don't even
| need a very large percentage of people for this, even a
| relatively small group that always supports neutrality
| will be enough to keep the market neutral.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| You're going to be really upset then to think about the
| business organizations that receive tax breaks in order to
| influence politics. Many non-profits exist only for this
| purpose.
|
| The only reason abortion is a political issue, for example,
| is because of the outsized influence that tax exempt
| organizations have.
| chr1 wrote:
| Are you implying that existence of these tax-exempt
| organizations and politicization of issues is a good
| thing?
|
| I don't see anything positive in tax breaks and tax code
| complexity in general as it is a method to obfuscate
| spendings and evade taxes, which creates all kinds of
| unintended consequences.
| mc32 wrote:
| One can't, for example, solicit donations for cancer research
| and then instead take those donations and fund swimming pools
| for dolphins or whatever... even if you're a private company.
| malermeister wrote:
| This article does not support your claim. It talks about things
| being _liberal_ , which is a _right-wing_ , pro-market ideology
| and fundamentally incompatible with leftism.
| gruez wrote:
| That might be true if you're in a political science course or
| something, but in the US "liberal", "leftism", "left-wing" is
| usually synonymous with each other. Some of the "liberal
| causes" that the article talks about include "women's march,
| BLM, and Occupy Wall Street ".
| krapp wrote:
| malermeister wrote:
| Sounds like American political parlance needs to be
| elevated by people learning the distinction between all of
| those terms. Which is exactly the point of the comment.
| Just because a lot of people misuse terms and conflate
| unrelated concepts, doesn't mean they're right.
| krapp wrote:
| >Just because a lot of people misuse terms and conflate
| unrelated concepts, doesn't mean they're right.
|
| On the one hand, I want to agree with you because every
| time I see someone on here use "woke" without any sense
| of what the word is actually meant to describe (hint -
| Spotify removing Joe Rogan episodes isn't "wokism") it
| puts my teeth on edge.
|
| On the other hand, that's how language works whether one
| likes it or not.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Do you have some kind of source that gave you this
| misinformed idea you keep repeating? Neither Britannica,
| Wikipedia, Dictionary.com or any other obvious source
| remotely supports what you are claiming.
|
| Are you confusing Libertarians with Liberalism?
| temp8964 wrote:
| It's just a far-left claiming everyone else is right-
| wing. It's a common thing in their group.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Literally three comments up is someone claiming
| "Democrat" and "Communist" are synonyms.
| krapp wrote:
| I mean, I've seen Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack
| Obama referred to as Marxists and Communists numerous
| times. "Liberal" has been a pejorative for Democrats and
| progressives for decades. Nuance is not a property that
| American political discourse possesses.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| That supports my point. Claiming that everyone beyond
| some threshold is in the other wing is a bipartisan
| pastime, not a leftist one.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| JFC. Liberalism has both left and right forms since its a
| goddamn political/moral philosophy and not a specific set of
| political views/policy.
|
| i dont understand why there is such little knowledge on the
| history of political theory.
| filed wrote:
| stirfish wrote:
| When you turn 18, you should start your conservative-only
| trucking company that only trucks food between rural areas.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| lefty city here, that is fine.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Then they'll get the food from the conservative areas. Can't
| make a point only partially. Gotta suffer before things change.
| tandymodel100 wrote:
| Since the vast majority of truckers are not part of this far-
| right convoy, this would probably work just fine.
| filed wrote:
| culi wrote:
| The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that most of the
| participants in the protest had no connection to trucking
| tootahe45 wrote:
| I reported a funeral fundraiser for a criminal gang where i live
| a few weeks ago to Gofundme. These funerals involve reckless,
| high speed driving by hundreds of bikies wearing Swastika vests
| who hurl violence/verbal abuse at people if they happen to get in
| the way. I provided all this info and they didn't do anything.
|
| A reasonable person would think a Gofundme for a group who derive
| their income from the methamphetamine trade would be higher risk
| than a bunch of truckies, but then again it didn't raise near
| $10m usd.
|
| This is the kind of thing the gang does during funerals, for
| reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A30VPyeXVv4
| mistercheph wrote:
| Behold, the new "Get off my lawn!"
| fbaKsq wrote:
| If you want to see the spokesman of the freedom convoy directly,
| this is an interview by Dave Rubin:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEXy8yrjYqw
|
| Rubin is Jewish/gay, Dichter is Jewish. But according to Trudeau
| they are homophobes, racists and white supremacists. The
| recording is from shortly before the deplatforming, so it not up
| to date.
| filed wrote:
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| The CEO of every major US company is basically the same person.
| They came from the same background and went to the same
| schools. They have a stranglehold on the working class of
| America. They can deplatform you and de-bank you.
|
| The working class will have a hard time withdrawing from a
| society that is designed to keep them in check. Parallel
| economy likely to pop up.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Conservatives could not deny service for a _personalized_ cake
| to a gay couple without unbelievable fights that they barely
| won at SCOTUS, but left-wing companies can deplatform as much
| as they want from their _generic_ service if they don't like
| your politics.
|
| I don't have to be conservative to say it's extremely
| hypocritical.
| darawk wrote:
| The difference in political significance between a
| broadcasting platform and 10 million dollars vs a cake is a
| little hard to ignore.
| filed wrote:
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| To be honest, if the left treats their wishes with no
| respect and calls them racist and misogynist without any
| foundation, they should be prepared for whatever shit
| comes their way.
| darawk wrote:
| I'm vaccinated and I support everyone getting vaccinated.
| I do not think mandates are appropriate, though. Nor are
| they necessary at this point. The truckers are protesting
| forced vaccinations. I think if someone doesn't want to
| do their job because their job is forcing them to undergo
| a medical procedure that they do not want, that seems
| very legitimate to me.
|
| And it also seems like a basic principle of liberal
| democracies that I thought we had all agreed on quite a
| while ago. Apparently not anymore.
| ratsmack wrote:
| A little overly dramatic there, but if things keep escalating,
| this is what it could come down to.
| filed wrote:
| verve_rat wrote:
| As an outsider this left vs right stuff in the US is really
| fascinating and a little bit scary.
|
| (Most) people won't stop selling sandwiches to each other,
| money is more important. But there is a segment that will.
| I find it really weird the amount of visceral hate that
| seems to come out of the woodwork on HN when topics like
| this come up. Otherwise rational people end up calling for
| starving people that they disagree with.
| saila wrote:
| What you're framing as an extremely un-nuanced left/right
| dichotomy is really a power dichotomy. All the companies
| you're calling "leftist" seem quite conservative to me,
| regardless of their supposedly liberal veneer. They act
| within the existing political/economic system, have every
| incentive to maintain the status quo, and have nothing to
| gain by dismantling "the system (man)." They bow to
| pressures of the market at times, but that is no way a
| leftist stance.
| filed wrote:
| So maybe the problem is gov power and which companies are
| doing their bidding.
| thatnerdyguy wrote:
| Uh, so the solution is to deny food to your fellow human
| beings because you slightly disagree on marginal political
| issues?
| filed wrote:
| [deleted]
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| No it's not and this harmful absolutist rhetoric casting it as
| a tribe vs tribe till extinction matter will only further
| exactrebate the problems we are seeing.
|
| Most people are not angry idealougues hell bent on revolution
| most people are not white supermacists that hate all other
| races as inferior. Most people are decent people trying to make
| their way in the world for themselves and their families, the
| constant bombardment of fear and outrage from every side for
| the past several years is what got us to this place, digging
| further into this tribal hole of left vs right isn't going to
| get us out of it.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I'll be an absolutist against deplatforming and government
| overreach to the death. Wherever that lands me on the
| political spectrum over time, I don't care.
| stirfish wrote:
| filed wrote:
| How about no. Not when we are under attack.
| bavent wrote:
| filed wrote:
| bavent wrote:
| filed wrote:
| I'm so glad you agree with me. So you are okay then with
| truckers refusal to deliver food to lefty run cities.
|
| Awesome we agree!
|
| So just be prepared to be treated how you are treating
| the right. Lefty company bans ppl on the right, then we
| have the moral obligation to ban ppl on the left from our
| businesess.
| bavent wrote:
| Sure thing pal.
| stirfish wrote:
| What does "prepare to reap what you sow" mean? I'm
| baiting you btw.
| dang wrote:
| Please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait
| comments to HN. We ban accounts that do those things.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| filed wrote:
| It means prepare for the right to deny services to the
| left. Right owned companies.
|
| Prepare for power to be used against you when we have it.
| AG, president, senate, regulatory agencies.
| stirfish wrote:
| Which services well be denied to the left? I'm also
| curious about your plans for regulatory agencies.
| filed wrote:
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously
| violating HN's guidelines. Please don't create accounts
| to break HN's rules with.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Are you banning stirfish and bavent as well, who recently
| engaged with this account? It seems to me like most of
| their comments are low quality and trying to pick a fight
| with the person you just banned.
|
| This parent comment (that you just replied to and banned
| the account for) felt somewhat useful. It is drawing a
| parallel to a prior SCOTUS nomination (Kavanaugh) and the
| unproven allegations that came out at a politically
| opportune moment to generate outrage. His point was that
| unethical political warfare invites a tit for tat back
| and forth that spirals into something worse.
| dang wrote:
| That's an extreme spin on "his point". The account
| history is egregiously beyond the pale. If we don't ban
| that sort of account we might as well not ban anybody.
| bavent wrote:
| seanw444 wrote:
| CRT and banning firearms... sounds like a _really_ awful
| attempt at being right-wing.
| dang wrote:
| Please do not take HN threads further into ideological
| flamewar. That's exactly what we don't want here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| bavent wrote:
| Would you mind explaining what CRT is and how it's being
| pushed?
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and
| generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| stirfish wrote:
| bavent wrote:
| Seriously. Some people need to lay off the Fox and the right
| wing talk radio. They act like they're being so oppressed
| because they have opinions people don't agree with and they
| get called out for it. Like, how privileged has one's life
| been and how much of a small bubble do they live in that they
| have never said something stupid and faced consequences for
| it. These are the same people that bitched about
| desegregation.
| tamaharbor wrote:
| How about getting your head out of CNNs ass also?
| bavent wrote:
| I don't watch that trash either. Also please be mindful
| of the rules of HN.
| filed wrote:
| bavent wrote:
| Yes we went over this. I'm so scared. Literally shaking
| and crying right now.
| dang wrote:
| Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here. You
| may not owe media networks better, but you owe this
| community much better if you're participating in it.
|
| If you'd please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
| saila wrote:
| Spotify hosts Joe Rogan, so I'm having a hard time seeing how
| they're leftist. If they were activists, they would have left
| that money on the table and never signed a contract with Rogan
| in the first place. It seems to me that they follow the money
| like most companies.
| filed wrote:
| Dude Joe Rogan voted democrat.
| emkoemko wrote:
| what? why do people keep calling a person who endorsed Bernie
| Sanders right wing? can someone explain this to me?
| Clubber wrote:
| If a trusted source (news) tells you Rogan is right wing
| and you don't hear anything to the contrary, it's easy to
| take that at face value and accept it. In fact based on
| human nature, a brain will actively resist anything to the
| contrary after hearing it enough times.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm completely unsympathetic (or rather hostile) to the protests,
| but I find it shocking that there's any legal framework under
| which Gofundme could shut down the page, seize all of the
| donations, and force people to basically file paperwork to get
| them back. There's something deeply asymmetrical in the way we
| treat white-collar crime as opposed to street crime.
|
| It's bizarre that they even though they could get away with that
| in such a high-profile situation; I suppose they thought that
| they could rely on the hostility of people like me to passively
| take the side of the woke corporation against normal people.
| kube-system wrote:
| Refusing to provide a service and giving people a refund is
| broadly legal in most of the western world for most reasons
| except for isolated cases like protected classes, etc.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| GoFundMe's original plan was to force each donor to file a
| claim for a refund, with the remainder going to unspecified
| charities instead of the original cause. They amended this to
| automatic refunds after a massive backlash.
| culi wrote:
| > I find it shocking that there's any legal framework under
| which Gofundme could shut down the page, seize all of the
| donations, and force people to basically file paperwork to get
| them back. There's something deeply asymmetrical in the way we
| treat white-collar crime as opposed to street crime.
|
| I agree that it's fucked up, but the "legal framework" is just
| the fact that people agreed to the terms and conditions. It's
| not really shocking, though that doesn't make it right
|
| Also, to be clear, the donations that weren't refunded were to
| go to charities of the choosing of the organizers. It's not
| just being pocketed
| filed wrote:
| vmception wrote:
| Most people that use the BLM name and phrase pretty much have
| never heard of the incorporated BLM _organization_ that lives
| rent free in conservative 's minds.
|
| Just something that I've noticed is a bit of a disconnect.
|
| People typically are wanting to bring attention into lack of
| oversight in policing practices, which would benefit all. There
| is an organization of the same name that has some truly strange
| and unrelated desires and governance structure. The latter is
| typically conflated with all the people using the phrase BLM in
| right wing publications and circles.
| emerged wrote:
| I think repeatedly chanting the organizations slogan while
| burning down cities is what established that unfortunate
| association.
| vmception wrote:
| In response to the earlier variant of your comment
|
| > Is there any point at which those people with reasonable
| views who aren't associated with the BLM organization might
| .. not chant their slogan repeatedly to establish and
| reenforce that association?
|
| Doubt it. Onlookers, skeptics, critics and right wing
| publications have the choice of being just as nuanced and
| choose not to, in favor of honing in on the mostly
| ignorable BLM organization. The people with the BLM bumper
| stickers and BLM posters in their windows are ignoring
| followers of right wing publications at this point and also
| aren't paying attention to the BLM organization of the same
| name.
|
| If you want to know whats happening you have to understand
| the different way any of this is perceived at all. Its not
| even opposite, its completely different.
| dang wrote:
| "sides with blacks"? "I wonder who this future black female
| nominee has raped"?
|
| That's beyond the pale, you can't do this here, and if you do
| it again on HN we will ban your main account as well. See also
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30225863
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Apparently Elon Musk also got involved and called GoFundMe
| "professional thieves", because they were going to redirect
| donations intended for Canadian protesters to other (likely left
| leaning) causes: https://nypost.com/2022/02/05/elon-musk-
| gofundme-professiona...
|
| He also called out their double standard for claiming to not
| support protests that aren't peaceful after they funded so many
| violent riots and illegal actions like CHAZ back in 2020.
| jsploit wrote:
| > they were going to redirect donations intended for Canadian
| protesters to other (likely left leaning) causes
|
| Per the article you linked, donors have two weeks to request a
| refund, and any remaining funds will be redirected to causes
| chosen by the Freedom Convoy organizers:
|
| > Donors have until Feb. 19 to ask for a refund, and the rest
| of the money the group raised would be allocated to "credible
| and established charities" chosen by Freedom Convoy organizers,
| the site said.
| Natsu wrote:
| A few things regarding this:
|
| * They already reversed that policy and plan to do direct
| refunds.
|
| * This policy itself was new and a departure from past
| practices, likely due to the legal troubles it would create
| for them.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It's surely only a matter of time before he calls someone a
| "pedo guy".
|
| When he sees something getting attention he can't seem to help
| inserting himself into it.
| culi wrote:
| This narrative is bullshit. GFM was gonna redirect the funds to
| charities chosen by the main organization behind the GFM
|
| This is just a rightwing talking point
| driverdan wrote:
| Why does anyone care what Elon Musk says about this situation?
| It has nothing to do with his businesses.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| I would bet a lot of money that the logistics aspect of it is
| what he's concerned with. Parts from suppliers don't
| magically show up at Tesla assembly lines.
| baud147258 wrote:
| People can have opinions outside of their jobs and donate
| money too.
| emerged wrote:
| It probably has nothing do with you or my businesses, yet
| here we are talking about it.
| tomp wrote:
| Allegedly he donated as well, so it has to do with his money.
| mc32 wrote:
| Go fund me deserves all the flak they receive.
|
| Redirecting donations intended for one cause to causes of their
| choosing is fraudulent.
|
| If they have an issue with a cause, which should be stipulated
| in their ToCs up front and not subject to inflight changes,
| then refund all donors to the best of their ability.
| culi wrote:
| Before GFM decided to directly refund everyone, their plan
| was to redirect any non-refunded funds to charities of the
| choosing of the organizers of the GFM. The only way they
| would go to left-leaning charities would have been if the
| organizers of the GFM were left-leaning and chose that
| 88j88 wrote:
| That is not what is happening though. The article says, all
| the money is refunded to all the donors.
| mc32 wrote:
| Only after they faced a heavy backlash:
|
| "...on Friday, saying it violated its terms of service. At
| the time it said donors would have two weeks to request a
| refund, with any remaining funds distributed to "credible
| and established charities.""
|
| "I'm not shoplifting, I put the things back after you
| caught me."
| FpUser wrote:
| They should be prosecuted for conspiring to steal funds
| and use for non intended purpose. Trying to mascarade it
| fools no one.
| defaultname wrote:
| This sort of discussion never goes well, but using GoFundMe to
| finance occupations, especially _across national borders_ , is an
| incredibly dangerous game.
|
| If a GoFundMe to harrass and harangue Ron DeSantis -- to
| effectively sponsor people to park outside his home and blast
| horns, among other things -- would he be okay with that? How
| about if Canadians paid millions for people to park on US
| interstates? Is that okay?
|
| This is entirely outside of the mission of GoFundMe. And it's
| interesting how exactly the same group of people lamenting the
| paying of bail for BLM protesters are falling in line with rights
| for this trucker group to harass and occupy Canadian cities.
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| It's a protest not an occupation
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You obviously don't live in Ottawa.
| blast wrote:
| It's obviously a peaceful protest*. The word "occupation"
| here is already spin from the side that wants to shut it down
| and is trying to build a case for doing so.
|
| Peaceful protest involves physically assembling and making
| noise. That is no doubt unpleasant both for those who
| disagree with the protestors and those who live in the
| neighborhood, but the right to do this in public is
| fundamental and vital in democratic society. I thought we
| were all raised to understand that? For the life of me I
| can't understand people who are so ready to trash those
| rights just because they don't happen to agree with a cause.
| Either these are democratic rights or they aren't, and if
| they are then they apply to everybody.
|
| * Edit: I shouldn't have said obviously. I should have said:
| from what I've seen. Some people are posting that there have
| been violent things going on, but those claims have come
| without evidence. In the few cases where I have seen
| objective information, such claims have turned out to be
| exaggerated. If I see objective information showing that the
| protestors have turned violent, I will change my mind. (As
| long as it is clear that it really was the protestors and not
| someone trying to make them look bad, since that kind of
| thing also happens at protests.)
| defaultname wrote:
| It is literally, by every definition, an occupation.
|
| People came in and _brought homes with them_ (sleeper cabs,
| RVs, etc). Now they have set up permanent structures such
| as kitchens and other facilities (today they brought in a
| sauna), and have been stating repeatedly that they are in
| for the long haul.
|
| There is a reason that's called an occupation. A protest is
| normally a discomfort for the protester. Enduring the
| elements. Going without. But waving a flag and chanting
| slogans that convey a message. Here we have a bunch of
| people in transport trucks blasting their horn 24/7.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| GoFundMe literally had no problem with CHAZ/CHOP and BLM
| protest funding in the middle of a pandemic.
| defaultname wrote:
| So we agree, GFM should have nothing to do with any
| occupation, right? You agree with this, correct?
|
| You think that I'm some sort of partisan in this --
| perhaps a projection -- and you caught me in hypocrisy.
| But you didn't. Financing protests is an incredibly
| dangerous game.
|
| I was against BLM justified violence and looting, as well
| as the various "free" zones.
|
| I was against the railway blockades in Canada (due to
| complex aboriginal issues)
|
| I am against the trucker occupations and criminal
| harassment of the citizens of Ottawa and other
| jurisdictions (and I think they should be layered with so
| many fines their trucks become the property of the
| state).
|
| I'm remarkably consistent on this. Law and order is
| _good_. Democracy is good.
| jterrys wrote:
| Nobody particularly case about your point of view in
| this.
|
| This is about Go Fund Me and their hypocritical stance.
| dang wrote:
| Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Your
| post would be fine without the first sentence.
| SECProto wrote:
| A friend was shoved into a snowbank by a protester because
| she wore a mask. I was verbally assaulted for the same
| while skating on the canal. They're not peaceful.
| polski-g wrote:
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the real struggle is understanding the degree to
| which they are peaceful or not. Obviously nothing is
| black or white.
|
| As an example, I was once shoved by a person. People are
| not peaceful
| rabuse wrote:
| BLM protestors were going around pouring drinks on
| diner's heads, and eating their food off their plates,
| then assaulting them. GoFundMe had no issues with that.
| [deleted]
| tomohawk wrote:
| I'm glad the governor is looking into this. Undoubtedly there
| are FL residents who contributed to this worthy cause via GFM,
| and then to have GFM suddenly say they're going to redirect the
| funds? Seems like some sort of fraud to offer a service for one
| thing and then change it after money has changed hands. GFM
| obviously realized this was a problem, so changed their minds
| and is providing automatic refunds. But this sort of fraud can
| only have a negative impact on the cause people were wanting to
| fund.
|
| But GFM at the very least comes across as partisan, if not
| hypocritical. If they're going to be a partisan funder, then
| I'm sure there are other laws they need to comply with which
| they currently don't.
| ratsmack wrote:
| I would think that every GFM campaign is approved by default
| once the money starts flowing in. To change it after the fact
| should be seen as a criminal act.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| The plan presented to GFM by the organizers called for excess
| funds to be given to charities. How is it fraud for GFM to
| follow the organizer's plan? The only thing they refused to
| do was fund the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.
| jtbayly wrote:
| To equate giving all of the funds to other charities and
| not allowing any of it to be used for its given purpose
| with giving the rest of the money after its intended
| purpose has been met is... well, not right.
|
| Like, consider a non-profit that you want to support its
| vision. Most of the money goes to its mission, the rest
| pays its execs. They decide to use 100% of it for the
| execs. According to your argument, that's just fine.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You're surprised that GFM won't fund the occupation of
| the nations capitol? Really?
| jtbayly wrote:
| I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying
| the nations capitol" nor am I surprised that GFM won't
| fund it.
|
| Regardless, your response was a non-sequitur. You really
| need to deal with what I actually said.
|
| To help you along, I _also_ wouldn 't be surprised for a
| charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives.
| But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them
| to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was
| for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying
| the nations capito
|
| People who live in Ottawa disagree.
|
| > To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a
| charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives.
| But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them
| to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was
| for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending.
|
| This is a textbook strawman. We're talking about a
| specific situation here, so stop trying to invoke
| entirely different situations to defend it.
|
| The fact is that this has turned into an occupation. It's
| not reasonable to expect GFM to fund that.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Look, I've already explained that I'm not surprised. You
| are claiming I'm lying? Or what? Also my example is not a
| straw man. It's a simple analogy. This will be my last
| comment.
|
| The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's
| just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to
| charities because that's equivalent to what the original
| organizers were going to do anyway. It's not. It's so
| _obviously_ not appropriate that GFM immediately realized
| they could never get away with that and changed their
| minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So
| I don 't know why you're even bothering to defend their
| original plan. You're probably literally the only person
| in the world who thinks it's fine.
|
| edit: removed potentially inflammatory analysis.
| bruceb wrote:
| "This is entirely outside of the mission of GoFundMe."
| https://twitter.com/gofundme/status/1278759152492220416
|
| It is not if they agree with what is happening. They are fine
| with occupying if they back the cause.
| defaultname wrote:
| The GFM you linked was to sponsor urban farms. That the
| organizer tangentially was involved with a protest is
| irrelevant. The GFM for the "trucker" protest was literally
| to pay participants to occupy cities. To effectively have
| professional protesters.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The tweet literally says it is for CHOP.
| s5300 wrote:
| Which was something like the entirety of a half of a city
| block mostly centered around urban farms
| bendbro wrote:
| You are seriously misinformed on CHOP/CHAZ. Likely 1-5%
| of the area was devoted to a garden. The rest was filled
| with protesters waging nightly war on the police and
| surrounding businesses. More than that, CHAZ/CHOP
| protestors were directly responsible for multiple
| killings of black people.
| joemazerino wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN. It's not what this
| site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| indecisive_user wrote:
| Did you watch the linked video? It spends half the time
| talking about the CHOP and how the fundraiser is supporting
| it. The founder says they want to maintain a police free
| location to further the goals of BLM
| causality0 wrote:
| Any and every corporation with more than a hundred employees
| is a money-generating sociopath. GoFundMe doesn't give a damn
| about anything at all, they just recognize it's profitable to
| back some causes and unprofitable to back others.
| scj wrote:
| "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an
| elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the
| beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch
| and grunt." - Pierre Trudeau, 1969
|
| When trying to grasp the Canadian point of view on GoFundMe,
| understanding the primal fear this quote invokes in us is
| vital.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| The thing is BLM protesters broke laws. They started fires,
| destroyed businesses, trapped drivers in tunnels, attacked
| police, set fires in people's homes, and declared an autonomous
| zone that claimed to secede from the country - and this is just
| from my city. GoFundMe happily allowed them to be funded while
| Facebook and Twitter happily allowed them to organize. Driving
| trucks and using the roads as they are meant to be used does
| not seem anywhere nearly as egregious (I know some did more
| than this). It also seems appropriate given that bodily
| autonomy is the most fundamental civil liberty. If you don't
| have control over your body, what do you have in terms of
| liberty and why does rule of law matter?
| PierceJoy wrote:
| The vaccine isn't being forced on anyone. Body autonomy is no
| more being violated here than any other time in history where
| vaccines have been required to do certain things, of which
| there are many examples.
|
| Not to mention, all the things you listed at the start of
| your comment have been done by the Ottawa occupiers. I don't
| like to call them truckers because most are not, and most
| truckers are against this occupation.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Please show us sources of businesses being burned, looted,
| people assaulted and vehicles destroyed by Canadian
| truckers.
| steelstraw wrote:
| Take it or get fired. That is being forced for all intents
| and purposes.
|
| Shaq said it well:
| https://twitter.com/ginacarano/status/1489421001918083073
| PierceJoy wrote:
| That is not being forced. That is called choice. Choices
| have consequences.
|
| Many jobs have had vaccine and testing requirements for
| decades and nobody lost their mind. You are being
| manipulated by right wing politicians.
| aqsalose wrote:
| I must say, that line about "there is no force, only
| consequences", it does sound a bit ludicrous, not matter
| when it used. When other human being A willfully inflict
| a consequence on other person B because of past actions
| of person B, I thought such consequence is commonly
| referred to as a "punishment", especially if A has some
| sort of authority or official capacity.
|
| Like, I live in Finland. Here is an illustrative episode
| from what I remember from school. In Finnish case, the
| first world war manifested as a brutal civil war where
| about 1 % population died. The interwar period was
| characterized by political instability and sectarian
| violence, where it was near always people aligned with
| the "White" anticommunist side (victors of the civil war)
| doing the violence. People who publicly professed
| communist or socialist ideas often got roughhoused and in
| some incidents were killed; many times, their printing
| presses were burned by right-wing activists. The
| government turned a blind eye to these actions, but it
| wasn't something government orchestrated -- the actual
| activities were genuine "grassroots" effort from a part
| of populace that found any idea of communist action as
| totally opposed their mental image of Finnish nation, and
| certain democratic norms were not running very deep.
| (During some specific moments, the politicians were often
| afraid of facing a popular right-wing coup.) And granted,
| some of the communist action during that time was
| supported by the Soviet Russia and was publicly agitating
| for an international revolution.
|
| However, what I am trying to say is this: Sure, a
| galactic alien with all the tact and deep understanding
| of human behavior that Lt. Commander Data possess could
| describe the events as "phenomena where communists faced
| consequences for their freely exercised speech actions
| because they found out their speech was wildly unpopular
| with some other people, without government doing
| censorship", but any sensible human being would recognize
| that there was political violence with express purpose of
| limiting the political speech of the left side. If you
| think these people had right to express their political
| message, it was repressed, with violence.
|
| Now, I write about this episode of Northeast European
| history exactly because it is a distant analogue about
| any current situation anywhere in the world. But one can
| not pretend that if you inflict any kind of cost to other
| people either because they did something or because you
| want to change their behavior, the costs you inflict are
| some impersonal "consequences" which somehow makes it so
| that any other context of situation does not apply -- for
| example, your purpose for inflicting the consequences.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| It is called coercion which is a form of force.
| bendbro wrote:
| > Choices have consequences
|
| Pay me $5k monthly tribute. Agree with me or I will kill
| you.
| dang wrote:
| Please do not post unsubstantive or flamebait comments
| here.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| taking the guidelines more to heart, we'd be grateful.
| Note this one:
|
| " _Please respond to the strongest plausible
| interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one
| that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"
| PierceJoy wrote:
| Are you equating having to find another job with being
| murdered?
| naasking wrote:
| > Many jobs have had vaccine and testing requirements for
| decades and nobody lost their mind
|
| Yes, "many", not "all". Do you think we're still in
| "many" territory or are we trending towards "all"?
|
| The requirements changing for a job they may have had for
| decades is also a legitimate reason to be upset.
|
| Let's not pretend there aren't legitimate concerns here.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| We're not even close to "all" territory.
|
| > The requirements changing for a job they may have had
| for decades is also a legitimate reason to be upset.
|
| People are fired all the time because their job
| requirements changed, or they were made redundant. Where
| have the mass protests been for that?
|
| > Let's not pretend there aren't legitimate concerns
| here.
|
| Some concerns are legitimate, other's are not. But
| occupying the nation's capitol, and assaulting people who
| wear masks are not a legitimate avenue to express those
| concerns.
| _dain_ wrote:
| It is coercion and I don't know how anyone can say
| otherwise. How does that boot taste?
| dang wrote:
| Please keep personal attacks off this site. We ban
| accounts that do it and lord knows we've got enough
| flaming going on here already.
|
| Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| You are manipulating the word "forced" so it doesn't
| sound so bad.
|
| Just because it doesn't use physical force doesn't mean
| it isn't forced.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| It isn't forced.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Cool, imagine if I passed a law saying donate 20% of your
| life savings to Trump or go to jail.
|
| Don't worry, you aren't forced to, by that logic.
|
| Or in a more realistic world from the past, you'd better
| not employ that German Jew or your business will get
| forcibly shut down. Don't worry, you're not forced to not
| hire him.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Cool, imagine if I passed a law saying donate 20% of
| your life savings to Trump or go to jail. Don't worry,
| you aren't forced to, by that logic.
|
| But the threat of jail is actually being forced. No on is
| going to jail for being unvaccinated. Are you equating
| finding another job to being incarcerated?
|
| > Or in a more realistic world from the past, you'd
| better not employ that German Jew or your business will
| get forcibly shut down. Don't worry, you're not forced to
| not hire him.
|
| Race is a protected class. Vaccination status without
| documented medical reason is not. Also, no one is forcing
| these businesses to shut down. They simply can't employ
| unvaccinated people.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I respectfully maintain my disagreement and will not
| discuss it further.
| dang wrote:
| Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar hell.
| A comment like this stands out even in a thread as
| intense as this one.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Edit: I also had to ask you this just recently:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29969188 - and
| before that as well. We ban accounts that don't heed
| these warnings. Please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use
| HN as intended. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30226201 for a gloss
| on what is intended.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I apologize for both incidents and will try to maintain
| respect and provide more thoughtful comments in the
| future.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| It's literally forced. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/u
| s/dictionary/english/force...
| PierceJoy wrote:
| It's literally not forced. There are many jobs available
| that don't require a vaccine.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| It is being forced. If you can experience significant
| losses or risks unless you comply, that's being forced.
| You're being disingenuous. It's easy to see where this
| breaks down - per your logic a mobster running a protection
| racket isn't forcing anyone to pay extortion money either.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| It's not forced. There any many jobs that don't require a
| vaccine. It's a choice.
|
| A protection racket is enforced through the use of
| physical violence. Terrible analogy.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| And this is forced through other means that aren't
| physical - but it is still forced. I am also not sure why
| the choice to get other jobs changes or justifies
| anything here. For example consider this: "There are
| other jobs so quit complaining when we racially
| discriminate against you."
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > And this is forced through other means that aren't
| physical - but it is still forced.
|
| No, it is not forced. It is a choice.
|
| > For example consider this: "There are other jobs so
| quit complaining when we racially discriminate against
| you."
|
| Race is a protected class. Vaccination status is not
| unless you have a document medical reason.
| cfcosta wrote:
| Except it is, check the Nuremberg tribunal case.
| chrismcb wrote:
| By definition, this is forced. Force means to make
| someone do something against their will. In this case the
| choice is be fired or take the vaccine. They obviously
| don't want to be fired, so they are being forced to take
| the vaccine. Yes, it isn't physical force, but it is
| forced none the less.
| dang wrote:
| Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. This
| flamewar is bad enough already.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jtbayly wrote:
| Really? They've attacked police and burned people's homes?
| Seceded? I've not been following the news much, but I
| haven't seen this.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I haven't seen any evidence of the Canadian truckers
| doing anything egregious or blatantly illega.
|
| However here are example sources I just found from a few
| Google searches for what I saw from BLM protests in my
| city (the grandparent comment):
|
| https://clashdaily.com/2020/11/seattle-blm-activist-
| arrested...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Pro
| tes...
|
| https://komonews.com/news/local/police-spokesperson-
| accuses-...
|
| https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2021/06/17/five-
| years-m...
|
| https://www.the-sun.com/news/910187/security-guard-
| seattle-p...
|
| https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/seattle-blm-protesters-
| demand-...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/ix9bwy/black_
| liv...
| jtbayly wrote:
| I know all about that. I was questioning the claim that
| this protest has done all the same things.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| They have attacked police. They have had dance parties on
| war memorials. They threw human shit at a home with a
| pride flag in the window. They assaulted people for
| wearing masks. Healthcare workers are now told to remove
| any indications that they work at a hospital for their
| own safety.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > Healthcare workers are now told to remove any
| indications that they work at a hospital for their own
| safety.
|
| This seems like a really weird narrative. Why would
| people who are protesting vaccine mandates be against
| healthcare workers? They aren't the ones keeping the
| mandate in place. There's a tenuous connection with them
| being the ones to administer a vaccine if someone decides
| to get vaccinated but it's not like attacking a
| healthcare worker is going to accomplish anything. A lot
| of the people engaging in this protest have already been
| vaccinated, what's their beef with healthcare? Honestly,
| this just seems like spin that's aimed at creating two
| opposing groups.
| version_five wrote:
| From what I've seen it's just spin. They (the CBC et al)
| have taken the worst examples, real, imagined, or
| completely out of context, and acted like this is what
| the protest is all about.
|
| The war memorial is a good example. This is something
| that's at the site of the protest because it's in
| downtown ottawa. Pretending it's being "disrespected" is
| some nonsense you could level at any group protesting
| downtown. In this case its particularly silly because the
| demographic that is protesting is overall very supportive
| or Canada's military, and is literally there protesting
| for freedom.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Honestly, this just seems like spin that's aimed at
| creating two opposing groups.
|
| This isn't spin. It's what's happening in Ottawa and
| around the country. If you think it's ridiculous, you
| would be right. These people are being ridiculous.
|
| > Why would people who are protesting vaccine mandates be
| against healthcare workers?
|
| Because in their minds, anyone involved with vaccinations
| is evil. They have literally been protesting outside
| vaccination clinics. In Vancouver they protested outside
| a hospital and blocked the streets so ambulances were
| delayed.
|
| > They aren't the ones keeping the mandate in place.
|
| Try telling them that.
|
| > There's a tenuous connection with them being the ones
| to administer a vaccine if someone decides to get
| vaccinated but it's not like attacking a healthcare
| worker is going to accomplish anything.
|
| Exactly!
| _-david-_ wrote:
| You do realize something like 90% of truckers have been
| vaccinated? It doesn't seem like they think anyone
| involved with the vaccine are evil...
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Do you live in Ottawa? I'm asking because you appear to
| be speaking as though you have some special insight into
| this. If so, perhaps sharing some video of such incidents
| would be helpful.
| jtbayly wrote:
| In other words, it's nothing alike.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You're right. It's worse. BLM was because black people
| were being unjustly murdered. This occupation is because
| grown men are scared of a safe and effective vaccine
| during a worldwide pandemic.
| dang wrote:
| Would you please stop taking the thread further into
| flamewar? I understand that you're justifiably upset
| about it, but you've posted 29 (edit: now 35) comments in
| this thread alone, many of them repetitive, and at this
| point you're falling into swipes. That doesn't help
| persuade anyone and it certainly isn't the curious
| conversation we're hoping for here.
|
| By the time we get to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30226076, followed
| by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30226101,
| followed by
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30226189, the
| intended spirit of this site has been completely lost.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30226201
|
| Edit: Since this request didn't work, I've rate limited
| your account. Lest that seem to be out of bias, I've also
| rate limited the other commenters who have been feeding
| the repetitive flamewar side of this thread. I also
| banned at least one of the worst offenders. If you don't
| want to be rate limited, you're welcome to email
| hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that
| you'll follow the site guidelines in the future.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and
| certainly not flamewar tangents into deeper circles of
| hell.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jtbayly wrote:
| Yeah, that was a dumb comment. Sorry.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Do you have evidence of destruction caused by the
| protesters? I am interested in seeing it. All video I have
| seen is completely peaceful.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| No vaccine = no work = no food = die
|
| I'd call that "force" even if it's 2 degrees removed.
| DrewRWx wrote:
| "no work = no food" sounds like the more productive link
| in the chain to break.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| Good thing work that doesn't require vaccination is
| plentiful. Demand for labour is high everywhere.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You do know that the vast majority of jobs in Canada do
| not require being vaccinated, right?
|
| Did you know that vaccine requirements for certain jobs
| have existed for decades, and no one has lost their minds
| like this?
|
| Do you think it's possible that right wing politicians
| are purposely trying to cause outrage over something that
| has been a normal and accepted practise in order to
| further their political goals?
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| It's called a career because you do it your whole life
| and you keep getting paid more money to do it. What are
| other job options for truckers? Fast food? Warehouse?
| It's not like you can just go get a SWE job.
|
| Yes, but you agree to that mandate _before_ getting the
| job. When you join the Army you know you 're selling your
| body to the state.
|
| Of course politicians are politicizing. But they're just
| riding the wave of something that people are already mad
| about--like higher taxes and abortion. Your comment makes
| it sound like people are mindless automatons whose
| opinions have no substance. They are opinions that differ
| from your own but that's OK. We need both sides of the
| discussion for a healthy democracy.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > It's called a career because you do it your whole life
| and you keep getting paid more money to do it.
|
| People get fired all the time for a multitude of reasons.
| In fact, thanks to at will employment in the US, people
| get fired for no reason at all. I haven't seen mass
| protests about at will employment.
|
| > What are other job options for truckers?
|
| I would assume the same jobs available to anyone when
| they get fired.
|
| > We need both sides of the discussion for a healthy
| democracy.
|
| Agreed, but there is a problem when one side is not
| arguing in good faith. I would call occupying the
| nation's capital and assaulting people wearing masks not
| arguing in good faith.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"You do know that the vast majority of jobs in Canada do
| not require being vaccinated, right?"
|
| Well suddenly vast majority now does require COVID
| vaccination. It is forced even on people that never show
| up in the office. So if I were you I'd come up with some
| better arguments to advance the agenda.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Well suddenly vast majority now does require COVID
| vaccination.
|
| Except that's not true.
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| You're repeating this and providing zero information to
| back it up.
| rabuse wrote:
| When was there a requirement in our history to be
| vaccinated to shop for your groceries?
| PierceJoy wrote:
| There isn't one now.
| pixl97 wrote:
| klyrs wrote:
| A missing piece of this is Canada's Bill C51 [1], which
| characterizes interference with critical infrastructure as
| _terrorism_. A significant difference between CHAZ /CHOP and
| these protests is the legal context. Looters bad, rah rah, but
| GoFundMe doesn't want to touch (legally-defined-as) terrorists
| with a 10 foot pole. But C51 was passed with an eye towards
| stopping anti-pipeline protests, and conservative Canadians
| loved that*. But now, they _want_ the right to interfere with
| critical infrastructure as a legitimate form of protest. Should
| have thought of that in 2015, I guess.
|
| [1]
| https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/Resear...
|
| * though, it's worth pointing out that Trudeau was against it
| until he got elected, and it passed under his reign
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Remember when GoFundMe was actually encouraging people to
| donate on Twitter to CHAZ/CHOP in Seattle? _During a pandemic_
| when most states still had mask mandates?
|
| I do, and GoFundMe is a bunch of partisan hypocrites. Let me
| quote Elon: Professional Thieves.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| [deleted]
| landemva wrote:
| "... exactly the same group of people lamenting the paying of
| bail for BLM protesters are falling in line with rights for
| this trucker group ..."
|
| That seems to be a gross over-generalization.
| pl0x wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please don't add regional flamewar on top of the flamewar
| we've already got here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| vmchale wrote:
| elipsey wrote:
| I must be the only person here who doesn't already know about
| these trucking protests; I'm having trouble establishing the
| basic facts of what is in dispute. Who exactly is required to be
| vaccinated?
|
| It seems like the fraction of truckers who engaged in cross-
| border trucking with the US were subject to a Canadian federal
| vaccination mandate, which applied to some workers in the
| transportation sector as well as many federal workers, but this
| requirement was dropped a couple of weeks ago for cross border
| trucking.[1]
|
| Are the truckers still protesting even though the requirement for
| cross border truckers to be vaccinated was dropped? Do they have
| some further demand?
|
| Is anyone here able to kindly cite a (non-editorial) journalistic
| source which summarizes these events?
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadian-truckers-
| sta...
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Thinking that this is about mandates is like thinking gamergate
| was about "ethics in videogame journalism".
|
| Consider:
|
| * People have been harassed over wearing masks
|
| * HCWs have be asked by police forces not to wear their scrubs
| outside of work lest they be
|
| * Random drivers (truck, bus) have been harassed over not
| honking in support"
|
| * residential streets have been blocked, preventing people from
| getting deliveries, etc
|
| * loud repeated honking in the middle of the night.
|
| * People in Ottawa, Canada with Trump 2024 Flags, American
| Flags, confederate flags, etc.
|
| * The organizers have demanded that the government be disbanded
| by the mechanism (senators and governor general dismissing the
| PM? wtf?) they made up out of nowhere.
|
| * We had an election 5 months ago. Vaccines, mandates and
| passports were a bit part of the debate. Right wing parties
| were defeated handily (3rd time in a row)
|
| This is just pure demented right wing rage. IF that's too
| editorialized for you, then -\\_(tsu)_/-
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The organizers have demanded that the government be
| disbanded by the mechanism (senators and governor general
| dismissing the PM? wtf?) they made up out of nowhere.
|
| In principle, couldn't the Senate force the government into a
| loss of supply situation triggering mandatory relinquishment
| of government or advice to the GG to dissolve Parliament? I
| mean, it wouldn't be immediate, as the timing would be based
| on the budget cycle, but unless I'm missing something it
| seems like it would be possible.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| The requirement was not dropped, I'm surprised Reuters hasn't
| corrected that article.
|
| https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/in-for-a-rough-winter...
|
| https://www.bing.com/search?q=canada+trucker+vaccine+require...
| sreejithr wrote:
| Why exactly should GoFundMe refund the money? How is this
| different from other fundraisers?
|
| I believe in vaccines but I don't understand why GoFundMe can't
| accept trucker donations.
| culi wrote:
| The difference was likely the threat of GFM getting involved in
| expensive legal situations since the protests were growing
| increasingly violent. The Canadian Trucking Alliance itself
| pointed out that most of the protestors had no connection with
| trucking. Other investigations found a lot of the participants
| had ties to white nationalist movements.[0] GFM is in a tricky
| spot. They prolly realized being hated by ant vaxxers was less
| of a headache than being accused of helping white nationalists.
| Their own public announcement simply stated that the cops
| pressured them to take it down due to reports of violence
| (which violates their TOS)
|
| [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/8543281/covid-trucker-convoy-
| orga...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| If protests starting to get more violent is not acceptable
| then why did GFM continue the funding for BLM and Chop/chaz?
|
| Also, this protest is not about being pro or anti vax. It is
| about mandates.
| gumby wrote:
| A different perspective on the source of funds (ignore the
| clickbait at the top of the article and search down for
| "suspect"):
| https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/04/opinion/startlin...
| fuckyou776 wrote:
| coldcode wrote:
| Hacker News used to be about things that mattered to programmers
| and startups, etc. Now we are turning into yet another Reddit
| scream box. This type of article does not belong here. The
| comments keep turning into pointless vitriol.
| coryrc wrote:
| It's always like this on the weekend.
| pl0x wrote:
| HN has become the waste basket for those who's lives and
| companies are going no where.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't sneer, including at the rest of the
| community._" It's reliably a marker of bad comments and
| worse threads.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Edit: you've been posting a ton of unsubstantive and
| flamebait comments lately. Would you please stop that? We
| ban accounts that keep doing it, for what ought to be
| obvious reasons. Not liking HN, if that's how you're
| feeling, is not an ok reason to break the rules here.
| dang wrote:
| That's not accurate. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| While I agree most of the comments are garbage, this is just
| one thread and you can leave with the back button. There are
| hundreds of other non political posts a day
| msbarnett wrote:
| Yeah I'm done with this website. The state of these comments is
| an absolute embarrassment, this is purely just a misinformation
| flamewar
| m_eiman wrote:
| I flagged this, because this is the most toxic "discussion" I've
| ever seen on HN.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Was already flagged and the flags were later cleared.
| dang wrote:
| Hmm. It's certainly bad, but it can and does get so much worse.
| fuckyou776 wrote:
| dangerwill wrote:
| If you send money to fascists be prepared for the money to be
| intercepted. Simple as that
| peteradio wrote:
| Fascist according to what definition? I think you are deeply
| confused.
| dang wrote:
| Please do not take HN threads further into hellish ideological
| flamewar. We want curious conversation here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| You are the part of the reason that modern extremism exists in
| the first place.
| dang wrote:
| Please do not take HN threads further into hellish
| ideological flamewar. We want curious conversation here.
|
| Also, please keep personal attacks off this site. Not ok
| here.
|
| Edit: you've been posting so many personal attacks and
| breaking the site guidelines so repeatedly that I've banned
| the account. That is seriously not cool here.
|
| If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email
| hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll
| follow the rules in the future. They're here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| ameminator wrote:
| As much as you may dislike "fascists", you don't get to tell
| other people who they can or cannot send money to.
| malermeister wrote:
| Other people sent money to GoFundMe. GoFundMe now has it, and
| as you said yourself, you don't get to tell them who they can
| or cannot send it to.
| ameminator wrote:
| If I accept money on behalf of someone else, with the
| expectation that the cash will be given to that person and
| I just use the money as I please, this is called fraud.
|
| If I set up a monetary relationship between 2 entities and
| then I _interfere_ with that relationship, this is called
| tortuous interference with contracts.
| dgabriel wrote:
| GoFundMe tells a lot of people who they can or cannot send
| money to via their platform. First, there are laws around
| sending money to designated terrorist organizations, then
| there are restrictions around violence, pornography and sex
| work, and many more. The giant list can be found here:
| https://www.gofundme.com/c/terms
|
| If you want to mail a check to these truckers, have at it,
| but GoFundMe is not obligated to collect money on their
| behalf. Here's another example, but not one Ron Desantis
| would ever care about -
| https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200131-gofundme-shuts-
| us...
| ameminator wrote:
| They weren't obligated to _continue_ to collect money on
| their behalf, but once they started collecting that money,
| they are obligated to handle it responsibly. They do not
| get to decide to withhold money unilaterally and give it to
| other charities (as GoFundMe has stated they intend to do).
|
| A telephone company can't decide to give me a phone number
| then tell me who I can or cannot call. My ISP cannot tell
| me which websites I can or cannot access (without a court
| order). If GoFundMe allowed the convoy to open a charity
| drive, they cannot unilaterally close it and confiscate the
| money.
| peteradio wrote:
| They can't collect the money under false pretense and
| redistribute as they please. That's clear fraud.
| tandymodel100 wrote:
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The people opposed to government-enforced medical mandates are
| fascists?
|
| The wordhas truly lost all meaning. Though according to Orwell,
| it already had even before the end of WW2
| empty_banana wrote:
| Really, how did the media convinced masses that people fighting
| for all's freedom are fascists?
| 16012022 wrote:
| "All's" -- im sorry but if 50%+1 people will disagree with
| the cause, your so-called freedom fighters are not fighting
| for everyone
| astraloverflow wrote:
| The "all" in the gp refers to the fought for freedom(s)
| applying to everyone, not that it has majority support or
| that is wanted by everyone.
| mercy_dude wrote:
| I spent a decent part of my adult life in Canada and I can't
| believe what in God's name is happening to that place.
|
| Canada is experiencing a severe housing bubble at the backdrop of
| Chinese snow washing, wage stagnation is real and middle class is
| slowly getting wiped out. The only thing keeping the GDP at the
| level it is is high level of immigration which favours the
| wealthy in the name of a "point based immigration system". The
| ruling liberal party is genuinely out of touch and the PM knows
| nothing but virtue signaling. The conservatives are also facing a
| leadership crisis since they lack largely a coordination and
| single thread holding the party. NDP is a joke and virtually does
| nothing and the electoral system is almost broken thanks to this
| three party system (oh and then there is Bloc which I don't even
| want to get started on). Trudeau was elected prime minister with
| less than 33% votes. The whole COVID crisis was used by Trudeau
| to call a snap election and then they don't seem to have a plan
| to embrace the endemic outlook. This whole vax mandates for
| truckers was such a distraction at the backdrop of inflation and
| struggling service sector. I keep thinking what are these people
| thinking? Any decent policy advisors would say now is not the
| time to do things out of spite against the people who are
| critical to supply chain.
| gruez wrote:
| >The only thing keeping the GDP at the level it is is high
| level of immigration which favours the wealthy in the name of a
| "point based immigration system".
|
| Is that supposed to be bad? The main factors that contribute to
| your points are language skills, education, work experience,
| age, and job offer. It's true that those requirements favor the
| wealthy, but would canada be better served by immigrants that
| don't speak english, are inexperienced, old, and don't have a
| job lined up?
| hervature wrote:
| I think what they are trying to say is that a country can
| always increase its GDP by increasing population. Of course,
| if 2x the amount of people that are eating a pie that is 1.1x
| bigger, the quality of life has dramatically decreased. For
| the people immigrating, Canada is obviously appealing just
| simply from a security point of view. All things equal, they
| don't really care if their quality of life is the same as
| long as they won't randomly be killed.
|
| Of course, this all needs to be substantiated with facts to
| actually show the cause of the issue. I honestly don't know
| if Canada's immigration levels are too high and causing
| problems for the middle class or if the OP is just angry that
| an Indian family now operates their local Husky.
| 8note wrote:
| I think it promotes skilled Canadians emigrating, along with
| keeping poor places poor. Instead of having competitive
| compensation, Canadian companies hire cheaper skilled labour
| from abroad.
|
| If we got more cheap unskilled labour, we could expand our
| whole economy to be rich enough to pay for the expensive
| skilled Canadians. Making a ton of poor people richer ads a
| lot more total value than adding a couple of rich people
| DeWilde wrote:
| Canada's birth-rate is bellow what is necessary to sustain or
| grow the population. Without immigration Canada's population
| would be shrinking.
|
| If you think it is bad now, imagine how bad would it be if the
| majority of the population was in retirement. Sustaining a
| pension scheme (or a healthy economy for pension funds) becomes
| very hard, plus all of the services required to keep the
| society running would be greatly reduced.
|
| Canada's immigration system seems one of the better I've looked
| into, skills, language, education and job offer all have to be
| accounted to get in.
| tandymodel100 wrote:
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| As a Canadian, it's been utterly shocking to watch our country
| crumble in the last few years. This summer I'll be moving away
| for good.
|
| In the last decade I've seen most of my family leave for the US
| due to the higher incomes. I always kept hope that maybe Canada
| would get better. It hasn't, it's gotten very bad. The insane
| level of immigration has eroded away any leverage the working
| class has. Now you see all that frustration coming out, on both
| sides of the political spectrum, with each side blaming the
| other.
|
| Housing and necessities are un-affordable for everyone, the
| divisive rhetoric has turned society against each other. Simply
| being in Canada is depressing now. I just got back from 2
| months in Europe, the difference is shocking.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Where are you moving to?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Prague, Czech Republic. SO is Czech so we're moving mainly
| for the lifestyle, culture, plus now with a kid on the way
| we're concerned about access to education, healthcare,
| etc... Where we live in Canada it's literally $1 million to
| purchase any kind of housing whatsoever... We could make it
| work but I have no family here anyway and for the same
| money we can live much better there, plus be close to her
| family...
| DeWilde wrote:
| I've been looking to move to Canada (vs moving to US due to
| more sane social services like healthcare and pension
| system), is what you are describing present all over Canada
| or just in some parts of it?
| 8note wrote:
| Canada on the whole has been poisoned by high property
| values. Instead of investing in making things, everyone is
| all in on housing speculation.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| While I can understand the healthcare part, what about US
| public pensions (Social Security) is not sane? The US
| public pension is quite generous compared to the rest of
| the developed world, including Canada.
|
| The US can be accused of many things, but having a poor
| public pension isn't one of them.
| BeefWellington wrote:
| My experience has been essentially the opposite of the
| person you're replying to.
|
| Health care where I am is great, I can see my primary care
| doctor mostly same day or next day and the odd tests I've
| needed have never been any kind of wait longer than 3 weeks
| (for non-urgent tests). Immediate care for actual
| emergencies, I've been seen right away. It's a triage
| system, so if you go to the emergency department at the
| hospital with the sniffles you could wait a bunch of hours.
|
| Yes, there's a huge housing crisis and yes it's an area of
| concern. There's some issues here in that the real
| difference-makers are controlled by cities. There's a _LOT_
| of NIMBYism.
|
| I haven't really seen evidence of Canada "crumbling"; just
| a lot of people pushing that narrative whenever they're
| despairing over their own fortunes. Could it be better?
| Absolutely.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > Health care where I am is great, I can see my primary
| care doctor mostly same day or next day and the odd tests
| I've needed have never been any kind of wait longer than
| 3 weeks (for non-urgent tests).
|
| Try living outside Canada. I used to think healthcare was
| great as a young male... (men typically don't interact
| with the healthcare system as often as women for
| biological reasons)
|
| My girlfriend is pregnant. She's from the Czech Republic.
| We were just in the Czech Republic for 2 months. 3 weeks
| for non-urgent tests? Try a day. As in phone the clinic,
| get a test for the NEXT day. During the Omicron wave. She
| had bloodwork done, an ultrasound, x-ray for a foot
| injury, treatment for said injury, dental work done,
| etc... No wait times for anything. No wait times at the
| clinic. No need for a primary care doctor (something
| which many Canadians don't have because of a shortage of
| doctors).
|
| Canadians take the sad state of affairs as normal and
| actually believe our government's propaganda that the
| rest of the world works the same way. It doesn't.
|
| > I haven't really seen evidence of Canada "crumbling"
|
| Go to another developed country. Live for awhile. The
| only people who think Canada's doing OK are the ones who
| never left.
|
| And on an individual level; any country is great if you
| have enough money. Doesn't mean society is OK.
| version_five wrote:
| I would answer that it's centered in a few major cities.
| The big problem with Canada is that political power is so
| concentrated in Montreal, Toronto, and to a lesser extent
| Ottawa and Vancouver that the views of the rest of the
| country are ignored, so there is not really an escape. It
| would be like if all US government policy was set by the
| Bay Area and NYC
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Everywhere, albeit to varying levels. Canada's healthcare
| is a joke; it's 'free', but it's a joke. And the highest
| possible pension payout wouldn't pay half my rent today.
|
| If you have the opportunity to move the US and have your
| employer pay for your healthcare, your quality of life and
| income will be much, much higher than you could ever expect
| in Canada. The main thing is that incomes in the US,
| especially for tech, are much, much higher while cost of
| living is lower.
| version_five wrote:
| I agree with everything you're saying. I'm hoping the current
| protests are going to be a catalyst for Canadians who for the
| most part are apathetic and apolitical to wake up and notice
| what has happened to our country and finally push back. We're
| so far gone though I don't know how we can actually
| reestablish ourselves though: in particular, our political
| parties are so hollowed out of anyone remotely competent and
| interested in the future of the country that regardless of
| the will of the people, I don't see how it can be
| represented.
|
| We've also literally created millions of crazy people with
| all the covid fear propaganda, and I don't know how we
| reintegrate them into society.
|
| I could go on, we're in a lot of trouble.
| 88j88 wrote:
| Very interesting that they are completely refunding all of the
| donors automatically.
| beloch wrote:
| One thing most Americans don't understand about Canadian politics
| how much effort is put into limiting the influence of money.
| Corporations cannot make political donations in several
| provinces. Even unions can't contribute in some provinces.
| Individual donations to political parties are capped. On top of
| that, political parties have to adhere to campaign spending
| limits during election periods (although some do circumvent caps
| using third party PAC's).
|
| In Alberta, where the organizer[1] of this GoFundMe is based,
| campaign spending limits for a provincial election are capped at
| $2,121,368 for a political party[2].
|
| This GoFundMe just raised _five times_ what an entire political
| party is allowed to spend during an election in Alberta.
|
| Ostensibly, this cash was to be used to pay for gas and motel
| stays for those involved in the protest, but those truckers were
| never going to see a tenth of what Lich was given. Lich is a
| founding member of several Western separatist parties. Those
| parties, although they do have legitimate grievances that find
| some sympathy with moderates, take an approach that is wildly
| unpopular. Namely, separatism. They don't raise much money as a
| result. It's likely that Lich would have funnelled the remainder
| of this GoFundMe into support for one or more of the political
| parties she's affiliated with.
|
| What could have happened is that, during the next few elections
| in Western provinces, we'd have seen a bevy of implausibly well
| funded PAC's shilling for Wildrose, Maverick, etc.. Their ads
| would have been similar in quality and quantity to those of the
| major parties. That could have significantly shifted the polls.
|
| What about Lich's goals for the protest itself? As someone who
| wants to see Canada break up into several smaller nations, it's
| in her interest to demonstrate how weak and ineffectual the
| federal government is. What better way to do that than by
| blockading the capital and several key trade routes at the U.S.
| border while the federal government dithers and provincial
| governments do nothing?
|
| Keeping money out of politics is a sisyphean task, but it's one
| most Canadians embrace. When GoFundMe's can raise _this_ much
| cash in the blink of an eye, we have to recognize that the game
| has been fundamentally transformed yet again. In this instance,
| all that stopped a politically transformative amount of cash from
| flowing into a fringe party 's hands was the hesitation of a
| foreign corporation. I fully expect regulations for political
| fund-raising through services like GoFundMe are going to be in
| the works shortly.
|
| [1]https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/who-is-tamara-
| lich... [2]https://www.elections.ab.ca/finance/expense-limits/
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Also keep in mind that in the backdrop of all this is the fact
| that our Prime Minister has called the protesters racists and
| misogynists. Probably inspiring someone who ran over some
| protesters in Winnipeg.
|
| Canadian news and politicians are desperately trying to denounce
| the protesters while ignoring the fact that Canada has some of
| the harshest Covid restrictions in the world at the moment, while
| the US has hardly any and European nations are mostly moving to
| remove all restrictions.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Even more stupid: Canadian media and Twitter users saying they
| are "fringe" because by a _poll_ (totally no incentive to lie
| on those), 85% of truckers are vaccinated.
|
| To which I say:
|
| A. I bet more than 15% are unvaccinated because why answer
| honestly with Canada's level of restrictions and penalties?
|
| B. If it is actually 15%, that's not fringe, and also that's
| low enough that dropping the mandate should be reasonable (see
| all the countries who dropped restrictions at 75%-80%
| vaccination).
| peteradio wrote:
| It makes no sense to assume that these guys aren't vaccinated
| anyway. They aren't against the vaccine, they are against the
| mandate!
| gruez wrote:
| > They aren't against the vaccine, they are against the
| mandate!
|
| It makes no sense, but the amount of people who conflate
| the two is shockingly high. I guess strawmans are easier to
| argue against than someone who holds nuanced views.
|
| edit: one such example of someone who conflates the two
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30225017
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| It doesn't help that they intentionally conflate the two
| issues by defining "anti-vaxxer" as anyone who "opposes
| regulations mandating vaccination".
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
| throwawaysea wrote:
| FYI Merriam Webster is among the worst dictionaries. They
| are highly activist and have redefined words repeatedly
| to suit the progressive/far-left political platform.
|
| A couple examples (but there are more):
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/merriam-webster-suddenly-
| alte...
| fourneau wrote:
| Others have already highlighted that you can be vaccinated
| and anti-mandate, which is what many people are focusing on.
|
| From a numbers perspective, 91.54% of Canadians 18+ have
| received at least one dose. 88.91% of 18+ have received two.
|
| It's /possible/ that truckers are widely unvaccinated
| (perhaps they all subscribe to the same train of thought),
| but it's unlikely.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| At this point a majority of Canadas anti-mandate movement,
| which recently became a majority is "vaccinated but anti-
| mandate" just because the numbers literally don't allow for
| any other reality.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| This is an absurd position to have. This is not an anti-
| mandate protest, it's an anti-vaccine protest. They know
| they will achieve nothing if they're honest and people
| debate the merits of being vaccinated or not, of increasing
| virus spread over the border or not. So they claim it's
| about the mandate, so people argue the merits of the
| government requiring vaccination.
|
| I have a hard time believing that anyone who claims to be
| vaccinated see anti-mandate. The only reason to be anti-
| mandate is to be anti-vaccine.
|
| I am vaccinated, and I do not support a right for
| unvaccinated conspiracy theorists to spread deadly viruses
| to the immunocompromised, the elderly, and people with
| underlying conditions.
| dang wrote:
| It looks like your account has been using HN primarily
| for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed
| here, and we rate-limit or ban accounts that do it. We
| have to, because it's not only not what this site is for,
| it destroys what it is for:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| Past explanations on this:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=co
| mme...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| que...
| carlivar wrote:
| I am vaccinated, boosted, and anti mandate.
|
| "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even
| his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he
| establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --
| Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of
| Government (1791)
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| You don't have a right to cross a border and spread a
| deadly disease. As far as I'm aware, these truckers are
| allowed to work unvaccinated within their own country.
| scythe wrote:
| >why answer honestly with Canada's level of restrictions and
| penalties?
|
| Surely you jest. Polls are anonymous. And even if the
| security is bad, nobody is scrutinizing IP logs of poll
| respondents. Maybe in Kazakhstan or something, but freedom in
| the West has not fallen that far.
|
| People _do_ lie on polls, of course, but it 's usually about
| self-expression, not self-protection. I'd imagine that
| vaccinated truckers are more likely to report antagonism to
| vaccine mandates by lying about being unvaccinated vs. the
| reverse.
| [deleted]
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This poll was not conducted online.
| lowlevel wrote:
| And probably had only answers that supported whatever
| hypothesis they were trying to assert.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You also have to consider that unvaccinated answering the
| poll honestly would be admitting to something that puts
| their livelihood on the line. I imagine that a
| disproportionate number would refuse to respond at all.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Imagine if I ran a nationwide poll asking if you'd ever
| had a felony conviction.
|
| I bet the numbers for that poll would be way lower than
| the real statistics.
|
| People don't answer honestly on polls if they feel there
| is any way (even a perception) that this could come back
| and hurt them.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Or if you asked if you got away with a felony crime!
| bigodbiel wrote:
| I can't understand this dichotomy. Just because one is
| vaccinated, does not mean they are pro-mandates.
| iqanq wrote:
| In fact, shouldn't it be the opposite way? Imagine getting
| vaxxed just so you are forced to stay home or wear a mask
| everywhere just like everybody else.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Public health "experts" have done very little to quell
| fearful vaccinated people. In my opinion some of the
| worst anti-vaxx propaganda comes right from these health
| departments.
|
| If you are vaccinated, you are done with the pandemic.
| Morally, ethically, and practically. You should be
| allowed to return to actual, pre-pandemic normal. End of
| story.
| mcphage wrote:
| > If you are vaccinated, you are done with the pandemic.
| Morally, ethically, and practically. You should be
| allowed to return to actual, pre-pandemic normal. End of
| story.
|
| What if you have children who are not yet eligible for
| the vaccine?
| Method-X wrote:
| COVID is at most as dangerous as a normal cold for kids.
| This is a fact. It's not even controversial.
| mcphage wrote:
| Children are good at infecting others, for whom it may
| not be so harmless.
| Method-X wrote:
| If an at-risk adult doesn't want to get vaccinated at
| this point, it's on them. Enough with this lunatic
| safetyism already.
| coryrc wrote:
| Children are not any more at risk from covid than the flu
| (even less, I believe) yet never before did we have these
| restrictions.
| yreg wrote:
| How do you know the long term effects?
| Method-X wrote:
| I'm vaccinated. How do you know the long term effects of
| mRNA vaccines?
| ctoth wrote:
| Then you look at the data and see that:
|
| "Covid-19 has killed 280 children under 18 from January
| through September 2021, the time span in which the alpha
| and delta variants were active. Flu and pneumonia, heart
| disease, drowning, guns, and motor vehicles were all
| deadlier to children during the same time periods
| annually from 2015 to 2019 (the latest years with
| available data)[0]."
|
| [0]: https://www.vox.com/22699019/covid-19-children-kids-
| risk-hos...
| lancesells wrote:
| While I agree that it seems children are very low risk
| you have to remember they are partly lower because of the
| precautions taken(lockdowns, mandates, vaccines, masks,
| fear, etc). We don't know the "normal" death rate for
| Covid just yet.
| mcphage wrote:
| How many people have children infected, though? It
| doesn't get to them and stop. Kids are very good at
| spreading germs.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Even if you are vaccinated you can still get sick. The
| chances are reduced, but you can still end up in
| hospital, you could still die.
|
| If enough people still get sick at once there could still
| be a collapse in a local health system due to
| overloading.
|
| Given the uncertainty with new variations of COVID isn't
| it better to err on the side of caution and try to
| protect both the health systems and as many people at
| once?
| Method-X wrote:
| Everything you said is fantasy speculation. Counties and
| States that have moved on are doing just fine.
| coryrc wrote:
| All of that was true with the flu and vaccinated people
| are not any more at risk from covid than flu. Why the
| permanent change?
| NoPie wrote:
| In fact, the UK health authorities argued that flu
| vaccine mandates make more sense for hospital workers
| than covid vaccine mandates with omicron.
| NoPie wrote:
| It all depends on what are the numbers. In any case
| before deciding on vaccine mandates, certain conditions
| have to be satisfied:
|
| 1. Will the mandate increase vaccine uptake?
|
| 2. Will the mandate prevent overloading hospitals and
| clinics?
|
| 3. Are the health benefits for others proportionate to
| the risks for vaccinated?
|
| 4. Are less restrictive policies available that can
| achieve similar outcomes?
|
| The UK decided to go with without vaccine mandates. They
| even revoked them for healthcare workers because with
| omicron variant they no longer made sense.
|
| I am not saying what Canada should do, but at this moment
| vaccine mandates don't really seem worth to truckers, if
| not for all people.
| carlivar wrote:
| No. The time for an abundance of caution was 2020. You
| can get vaxxed if you want and N95's are effective if you
| want to protect yourself. Society can't keep dragging
| this giant "safety" rock behind it forever.
| behringer wrote:
| I'm pro vaccine but the mandates and access cards and
| testing requirements makes me sick to my stomach
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Same, I'm vaccinated but I recently resigned from my
| company because they had a vaccine mandate (no testing
| option) because they're a federal contractor. Now I'm
| working for a company that has a testing option but I
| choose to upload vaccine card instead. My personal
| choice. The company I resigned from dropped the mandate
| after it was stopped by the courts but the damage had
| already been done.
| lowlevel wrote:
| I had to sign a letter with my employer stating that I
| accepted I could be terminated should I not be fully
| vaccinated by Dec 31, 2021. I feel a line has been
| crossed, and I fully support the idea that the mandate is
| bad. Vaccines are great, I voluntarily got it anyway, but
| I don't feel it's ok to say you deserve to be fired or
| worse (and I've heard much worse) if you decide the
| vaccine is not for you. I support the protest. It is not
| an anti-vax protest. I do not beleive it is about racisim
| or white supremacy despite what our prime minister says
| or thinks.
| tandymodel100 wrote:
| mistrial9 wrote:
| in the USA, a psychiatric patient, even if seriously ill,
| has the right to refuse medication. This non-negotiable
| law is in place exactly because of past generations
| battle over forced medications.
| gruez wrote:
| >in the USA, a psychiatric patient, even if seriously
| ill, has the right to refuse medication
|
| even if involuntarily committed to a mental institution?
| throwawaysea wrote:
| There are definitely constitutional boundaries. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson
|
| Most states define laws of their own around this, and
| usually a longer involuntary stay requires a court
| hearing. But I wouldn't be surprised if even those are
| operating in a legal gray area that would get shot down
| upon a SCOTUS hearing. More realistically, the Supreme
| Court wouldn't hear these cases due to higher priorities,
| but I think the "right to liberty" has only very few
| exceptions.
| throwaway48375 wrote:
| They absolutely do medicate people against their will all
| the time. Google "booty juice".
| giaour wrote:
| I don't think that's comparable at all. If you don't want
| to get vaccinated but your employer has a mandate, you
| can quit.
|
| Similarly, your employer can fire you if there is no
| reasonable accommodation for your medical condition that
| you are willing to accept. If, for example, you have a
| treatable form of schizophrenia but refuse all
| medication, you can get fired if that condition renders
| you unable to perform your job duties.
|
| You can get committed to an institution, or your employer
| can be forced to reinstate you, but absent such an order
| from the legal system, you are free to refuse treatment,
| and your employer is free to let you go.
| [deleted]
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Canadian media and Twitter users saying they are "fringe"
| because by a poll (totally no incentive to lie on those), 85%
| of truckers are vaccinated.
|
| The state sponsored ones?
|
| At this point I don't think it's only about the vaccines.
| rayiner wrote:
| Justin "I can't remember how many times I wore blackface"
| Trudeau calling anyone "racist" is rich:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/19/justin-trudeau...
|
| Also, how does protesting COVID mandates make someone "racist
| and misogynist?" Is he just saying that because they're
| truckers?
| culi wrote:
| > how does protesting COVID mandates
|
| Uhh, I think calling for the overthrowing of the federal
| government[0] is a little more than just protesting a covid
| mandate lol. To be clear, I'm not saying overthrowing the
| federal gov't is racist or misogynist. I'm just saying that
| clearly there is a lot more going on than that
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/canada-
| trucker...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This is one of the most hyperbolic claims.
|
| Overthrow the government in this case means publicly and
| commit to repealing mandates, and set up a citizen group to
| review policy.
|
| Similar requests of governments happen every year in
| western countries. There are citizen oversight groups set
| up for failing school districts, police departments, and
| the environment.
|
| None of these Re overthrowing the government
| tandymodel100 wrote:
| > protesters racists and misogynists
|
| That's probably because of the Nazi and Confederate flags
| people are waving.
|
| In my opinion, they should cry it out or quit given Canada's 1
| dose vaccination rate is in the 80% range.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Last I heard, the convoy organizers put a bounty on the Nazi
| flag guy for any information leading to his identification.
| There is also video of protesters calling out the confederate
| flag guy and telling him to leave. Two assholes showing up to
| a protest don't represent the agenda of the entire group. The
| BLM riots had a much higher asshole ratio last time I
| checked.
| blast wrote:
| The video of the confederate flag guy shows that he was
| shunned by the protestors.
|
| https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1487834109678395392
| bko wrote:
| I'm concerned about 1st amendment and the soft power
| politicians have on freedom of speech (yes I know this is in
| Canada). When the head politician of a country essentially
| calls your group terrorist, wouldn't that put some pressure on
| social media or other organizations to restrict access, money
| or censor speech?
|
| Not all violations of free speech are literally police sending
| someone to jail for saying something. If the politicians
| pressure private organizations to censor speech, resulting in
| the speech being censored, then its absolutely a violation of
| free speech
| philistine wrote:
| Yeah, we do not have what you think of in terms of freedom of
| speech in Canada. A private corporation using their insured
| property to audibly harass a city and blockade streets is not
| considered freedom of speech in Canada.
|
| Take away their toys and let them hold a protest with their
| boots and parkas.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Why does the insurance status of property matter? Why does
| it matter if it belongs to a corporation (also don't many
| truckers have their own trucks)? Do you also think
| megaphones shouldn't be used to protest? What about
| amplifying platforms like Twitter? I feel like the line
| drawn in Canada is unprincipled, if it is as you describe,
| since truckers are using their property and platform of
| choice to enhance their protest, which fundamentally isn't
| very different to me.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| Freedom of expression features prominently in the Canadian
| Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is included in Section
| 2, which details fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of
| expression, freedom of association, and freedom of
| assembly. It strains credulity to argue that this protest
| somehow exceeds protest norms when bullhorns, drums,
| honking, and other noisemaking has been a key part of
| protests for decades.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| Civil disobedience was always a crime. Blocking streets
| without a permit is a crime. Excessive noise making at
| all hours of the day and night is a crime. These actions
| don't become legal if you label them "protest".
| culi wrote:
| Remember when Trump called antifa a terrorist org? I hope
| we've learned by now to stop taking the "terrorist" label
| seriously
| Ekaros wrote:
| Antifa is a terrorist organization. They have political
| goals that is fighting against political stance and they
| are trying to achieve this by violence.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| Just like people have stopped taking the "racist" label
| seriously.
| filed wrote:
| filed wrote:
| wesleywt wrote:
| These people are protesting against vaccines. You are not on
| the right side of this argument.
| Clubber wrote:
| >These people are protesting against vaccines. You are not on
| the right side of this argument.
|
| You aren't even getting the argument right. They are
| protesting mandates. I can be pro-sterilization but anti
| forced-sterilization. There is a _big_ difference. Enough to
| drive a few trucks through.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| No they are protesting vaccine mandates they are two very
| different things.
| sixothree wrote:
| They're protesting public health in general. Not just
| vaccines.
| [deleted]
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| They're protesting against mandates. Which most of the world
| is lifting...
|
| And I'm not on the truckers' side per se... But the response
| from the government has been shocking and I'm sure as hell
| not on the government's side.
|
| For the record, I'm vaccinated. Not an anti-vaxxer. Literally
| just went to Europe and came back. Getting out of and back
| into Canada was the most onerous part of the trip.
| folio8768473 wrote:
| Just to be clear, the government of Canada doesn't mandate
| vaccination of truckers, what it mandates is for non-
| vaccinated individuals (which includes truckers) that are
| entering Canada through the border that they must get
| tested and quarantine on entry.
|
| So if you can't prove vaccination on entry, you need to
| have a proof of negative test and quarantine a few days.
|
| I just want to point that out, because it seems the media
| has taken to make it sound like the Canadian government
| wants to force vaccinations on truckers, it doesn't, but
| it's enforcing safety measures around border entry, and
| depending on your vaccination status, those measures are
| possibly more inconvenient.
|
| The other thing I want to bring up is that in Canada, the
| government, and I'm turn the tax payers, they subsidize and
| pay for medical treatment of people who have COVID and need
| treatment.
|
| So it makes more sense that you'd want to make sure people
| take necessary preventative measures, otherwise you're
| having tax payers pay the bill.
|
| Some people in Canada are even suggesting that instead of
| such preventative measures, if people want to be allowed to
| take their own risk, then the treatment for COVID for
| individuals that didn't take preventative precautions
| shouldn't be offered to them for free and shouldn't be
| prioritized over other medical interventions. But this is
| pretty extreme as well, and while reasonable, Canadians
| don't really want to just let someone in need of medical
| treatment to not be able to get it. So the general
| sentiment is that you'd rather make sure everyone is taking
| necessary precautions and cover people who need treatment
| no matter what. But as people push back on precautions, the
| idea to be stricter on who gets access to subsidized
| treatment will probably become more and more popular,
| especially with regards to vaccination status.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| That requirement is equivalent to barring them from their
| profession. It's also an absurd requirement for someone
| who spends the majority of their working time alone. If
| it's such a sensible requirement then why aren't we
| mandating that all grocery store workers be vaccinated or
| be required to self-isolate for 2 weeks after each shift?
| Why not mandate it for all professions that involve face
| to face contact?
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Are you sure you are on the right side of the argument
| yourself?
|
| Suppose next year, the government mandate that you lose
| weight, or stop smoking or run everyday, all that of course
| for the "greater good". And then the year after that, it
| requires that you give pills to your children because that
| makes them "less indisciplined" and so on and so forth.
|
| Stop being so certain and think a little bit. By accepting
| this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're
| accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will
| come with.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I can't catch fat. Suppose next year, people who are
| asymptomatic typhoid carriers aren't allowed to work in
| food service.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
| stirfish wrote:
| That's a pretty cool slippery slope you just constructed.
| You've almost convinced me, but you forgot to tell me that
| they'll take my guns and make me gay.
| Ekaros wrote:
| stirfish wrote:
| NationalPark wrote:
| This strikes me as a false equivalency made in bad faith.
| infamouscow wrote:
| criley2 wrote:
| This is a classic slippery slope argument. Losing weight is
| not the same thing as a pandemic like this. The two-fold
| reason that these measures are taken is A) over-filling of
| hospitals and shut-down of all non-emergency services and
| B) extremely high death rate. Smoking or whatever scary
| slippery slope you think we're on is not the same thing as
| the ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of
| thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't.
|
| The idea that we should be against common-sense measures to
| promote herd immunity during a very real pandemic because
| "the government will make you stop smoking" is frankly an
| outrageously claim.
|
| It's long been held, since at least America began, that
| herd immunity is vital to the success and security of a
| nation. Our militaries require these vaccinations because a
| fighting force must be healthy. Our schools require these
| vaccines because sick kids and sick cities don't learn.
|
| The idea that a vaccine mandate is anything more than a
| century-old, bog-standard, completely required part of the
| human war against disease is a radical and anti-civilized
| position. Herd immunity is non-negotiable for our level of
| modern society to exist.
|
| I swear, we are killing ourselves. Dense civilization
| requires trade offs, and in the war against pandemic
| disease, that does include vaccination.
| stirfish wrote:
| This thread doesn't deserve your patience, and yet we are
| still blessed by this comment. We could all (myself
| included) try to be more like you.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Ok so what about lockdowns then?
| naasking wrote:
| > ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of
| thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't
|
| This claim is mostly overblown at this point. It was a
| legitimate concern early on, but it hasn't been true for
| some time.
|
| The vaccine claims are also misleading. Herd immunity by
| vaccination is not the only way to protect society, and
| the distinct lack of discussion or recognition of
| immunity from infection is conspicuous. COVID's infection
| fatality rate for certain cohorts is low enough that
| vaccination isn't strictly needed, and arguably taking a
| different tack on this could potentially have saved far
| more lives.
|
| For instance, consider if we had only isolated and
| vaccinated those at greatest risk of death and
| complications from COVID (40 and older,
| immunocompromised, comorbidities), and then _shipped the
| remaining vaccine supply to the third world_ to suppress
| the emergence of variants. We might not have had Delta or
| Omicron at all. It 's not at all clear that this would
| not have saved more people in the long run.
|
| Beating this vaccine mandate drum is blinding people to
| other rational solutions. It's not going to end well.
| This convoy is probably only the beginning.
| seized wrote:
| As someone who works in a healthcare type field and with
| a nurse in the family... No, it's not overblown.
| naasking wrote:
| Availability of ICU beds here in Ontario has basically
| been flat since September, with a slight reduction
| recently due to Omicron:
|
| https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations
|
| Furthermore, unvaccinated people are occupying fewer beds
| than vaccinated people in terms of numbers. Even if they
| all got vaccinated, we'd be basically in exactly the same
| place, so how do you expect vaccine mandates to help
| here?
| tkamat29 wrote:
| The reason Ontario (and Canada in general) is doing well
| is because they have a much higher vaccination rate and a
| healthier population in general. In the US, the high
| numbers of hospitalization and death are overwhelmingly
| unvaccinated and/or extremely unhealthy individuals.
| Also, comparing absolute numbers is disingenuous when the
| vaccination rate is so high.
| criley2 wrote:
| It's not overblown all across America where the omicron
| wave did once again force ICU to capacity and cause the
| cancellation of non-emergency care across the country.
|
| Herd immunity by vaccination is the only way to protect
| society without requiring infection, which fills
| hospitals and leads to deaths. Vaccination means you're
| about 40x less likely to be hospitalized or die, which
| saves our health system. Do you honestly believe there
| should be more discussion of infection immunity as a
| solution, when it results in 40X more hospitalization and
| death? I've seen anti-vaxxers call public health
| officials "genociders" for decisions far less death-
| causing than that.
|
| If you think the vaccine mandate is why this convoy
| happened, instead of conservative fake news creating vast
| conspiracy theories from the "NWO" to "Q-ANON", funded by
| conservatives billionaires and the governments of
| multiple countries, to help destabilize and bring down
| the west, then to each their own. But how many Americans
| are among them? How many fans do they have abroad? It's
| not about Canadian mandates, it's about the global right
| wing conspiracy movement.
|
| But I do not believe that the vaccine anti-mandate stuff
| is anything more than todays convenient whip for the very
| powerful forces of conservative media control to use to
| continue their war after Trump lost. Just another issue
| politicized for convenience, as until conservative media
| flipped the switch, vaccine hesitancy was almost entirely
| left-wing. Even in America anti-vaccination attitudes on
| the right did not start until post-election and post-
| vaccine rollout, and there's a large group of vaccinated
| conservatives who regret it because now it's seen as a
| mistake in that ideology.
| seized wrote:
| No, that's absurd. You need to think a bit first. Those
| things are more easily taxed to "solve". And you being fat
| doesn't impact me in the least, unless I am unfortunately
| stuck next to you on a plane. I can't catch it from you. So
| that isn't comparable to COVID.
|
| Notice how smoking has long been regulated and limited, but
| not banned? That slippery slope argument doesn't work
| either.
|
| And the bit about giving kids pills is paranoid nonsense.
| And ironically, kids have had required vaccines for a very
| long time. With no sliding down any slopes.
| krapp wrote:
| >By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this
| jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the
| government will come with.
|
| No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force
| everyone to automatically accept anything any politician
| claims or does in the future. That's not how _anything_
| works.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| > That's not how anything works.
|
| That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.
| batty wrote:
| That's not even how a precedent works.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Oxford definition: "an earlier event or action that is
| regarded as an example or guide to be considered in
| subsequent similar circumstances."
| giaour wrote:
| The operative word there is "similar."
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Yes, similar as in "if we don't do that,
| insert_whatever_crazy_idea_here, we're gonna overwhelm
| the hospitals!!!"
|
| Because it's been the justification from day 1: "not
| overwhelm hospitals".
| giaour wrote:
| Yeah, that's not how precedent works. Precedent is used
| to justify the means, not to point out that past actions
| had the same or similar ends.
| giaour wrote:
| In this case, the precedent would be *vaccine mandates*,
| not government-mandated kale with every meal.
|
| You're conflating mandates for which there are precedents
| with completely novel and exotic government actions.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Exotic like what, lockdowns for example? How crazy of
| me...
| giaour wrote:
| Quarantines are not a novel or exotic public health
| measure. Try again.
|
| You specifically called out the government making you
| quit smoking or forcing you to eat better in your
| original post.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Lockdown and quarantine are very different.
|
| And it's you who mentionned "completely novel and exotic
| government actions", to which I point out that it's
| already happened with lockdowns.
|
| There's nothing in history that resemble what has
| happened in those last 2 years, whether you agree or not
| won't change that fact.
| giaour wrote:
| My dude, "nothing in history" is a very strong statement.
| You should read up about what state actors did to limit
| the spread of the plague. I'm sure someone could find
| something older, but lockdowns are attested to as a
| public health measure since at least ~500 BCE (whenever
| Leviticus was written).
|
| I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith, so I'm
| going to go ahead and quit responding.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Keep your condescending tone for your friends "my dude".
| RayRayRah wrote:
| 1918 had some cities implement lockdowns as a response to
| the rapidly spreading Spanish Flu. And then there were
| anti-lockdown protests which caused some cities to lift
| their lockdowns early and the virus surged. Business
| owners also railed against the lockdowns, and were
| sometimes successful in getting them lifted.
|
| There was a similar situation with mandatory masks, and
| then loud anti-mask protests which resulted in the
| lifting of some mask mandates.
|
| What happened over the past two years has happened
| before, and will probably happen again. You can find
| examples of lockdowns in other pandemic eras. Venice
| partially locked down in 1575 due to the plague.
|
| You may disagree with lockdowns, but there's plenty of
| precedent. Your "fact" is incorrect.
|
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-
| citie...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/breaking-
| poin...
|
| https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/historical-precedents-
| lock...
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Your last link says it all: "COVID-19 has triggered
| lockdown measures for billions of people around the
| world."
|
| A lockdown at such a scale never happened before covid.
| Your "counter-fact" is incorrect.
| gruez wrote:
| There's literally people in this thread that are
| justifying vaccine mandates because we had them before.
| culi wrote:
| In order to show that literally it turned out fine. It
| didn't turn into us being mandated to lose weight or
| whatever that commentator is scared of happening
|
| It's justification for the sake of allaying that
| commentator's fears. Most people that support the mandate
| support it because it makes sense and they've thought
| about it. In fact, I'd wager that those who are against
| the mandate are more often susceptible to being
| brainwashed than those who are enthusiastically for it
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| Let's see, those for freedom and individual choice would
| be more brainwashed that those against?
|
| Interesting theory.
| [deleted]
| defaultname wrote:
| "Prime Minister has called the protesters racists and
| misogynists."
|
| He didn't. This is absurd.
|
| "Probably inspiring someone who ran over some protesters in
| Winnipeg."
|
| There is absolutely zero indication of this, and this is
| another _absurd_ claim. All indications are that this was
| effective _road rage_ because some guy on a commute suddenly
| found a rowdy crowd blocking his path.
|
| "Canadian news and politicians are desperately trying to
| denounce the protesters"
|
| Most of Canada is over mandates. Omicron transmits even among
| the fully vaccinated. Most of us have had our vaccinations and
| want to move past it. Every poll shows this. Yet this farcical
| "protest" does not _remotely_ represent Canada.
|
| Just to be clear for anyone confused, the protest organizers
| are a _separatist_ (see all those Canadian flags? Pretty ironic
| given the primary organizer wants the West of Canada to join
| the US) and a long-time white supremacist. That is fact. Their
| stated goal is that the government resign en mass and somehow
| decree that _they_ are the new government. If you watched any
| feed of these protesters, or the people who support them, it is
| just the most reprehensible, ignorant pablum imaginable.
|
| I have absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of good people
| involved in these protests. But they have drawn in such a
| cross-section of absolute nuttery that it is impossible to view
| in a good light.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > "Prime Minister has called the protesters racists and
| misogynists."
|
| > He didn't. This is absurd.
|
| https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1488660359422648320.
| ..
|
| He did. Also said it a bunch of times in person.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Notably parliament refused to universally denounce
| blackface as well because the Prime Minister had a bit of a
| scandal.
| multjoy wrote:
| Was he wrong, though?
| defaultname wrote:
| No, he didn't. A _unanimous_ declaration by members of
| parliament (incredibly rare) denounced events happening in
| the shroud of the protests. And they are really happening!
|
| If someone denounces looting at a BLM protest -- also
| something that happened -- does that mean every BLM
| protester is a looter? That is absurd.
| ratsmack wrote:
| Tweeting it out on his personal account condones the
| thought, which is just like saying it himself.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > If someone denounces looting at a BLM protest -- also
| something that happened -- does that mean every BLM
| protester is a looter? That is absurd.
|
| Of course not. Just like the presence of extremists at a
| rally doesn't mean everyone's an extremist. If you've
| followed Trudeau at all through these events, he's
| constantly painted all protesters as extremists...
| defaultname wrote:
| The things the PM says "in person" are widely reported
| on. You alluded to them multiple times in hopes of
| portraying your claim correct, but the single bit of
| proof you've provided shows absolutely _nothing_ of the
| sort.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Why do people have to request refunds? Shouldn't they able to do
| that automatically?
| fourneau wrote:
| My gut feeling is that GFM wanted to keep their tips, and this
| was a "good" way of doing so.
|
| However it's also a little complicated since some of the money
| has been dispersed to the organizers (most of which went to
| Tamara Lich, according to the GFM page.) I guess they'll
| prorate the refunds or absorb the loss?
| lowlevel wrote:
| Yeah, I'm calling visa to try and do a chargeback. I expected
| the money to go to the cause, and not be refunded less a
| 'tip'.
| sixothree wrote:
| A good cause would be a public health initiative.
| filed wrote:
| bink wrote:
| The article says they've changed their stance and that's
| exactly what they're doing.
| NeverFade wrote:
| They "changed their stance" after DeSantis initiated a fraud
| investigation against them for their original "stance".
| culi wrote:
| DeSantis initiated this after they changed their stance.
| This is purely a political move. Just go check out
| patriots.win (the successor to /r/thedonald). They're still
| completely convinced that GFM took all the money and is
| giving it to BLM. I'm not even being hyperbolic, check it
| out
|
| DeSantis probably just picked up on the rightwing twitter
| chatter and is trying to ride the wave
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| The original thedonald.win was shut down by legal
| pressure from the White House. Patriots.win appears to be
| just the extremists from the old platform.
| culi wrote:
| No... I was following along with thedonald.win for a long
| time. They were preparing for a transition to
| patriots.win for months before they ditched the old
| domain. It came from some letter of Trump's who vaguely
| hinted towards starting a new party called the "Patriots
| Party". Obviously that never came to pass, but the name
| stuck
|
| It's literally the exact same platform, style, users,
| posts, etc. Nothing got "shut down"
| throwaway48375 wrote:
| They also received a massive amount of chargebacks
| precipitating this decision.
| 88j88 wrote:
| the article says the opposite, that the investigation
| started after it was announced they would be refunded
| automatically.
| s5300 wrote:
| Is this essentially going to be an investigation in which they
| find that which has made people butthurt is something they signed
| away in the terms & conditions they never read? Seems like it.
| Good on GoFundMe.
| nell wrote:
| Who reads t&c? Gofundme exists because people fund campaigns
| they want to. They can point to their T&C and say hard luck.
| But they won't exist for long with that response. Existence of
| any business is not a law of nature. If they mess with their
| user base, they will cease to exist.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Terms and conditions aren't bulletproof. Contrary to popular
| belief (among socialists in particular for some reason),
| corporations _cannot_ do whatever they want. If something is
| illegal, no amount of fine print can make it not illegal.
| Natsu wrote:
| GoFundMe has already backed away from this new policy and will
| refund directly, so it's honestly probably moot at this point.
|
| But this idea of donating to other charities unless a refund is
| requested appears to be something novel. As far as I can tell,
| it's something they came up with, then backed away from, just
| for this incident specifically.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| If you put in big letters "Contribute to <this>" and then,
| somewhere totally else, in tiny letters amid 15,000 other tiny
| letters, put "but we may take your money and contribute it to
| anything we like"... then you are NOT the good guy. You are
| swindling the user and a lot of people are of the opinion that
| this is exactly the kind of situation the government should
| step in on.
|
| Alternatively, make the 15,000 tiny letters illegal, and
| require products to specify in clear, easily understandable
| language what the user is agreeing to; with the ability to
| return whatever it is if they do not agree with it.
| olliej wrote:
| I hate both the protest group and desantis but honestly he's
| right.
|
| The only reason gofundme (or any org with similar practices) do
| this is because they know that _some_ people will miss the
| deadline, and the it becomes pure profit.
| culi wrote:
| GoFundMe almost immediately changed their policy and instead
| directly refunded everyone
|
| If this was a matter of politics, I think their politics would
| actually push them to make this decision more because the
| alternative was to make the organization that organized it
| choose another charity to give it to. That charity would likely
| be something that does not align with the politics of the
| average GFM employee
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| They changed their policy after it kicked off a massive
| internet shitstorm. It's no excuse for their initial,
| blatantly antipathic announcement.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Hate is a pretty strong word for people resisting government
| overreach.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Clubber wrote:
| culi wrote:
| Clubber wrote:
| 8note wrote:
| It's a reasonable word for people bullying a homeless shelter
| though. There's always some nuance
| cpncrunch wrote:
| Did you not read the article? There is no deadline. All
| donations are going to be automatically refunded.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| After GoFundMe's cut of course.
| culi wrote:
| ...This is just incorrect.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Really? My reading was that the donations will be refunded
| in their entirety.
|
| I will say that I find GoFundMe's tactics around fees to be
| distasteful. It's been a while, but I recall having
| selected a donation amount and then being asked to pay an
| extra fee "so the charity doesn't have to bear this burden"
| or some such thing. Basically they just wanted to increase
| the donation amount (which increases their fee), and they
| were using guilt as a tactic.
| olliej wrote:
| That wasn't the case when I read the article. They changed
| their policy _after_ being threatened with legal action.
| wrycoder wrote:
| That was not their original plan. They saw the pushback
| coming from many fronts.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| Indeed, and the article mentions that too.
| tamaharbor wrote:
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Communist countries famously have private businesses collect
| and distribute money with little state oversight or control by
| the people.
| 16012022 wrote:
| malermeister wrote:
| I'm pretty sure parent was being sarcastic...
| 6510 wrote:
| What is? Using donations for other purposes of your own
| choosing or the government telling you you cant?
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Yeah, before you call on a moratorium on downvoting, at least
| explain your position in a comprehensible way.
| croes wrote:
| There wouldn't be any thing like GoFundme or protesters in a
| communist country, at least not for a long time.
|
| So no, it's not like in communist countries.
| pupdogg wrote:
| Going from a Democracy to a Communist State is not a matter
| off flipping a digital bit from 0 to 1...what you see
| happening is what happens in the transitory stage!
| croes wrote:
| Where? In the US is nothing remotely communist.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| The blatant misinformation is this thread is astounding.
|
| If you think this is "just a protest", you don't live in Ottawa
| and have no clue what's going on
|
| If you think vaccines are being forced on anyone, you have no
| clue what's going on in Canada.
|
| If you think GFM planned to "steal" the money, you clearly have
| no clue that the organizer's plan called for excess funds to be
| given to charities.
|
| The comments in this thread read like a typical unhinged Fox News
| comment section. To see this crap on HN is so disappointing.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Define "forced." Your answer will speak volumes.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| Your comment already spoke volumes. Remember when
| conservatives used to talk about choices having consequences?
| Funny how they they don't seem to like that concept when it's
| inconvenient for them.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Choices do have consequences, but that does not mean those
| consequences are just, or that someone can just say those
| are the consequences take-it-or-suffer.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| Like I said, we've had vaccine and testing requirements
| for many jobs for decades. No one lost their mind. You
| are being manipulated by right wing politicians.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| What we did in the past does not negate the right for
| anyone to be skeptical about future inventions and
| developments.
|
| Also, it is very presumptive of you to believe that I
| must listen to or am swayed by politicians to hold such
| beliefs.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Okay, you've defined forced elsewhere:
|
| "That is not being forced. That is called choice. Choices
| have consequences."
|
| That's literally forced but in an nonviolent matter. Kind of
| like how people can be correctly be called "forced" to file
| tax returns in the US.
|
| They are forced, stop playing word games.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the US tax laws, but in Canada if you
| don't file a tax return and don't owe money, there are no
| consequences. If you owe money, and do not pay, eventually
| you will end up in jail. That's actually being forced, and
| makes this a terrible analogy.
|
| If someone is fired from the military for not getting a
| non-covid vaccine, are they being forced to get the
| vaccine?
|
| They are not being forced. Stop playing word games.
| dang wrote:
| Please omit flamewar swipes from your comments here.
|
| Your comment would be fine without the last sentence.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| In the US, _everyone_ must file a tax return if they have
| anything over $12,000+ in income. If you don't, you could
| get arrested. That is rightfully called forced, because
| the threat is that you will lose your livelihood if you
| don't file. Nobody would call living in jail a real
| choice.
|
| Similarly, if you don't take the vaccine, you are also
| losing your livelihood in the military, possibly having
| no way to provide for your family outside the military,
| and this can be rightfully called forced.
| pixl97 wrote:
| "Libertarians forced to use public highways. Oh the
| humanity"
| [deleted]
| blast wrote:
| As I understand it, the convoy was sparked by a decree that
| truckers crossing the US/Canada border would have to either be
| vaccinated or go into 14 days of quarantine. The latter would
| effectively take away the livelihood of anyone whose job
| involved doing that frequently. I don't think it's very useful
| to argue that taking away someone's livelihood isn't "force",
| or to argue that people are just "choosing" to lose their
| livelihood. Sure it's not physical force but it's a pretty
| extreme level of coercion, and it's perfectly easy to
| understand both why people in that position would turn to their
| democratic right to protest, and also why a whole lot of
| vaccinated and pro-vaccine people would support them.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| Your only taking away someone's livelihood if being an
| unvaccinated trucker is their only option. The vast majority
| of jobs in Canada do not require a vaccine. Choices have
| consequences.
|
| Mandatory school vaccinations, mandatory military
| vaccinations, mandatory drug testing in many jobs, etc. Why
| did no one lose their minds over those things?
| rabuse wrote:
| "Just learn to code bro" energy.
| FpUser wrote:
| Just for your information "bro":
|
| Big Canadian company that does much software development
| has sent mail to their (never mind employees) but
| subcontracting companies - get vaccinated or you are out.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You do know there are many more jobs in Canada than
| coding, right?
| blast wrote:
| I think you've effectively conceded the point here. Losing
| one's job is generally understood to be a catastrophic
| outcome for people in our society, especially when someone
| has been doing that job for a long time (and perhaps also
| doesn't have the educational level to get another job at
| anything close to the same compensation). It follows that
| "do X or you're fired" is a form of force or coercion. In
| fact that's so obvious in general that to narrow the
| definition of "force" to exclude it seems to be a case of
| special pleading. Threatening someone with a severe
| material consequence and then saying "it's not force
| because it's your choice" isn't an argument most people are
| going to accept, and I find it interesting that you're
| resorting to it, because it's surely not the strongest
| argument for your position.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Losing one's job is generally understood to be a
| catastrophic outcome for people in our society,
| especially when someone has been doing that job for a
| long time (and perhaps also doesn't have the educational
| level to get another job at anything close to the same
| compensation)
|
| I haven't seen any mass protests about at-will
| employment. Why not?
|
| > It follows that "do X or you're fired" is a form of
| force or coercion.
|
| But we've had these things around for decades. Vaccines
| have been required in other jobs, tests have been
| required for jobs, and yet no mass protests. Why not?
|
| > Threatening someone with a severe material consequence
| and then saying "it's not force because it's your choice"
| isn't an argument most people are going to accept, and I
| find it interesting that you're resorting to it, because
| it's surely not the strongest argument for your position.
|
| It actually is the strongest argument, because it's true.
| No one is being forced.
| bdowling wrote:
| > I haven't seen any mass protests about at-will
| employment. Why not?
|
| The cases are not comparable because if an at-will
| employee loses a job with one employer, the employee can
| often find a job with another employer.
|
| > Vaccines have been required in other jobs, tests have
| been required for jobs, and yet no mass protests. Why
| not?
|
| The cases are not comparable because, as far as I know,
| there is no testing option in the Canadian regulation.
| Also, as far as I know, there is no exception made to the
| 14-day quarantine period for those who cannot be
| vaccinated because of either a negative reaction to a
| prior vaccine or deeply held religious convictions.
| FpUser wrote:
| It is typical hypocritical government logic. That's what
| they say when fucking up one's life:
|
| Gov: it is not a punishment.
|
| Victim: But, but ...
|
| Gov: Sorry but it is your problem / choice / insert your
| favorite hypocritical BS
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This vaccine uses a different technology than all previous
| vaccines. It bears almost nothing in common technologically
| with previous vaccines.
|
| As such extra skepticism is permissible.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| This is just vaccine misinformation. Anti vaxxers will
| already have some excuse for why "this" vaccine is
| different.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This is scientific fact. mRNA is completely different in
| operation than older degraded-virus vaccines, and to say
| otherwise is misinformation.
|
| The only things they have in common is the name and the
| end goal.
| seized wrote:
| A year or more ago, sure, a bit of skepticism is fine.
|
| At this point it's been well shown that it's safe and
| that being unvaccinated is much more dangerous.
|
| Time to grow up.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It is not scientifically possible to show that any
| substance is completely safe after one year. Anyone who
| says otherwise is selling you something.
|
| There are countless compounds (mercury, lead, smoking
| particles) which take years to show their harm and were
| once considered safe by science.
|
| Do I think the vaccine will join those ranks? No, but I
| don't want to oversell it's safety either.
| rizTay wrote:
| _dain_ wrote:
| >Choices have consequences.
|
| Yes, the powers that be chose to force an unnecessary
| vaccine on working class people, and this is the
| consequence.
|
| Can we quit using this sinister thought-terminating cliche?
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Yes, the powers that be chose to force an unnecessary
| vaccine on working class people
|
| No one was forced to get a vaccine. Period.
| _dain_ wrote:
| "Do X or you're fired" -- this is coercion by any
| reasonable definition. If you think it's easy to just
| "get another job", you are speaking from a position of
| immense economic privilege. It's tantamount to "let them
| eat cake".
|
| Urbanites will regret their fickle treatment of the key
| workers who provide them with food and Amazon deliveries.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > "Do X or you're fired" -- this is coercion by any
| reasonable definition.
|
| Do X or you're fired is literally the basis for all
| employment.
|
| > If you think it's easy to just "get another job", you
| are speaking from a position of immense economic
| privilege. It's tantamount to "let them eat cake".
|
| Demand for labour is immense right now. I'm sure you've
| noticed. People are fired all the time for a number of
| reasons.
|
| > Urbanites will regret their fickle treatment of the key
| workers who provide them with food and Amazon deliveries.
|
| They won't, because the vast majority of truckers are
| vaccinated, working, and against this occupation.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > If you think GFM planned to "steal" the money, you clearly
| have no clue that the organizer's plan called for excess funds
| to be given to charities.
|
| So Gofundme gets to turn all the funds into "excess" funds?
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You're surprised GFM refused to fund an occupation of the
| nation's capitol?
|
| The charities were being selected by the organizers.
| culi wrote:
| Per GFM's standard procedures, which the organizers agreed to
| when setting up the gofundme, when a gfm gets cancelled,
| donators have a certain amount of time to ask for refunds.
| The leftover money that wasn't refunded goes to charities of
| the choosing of the organizers of the gfm
| [deleted]
| FpUser wrote:
| >"If you think vaccines are being forced on anyone, you have no
| clue what's going on in Canada."
|
| Yes vaccines are being forced - how else a threat to loose your
| job can be called. And yes I live in Canada.
|
| >"you don't live in Ottawa and have no clue what's going on"
|
| Do we have a clue about what's really going on in the rest of
| the world? We do not but it never stops people including HN
| crowd from judging. I bet you are guilty of that too.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| > Yes vaccines are being forced - how else a threat to loose
| your job can be called. And yes I live in Canada.
|
| I call that a choice. Parent's have a choice to vaccinate or
| homeschool. Military members have a choice to non-covid
| vaccine or not be a service member. No one was losing their
| minds over that.
|
| There are many jobs available that don't require a vaccine.
|
| > Do we have a clue about what's really going on in the rest
| of the world?
|
| We can just listen to people who live in Ottawa. Among
| others, the mayor has been pretty clear what's going on.
| rizTay wrote:
| diego_moita wrote:
| The irony of it all is that all this noise is just for American
| consumption.
|
| Trudeau and the Liberals are loving the damage "The Honkening"
| causes to the Conservative brand. Erin O'Toole spent the last
| election trying to convince Canadians that the Conservative
| Party of Canada is civilized and not a tribe from Trumpistan.
|
| That has all gone down the drain, the CPC kicked O'Toole out
| and the party is about to swallow the Trump bait, hook and
| line. Even populist conservatives like Doug Ford (Ontario's
| premier) can see this.
|
| Meanwhile, the Liberal Party of Canada is just giggling and
| partying as quietly as they can contain themselves.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-05 23:01 UTC)