The perfect (and perfectly logical) term for the terrible mess that Canadians are surrounded with (mostly, but not exclusively, because of our failure to impose "tough love" on:
* banks that only lend to wealthy older people who then buy up housing so they can charge exorbitant rents to "supplement their incomes".
NB: The second-order consequence here? The housing crisis (AND the homelessness crisis).
* drug addicts and others who are mentally ill and pose clear and present risks to most everyone else around them.
NB: The second-order consequence? Reduced trust in society for strangers and a fear of certain neighbourhoods.
* political parties that stoke division instead of working together to address real issues.
NB: The second-order consequence? Loss-of-confidence in our democracy and the failure to move more quickly to fix problems that need fixing.
Thank you for posting this podcast and in particular the recording of your interview with Tristin Hopper.
I was left wondering exactly what Mitch Case meant when he talked about the deemphasis of reconciliation after the start of COVID. My interpretation was that was a function of society generally passing “Peak Woke” after 2020. Meanwhile, there’s definitely a number of visible manifestations in a revised BC public school curriculum, big changes in resource and land management with delegation of power to BC First Nations, and the very visible renaming of buildings, roads, and towns with aboriginal names in an alphabet that’s unfamiliar to most people. That’s not been uncontroversial.
Great session. Hopefully the book reads as well as the interview. Is Tristin sending you royalties 😉🤣
Added a bit to my understanding of the Métis in Canada but there are many nations, factions and associations, much like First Nations (and Inuit) and trying to figure out who speaks for what group provincially/territorially or at the pan-Canadian level (if anyone) is always difficult to sort.
Possibly a good topic for a series of columns or guest columns?
I've had this feeling that Canadians (especially media) have this belief that if they don't cover something, it doesn't exist. If they cover something (however not a thing it is), it exists. So when they see a problem that doesn't align with their vision of what Canada should be like, they can just not cover it and believe it'll go away or brushed off as one off.
Also government feel that if they declare / announce something, then it comes to be. I remember Matt mentioned that a CPC MP had this belief "but it's announced that we're going to solve it? How come it's still a problem?"
This makes me feel that a lot of people, especially those that live comfortably, is living in a game world (maybe sim City) where if you don't see something, it doesn't exist, and when you say something will be made, it'll be made (you already clicked it in the menu after all!)
And instead of seeing reality where things don't go the way they are, you see things the way they should be.
I think this is why I get my back up with the outcry over “platforming”. The reflexive pushback to oppose providing a “platform” to views that, on the surface appear controversial, causes many to think twice before talking publicly about a supposed controversial issue like bail reform. It also makes the actual extremist view the only game in town. I think Matt’s point about the centrist voices needing to pushback or have these conversations is actually crucial to coming up with constructive solutions and as a counter to the head in the sand phenomenon you described.
"Second-order consequences".
The perfect (and perfectly logical) term for the terrible mess that Canadians are surrounded with (mostly, but not exclusively, because of our failure to impose "tough love" on:
* banks that only lend to wealthy older people who then buy up housing so they can charge exorbitant rents to "supplement their incomes".
NB: The second-order consequence here? The housing crisis (AND the homelessness crisis).
* drug addicts and others who are mentally ill and pose clear and present risks to most everyone else around them.
NB: The second-order consequence? Reduced trust in society for strangers and a fear of certain neighbourhoods.
* political parties that stoke division instead of working together to address real issues.
NB: The second-order consequence? Loss-of-confidence in our democracy and the failure to move more quickly to fix problems that need fixing.
Thank you for posting this podcast and in particular the recording of your interview with Tristin Hopper.
I’m not convinced that the nation as a whole needs more sub “nations” within the whole.
I was left wondering exactly what Mitch Case meant when he talked about the deemphasis of reconciliation after the start of COVID. My interpretation was that was a function of society generally passing “Peak Woke” after 2020. Meanwhile, there’s definitely a number of visible manifestations in a revised BC public school curriculum, big changes in resource and land management with delegation of power to BC First Nations, and the very visible renaming of buildings, roads, and towns with aboriginal names in an alphabet that’s unfamiliar to most people. That’s not been uncontroversial.
Great session. Hopefully the book reads as well as the interview. Is Tristin sending you royalties 😉🤣
Added a bit to my understanding of the Métis in Canada but there are many nations, factions and associations, much like First Nations (and Inuit) and trying to figure out who speaks for what group provincially/territorially or at the pan-Canadian level (if anyone) is always difficult to sort.
Possibly a good topic for a series of columns or guest columns?
Enjoy Europe!
I've had this feeling that Canadians (especially media) have this belief that if they don't cover something, it doesn't exist. If they cover something (however not a thing it is), it exists. So when they see a problem that doesn't align with their vision of what Canada should be like, they can just not cover it and believe it'll go away or brushed off as one off.
Also government feel that if they declare / announce something, then it comes to be. I remember Matt mentioned that a CPC MP had this belief "but it's announced that we're going to solve it? How come it's still a problem?"
This makes me feel that a lot of people, especially those that live comfortably, is living in a game world (maybe sim City) where if you don't see something, it doesn't exist, and when you say something will be made, it'll be made (you already clicked it in the menu after all!)
And instead of seeing reality where things don't go the way they are, you see things the way they should be.
I think this is why I get my back up with the outcry over “platforming”. The reflexive pushback to oppose providing a “platform” to views that, on the surface appear controversial, causes many to think twice before talking publicly about a supposed controversial issue like bail reform. It also makes the actual extremist view the only game in town. I think Matt’s point about the centrist voices needing to pushback or have these conversations is actually crucial to coming up with constructive solutions and as a counter to the head in the sand phenomenon you described.