Public neutrality

[Wahoo Redux]

It is kind of bun fighting with you, Marshbunny, because you so often change tack and go off on some new strawman. 

These are the Canadian public holidays found on Canada.ca

New Year - Monday, January 1, 2024
Good Friday - Friday, March 29, 2024
Easter Monday - Monday, April 1, 2024
Victoria Day - Monday, May 20, 2024
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day - Monday, June 24, 2024
Canada Day - Monday, July 1, 2024
Civic Holiday - Monday, August 5, 2024 (excluding Quebec)
Labour Day - Monday, September 2, 2024
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation - Monday, September 30, 2024
Thanksgiving Day - Monday, October 14, 2024
Remembrance Day - Monday, November 11, 2024
Christmas Day - Wednesday, December 25, 2024
Boxing Day - Thursday, December 26, 2024

Some of these are religious and some are commemorative.  Seems pretty standard Western protocols for holidays and nothing too partisan.

I see various Canadian government websites designating the placement and lowering protocols for the Canadian flag and for the positioning of the Canadian flag in regard to provinces and local governments, but nothing about any particularly partisan flags or emblems. 

So, if Canadians wish to pay tribute to some sentiment or ideal, and the majority of Canadians find it worthy, so what?

Specifically, what are you so worried about?

[Hegemony]

This smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.

[Wahoo Redux]

I suspect that the Marshbeast wants "neutrality" as a pretext for banning drag queens from the library.  I suspect that's the backbone of the new law banning the rainbow crosswalk.

If government space is "neutral," and we consider a book reading as "political" in some sense, then we can ban whom we like from upsetting the easily outraged.
 
Actually, this is a good sign.  No longer can the wingnuts simply ban the bad people to the shadows.  Now they must seek out anodyne sounding workarounds.  So too bad for the wingnuts.

And, OMG, I had a great aunt who loved the free floating disapproval...we could go into therapy there...

[marshwiggle]

This smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.

Back in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics". Andy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor". These reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.

Since the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.

My simple question is this: Has all of this excessive publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?

Whether someone "approves" or "disapproves" of someone else's ides or choices depends on knowing what those ideas and choices are. The vast majority of the time there is no implicit need for that to be the case. That's what neutrality reflects.




 

[ciao_yall]

This smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.

Back in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics". Andy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor". These reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.

Since the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.

My simple question is this: Has all of this excessive publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?

Whether someone "approves" or "disapproves" of someone else's ides or choices depends on knowing what those ideas and choices are. The vast majority of the time there is no implicit need for that to be the case. That's what neutrality reflects.

Darn that printing press. Guttenberg should be ashamed of himself for bringing all this division on society.

Back in the days of papyrus, charcoal, clay tablets, pictograms, and even cave paintings, all was peaceful and harmonious.

[dismalist]

This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.

That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.

Away with the propaganda!

[Wahoo Redux]

So we are no longer on flags and crosswalks but publishing stuff.  Okay.

Back in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics".

You had a much, much different '70s and '80s than I did.

Andy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor".

Rooney was an absolute idiot and a terrible journalist.

These reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.

So?  Don't let them get in the way.

Most problems exist because people decide that they are problems.

There is absolutely no problem with a drag-queen reading to children in a public library unless you decide it is a problem.

Since the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.

Again, where the hell were you in the '70s, '80s, and '90s!?

My simple question is this: Has all of this excessive publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?

If by "harmonious" you mean that formally marginalized, menaced, and derided minority groups now have a voice (whether you like it or not), then yes, we are a more harmonious society.

Again, my friend, your problem seems to be that you have a problem and you want all the rest of us to tippytoe around your (and by "your" I mean conservatives) hypersensitivities. 

Not gonna happen.

And sure, "progressives" can be just as bad.

[Wahoo Redux]

This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.

That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.

Away with the propaganda!

A very mature and stable analogy.

Not bigoted at all.

Who wants all this equality, anyway?  Much better in East Berlin. 

[marshwiggle]

This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.

That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.

Away with the propaganda!

I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.

(*Of course, the state will declare all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)

[dismalist]

This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.

That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.

Away with the propaganda!

I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.

(*Of course, the state will declare all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)

One way to keep the state out of our daily lives is to use the US constitution. However, that's never going to happen again. Too many very narrow interest groups get ameliorated by too many governments for that to be given up by political parties.

Years ago, Jay Leno, whose TV program I maybe saw twice, said in connection with the discussion of a constitution for Iraq, extant at the time, we should let Iraq use our constitution, because while it is good, we don't use it anymore! From then on, I knew he was one of the righteous.

Given all this, political competition between sub-national governments is the only possible path to improvement I see.

I read somewhere that the Canadian constitution was not designed with strong Provincial prerogatives, but it has become that way, and that the US constitution was designed that way, but it has become unreal.

Oh, and it's not just you and me that thinks states behave this way. There is a third person, whose name I don't know, but I have his fax number. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.

That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.

Away with the propaganda!

I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.

(*Of course, the state will declare all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)

Exactly!!!

All that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!!  How dare the government take a side!!!

And all those hate laws!!!!  Violent racists and homophobes really hate the hate laws!!!! 

Who wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!

[Stockmann]

The litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.

I don't know if there are any religious symbols on public property there, so it's not clear whether that is relevant. The bylaw would certainly make it easy for people to challenge any religious symbolism in the future, and that would be reasonable in my opinion.  Flags certainly have a history of being used for causes, with governments asked to "declare" National Dog-Walker's Day or whatever. The crosswalk is a recent thing, but there could be all kinds of symbols that governments are asked to display which this bylaw is trying to prevent.

Virtue-signalling by governments is a bad idea because it is not in their mandate, and takes away attention and resources from things that actually are within their mandate,and would make life materially better for their constituents. For instance, if people of some marginalized group are disproportionately homeless, or in need of medical or mental health services, then the government would be doing its job to try and improve those services, which would materially help those people.

Regardless of whether there are any on display already, if it doesn't ban crosses (and other religious symbols) then it's clearly not neutral. Pride crosswalks are pretty much the only non-standard crosswalks so the law's bias is obvious. It's a lot like the French law banning hijabs and skullcaps in schools, but not crosses - it was in the name of defending the secular state, but was an obvious islamophobic and anti-semitic move. Again, in Western countries the obvious litmus test is whether crosses and other Christian symbols are banned or restricted to the same extent. It says it all that this law clearly bans obvious Pride symbols while avoiding restricting any Christian symbols - and I say that as someone somewhat sympathetic to the professed idea of neutrality. But I'm sympathetic to actual neutrality.

Virtue-signalling by

You know, Marshysan, a great many people do actually care about things when they speak up.

"virtue signaling" is politico-jargon by wingnuts in an attempt to invalidate certain ideas.  The term is propaganda.   

You are virtue signaling when you use the term "virtue signaling." 

Virtue-signaling is done by both sides. For example, the "family values" crowd loves clutching their pearls, but mostly they've thrown their weight behind a rapist and philanderer who had young children seized by force from their parents and put in cages, so talk about family values, Christian values is also (empty) virtue-signalling (to their base). I'm very cynical about politicians and activists actually caring about things other than self-interest and political, social and economic power for their in-group.

[Wahoo Redux]

Virtue-signaling is done by both sides.

Granted.  I simply hear the term more frequently on the proverbial lips of conservative commentators.  The term will lose all significance if it hasn't already.

[marshwiggle]

All that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!!  How dare the government take a side!!!

Are you referring to "the government" that originated racial segregation?

Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.

Who wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!

Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are currently in power, i.e. themselves.

You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.

[ciao_yall]

All that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!!  How dare the government take a side!!!

Are you referring to "the government" that originated racial segregation?

Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.

Who wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!

Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are currently in power, i.e. themselves.

You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.

Wouldn't it be crazy if a country had a written document in which it made the point to protect the rights of all people, equally? Has that ever happened?