Waterloo Region Connected
Grand River Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)



RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 12-12-2020

(12-12-2020, 12:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

Did I misquote you?

“I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.”

Enforcement is intended to…

Intended by whom? It can only be people who have some control over the enforcement process.

The enforcement regime may have the effect of reinforcing inequities, but if you can come up with any evidence that anybody is actually trying for (intending) that effect I’ll probably fall off my chair in surprise.

Honest question for you: if people with control over enforcement were asked what their intentions are for it, what would they say? And would they be lying?

It is very difficult to fight something which one does not understand. At this point I think it’s probably safe to say that most of the evil in our society is unintended, essentially due to poor thinking and carelessness. For example, most of the deaths caused by motor vehicles: there is no crypto-Nazi designing our roads with the intent of having a high death toll; rather, people have internalized that a high death toll is unavoidable and/or doesn’t matter because the victims must have been doing something wrong.

Or take the claim in recent years that the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women constitute a genocide. This is absolutely untrue; if it were a genocide, the response would be to mobilize the military to destroy whatever force was conducting the genocide, just as was done in the Second World War. But in reality it is a class of crime of a sort that ties in to all sorts of societal assumptions and practices and what has to be done to fix it is much more subtle. Besides the actual perpetrators, who are hard to find, responsibility is diffuse.


RE: Grand River Transit - dtkvictim - 12-12-2020

Dan, I certainly agree with you (at least in part) on the issue of fare enforcement, but I don't think the same arguments can be applied to mask bylaw enforcement. A fare can be a genuine burden on the poorest members of society, wearing a (freely attainable) mask does not carry the same burden. You are treading close to the shockingly common argument that the disadvantaged bear no personal responsibility, at which point you'll lose a lot of support.


RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-12-2020

(12-12-2020, 02:10 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(12-12-2020, 12:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

Did I misquote you?

“I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.”

Enforcement is intended to…

Intended by whom? It can only be people who have some control over the enforcement process.

The enforcement regime may have the effect of reinforcing inequities, but if you can come up with any evidence that anybody is actually trying for (intending) that effect I’ll probably fall off my chair in surprise.

Honest question for you: if people with control over enforcement were asked what their intentions are for it, what would they say? And would they be lying?

It is very difficult to fight something which one does not understand. At this point I think it’s probably safe to say that most of the evil in our society is unintended, essentially due to poor thinking and carelessness. For example, most of the deaths caused by motor vehicles: there is no crypto-Nazi designing our roads with the intent of having a high death toll; rather, people have internalized that a high death toll is unavoidable and/or doesn’t matter because the victims must have been doing something wrong.

Or take the claim in recent years that the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women constitute a genocide. This is absolutely untrue; if it were a genocide, the response would be to mobilize the military to destroy whatever force was conducting the genocide, just as was done in the Second World War. But in reality it is a class of crime of a sort that ties in to all sorts of societal assumptions and practices and what has to be done to fix it is much more subtle. Besides the actual perpetrators, who are hard to find, responsibility is diffuse.

Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.


RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 12-13-2020

(12-12-2020, 06:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.

“Society” doesn’t “intend” anything. I think you may actually understand just fine, but for some reason you insist on using a specific word that does not mean what you want it to mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You just said it yourself — “Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality” — bad things can happen that are not intended. In the case of transit enforcement, a reasonable critique is that it may function to perpetuate iniquity, but without specific evidence of intent it is inappropriate to allege that it is intended to perpetuate iniquity.

Good point about stopping genocides. We seem (as a society) to manage to be quite warlike and violent at times, and yet somehow still unwilling to really drop the hammer to stop an in-progress genocide. On the other hand, maybe the Rwandan situation would have been even worse, hard though that is to imagine, with an invasion attempting to stop the genocide. That being said, yes, the MMIWG report referred to present-day murders as an ongoing genocide, which is incorrect, given that by definition genocide is the deliberate attempt to eliminate a group of people. I think the MMIWG inquiry significantly impaired their credibility by using that word to describe the situation, undermining the goal of the inquiry. I don’t want to get into a discussion of which specific elements of our history qualify as genocide, but I think it’s pretty clear that there have been policies in the past which qualify.


RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 01:34 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(12-12-2020, 06:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.

“Society” doesn’t “intend” anything. I think you may actually understand just fine, but for some reason you insist on using a specific word that does not mean what you want it to mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You just said it yourself — “Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality” — bad things can happen that are not intended. In the case of transit enforcement, a reasonable critique is that it may function to perpetuate iniquity, but without specific evidence of intent it is inappropriate to allege that it is intended to perpetuate iniquity.

Good point about stopping genocides. We seem (as a society) to manage to be quite warlike and violent at times, and yet somehow still unwilling to really drop the hammer to stop an in-progress genocide. On the other hand, maybe the Rwandan situation would have been even worse, hard though that is to imagine, with an invasion attempting to stop the genocide. That being said, yes, the MMIWG report referred to present-day murders as an ongoing genocide, which is incorrect, given that by definition genocide is the deliberate attempt to eliminate a group of people. I think the MMIWG inquiry significantly impaired their credibility by using that word to describe the situation, undermining the goal of the inquiry. I don’t want to get into a discussion of which specific elements of our history qualify as genocide, but I think it’s pretty clear that there have been policies in the past which qualify.

It was very explicitly the intent of our governments policies to destroy the First Nations people. Like, that isn't controversial, that was the stated intent.

If you want to argue that the current murders of indigenous women is not a continuation or direct result of of those policies, I suppose that's a more subtle argument that I lack the background knowledge to discuss.

On the word "intent".  I think we agree that enforcement policies function to continue inequality. You are arguing the word intent does not apply because we are not a master planned society, and we are all contributing to the function of society therefore nobody is guilty of "intent" here.

I am arguing that even as a collective society, we are all responsible for the direction of society, therefore, we have collective intent.  I'll grant you this is a somewhat radical position to take, arguing that a society of people can have intent.


RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 07:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am arguing that even as a collective society, we are all responsible for the direction of society, therefore, we have collective intent.  I'll grant you this is a somewhat radical position to take, arguing that a society of people can have intent.

I would argue that "responsibility" is not the same thing as intent.

You are responsible for the upbringing and behaviour of your child (until he or she grows up). If he or she behaves badly, did you actually intend it?

Of course, this discussion has by now digressed rather far from the GRT.


RE: Grand River Transit - Coke6pk - 12-18-2020

(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.
You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed. Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke


RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-18-2020

(12-18-2020, 04:48 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.
You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

The bars are not closed...contrary to popular opinion, there is no lockdown...the restrictions amount to a few hours shorter operation time.

And yes people are not "forced" to go into bars...which is why we should close bars, but not public transit. One is essential, the other is not.

As for people not wearing masks on public transit, I'm not sure what you mean, there are a tiny fraction of people who have a medical reason, but it seems most folks are simply choosing not too.


RE: Grand River Transit - ac3r - 12-18-2020

(12-18-2020, 04:48 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.
You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

Honest question...did you think before sending this reply? It's a truly amazing take.


RE: Grand River Transit - Coke6pk - 12-22-2020

(12-18-2020, 05:31 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(12-18-2020, 04:48 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: You are likely less likely to be infected in a bar, because they are currently closed.  Maybe if people can't wear masks on public transit, public transit should be closed.

Additionally, the for the bars, no one is forced to go into a bar to get to/from work and or appointments, so that is a clear apples vs. oranges comparison.

Coke

Honest question...did you think before sending this reply? It's a truly amazing take.

Honest answer, yes.  Apparently my sarcasm doesn't translate in the written form.

No, public transit shouldn't be closed... however, those not wearing masks should not be riding.  If you have medical issues that prevent you from breathing thru a flimsy mask, good luck with the ventilator.

Coke


RE: Grand River Transit - KevinT - 12-22-2020

(12-12-2020, 12:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit


RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-22-2020

(12-22-2020, 10:34 PM)KevinT Wrote:
(12-12-2020, 12:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

That is a great quote.


RE: Grand River Transit - jamincan - 12-23-2020

(12-22-2020, 10:34 PM)KevinT Wrote:
(12-12-2020, 12:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

I get what the metaphor is trying to say, but the truth is that none of the snowflakes are responsible. They're snowflakes and ultimately follow the laws of gravity like everything else.

Going back to Dan's original point: "I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have." I completely reject this outlook. Attributing blame to people collectively for society's ill is an entirely pointless endeavor. It's like blaming an avalanche on the snowflakes.

That's not to say that we should accept the status quo any more than we should throw our hands up when there is an unstable snowpack looming over a highway. To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, it's to say that we can't stop an avalanche by expecting every snowflake to go against its nature and fall up instead of down. In the same way we also can't solve society's ills by expecting those around us to change their nature.


RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 12-23-2020

(12-23-2020, 08:46 AM)jamincan Wrote:
(12-22-2020, 10:34 PM)KevinT Wrote: "Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

I get what the metaphor is trying to say, but the truth is that none of the snowflakes are responsible. They're snowflakes and ultimately follow the laws of gravity like everything else.

Going back to Dan's original point: "I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have." I completely reject this outlook. Attributing blame to people collectively for society's ill is an entirely pointless endeavor. It's like blaming an avalanche on the snowflakes.

That's not to say that we should accept the status quo any more than we should throw our hands up when there is an unstable snowpack looming over a highway. To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, it's to say that we can't stop an avalanche by expecting every snowflake to go against its nature and fall up instead of down. In the same way we also can't solve society's ills by expecting those around us to change their nature.

Blaming specific individuals is scapegoating, and it's a way to avoid responsibility. 

But blaming society and pleading innocence is also scapegoating and avoids responsibility. 

Blaming everyone is a way to point out responsibility. I don't know how effective it is but I know the above two alternatives are definitely ineffective with most people. 

As you say, snowflakes are just objects following the laws of physics. But humans are complex, they are BOTH automatons following the laws of psychology and sociology AND ALSO independent self directed individuals capable of making and responsible for their own choices and contributions.

The question of how to create collective action is a difficult one, I don't think trying to make everyone feel responsible for our collective outcomes is entirely pointless. But I do agree it is not sufficient. They must also feel empowered to change those outcomes. 

I think we need a philosophy thread for this one now.


RE: Grand River Transit - Coke6pk - 12-23-2020

(12-22-2020, 10:34 PM)KevinT Wrote:
(12-12-2020, 12:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

"Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty."

- Quote not my own, but don't know whom to credit

"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible"
Stanislaw Jerzy Lec - Polish Poet

very similar to:
"The single raindrop never feels responsible for the flood"
Douglas Adams

Coke