42
You can't hold public office and not know who fought who in WWII (rabble.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I’m saying they praised him as a hero, despite him being a Waffen-SS soldier

These are not connected thoughts. Someone who saved a cat stuck in a tree, who is also a murderer, is still a cat-saving hero. The murderous act does not invalidate the cat heroism.

which, notably, is exactly the combat service they’re praising him for, although again, not my point

There is an issue to be found in the speech because of this fact, but not related to the assertion that he is a hero. The heroism call had specific direction and it was not directed at his membership in the Waffen-SS. But since this is not your point anyway...

it doesn’t bode well foe their ability to decide on policy that will affect millions of people.

Under the Canadian democratic system, the representatives' job is to represent the people, not to make decisions for the people. This is like saying that a janitor failing to recognize a feature of the human anatomy does not bode well for his ability to perform open heart surgery. It truly doesn't bode well, but it would be quite silly to have that boding expectation in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    These are not connected thoughts. Someone who saved a cat stuck in a tree, who is also a murderer, is still a cat-saving hero. The murderous act does not invalidate the cat heroism.

    No, but if the mayor planned to honour him in a speech on national television, it would be common sense to include something to the point of, "Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero." in order to specifically recognize the act of valor and not anything else. Or, even more basic, pick someone who you know isn't a murder who achived something similar to honour. These aren't exactly complex ideas. But again we didn't even get that far, its common sense to do the research to even check if the person has a criminal background or something similar that would reflect badly on you to ignore (nonetheless praise). They couldn't even do that much. Even if you think it shouldn't reflect badly on them, it very obviously will, and it doesn't take a expect to know that praising a Waffen-SS member as a hero does not look good. Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.

    The representatives' job is to represent the people, not to make decisions for the people.

    Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them. They have no impact or imput on national policy or law whatsoever and should not be expected to have any knowledge on such matters. Its not like they're representing us in a goverment or anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    it would be common sense to include something to the point of, “Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero.”

    Common sense recognizes that they are completely unrelated. Such notice serves no purpose. If you have an allotted time slot and are struggling to fill it with cat-saving related material, I guess you can reach deep to pad it with such fluff, but it's completely and utterly meaningless. You could just as relevantly talk about that one time he went to visit his grandma if you really need fluff.

    Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.

    Because emotions broke loose. As you pointed out earlier it was done in a panic. You also indicate that it was born of a mistake, which further proves that it was irrationally driven as common sense says that mistakes are guaranteed to happen when humans are involved, and thus are no big deal.

    If we accept that a mistake happened and that mistake justified a larger discussion in a rational and logical manner, what was the rush? Common sense says that a rational discussion is just as good a month later as it is immediately. Common sense would have allowed time to schedule a rational discussion and would have taken care to do it right.

    But there was no common sense as the crazies who can't think straight grabbed hold and were frothing at the mouth for 'resolution' immediately. Think about it from the other side and what they are dealing with. The crazies aren't something you want to mess with. They are known to do stupid things, even going as far as violence. Of course you're going to be in a panic to do something, anything, to ensure it doesn't escalate.

    Common sense says that a rational discussion is a better tool, but common sense went out the window as soon as someone heard the word "Nazi". It's total batshit crazy, but that's Canada for you. As a population, we're not very well educated.

    Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them.

    There is a need to have someone carry the 'town hall' results from back home to merge with the results from every other riding. There is a job there – it's just not one that makes decisions. The decisions are already made by the time they arrive in Ottawa.

    If you think your representative is a mind reader and leave them to guess what decisions you want made, then they may have no choice but to make them for you. Likewise, if all you have is a janitor and a heart attack, the janitor may have no choice but to try open heart surgery in a last-ditched effort to save your life. But neither of these are expected to bode well. It is not the job they signed up for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're still ignoring my actual point. Either Im way more qualified to be a politician than I think or this should be a obvious answer. Do you think its a good idea for a politician to praise a former Waffen-SS member as a hero - do you think it will go over will with his colleges and voters? Surely its pretty obvious that no one will approve of it. Surely even a elementary school can understand that being even remotely accociated with the Nazi label won't make people like you.

    Also, what fantasy land do you live in where representitives regularly actually make decisions based on what their voters want rather than what they, their party, or their donors want. Just look at everything from electoral reform, to censorship, to climate change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Im way more qualified to be a politician than I think

    What would make you think you are not qualified? It's just a "message boy" position. It is intended to free people doing important things from having to travel to Ottawa, as would be necessary under a direct democracy, instead allowing democracy to happen locally where it is convenient for important people, with only collation of the local democratic action needing to happen in Ottawa.

    There is good reason why they are literally called servants. It is a bottom of the barrel job. If you are qualified to do anything else in life, it would be a waste and a drain on society to become the message boy, but someone does have to do it. If you think that's you, go nuts! You'll do just fine.

    Do you think its a good idea for a politician to praise a former Waffen-SS member as a hero

    To answer that question would require considering the motives of people, and that's a complete fools errand. It is impossible to know what they are thinking, and even if you somehow magically figure it out, what are you going to gain from it? It doesn't matter.

    do you think it will go over will with his colleges and voters?

    No. Clearly not. As we discussed earlier, the population lacks common sense. But as the previous discussion was about common sense, a hypothetical world where common sense was present would see no reason for it to not go over well. There is no logical reason for anything that transpired from what you claim was nothing more than a mistake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent