6 ms·

You live in Austin and donated to support protests in Canada? I’m curious about that - why are you actively getting involved in another country?

by czzr 5y ago

db1234 5y ago
Why not? Canadian PM expressed support for a protest going on in a foreign country last year which was purely an internal matter of that country.
jjulius 5y ago
Not OP (and this shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views), but it's similar to how someone in Nantucket might've donated to groups protesting police in Minneapolis in summer 2020. It's a cause you believe in and you want those fighting for it to keep going, and you may also want that fight to influence others local to you to get more vocal.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Nantucket and Minneapolis both belong to the same political union. Canada is not yet a constituent member of the United States.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    Absolutely correct, but that doesn't really change the validity of either of the points that I made.
    - fredophile 5y ago
      So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US?
      - xdennis 5y ago
        It's quite amazing to see Americans complain about political interference now. Eastern European right wing politicians have always complied about westerners forming NGOs to promote their ideology like same-sex marriage.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        >So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US? Please don't be so quick to put words into other's mouths and then go after them for something they never said. Someone asked why another user might want to donate to political causes in another country. I responded, clarified I wasn't OP, then - and this is key - further clarified that my post "shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views", and then simply posited why someone might want to. See how I said that you shouldn't see my comment as an endorsement of their donation? Discussing why someone might want to do something is different from arguing whether or not it is right to do so. At no point have I engaged in the latter. They can be lumped into the same conversation, but I haven't done that in this comment chain.
        fredophile 5y ago
        I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. OP is a citizen in one country who donated to a political movement in another country. In discussing the "why" of that, you asked me: >So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? That's exactly what OP did. The manner in which you phrase your question, along with your follow up question that assumed my answer to the former would be, "Yes", strongly implies I have endorsed OP's views. >You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance. One part of the US funding political action in another US state; someone in Brazil funding political action in India; someone on the moon funding political action on Venus. The point is that $PERSON1 from $REGION1 may feel that $POLITICALMOVEMENT in $REGION2 holds a lot of views that $PERSON1 strongly believes in, and as such they want to donate to them. This is backed up by OP's response confirming shared views. That's what was asked - why donate to another country? - and all I did was given a reason why, named locales be damned. Now, I can grant that state-to-state and country-to-country are different things. That said, for the sake of a quick example pulled out of my ass, it worked; you're just unable to see the forest for the trees.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    For matters of state jurisdiction, like police power, it's interstate and extraunion. As opposed to -lets say- issues related to international trade and crossing an international border between two signatories to NAFTA/USMCA.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      A blockade of the border is a matter of international concern, the occupation of Ottawa is not unless the stability of the regime is in question, which would be of interest to the State Department.
abernard1 5y ago
Because I'm sympathetic to their plight. I'm a class traitor frankly. My whole family works in jobs like this that have been impacted. One of my old co-founders was a 24 big-rig truck mechanic and his dad is being put out of business by the California CARB restrictions. But aside from the specifics, I find it odd that people are decrying cross-national donations of money to causes. Were similar complaints made about CA->US donations in 2020? How about national disasters? I don't need a reason to give charitably to causes I care about in the world, and a supposedly cosmopolitan populace wondering about transnational giving seems contradictory to me.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I don't think national disasters are in quite the same category of charitable giving.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  These protests are a disruption specific to the internal affairs of Canada. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the continent. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    >specific to the internal affairs of Canada. It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US. "Specific to internal affairs" is a stretch at best. >Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction. You forgot BLM.
    - 8note 5y ago
      It's a matter of sovereignty who you let in and under what conditions. There are some treaty specifics, but as far as Americans are involved, it's those treaties, and you're free to renegotiate them
foodstances 5y ago
Because they were not one of those inconvenienced by the protests.
brnaftr361 5y ago
This is normal. The Greek and Spanish civil wars received support from other nations and individuals, up to and including volunteers to fight. Orwell, a Brit, fought in the Spanish Civil War. Homage to Catalonia, good book.
tagoregrtst 5y ago
Maybe he’s Canadian?
quetzthecoatl 5y ago
Come on. None other than Justin Trudeau vocally supported the middlemen blocking highways in India against the farming reforms that Indian government passed in parliament. Some self introspection please.

You live in Austin and donated to support protests in Canada? I’m curious about that - why are you actively getting involved in another country?

by czzr 5y ago

You live in Austin and donated to support protests in Canada? I’m curious about that - why are you actively getting involved in another country?

db1234 5y ago

Why not? Canadian PM expressed support for a protest going on in a foreign country last year which was purely an internal matter of that country.

jjulius 5y ago

Not OP (and this shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views), but it's similar to how someone in Nantucket might've donated to groups protesting police in Minneapolis in summer 2020. It's a cause you believe in and you want those fighting for it to keep going, and you may also want that fight to influence others local to you to get more vocal.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Nantucket and Minneapolis both belong to the same political union. Canada is not yet a constituent member of the United States.
- jjulius 5y ago
  Absolutely correct, but that doesn't really change the validity of either of the points that I made.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US?
    - xdennis 5y ago
      It's quite amazing to see Americans complain about political interference now. Eastern European right wing politicians have always complied about westerners forming NGOs to promote their ideology like same-sex marriage.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US? Please don't be so quick to put words into other's mouths and then go after them for something they never said. Someone asked why another user might want to donate to political causes in another country. I responded, clarified I wasn't OP, then - and this is key - further clarified that my post "shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views", and then simply posited why someone might want to. See how I said that you shouldn't see my comment as an endorsement of their donation? Discussing why someone might want to do something is different from arguing whether or not it is right to do so. At no point have I engaged in the latter. They can be lumped into the same conversation, but I haven't done that in this comment chain.
      - fredophile 5y ago
        I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. OP is a citizen in one country who donated to a political movement in another country. In discussing the "why" of that, you asked me: >So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? That's exactly what OP did. The manner in which you phrase your question, along with your follow up question that assumed my answer to the former would be, "Yes", strongly implies I have endorsed OP's views. >You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance. One part of the US funding political action in another US state; someone in Brazil funding political action in India; someone on the moon funding political action on Venus. The point is that $PERSON1 from $REGION1 may feel that $POLITICALMOVEMENT in $REGION2 holds a lot of views that $PERSON1 strongly believes in, and as such they want to donate to them. This is backed up by OP's response confirming shared views. That's what was asked - why donate to another country? - and all I did was given a reason why, named locales be damned. Now, I can grant that state-to-state and country-to-country are different things. That said, for the sake of a quick example pulled out of my ass, it worked; you're just unable to see the forest for the trees.
- beerandt 5y ago
  For matters of state jurisdiction, like police power, it's interstate and extraunion. As opposed to -lets say- issues related to international trade and crossing an international border between two signatories to NAFTA/USMCA.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    A blockade of the border is a matter of international concern, the occupation of Ottawa is not unless the stability of the regime is in question, which would be of interest to the State Department.

abernard1 5y ago

Because I'm sympathetic to their plight. I'm a class traitor frankly. My whole family works in jobs like this that have been impacted. One of my old co-founders was a 24 big-rig truck mechanic and his dad is being put out of business by the California CARB restrictions. But aside from the specifics, I find it odd that people are decrying cross-national donations of money to causes. Were similar complaints made about CA->US donations in 2020? How about national disasters? I don't need a reason to give charitably to causes I care about in the world, and a supposedly cosmopolitan populace wondering about transnational giving seems contradictory to me.

ineedasername 5y ago
I don't think national disasters are in quite the same category of charitable giving.
Apocryphon 5y ago
These protests are a disruption specific to the internal affairs of Canada. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the continent. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >specific to the internal affairs of Canada. It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US. "Specific to internal affairs" is a stretch at best. >Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction. You forgot BLM.
  - 8note 5y ago
    It's a matter of sovereignty who you let in and under what conditions. There are some treaty specifics, but as far as Americans are involved, it's those treaties, and you're free to renegotiate them

foodstances 5y ago

Because they were not one of those inconvenienced by the protests.

brnaftr361 5y ago

This is normal. The Greek and Spanish civil wars received support from other nations and individuals, up to and including volunteers to fight. Orwell, a Brit, fought in the Spanish Civil War. Homage to Catalonia, good book.

tagoregrtst 5y ago

Maybe he’s Canadian?

quetzthecoatl 5y ago

Come on. None other than Justin Trudeau vocally supported the middlemen blocking highways in India against the farming reforms that Indian government passed in parliament. Some self introspection please.