Like if your vegan anarchist grandma and vegan anarchist dad were the same person.
I am an engineer (closer to toot toot then clicky clacky) cosplaying as a farmer in unceded aninstanabe territory in eastern ontario.
Pronouns: she/they
Maybe the real vegan theory club were the friends we made along the way ✨
Mayors did not have a lot of power until Doug gave some of them Strong Mayor powers recently: https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario-municipal-councillors-guide/10-strong-mayor-powers-and-duties#section-3
Before then they were just one vote.
People should continue to vote for folks who do fuck all to stop bad things? Because they are better than those who do the bad things?
It’s almost like the ability to do it was there all along and people choose not to do and then tell you they can’t 🤷♀️
Ooooooh, thank you. That makes a lot more sense.
Thank you for sharing. My question was more about the tweet. I got the feeling people found this upsetting for a different reason than I do.
Maybe I am missing that he reversed a decision?
My personal opinion is that no war medal is a good thing so this is nothing more than an opportunity for this man to reinforce his imperialism.
What other ways are people interpreting this?
I had a nice time with my flowers and thought about options. Here are two possible ways he can run while minimizing harm:
He can tell the party he is innocent and intends to run, and that it will be sorted out afterwards. They can’t do anything about it, but he owes a duty of care to the party he is representing and should listen to their concerns. He can ask them to help with messaging and shutting down any speculation and accusations about the accuser(s). He can tell the public that he is innocent and intends to follow due process. He can remind everyone that accusations need to be taken seriously and that people need to be safe to speak up. It endangers people if they are tried in the court of public opinion and it does not reflect the values of the party. He can remind them that if the accusations are intended to discredit him, then this will be helped if his supporters attack the accuser or her credibility. They aren’t going to sort this out immediately and we need to let the justice system take it’s course (if that’s what they are doing) because the american justice system is the best in the world or something.
It would be even better if they could agree to some sort of restorative justice, especially given she does not appear to want to involve the police. He can maintain his innocence, show that he wants to understand why he is being accused and that he wants people to feel safe coming forward. He can ask people to refrain from attacking the accused, and to let them go through the process. Doing this isn’t saying he did these things, but trying to understand what happened and how two people can see it differently. It would be a great opportunity for a discussion about how complicated discussions around SA can be. It can be a jump off point for discussion on how we can make power dynamics safe, and the importance of making space for hard conversations. It if comes out she was lying to harm him, they need to condem that behavior and highlight that it’s not just to discredit him but also to divide people. False accusations don’t mean that people don’t deserve to speak up and that we should be suspicious of accusations. Because that’s what the bad guys want. They want you to hate women, and the woke because they are stronger when we are divided. Etc.
I mean, I’m not talking about if he should resign. It doesn’t concern me.
The restorative justice example is extremely relevant because it shows the harm that is caused by being obsessed with punishment.
If stepping down can only be seen as punishment then he has no choice.
If people were committed to figuring out the best path forward for everyone rather than being right or wrong I’m sure they could figure something out. But if him choosing to step down so that another candidate can be the offical nomine is seen as him being “punished” there is no way the situation can be discussed until after the election. So he runs and people get told you should report assault, but only in very specific ways and not if the accused has a chance to face consequences as a result.
I still don’t understand why it makes a difference to the people who nominated him if he runs as a dem or not? Can’t they vote for him?
What does this mean for the states that Biden won in the primaries? People asked him to step down. And he eventually did. Were they overriding the will of the voters? If I understand correctly the party changed their rules to allow Harris to win even though Biden was the candidate when people voted?
If he decides to step down for his own reasons will others always be blamed for it?
So if he can still run how does this overrule the will of the voters (I assume you mean the primary voters)? If he is elected because he’s a great candidate how would being elected as an independent be different than being elected as a Democrat? Couldn’t he vote with them?
It didn’t go over my head.
American bootlickers are so uncreative. Accusations don’t need to ruin lives but the obsession with punishment and 100% right vs 100% wrong doesn’t leave any option.
This is the environment that abuse thrives in. Harmed people see what scrutiny they will face because the risk of “ruining a man’s life” over a false accusation is too much to take chances with. People who would perpetuate the abuse know that they can exploit others because reporting would lead to being called a traitor. The community doesn’t get the opportunity to make sure that people are safe, because even putting out feelers to check if certain behaviors are normal before it progresses to bigger harm is risky. It totally ignores all the other systemic barriers that face marginalized folk to begin with. Maybe the cops harass you and your friends. Are you going to run to them for help?
Maybe you don’t want the person to face punishment but you want them to acknowledge that they harmed you and demonstrate to the community that they have grown and will not harm others. In the punishment model people who have been harmed face blame for not coming forward sooner to prevent the same from happening to others. Why should harmed people face this responsibility?
In a better model, if all parties agreed to it, alternative justice practices could be used. They could come together and identify the harm and come to a shared agreement of what happened and what could have been done to prevent the harm. They can then discuss how to correct some of the impacts. This can be done privately, quickly, and with the guidance of trusted community members who can ensure the process is safe. Part of the resolution would be to determine how much of this should be shared with the wider community and how.
If the case that an assault did occur, perhaps the outcome is that the community would come together to support the harmed party in healing and dealing with any practical impacts, something they may not have been able to do before if it wasn’t known. The accused may be part of this if appropriate. Together, the community and the person who did the harm could decide if they should be in a position of power, and if they should be focusing on being a representative or focused on addressing how to prevent this from happening while supporting others with taking on the role of representative. A person who thinks losing the community’s trust is punishment should not be leading! The universe is not fair and bad things happen. If someone feels entitled to a role they are going to have a very hard time. Maybe they can be paired with others who have gone through similar things as accountability buddies and safe people to work through difficult unlearning where they don’t need to be afraid to say they are struggling.
If it turns out the person making the accusations either lied for gain or the situation was complex and after talking through it was determined that harm occurred but there is no accountability to be taken or the accountability is equally shared, this could be addressed privately. No need to be scared of ruining someone’s life if something felt wrong but you aren’t sure if it was worth speaking up about.
If the accusations were falsified and shared in the community, the resolution could be that the person making the accusations needs to take accountability for the harm they caused including sharing with the community the steps they are taking to address why they sought to weaponize accusations. The accused could continue seeking the leadership position with that put behind them. Because the community has trust in the accountability process being accused of something having it come out that it was false does not leave a stain on someone.
People say all sorts of terrible things to leaders. You get to act as a pinching bag/processing space while people sort themselves out. You have to realize this is part of what leadership is. If you aren’t going to be open to working with people to actually understand what their issue is even if you know what they are saying in the moment is bullshit, you are not going to do a good job.
Yes, I have autism.
I would appreciate it if you could help me understand your comment if taking it literally is wrong.
Thank you! I did know it was a paid position, I was hoping it would point out how absurd it is to tie someones financial future to their ability to win elections. Why would they do anything but ensure they stay in office?
Wow now I know what american individualism applied to “socialism” looks like.
I don’t understand this logic unless being a senator brings significant personal benefit instead of being a service in which case, that explains a lot about how people behave
And further if it considered good leadership to put your personal benefit above the good of your movement
I thought they couldn’t force him to quit
Where on earth did you get any of that?
I have no idea which claim is factual, neither do you. But you make a meme with a list of reasons we should not believe the accuser. Is suggesting accusations need to be treated with care and consideration the same thing as saying the accused is guilty?
Is it better to imply someone is lying instead of just saying “we don’t know enough yet”? Unjust things happen but folks don’t need to demonstrate what happens when you accuse the wrong man of a crime. That if you come forward and there is no conviction you will be branded as a liar.
Fired from his job? Is being a candidate his job? What a fucked up system. Edit: wait isn’t this the country that wants your social media log ins on job applications so they can decide if they should hire you or not?
Have you never had a moment in your life when you were like, I want to do this but the right thing to do is let someone else go for it? Or everything is our right and we don’t think of the collective good?
So wait you are comparing asking someone to step down until this can be sorted out or because there is concern it will hurt the party is equivalent to being arrested and imprisoned?
Or at least that it requires the same level of evidence?
He was a hash dealer, not a drug user. Easy to confuse: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/