First, I love the word "clerisy" and your definition. Having just dealt with some I get your frustration, but I think you might be making a mountain out of a molehill. To be fair, they have too. I say run roughshod over them and ignore them. People who are like that or who follow that are the worst. But often they come from some disadvantaged place because no one can be as snobbish as the poor, including the morally or influentially poor.
Second, I think these are less big issue than you think. They are, in fact, related to smaller more seemingly insubstantial tweaks in our society. I'll give you an example: notifications on your phone. It seems like a no-brainer to have your phone remind you of events but it disrupts your own sense of rhythm and the discipline of time-management in subtle but important ways. Now the algorithm dictates your day and forces your body to a standardized cadence rather than you learning to follow your own drum, no matter how measured or far away. Another example: swearing. There is nothing like the impact of an expletive. No other form of expression quite matches it for expressing anger or frustration or the opinion of the user about some form of boneheadedness taking place. Yet the clerisy won't listen to it, youth shut down, it's verboten even to have deep feelings. True, social media has amplified anger and sharpened the rough edges of our society, but a society that can't express itself truthfully has also lost the ability to communicate and will ultimately fall. I think attending to these seemingly small details might end up giving you (and me) more relief than you know. A butterflies' wing inspiring a tempest sort of thing.
Thank you for this. Such a rich overview of how we got here. I don’t study these things. I teach dance. I chair my local community association and sit on the Board of our local theatre. It amused me and horrified me that someone called out at a Carney rally, “Big daddy! Lead us forward!” We do seem to want to have some father figure take care of business and not do the uncomfortable work ourselves of getting involved at grass roots levels. I’m going to an all-candidates meeting tomorrow where the PC incumbent is ‘not able’ to attend. So I’m going to think on what you’ve said here and see if I can craft a question that speaks truth to the blah blah of careful platforming. Hmm. A challenge. Thanks for waking me up to relevant ideas.
The incumbent is not PC—that party is gone. Conservative candidates are mostly not participating in local candidate debates, and you might address the question to the empty chair in the room.
Start with the fear at the debate itself… it was not the candidates who were in any danger specifically but the journalists, due to improper credentials given to Rebel News and True North at the French debate and the revocation of same at the English debate. Rebel News and True North are NOT engaged in journalism… they are registered with Elections Canada as third party advertisers. Did you watch the French debate and questions after? I did and I could not believe what I was seeing… asking Carney’s how many genders there are? What relevance did that have to anything? Carney gave more credit that it was due by answering “ there are two sexes”. The objective there was to try and generate some quotation that Rebel News could generate revenue from, not to forward a debate about issues relevant to the election.
Prior to the English debate Ezra Levant was removed from the journalist space and I gather from reporting that he made a fuss about it sufficient for the debate organizers to call off the questions.
As for fear of taking questions, there is one guy who will NOT answer questions from accredited journalists unless they are from friendly sources and where the questions have been vetted in advance—that is Poilievre, who has taken Harper’s strict message control to a whole new level.
What we desperately need is more fact checking and reporting of facts instead of opinions about the facts.
You mention climate… there is such a thing as climate *science* and if you delve into it you will understand the degree of peril we are in NOW. It is an uncomfortable topic and people would rather not face it but you can’t argue with physics.
I think we do need to have some honest conversations about what is denigrated as “wokeism”. The Quakers to whom you refer were the “woke” group of their day, pushing for an end to slavery and for women’s rights to vote and to equally participate in society. Maybe we can have a conversation about that.
First, I love the word "clerisy" and your definition. Having just dealt with some I get your frustration, but I think you might be making a mountain out of a molehill. To be fair, they have too. I say run roughshod over them and ignore them. People who are like that or who follow that are the worst. But often they come from some disadvantaged place because no one can be as snobbish as the poor, including the morally or influentially poor.
Second, I think these are less big issue than you think. They are, in fact, related to smaller more seemingly insubstantial tweaks in our society. I'll give you an example: notifications on your phone. It seems like a no-brainer to have your phone remind you of events but it disrupts your own sense of rhythm and the discipline of time-management in subtle but important ways. Now the algorithm dictates your day and forces your body to a standardized cadence rather than you learning to follow your own drum, no matter how measured or far away. Another example: swearing. There is nothing like the impact of an expletive. No other form of expression quite matches it for expressing anger or frustration or the opinion of the user about some form of boneheadedness taking place. Yet the clerisy won't listen to it, youth shut down, it's verboten even to have deep feelings. True, social media has amplified anger and sharpened the rough edges of our society, but a society that can't express itself truthfully has also lost the ability to communicate and will ultimately fall. I think attending to these seemingly small details might end up giving you (and me) more relief than you know. A butterflies' wing inspiring a tempest sort of thing.
Thank you for this. Such a rich overview of how we got here. I don’t study these things. I teach dance. I chair my local community association and sit on the Board of our local theatre. It amused me and horrified me that someone called out at a Carney rally, “Big daddy! Lead us forward!” We do seem to want to have some father figure take care of business and not do the uncomfortable work ourselves of getting involved at grass roots levels. I’m going to an all-candidates meeting tomorrow where the PC incumbent is ‘not able’ to attend. So I’m going to think on what you’ve said here and see if I can craft a question that speaks truth to the blah blah of careful platforming. Hmm. A challenge. Thanks for waking me up to relevant ideas.
The incumbent is not PC—that party is gone. Conservative candidates are mostly not participating in local candidate debates, and you might address the question to the empty chair in the room.
Wow, there is a lot to unpack here.
Start with the fear at the debate itself… it was not the candidates who were in any danger specifically but the journalists, due to improper credentials given to Rebel News and True North at the French debate and the revocation of same at the English debate. Rebel News and True North are NOT engaged in journalism… they are registered with Elections Canada as third party advertisers. Did you watch the French debate and questions after? I did and I could not believe what I was seeing… asking Carney’s how many genders there are? What relevance did that have to anything? Carney gave more credit that it was due by answering “ there are two sexes”. The objective there was to try and generate some quotation that Rebel News could generate revenue from, not to forward a debate about issues relevant to the election.
Prior to the English debate Ezra Levant was removed from the journalist space and I gather from reporting that he made a fuss about it sufficient for the debate organizers to call off the questions.
As for fear of taking questions, there is one guy who will NOT answer questions from accredited journalists unless they are from friendly sources and where the questions have been vetted in advance—that is Poilievre, who has taken Harper’s strict message control to a whole new level.
What we desperately need is more fact checking and reporting of facts instead of opinions about the facts.
You mention climate… there is such a thing as climate *science* and if you delve into it you will understand the degree of peril we are in NOW. It is an uncomfortable topic and people would rather not face it but you can’t argue with physics.
I think we do need to have some honest conversations about what is denigrated as “wokeism”. The Quakers to whom you refer were the “woke” group of their day, pushing for an end to slavery and for women’s rights to vote and to equally participate in society. Maybe we can have a conversation about that.