4 ms·

> Two-thirds of Canadians support military force to end Ottawa protests: poll https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/12/two-thirds-of-canadians-support-military-f

> Two-thirds of Canadians support military force to end Ottawa protests: poll https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/12/two-thirds-of-canadians-support-military-force-to-end-ottawa-protests-poll/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/02/12/two-thirds-of-canadia... The current approach seems to be a lot more mild than what the public would accept.

spiderice 5y ago
Yeah, we heard you the first time. No need to copy and paste your comment.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
encryptluks2 5y ago
Polls like this are usually wrong, just look at the polls regarding the 2016 US elections.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  1. They weren't wrong nationally. They just didn't get the state by state breakdown correct. You have to remember that polls show a numerical outcome, not necessarily how it will filter through the various rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... 2. Even those that were off were off by just a few percentage points. This is a 2 to 1 ratio.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, using 2016 to argue polls are massively off is basically admitting you don't understand what you're talking about.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    They had the odds of her winning at 99%. It was all they talked about. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      Who is they? Huffington post? 538 had it at 60ish%
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        The article lists other sources and a quick search will get you a lot further than wanting me to be AI to fulfill your every request. Point being they were wrong and surveys are not as reliable as fact and can be manipulated.
        mhh__ 5y ago
        You're talking about completely different things. Odds are an estimate of who will come out over the line quicker, polls are the underlying data used to calibrate that model. The odds set in 2016 by various groups were often wildly bearish on Trump winning, the polls were not so much. Political polls and surveys are usually not off the mark by all that much, especially if you have good demography data. Surveys can be manipulated but they are also much better than flying blind with no data at all.
plzdontcancel 5y ago
- geenew 5y ago
  I can see why you used a throwaway. No need to godwin this up. It’s already clearly been stated the military will not be used. This is about enforcing laws which have been flouted for weeks, to the significant harm of citizens and industry.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  In Canada, when the military is used domestically it falls under civilian jurisdiction, like in the October Crisis. At most it would be extra sets of hands to arrest people and deal with the truck blockades. And there is no plan to use the military.
viro 5y ago
yea.... That's not something to be proud of.
justinzollars 5y ago
And they are wrong to do so. This is the West. Not the East.
partiallypro 5y ago
People support military force until they see the consequences of it, then it turns on its head. If 90% of the truckers are vaccinated, then what is the point of the mandate at this point anyhow? It's a lose/lose for the administration. It's also weird to see how so many people freaked out about Tom Cotton's Op-Ed about getting the military to restore order to cities that were being ransacked every day (to such a degree that the NYT's apologized)...and now suddenly those same people supporting military action to restore order.
rasz 5y ago
"Support for Eugenics in Canada In the early 20th century, eugenic policies were considered progressive among many Canadians, including some socialists, feminists, farmers and psychiatrists. Their assumption was that Canadian society could be improved by encouraging reproduction among certain groups — particularly Anglo-Saxon Protestants — and discouraging or limiting reproduction among other groups, including Eastern European immigrants and, increasingly, Indigenous people. (Similarly, immigration policies like the Chinese head tax were aimed at limiting the population of Asian Canadians.) Many prominent Canadians of that era were advocates of eugenics philosophy and eugenic sterilization, including Dr. E.W. McBride, Professor Carrie Derick and Dr. Helen MacMurchy. Support for eugenic sterilization was also expressed in the 1920s by many prominent Alberta women, including Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung. Maternal feminists like McClung, for example, argued that women were the mothers and guardians of their “race.” They therefore championed legislation, including sterilization, which aimed to curtail prostitution, alcoholism and “mental defectiveness.”" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Ca... Jun 3, 2021 "Indigenous women still forced, coerced into sterilization" https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-steriliz...
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Eugenics was part of a first utopian thought wave for an optimized, managed populace, which fell out of fashion due to the events of WW2. It is being woven back into the political conversation in the name of medical security.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    I got upvoted a couple times, then downvoted a couple times, I guess there's a bit of an even split between smart people on whether or not you should be "punished" for talking about these kinds of realities. I think for the sake of marketing, the powers that be will want a new word, for what we're going to be doing as a society to the human genome. Something that means eugenics, but sounds different, somehow safer, and altogether moral, and encompasses traditional eugenics, but also extends to edits made to already living organisms through tools like CRISPR. How about... Life-Safe Code. DNA is effectively code, code is editable for the betterment of people, riiiight? And it's Life-Safe - like if you wanted to oppose Life-Safe Code you're saying "I want code that isn't safe for life to promulgate", which should help diminish the effectiveness of any rhetoric towards enshrining inherent rights that protect people's read/write/execution permissions over their own genetic code. And if you want Free Lifeware, or whatever, well, do you have problems with seatbelts? Because clearly there is a major inconsistency to your worldview if you accept seatbelts but won't promote the deployment of Life-Safe Code to all humans by any means deemed necessary.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

spiderice 5y ago

Yeah, we heard you the first time. No need to copy and paste your comment.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

encryptluks2 5y ago

Polls like this are usually wrong, just look at the polls regarding the 2016 US elections.

MattGaiser 5y ago
1. They weren't wrong nationally. They just didn't get the state by state breakdown correct. You have to remember that polls show a numerical outcome, not necessarily how it will filter through the various rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... 2. Even those that were off were off by just a few percentage points. This is a 2 to 1 ratio.
mhh__ 5y ago
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, using 2016 to argue polls are massively off is basically admitting you don't understand what you're talking about.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  They had the odds of her winning at 99%. It was all they talked about. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Who is they? Huffington post? 538 had it at 60ish%
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      The article lists other sources and a quick search will get you a lot further than wanting me to be AI to fulfill your every request. Point being they were wrong and surveys are not as reliable as fact and can be manipulated.
      - mhh__ 5y ago
        You're talking about completely different things. Odds are an estimate of who will come out over the line quicker, polls are the underlying data used to calibrate that model. The odds set in 2016 by various groups were often wildly bearish on Trump winning, the polls were not so much. Political polls and surveys are usually not off the mark by all that much, especially if you have good demography data. Surveys can be manipulated but they are also much better than flying blind with no data at all.

plzdontcancel 5y ago

geenew 5y ago
I can see why you used a throwaway. No need to godwin this up. It’s already clearly been stated the military will not be used. This is about enforcing laws which have been flouted for weeks, to the significant harm of citizens and industry.
MattGaiser 5y ago
In Canada, when the military is used domestically it falls under civilian jurisdiction, like in the October Crisis. At most it would be extra sets of hands to arrest people and deal with the truck blockades. And there is no plan to use the military.

viro 5y ago

yea.... That's not something to be proud of.

justinzollars 5y ago

And they are wrong to do so. This is the West. Not the East.

partiallypro 5y ago

People support military force until they see the consequences of it, then it turns on its head. If 90% of the truckers are vaccinated, then what is the point of the mandate at this point anyhow? It's a lose/lose for the administration. It's also weird to see how so many people freaked out about Tom Cotton's Op-Ed about getting the military to restore order to cities that were being ransacked every day (to such a degree that the NYT's apologized)...and now suddenly those same people supporting military action to restore order.

rasz 5y ago

"Support for Eugenics in Canada In the early 20th century, eugenic policies were considered progressive among many Canadians, including some socialists, feminists, farmers and psychiatrists. Their assumption was that Canadian society could be improved by encouraging reproduction among certain groups — particularly Anglo-Saxon Protestants — and discouraging or limiting reproduction among other groups, including Eastern European immigrants and, increasingly, Indigenous people. (Similarly, immigration policies like the Chinese head tax were aimed at limiting the population of Asian Canadians.) Many prominent Canadians of that era were advocates of eugenics philosophy and eugenic sterilization, including Dr. E.W. McBride, Professor Carrie Derick and Dr. Helen MacMurchy. Support for eugenic sterilization was also expressed in the 1920s by many prominent Alberta women, including Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung. Maternal feminists like McClung, for example, argued that women were the mothers and guardians of their “race.” They therefore championed legislation, including sterilization, which aimed to curtail prostitution, alcoholism and “mental defectiveness.”" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Ca... Jun 3, 2021 "Indigenous women still forced, coerced into sterilization" https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-steriliz...

JetAlone 5y ago
Eugenics was part of a first utopian thought wave for an optimized, managed populace, which fell out of fashion due to the events of WW2. It is being woven back into the political conversation in the name of medical security.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  I got upvoted a couple times, then downvoted a couple times, I guess there's a bit of an even split between smart people on whether or not you should be "punished" for talking about these kinds of realities. I think for the sake of marketing, the powers that be will want a new word, for what we're going to be doing as a society to the human genome. Something that means eugenics, but sounds different, somehow safer, and altogether moral, and encompasses traditional eugenics, but also extends to edits made to already living organisms through tools like CRISPR. How about... Life-Safe Code. DNA is effectively code, code is editable for the betterment of people, riiiight? And it's Life-Safe - like if you wanted to oppose Life-Safe Code you're saying "I want code that isn't safe for life to promulgate", which should help diminish the effectiveness of any rhetoric towards enshrining inherent rights that protect people's read/write/execution permissions over their own genetic code. And if you want Free Lifeware, or whatever, well, do you have problems with seatbelts? Because clearly there is a major inconsistency to your worldview if you accept seatbelts but won't promote the deployment of Life-Safe Code to all humans by any means deemed necessary.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]