Northern Light, Listen, we actually generally share a lot of the same interests on this forum and have many mutually beneficial exchanges here.
I agree.
Do I sometimes post judgmental or insensitive comments or chose my words poorly? Sure, I'm not going to deny that;
I agree
However, I find myself wondering why you care so much?
I'm all about challenging assumptions; I like that your view point is to the political right of centre by the standards of this forum; I think its healthy to have a diversity of viewpoints.
When you diminish your ability to get that opinion seriously considered by others by personalizing, by offending, by exaggerating, your taking away from the quality of debate.
You're ensuring fewer people will read your posts, more will dismiss them and your ruining the ability of others to make the same essential arguments, because an otherwise viable argument becomes hopeless entangled
by a strong political bias, a perception of callousness or perhaps bigotry and you ruin it.
I don't know you personally, nor the Admiral, but I've read sufficient posts by you both to believe neither of you to be callous or bigoted. So why allow people to gain that perception?
The contamination of good ideas by adding invective, or hyperbole just troubles me no end. It takes away from intelligent discussion and debate which I enjoy.
Anyone who posts anything outside your own world view gets some kind of dressing down.
What world view? I enjoy many discussions here with right-of-centre posters, and many with those whose opinions are more to the left.
I don't dress down anyone for holding a broad perspective that is more conservative or more reformist/progressive.
I do dress people down for saying things that are rude/offensive; I also dress people down for being disrespectful and for saying things that have no intellectual soundness to them and for which no evidence is presented.
I do that to people of all political persuasions.
I enjoy some of your well researched posts; however, you have very strong and obvious political and ideological bias that your trying to hide behind a veneer of fact impartiality. You don't need to. I don't find your posts impartial at all but it's fine for us to not think exactly the same or have the same experience in all things.
What ideological bias?
I think if you read the full range of my posts here, you'd see I align with my signature very closely.
I'm not partisan.
I'm always open to new ideas and the evidence that under pins them.
I'm fiscally conservative in that I prefer balanced budgets, low levels of debt and efficient, streamlined government.
I'm libertarian inclined, in that I think the government should mind its own business where possible (not dictate personal morality); I also think the power of the criminal law should be used with great restraint.
I'm obviously an environmentalist, I can't fathom anyone being ignorant of the value of breathable air and drinkable water; but I'm also a pragmatist. I drive, I own stock in businesses that pollute, I understand that pollution in some form will always be with us, and its a matter of finding prudent balance.
Finally, I'm a socialist in that I see the value to me in ensuring that the sick get healthcare; that people without a car can get to work, that everyone gets a good education; that employers provide safe workplaces and reasonable pay/hours etc.
Reading the above, I don't think you can pigeon-hole me on the political spectrum. Worth saying I have voted for 4 different parties over the years.
PS, you did it again.............by adding comments about a 'veneer' of impartiality you essentially accused me of lying or faking something in some way.........that's a serious insult; you have exactly zero evidence for it; and there was exactly zero reason for you to include that in your remarks other than to draw my ire. Leave that stuff out.
The homelessness and addiction and mental health crisis is not a local phenomenon it's a global trend so it's good to see outside perspectives such as the video Admiral posted. I find Admiral has perhaps too much of a fixation on the issue but I appreciate that for him, as it is for me, this issue is not a theoretical, it's a daily fixture of the landscapes of our neighbourhoods and places of work. The (over-sensationalized) video is communicating a real disconnect between the general discussion and crisis of homelessness, addiction, and mental health, and the practical realities of people living and working together on the ground.
At no point have I dismissed this; I agree its a compelling issue and one not being properly addressed. I'm also aware that making comments to that effect but lacing them with hyperbole and exaggeration diminishes the recognition of that point.
Being rude to other posters doesn't cause anyone to take this issue or a different perspective on it, any more seriously. It poisons the well of good will that would otherwise be there to hear that view.
I'll give you a personal anecdote: Councilor Layton personally thanked me for the simple gesture of having constructive comments surrounding the opening of a new shelter in the area. Why? Because that was the point of the meeting. A meeting and process totally irrelevantly hijacked by greater issues and fears around funding and opinions for or against shelters. By the way, since then the City has removed public consultation and community consultation during the decision-making for shelter space locations. It's probably better that way, although it's not helping community buy-in on the ground.
That's excellent both on your part, and the Councillor's. That's exactly how thoughtful dialogue should happen. But for one moment, consider whether that would have gone the same way, had you, in the course of your comments slagged all the professional activists in the room. Right, many would have dismissed what you had to say; you would have polarized the room; and the Councillor would have given you a nasty glare, not a handshake.
The way you were at that night is the way you should post. Make your constructive point without needlessly jabbing at others.
Perhaps like Admiral there's an unintended edge to my comments on this issue because I deal directly with the largely nuisance issues and complaints caused by street people, addicts and facilities that open to service them. We don't have to debate about increased crime or upkeep costs in these areas. They increase, I know from 20 years of experience on the ground. There are solutions to work to create better outcomes here but no one here is a saint. Some of those facilities are run by magicians and some are run by really awful people. Some homeless and addicts are tragic cases and pleasant people and some are really awful and dangerous. Some neighbours are selfish and uncompassionate, some are caring and thoughtful and from my experience that distinction has no correlation with political ideology.
I agree with all of that; except..........why is any 'edge' necessary?
Why not simply state what you did above politely then let a constructive discussion ensue?
