[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

People like to control others actions. Makes them feel better about themselves. I'm good and moral, you're bad. As you take away what they can use, drugs, sexuality, whatever, they find new things (either brand new, or old things that they can put a new shine on)

That is true but you are dismissing the effect of marketing and capitalist forces on our intellect and behaviour. Especially behaviour at the grocery store.

[HVC]

People like to control others actions. Makes them feel better about themselves. I'm good and moral, you're bad. As you take away what they can use, drugs, sexuality, whatever, they find new things (either brand new, or old things that they can put a new shine on)

That is true but you are dismissing the effect of marketing and capitalist forces on our intellect and behaviour. Especially behaviour at the grocery store.

Marketing drives sales, yes. But if the big concern was health they'd go after booze first. Just as much marketing, if not more, and much greater harm. Educate, label, separate negative marketing campaign if you must. All better means, but doesn't have the same dopamine kick as banning and finger wagging.

[viper37]

I'll shed no tears for the Hells Angels if they get their asses handed to them in a gang war. They're scum.

Of course the other group is likely equally shitty.

In any case, the HA will have to respond if they want to retain their prime position. That's how it works.

That's always the problem with scums: when they are getting replaced, it's usually by worst scums.  The HA are likely worst than the Italian mafia was at the beginning, and then the the new Italian mafia was worst than the old gangs, and then there's these new street gangs that were first employed by the HA to do the dirty business they didn't want to touch.

[viper37]

It's funny that one type of the morally indignant target, drugs, we're moving to the understanding that outlawing or hindering the minor (say pot), we open up the possibility of access to harder drugs.

It's not really happening though.

Legal pot is seen as lame by regular consumers, and well, honestly, I know Canada was always stricter on its alcohol laws than Quebec, but we could get beer at 13-14 over here.  And my parents always had strong liquor lying around, with my dad being away all week long...  It's not like he was marking his bottles or anything...   And then, there was that party, where my friend's house ended up being cleaner when his parents came back then when they left...  That raised a lot of suspicions    I don't know why they decided to check that expensive bottle of strong French alcohol they had forgotten about.    And they say Catholics are the fun ones.


Like I said, legal pot being officially illegal to minors does not prevent its consumption, no more than alcohol did.  Legal or illegal, young people still use it if they want to.  The State just does not participate in it.

[viper37]

People like to control others actions. Makes them feel better about themselves. I'm good and moral, you're bad. As you take away what they can use, drugs, sexuality, whatever, they find new things (either brand new, or old things that they can put a new shine on)

That is true but you are dismissing the effect of marketing and capitalist forces on our intellect and behaviour. Especially behaviour at the grocery store.

Marketing drives sales, yes. But if the big concern was health they'd go after booze first. Just as much marketing, if not more, and much greater harm. Educate, label, separate negative marketing campaign if you must. All better means, but doesn't have the same dopamine kick as banning and finger wagging.

There's not a ton of marketing being made about booze, outside of beer.
I don't see much ads about vodka or gin on social medias, or tv.

There are much, much, much more ads about cars.  If I keep watching Youtube, I think I'll buy myself a Nissan.

[viper37]

Imo, you've put your finger in the proverbial finger in the wound. Parents do not know, or when they know understand, what their children are doing online. Since today's parents are the first children/teens with the internet, they know what we did back then with the internet. It's now an on going concern with their children.

Everything they interact with on the internet is problematic.

Clinton was the first to legislate about the internet and what content minors could see.  It was a big deal back in the day.  Internet Safety Act, I think.  It ended up only with websites prompting users to agreeing they were 18 and porn producers maintaining a register the IDs of their employees/contractants.

It was a huge panic on the internet back in the day.  Everyone thought you could just access kiddie porn by "accident".  Sure.   17 000 pictures of naked children ended up on your computer by "accident".

[viper37]

At the same time a Conservative government (a Conservative government!) is planning to ban smoking (basically the age you can by cigarettes will increase a year every year until no-one can smoke).

Not a bad thing, imho.

I'd ban pot and hash too.  Legalize coke, heroine and fentanyl, but provide no support in case of overdose.  People can subscribe to private insurance if they want to, or call 9-1-1 and wait for an ambulance while they submit the credit card number to pay for the ride.  

When I had my car accident, I was billed for the ambulance ride.  It should be no different for someone who is revived for an overdose.

[Josephus]

In theory I'm not against some sort of proof of age of majority to view Internet porn. I mean, in my day, I had to be 18 just to buy Playboy, and the stuff online, I hear, is quite nasty. It's less the "moral" aspect of it, more the health and safety. Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

[viper37]

Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

Is it safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to listen to Donald Trump?  Andrew Tate?

Is everything on Tik Tok safe?

As I said, there are simple and effective ways to block adult content at user level.  I could even block Facebook from my office computer if I wanted to.

That kind of porn content doesn't pop up by accident.  Google search (and Bing) are censored by default.

[Jacob]

In theory I'm not against some sort of proof of age of majority to view Internet porn. I mean, in my day, I had to be 18 just to buy Playboy, and the stuff online, I hear, is quite nasty. It's less the "moral" aspect of it, more the health and safety. Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

No I don't think it's healthy for a 13-year old to watch. Probably not for an 18-year old either. Potentially not for a 50-year-old either, though by then it's probably too late

But how much will digital ID verification stop kids from accessing? I suppose I could be persuaded on the effectiveness, but I'm not sure.

[HVC]

In theory I'm not against some sort of proof of age of majority to view Internet porn. I mean, in my day, I had to be 18 just to buy Playboy, and the stuff online, I hear, is quite nasty. It's less the "moral" aspect of it, more the health and safety. Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

No I don't think it's healthy for a 13-year old to watch. Probably not for an 18-year old either. Potentially not for a 50-year-old either, though by then it's probably too late

But how much will digital ID verification stop kids from accessing? I suppose I could be persuaded on the effectiveness, but I'm not sure.

as effective as stopping underage drinking and smoking probably less so

[Grey Fox]

Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

Is it safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to listen to Donald Trump?  Andrew Tate?

Is everything on Tik Tok safe?

As I said, there are simple and effective ways to block adult content at user level.  I could even block Facebook from my office computer if I wanted to.

That kind of porn content doesn't pop up by accident.  Google search (and Bing) are censored by default.

As I mentioned, everything on the internet is problematic. Everything.

[Josquius]

In theory I'm not against some sort of proof of age of majority to view Internet porn. I mean, in my day, I had to be 18 just to buy Playboy, and the stuff online, I hear, is quite nasty. It's less the "moral" aspect of it, more the health and safety. Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

No I don't think it's healthy for a 13-year old to watch. Probably not for an 18-year old either. Potentially not for a 50-year-old either, though by then it's probably too late

But how much will digital ID verification stop kids from accessing? I suppose I could be persuaded on the effectiveness, but I'm not sure.

as effective as stopping underage drinking and smoking probably less so

So actually quite effective then?
Beware of the Nirvana Fallacy.
Obviously some kids still drink (though apparently with the current generation not so many as back in my day). But kids not being able to just walk into any shop and buy booze does introduce friction that means less kids bother and those that do end up with less.

On the other hand there's also the psychological push back factor. The whole thing of how lax drug laws tend to lead to lower drug use as its just not seen as a cool and desirable thing to do.
Certainly when I was a kid-kid I had zero interest in sex but the forbidden top shelf was still interesting as it was forbidden.

[viper37]

Seems the Sûreté wasn't lying.

They're in the next village with a fuckton of cars and an helicopter.

[Barrister]

In theory I'm not against some sort of proof of age of majority to view Internet porn. I mean, in my day, I had to be 18 just to buy Playboy, and the stuff online, I hear, is quite nasty. It's less the "moral" aspect of it, more the health and safety. Does anyone really think it's safe for a 13 year old boy, or girl, to watch what I heard is on some of those sites?

No I don't think it's healthy for a 13-year old to watch. Probably not for an 18-year old either. Potentially not for a 50-year-old either, though by then it's probably too late

But how much will digital ID verification stop kids from accessing? I suppose I could be persuaded on the effectiveness, but I'm not sure.

I think I shared this anecdote before.  Circa 2005, I was at a - conference for my job.  They had a guest speaker who was a FBI profiler (for real!).  He was highly sympathetic to Karla Homolka, whom he had met and interviewed.  It was a controversial view given the audience.

Anyways he had commented - 30-40 years earlier (and that was almost 20 years ago) - incidents of anal rape were almost non-existent.  That, quite frankly (and this is my spin)) anal sex is not something you'd necessarily think to do.  But given the increasing prevalence of pornography, anal sex increased - and thereby anal rape.

Jacob I'm 100% with you on the notion that maybe an age verification system has more unintended consequences then it is worth.  That's the whole fundamental idea of small-c conservatism.  Chesterton's Fence and all that.

But  don't get the moralistic/libertarian/whatever attitude that "yeah of course kids should be able to view hardcore porn after a few keyboard clicks", or that "well it's all up to parents to protect their kids if they think it's important".  Because those are the same voices who are saying "we can't possibly trust parents from knowing their kids are gay/trans/questioning".

As a concept