this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
91 points (97.9% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
304 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As our government becomes more and more polarized, what can we do to ensure that facts and data hold out?

I'm not suggesting that lying should be illegal (in fact, it's often unintentional), but when an MPs statement can later be proven to be false, shouldn't they be forced to publicly apologize?

The truth shouldn't be political.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Justin Ling recently published a report on polarization in Canada. He has a pretty good interview about it on CBC. What I got out of it:

  1. Truth is less important than pack mentality. With polarization, it matters that you're showing you're part of the in-group more than overall truthfulness. So a bell ringing when a lie is told probably wouldn't help.

  2. Politicians follow social media trends, because that gets them clicks. That causes showboating in Parliament, since they get to use CPAC clips to their followers. But they don't tend to lead the trends.

  3. MPs are under a lot of pressure to fundraise. Since union and corporate donations have been limited, MPs need to mobile their followers to send money. The best way to do that is with polarizing content on social media.

Outgoing Conservative leader Erin O'Toole said similar things in his final address to Parliament: MPs are chasing social media engagement, and that drives polarization.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem always lies with money and power .... remove the need for money and power and government will act a lot differently than it does now.

If all funds were somehow nationalized and shared among all politicians so that no one group or individual could wield more power than anyone else ... things would work out a lot differently.

I'm not saying it would be better or solve all our problems with government, it would just change it from what it is now ... a forum for power and control where whoever has the most funds or access to the most funds, gets to decide where government will head.

And don't get me started about how our government is not influenced by money ... it is completely influenced by money and powerful interests. It's so prevalent at this point in Canada as well as the US and every major nation in the world that it is a joke to even refer to any of them as democracies.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The problem always lies with money

Money is just an IOU. The only thing it introduces is the ability for trades to take place over longer periods of time.

If, for example, we agree that you will fix my sink and I will feed you lunch for your efforts, but you're not hungry while you're at my place, I can give you an IOU – money – to redeem for food at a later point in time when you are hungry. Without money, I would have to feed you when you are full in order to satisfy our deal, which is less than ideal.

Why is that beneficial deferral at the root of of all problems?

remove the need for money and power and government will act a lot differently than it does now.

The Communist Manifesto suggests that once we enter a state of post-scarcity, government will no longer be needed. Why do you think it got it wrong?