Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#21

Post by gruez »

8note wrote: post #18
gruez wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point Is this what twitter has turned discourse into? If you haven't made your within one or two tweets your whole work is dismissed as "not have a specific point". Anyways the "point" of this article is that the government is punishing their enemies by locking them out of the financial system. This is bad because of how much we rely on t…

I'm not clear that twitter is the right tool for the job. Perhaps writing a book or essay is proper. All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.

>All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.

Well luckily OP posted a "tl;dr" at the end. I agree it'll be better if it was at the front, but posting tl;drs at the end seems to be pretty common for whatever reason.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#22

Post by malermeister »

engineer_22 wrote: post #13
malermeister wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .

Freedom of speech means freedom to speak. We're speaking freely right now, aren't we? And I didn't have to create a website or an ad or pay a graphic designer or any of the many things claimed in that Twitter thread.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#23

Post by gruez »

colburnmh wrote: post #19

Freedom also means the ability to live without having to suffer overbearing impacts from others. The blockade of Ottawa and the US/Canada border crossings are causing enormous economic impacts on both countries while in the midst of a global pandemic, rising inflation due to supply chain issues. Estimates of the financial impact of this "protest" are not definitive, but are likely in the billions of dollars and are a…

>Freedom also means the ability to live without having to suffer overbearing impacts from others.

From TFA:

>I don't actually have a view on the substance of the trucker protests and if Canada's COVID policies are good, bad or neutral.

>I would further guess that the truckers are probably violating a variety of Canadian laws relating to how they can protest.

>What would be a normal constitutional democracy political response to a problem like this is either:

>a) let it play out if you think it is in good faith

>or

>b) encourage the local authorities to arrest them and try them in a court if you think it is not

>Either is fine.

>The right to assembly in Canada probably does not allow you to block the highway for days for everyone else.

>I assume Canada still has police and courts so they could presumably arrest the highway blockers & take them to court

In other words, he's not advocating that the protests should go on unimpeded (contrary to what you think). He's against the government punishing the protesters extra-judicially.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#24

Post by Teever »

engineer_22 wrote: post #15
Teever wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is speech isn't the freedom to make people listen.

"make people listen" Like, coercion? As in, physically restrain someone so they must engage with my ideas?

No, we're talking about a situation in Ottawa where people are blaring their truck horns for hours at a time with a complete lack of regard for how the citizens of that city feel about it.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#25

Post by ulrashida »

Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against.

Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or injurious to the public.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#26

Post by evilpotatoes »

ulrashida wrote: post #25

Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against. Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or…

The majority of donations are from Canadians.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#27

Post by colburnmh »

engineer_22 wrote: post #13
malermeister wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly listened to me. I didn't spend any money on that. Case in point.

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .

You have the right to talk all you want. You don't have the right to force anyone to listen to you, nor to prevent others from pursuing their daily lives. Nor does freedom of speech imply that your speech is free from repercussions. The government (federal, state, or local) cannot prevent you from saying most things, or retaliating against you. But most everyone else can within the bounds of legality.

Freedom of speech means you can stand on the corner and yell about the "undisputed benefits of cryptocurrencies". It also means me and a group of my friends can surround you and sing "Baby Shark" repeatedly at the top of our lungs, drowning out your message.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#28

Post by gruez »

ulrashida wrote: post #25

Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against. Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or…

>does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest?

If you're against that, the reasonable reaction would be to block foreign transfers and/or freeze the portion of funds that came from foreign sources, not ban them from the financial system entirely. Imagine the government shutting down an opposition candidate's campaign entirely, because it received a little too much money from foreign donors.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#29

Post by engineer_22 »

malermeister wrote: post #22
engineer_22 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Maybe it would be clearer if you told me what "freedom of speech" means to you .

Freedom of speech means freedom to speak. We're speaking freely right now, aren't we? And I didn't have to create a website or an ad or pay a graphic designer or any of the many things claimed in that Twitter thread.

Maybe you don't pay to use the internet, but I do.

If the government froze my bank account so I couldn't pay my phone bill, I wouldn't be free to speak to you right now.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#30

Post by colburnmh »

engineer_22 wrote: post #29
malermeister wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech means freedom to speak. We're speaking freely right now, aren't we? And I didn't have to create a website or an ad or pay a graphic designer or any of the many things claimed in that Twitter thread.

Maybe you don't pay to use the internet, but I do. If the government froze my bank account so I couldn't pay my phone bill, I wouldn't be free to speak to you right now.

That's not true. You just wouldn't be free to speak on this medium.

I don't have the right to speak in the Queen's bedroom in Buckingham Palace, either.

Neither of those things are significant limitations on the freedom of speech.

Post reply on HN