scottb84

- friends
22,666 link karma
28,604 comment karma
send messageredditor for
what's this?

TROPHY CASE

A girl tries to show off her boyfriend. Fails miserably. by fijianbeastin bestof

[–]scottb84 6 points7 points ago

See also: the lower left corner of the image.

Have a Mont Blanc for $15 by cleggcleggersin LifeProTips

[–]scottb84 1 point2 points ago

Experience a lot of catastrophic pen failures?

Why are people so up in arms that unionized and government workers have defined benefit pensions? by Emperor-Kebabin canada

[–]scottb84 4 points5 points ago

It’s telling that it’s almost always called a ‘labour dispute,’ rarely a ‘labour-management dispute,’ and never just a ‘management dispute.’

TIL in the 9/11 WTC recovery, on-scene rescue dogs occasionally demonstrated symptoms consistent with PTSD. by M3HITRPin todayilearned

[–]scottb84 33 points34 points ago

This argument is getting silly.

“I speculate that dog’s feel X.”

“No, no, you’re wrong because I speculate that dogs feel Y.”

Maclean's mockery and disinformation, or how to add fuel to the fire by Faelenorin canada

[–]scottb84 0 points1 point ago

There’s only one man in Quebec with the power to call an election, and you won’t find him at any of your ever-so-cutely named ‘street parties.’

Maclean's mockery and disinformation, or how to add fuel to the fire by Faelenorin canada

[–]scottb84 -1 points0 points ago

Many of the laws and social programs that make Canada the (relatively) just and equitable place it is today trace their genesis to people banging pots and pans in the street.

‘Time and punishment’ now Canada’s way by rojuin CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 1 point2 points ago

Of course I have an ideology—everyone does, as I’ve quite readily conceded elsewhere. But not all “ideological premises,” to borrow your term, are created equal. I’d argue that the premise we should not kill a person on the basis that it may prevent some ill-defined future harm can be defended in rational, non-emotive terms in a way the premise we should impose hardships on a person even though it will not prevent and indeed may increase the likelihood of some ill-defined future harm cannot.

‘Time and punishment’ now Canada’s way by rojuin CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 1 point2 points ago

That would be the most effective way of reducing the crime rate

No, it wouldn’t. It would be the most effective way of reducing the recidivism rate, which is already very low for most types of offence. Going by US data, the overall effect of the death penalty on crime rates is, at best, mixed.

‘Time and punishment’ now Canada’s way by rojuin CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 5 points6 points ago

Extant laws speak to what is, not what ought to be. That a notion is written in the law books no more makes it a good idea than if it were scratched into a bathroom stall wall.

Frankly, if it was found that the best way to reduce murders was to give all people convicted of murder a new car and a weekly steak dinner, that’s exactly what I’d do. Why have more murderers (and, of course, more murder victims) than is necessary? And anyway, I doubt we’d have to go that far; a beach and a wood shop may well be sufficient.

The impulse to revenge, while natural and in some cases understandable, is base and small-minded. Assuaging these petty little emotions is not, in my view, a laudable policy goal.

‘Time and punishment’ now Canada’s way by rojuin CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 7 points8 points ago

I’m running out of patience for the Conservative approach to criminal justice.

I start from (what I take to be) the common-sensical proposition that less crime is good. So let’s just do whatever results in less crime. Let’s listen to the experts who have studied different approaches, crunched the numbers, and figured out what works.

Why, why, why the emphasis on punishment? What utility is there in making the bad man feel bad about having been bad? It’s small-minded and wasteful.

Union cash flowing into Quebec to fund student protests by Borror0in CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 0 points1 point ago

Not entirely, since the Rand formula is a sort of compromise meant to address precisely the concerns you raise.

I'd encourage you to read Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211., in which the SCC considers precisely these issues.

Union cash flowing into Quebec to fund student protests by Borror0in CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 0 points1 point ago

Membership typically is optional; dues typically are not.

Union cash flowing into Quebec to fund student protests by Borror0in CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 1 point2 points ago

The argument you're advancing doesn't make much sense to me.

Unions are democratic organizations whose members are entitled to decide for themselves what their organization's mandate ought to be. And, given the historically larger role unions have played in Canadian social (my grandmother never set foot on a train but sang in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers' women's auxiliary choir for 20 years) and political life, I'm not at all surprised few are rushing to confine their role to mere bargaining agents.

Also, bear in mind that 'rights' are themselves rooted in liberalism's individualistic social ontology, which is at best only partially compatible with the group-oriented ethos of trade unionism. It is this ethos, captured by the word 'solidarity' and slogans like 'an injury to one is an injury to all,' celebrated in songs passed down from father to son, that compels trade unionists in one part of the country to assist other progressive groups and movements in another.

Union cash flowing into Quebec to fund student protests by Borror0in CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 1 point2 points ago

One thing to bear in mind is that the rights those members enjoy are relatively new and arose out of the formalization/legalization of the labour relations process over the past 5 or 6 decades. For most of our history, the role of unions was much more diffuse and much more political. Labour unions, not political parties, were the foundational institution of progressive politics.

Of course, now we do have parties that identify as ‘left,’ which some take to mean that unions no longer need to be involved in the broader political discourse. I’d argue that there currently is no proper social democratic (small-L) labour party with representation in the Canadian Parliament. That argument aside, however, we shouldn’t forget that the electoral arena is just that: an arena. Politics isn’t only done in one place, and capital has all sorts of well-financed representation in civil society. Unions are one of the only reasonably well-financed voices for working people.

And even if you reject all that, let’s not forget that even the narrow legal rights enjoyed by today’s workers are constantly under threat. Protecting those rights requires a political response.

Union cash flowing into Quebec to fund student protests by Borror0in CanadaPolitics

[–]scottb84 0 points1 point ago

Every time Reddit discusses labour history, labour law, or contemporary labour relations, I die a little inside.

view more: next