PB 2012-01-05 transcript

[21:32] <@Rintaran> Alrighty. 9:31pm Eastern it is. Anyone around? [21:32] <@svulliez> Greetings. [21:33] <@Rintaran> Ah, Vulliez. Glad to see you out. Missed you on Monday... [21:33] <+Nuitari> hi [21:33] <@Rintaran> Hey Stephane. [21:33] <@svulliez> I had an alarm set but my phone was someone disabled at the time v :) v [21:34] <@svulliez> *somehow [21:34] <@Rintaran> I see. No worries. [21:34] <@Rintaran> Anyhow, we may as well kick-off the first Polit-Board meeting of 2012. [21:35] <@svulliez> Who else is supposed to be here [21:35] <@svulliez> ? [21:35] <@Rintaran> Technically, Mikkel and Mike. But neither are. [21:36] <@Rintaran> Anyhow, we don't currently have an agenda for the evening. So does anyone have something in particular that they'd like to discuss? [21:37] <@svulliez> Hmm... Well. On the subject of the publicity stunt Travis and I embarked on recently [21:37] <@svulliez> On the subject of Piracy in Parliament [21:37] <@Rintaran> It's managed a few news articles I see. [21:38] <@svulliez> I ended up being interviewed on radio AM 980 here in BC and it was a great time, all the callers were very supportive of piracy and internet freedom [21:38] <@svulliez> I was on page 4 of the national post saying that I desired a prime minister who could move like Jagger [21:39] <@svulliez> which was pretty cool, although I would have been a little more pointed if I knew the whole interview (or most of it) was going to be printed [21:39] <@Rintaran> I read it. Definitely worth a laugh. [21:39] <@Rintaran> You can never tell how they'll use something. The best route is to assume they're going verbatim. [21:40] <@svulliez> Yeah, I do avoid salt and peppering swears and whatnot when talking to journalists [21:40] <@svulliez> I thought the interview was pretty flattering to our party either way though, it may be something we should try to support in our PR work [21:40] <@svulliez> the concept that we are a ragtag group of sassy politically active computer geeks [21:41] <@svulliez> Looking at the analytics today, it seems our amount of visitors multiplied by 8 or 9 times from the coverage, although a good portion of that is US traffic [21:42] <@svulliez> according to Nuitari we didn't see a significant boost in membership or VPN service [21:42] <@Rintaran> The radio interview doesn't happen to be available online by any chance? [21:43] <@svulliez> I've sent a request to the station, but I am not aware of any copy existing [21:43] <@Rintaran> Alright. I have the four articles that I've found online all linked on the news page of the wiki. [21:43] <@svulliez> It was pretty great, I can tell you roughly what happened [21:43] <@svulliez> Awesome. [21:44] <@svulliez> Oh that reminds me, the national post (and others) seem to take down articles about us a few months later [21:44] <@svulliez> we may be wise to start hosting our own mirrors [21:44] <@svulliez> My Op-Ed from the election is MIA from the internet altogether it seems [21:45] <@Rintaran> Did I get that one linked on the news page? I don't remember reading it. [21:46] <@svulliez> It was in the National Post, I still have a copy on my e-mail, I can pass it on [21:46] <@svulliez> Or upload to the Wiki [21:47] <@svulliez> Even though I don't like the national post, it was my dream since childhood to be a published editorial writer so that's my favorite PPCA accomplishment, personally [21:48] <@svulliez> Hm, what else... I wanted to talk about something election related [21:48] <@svulliez> Oh, the various sort of... vague schisms and political posturing that is going on in the forums- I just wanted to bring it up [21:49] <@svulliez> I'd like to think of the pirates as being a somewhat unified front, and I fear that tensions could rise closer to the elections [21:50] <@svulliez> Not that I am opposed to... you know... radical honesty :) [21:51] <@svulliez> but there are a few points of conflict I see and I wanted to acknowledge it so we can plan to have elections without fear for cloak and dagger type stuff, hostile takeovers, and what-have-you [21:51] <@Rintaran> Well, I expected quite a bit of tension to rise during the race. The people with the highest support will, in the end, determine what kind of face we put forward. [21:52] <@Rintaran> I would hope some mending would happen afterward. Thankfully it's not a high-profile competition. [21:52] <@svulliez> true, but none of us can really do it by ourselves, which is part of my concern- I don't want to have to choose between Jake and Travis, for example [21:53] <@svulliez> because they both bring their own important function to the party and we are stronger having both of them [21:54] <@Rintaran> I don't really see those two being too far at odds. There's a bit of tension related to the leader-absense-make me leader thing, but I think Jake has explained that well enough. [21:56] <@svulliez> That's true, I just bring them up because it was a public skirmish with travis repeatedly pressing. [21:56] <@svulliez> We're actually approaching the number of people we need to have an effective party working, and I fear an exodus, maybe more than I should [21:58] <@Rintaran> I think we're all committed enough to the party not to worry about a major exodus at this point. We may lose a couple, depending on the outcome, but we'll more than make it up as we begin to roll things out. [21:58] <@svulliez> I suppose that is true. [21:59] <@Rintaran> Speaking of rolling things out, have you seen the calendar for January? There are a lot of scheduled meetups across the country... [22:00] <@svulliez> Yeah, it's looking hopeful for sure. [22:01] <@Rintaran> Halifax, Nepean-Carleton (x2), Ottawa (x2), Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton & Vancouver with dates booked. And there's a call out for meetings in Barrie. [22:03] <@svulliez> I think faith in the administration is on the rise... [22:03] <@Rintaran> From the message I received from Ascroft today, it looks like we've got a table at a tradeshow in Osgoode, ON in April, and we'll have a couple of booths in Gananoque, ON sooner than that. [22:04] <@svulliez> Excellent. [22:04] <@Rintaran> I've also begun to see my PPCA QR-Stickers around Ottawa, in locations I didn't put them up. [22:05] <@Rintaran> The template's on the Collateral page of the Wiki if you want to use it. [22:05] <@Rintaran> Could be a nice way to get some minor, low-budget attention in Vancouver. [22:06] <@svulliez> Cool. I don't really know anyone who uses QR but there are still PPCA stickers around Vancouver that I see from time to time :) [22:07] <@Rintaran> Well, a fair number of people must. They're on just about everything these days. [22:07] <@Rintaran> Heck, I opened up my furnace and there were QR codes in there. [22:08] <@svulliez> I think it's some sort of group illusion that other people are using it lol [22:08] <@svulliez> But cool either way, hopefully it brings some hitis [22:08] <@Rintaran> People are starting to understand their purpose and how to use them. I've seen them in use, and used them myself. [22:09] <@Rintaran> Hopefully brings some members and volunteers. :) [22:09] <@Rintaran> Anyhow, on another topic, are we going to wade into the recent release from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives re: Canada's CEO Elite 100? [22:10] <@svulliez> How do you mean, "wade into" ? [22:11] <@Rintaran> Should we have an article in reference to it? I think it may work well with the 99% crowd. [22:12] <@svulliez> Ah, I suppose a front page update wouldn't hurt. I certainly support trying to speak to that crowd. [22:12] <@Rintaran> I have an article more-or-less done form "Through the Eyes", but it could easily be flipped/cross-posted to PPCA. [22:12] <@svulliez> Please do, I don't mind that at all. Extra content doesn't hurt. [22:13] <@svulliez> Just wish you could see more than 4 frontpage updates as a member of the public... [22:13] <@Rintaran> I believe Jake is supposed to be looking into why there is no access to the archives. [22:13] <@svulliez> Not sure how the party feels about it, it seems the most vocal people against things like reaching out to OWS ideals are also the least invested in the party [22:16] <@Rintaran> I think there's a huge appetite within the OWS and, more specifically, the Net Gen, for some major changes in regards to freedoms, transparency, and a reformation of our fiscal system, [22:16] <@Rintaran> but OWS itself is too chaotic to say they have a particular set of ideals. There are some solid undercurrents, but a lot of OWS was a mish-mash. [22:16] <@Rintaran> We should pick up elements of those undercurrents, but we don't need to be picking up all of the mish-mash. [22:18] <@svulliez> I agree, although I would pedantically say that there are very specific central ideas behind OWS whether occupiers like it or not [22:18] <@svulliez> corporate/ financial industry accountability, real democracy, taking big money and corruption out of politics [22:19] <@Rintaran> Those would be the central ones, and we've already got some elements front-and-center. We just need to promote them more. [22:19] <@svulliez> Yeah, agreed. [22:19] <@svulliez> I think natural extensions of our platform will already be appealing to Occupy folks [22:20] <@Rintaran> I think so too. [22:20] <@Rintaran> Did you happen to look over some of the elements I had on my vote-page? [22:20] <@svulliez> In the election subforum? [22:21] <@Rintaran> No, the website address I sent you last week. [22:22] <@Rintaran> http://vote.shawngray.ca/?page_id=7 [22:22] <@svulliez> Oh, hm. I don't remember that. [22:23] <@Rintaran> Ah. Well, you can tell me what you think next week then. [22:23] <@Rintaran> I'm working on ironing out some of my non-party issues for when I run in the next election. [22:23] <@svulliez> From my first impression (or second impression I guess) I like your ideas, I've had similar ones. [22:24] <@svulliez> Not sure that they're feasible in the context of our current political environment though, even if by a miracle of light you ended up getting a seat [22:25] <@Rintaran> The last one is. I can strive toward the rest. [22:25] <@Rintaran> There's more that I have yet to add to the list, but I'm pretty solid on those ones in particular. [22:27] <@svulliez> It's not that I think they're bad ideas, just that a skeptical voter will understand that even if you get a seat none of that can be promised to happen. [22:27] <@Rintaran> Very true, which is why the only promise I'll give is to try to work together with other members of parliament to see these things come to the table. [22:27] <@svulliez> We're trying to appeal to a highly intelligent crowd, so being overly pragmatic about what we can do in parliament is probably our strongest route, in my opinion. [22:28] <@svulliez> But I do value the level you're working on there, it's definitely something I would support in a local candidate. [22:29] <@svulliez> Unless the political atmosphere made it impossible for him to win a seat. :P [22:29] <@svulliez> At what point are we going to stop having political council meetings and just start having one on one skype calls or something? [22:29] <@Rintaran> Heh. Well, I'd be up against McGuinty federally. So unless the Liberals manage a revival, who knows what could happen in 2015. [22:30] <@svulliez> I guess it's good to be here to show how we are devoted and whatnot, but it's also kind of embarassing [22:30] <@svulliez> When was the last time you heard from Mikkel or Mike? [22:30] <@Rintaran> Well, unless you have someone that can type at the speed of talk, it'd be hard to maintain any transcripts. [22:31] <@Rintaran> Though I suppose they could be recorded. [22:31] <@Rintaran> I haven't heard from Mikkel since he got mad at everyone for doing nothing, when he was the only one doing nothing. [22:31] <@Rintaran> And Mike I spoke with three weeks back. He showed up for a Federal Council meeting. [22:32] <@svulliez> sigh. ayes on the future... [22:32] <@Rintaran> Technically he resigned his position, effective the approval of the new constitution because of family pressures. [22:33] <@Rintaran> But I think the post, and memory of it, got lost long ago. [22:34] <@svulliez> I recall that from Mike [22:34] <@svulliez> not so much as a "bye-bye" out of Mikkel though [22:34] <@Rintaran> Nope. [22:35] <@svulliez> I guess he was made to feel unwelcome, I was hoping he was going to run for the council [22:35] <@Rintaran> Might have been peeved that I got tired of waiting for him to write the vote letter and went ahead and did it myself. [22:36] <@svulliez> How about us being peeved about how long that took... [22:37] <@Rintaran> Anyhow, I'll finish up the post re: The 0.01% for tomorrow and get it up. Is there anything else that we should talk about tonight? [22:38] <@svulliez> Well I'm curious to know a personal opinion of yours, do you think it's fair to say that the Pirate Party is the closest thing Canada has to a party based around Science and Technology? [22:39] <@svulliez> And furthermore, is that a desirable route to go with an extended platform?? [22:39] <@svulliez> **one question mark only [22:40] <@Rintaran> The closest thing, yes, but despite our affinity for science and technology, that is merely one aspect of the party. [22:41] <@Rintaran> I think the Pirate Party is the closest thing we have to embodying the Net Generation (Millenials, Baby Boom Echo, Gen Y, w/e you want to call it). Technology is anything invented after you're born. Anything made prior to that just is. [22:42] <@svulliez> Hah, well I think the wheel is a spectacular piece of technology. [22:43] <@Rintaran> It is, but you accept it as a wheel, you don't sit there thinking about how it changes everything (unless you're having a moment). [22:43] <@Rintaran> To the Net Generation, we don't think about how it changes everything, it just is and we use it and understand its flow, which scares the crap out of Gen X and Boomers. [22:44] <@svulliez> I'm not sure how to build it now, but comparing the internet to the wheel is a pretty effective way to understand the context of the innovations in our lifetime. [22:45] <@svulliez> I'm leaning towards advocating for explicit Science+Technology support in my leadership thread, but I am worried that people will see it as an undue extension [22:46] <@Rintaran> I don't think it's necessary myself. Especially as Science & Tech can be both good and bad, depending on its use. [22:47] <@svulliez> Well, that's a- [22:47] <@Rintaran> If we provide blanket suppose for science & tech, that could open up some areas I'm not comfortable with, like cloning, surveillance, and digital traffic shaping. [22:47] <@Rintaran> *support [22:48] <@svulliez> But all things are- Everything good can be used for both good and bad. [22:48] <@Rintaran> Exactly, which is why you don't blanket support anything. You choose individually which elements to support, and which to oppose. [22:49] <@svulliez> Well I'm certainly not advocating to do everything that is technically classified as science and technology, that's pretty silly [22:50] <@svulliez> But rather, as a method of framing ourselves versus the other parties- we are the party most up to date and understanding of science and technology, which allows us to have more thoughtful policy [22:50] <@Rintaran> Which then makes trying to put support for Science & Technology explicity in the platform/ideology of the party a tricky thing with many subclauses and exceptions. Hence the difficulty in including it. [22:51] <@Rintaran> We certainly are the most up-to-date. Or we could be if we had the volunteers/funds to implement the stuff we want. [22:52] <@svulliez> Science and technology can easily be paraphrased to Knowledge and Technological and Social Development, which maybe better expresses the nerve I am poking at [22:52] <@Rintaran> And we can certainly leverage our grasp of current science & technological issues, and how they affect the world we live in and the new generation growing up in it. This is something that we absolutely must do. [22:54] <@Rintaran> The paraphrase is better. [22:54] <@Rintaran> Though not as catch-phrasy. [22:55] <@svulliez> haha, it's a political rephrase- the science and tech line is a pretty transparent call towards redditors/internet power users [22:56] <@svulliez> who very frequently express their love of science and awe-inspiring technological development [22:56] <@Rintaran> It actually has a fair bit of a different meaning when expressed the second way, but takes many elements of the former. [22:57] <@Rintaran> lol. Well, demonstrating our affinity for it is fine by me. [22:57] <@svulliez> Maybe you're interpreting it differently, but it's about the same [22:57] <@svulliez> Science is the organization of knowledge [22:57] <@svulliez> Technology is the making, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or perform a specific function. [22:58] <@Rintaran> Knowledge can come through methods that are not necessarily scientific in nature. And Technological & Social Development is not a blanket support of all technology (as I'm taking it as a single element). [22:58] <@svulliez> We do live in an environment where science has become politicized and 'edgy'- which is deeply unfortunate not just for us but the future of our species. [22:59] <@Rintaran> I read Technological & Social Development as the way the two interact with each other. [23:00] <@svulliez> I suppose that is really the important part of supporting technology, but I see the general point of supporting our ability to use our knowledge to solve problems using tools as something that is very related to our platform [23:00] <@Rintaran> Whereas Technological Development alone would be closer to "Technology" as you previously stated, which is somewhat uncomfortable as a whole. [23:01] <@svulliez> because pirates are always going to build tools to share, and we want entrepreneurs to innovate to deal with this reality [23:01] <@Rintaran> In a socially responsible manner. [23:01] <@Rintaran> Hence, combining the two as a single element. :) [23:02] <@svulliez> yeah, but that doesn't need to be said, for example, we don't say "we support socially responsible use of net neutrality" [23:03] <@Rintaran> No, but if you're going to blanket all of technology, you need to couch it with that item. That's why it's Technological & Social Development as opposed to Technological Development. [23:03] <@Rintaran> It's not necessary in the specific, but required in the generic. [23:04] <@svulliez> support for technology does not mean we support cloning any more than it means supporting using tools and innovation to solve the problem of you wanting to murder a lot of people [23:04] <@svulliez> But this is highly pendantic either way, i am in agreement with you apart from me wanting to say technology [23:04] <@svulliez> which I guess I am free to do in my personal time [23:04] <@svulliez> Another thing... [23:05] <@svulliez> >Knowledge can come through methods that are not necessarily scientific in nature. [23:05] <@svulliez> I dispute this. [23:06] <@svulliez> I challenge you to provide an example of knowledge that can come through a non-scientific method. [23:06] <@svulliez> I probably just use a wider definition of science than you... [23:07] <@Rintaran> Insticts are hereditary and do not come from systemic study. [23:08] <@Rintaran> If I'm burnt, I don't leave my hand there. We can use science to explain it, but I moved it without having to study it. [23:08] <@Rintaran> It doesn't matter if you're a newborn, or 80, you know to move out of the fire. [23:12] <@Rintaran> Additionally, much of our learning comes through hearing stories and experiences things. These actions are not necessarily scientific in nature, but knowledge is gained none-the-less. [23:12] <@svulliez> I'll accept that as a pedantic distinction, although studying the fire ahead of time would prevent that undesirable situation. [23:13] <@Rintaran> Sure it would, but the newborn knows nothing of fire, or even how to go about studying it. It has no point of reference from which to draw. [23:14] <@svulliez> Expecting the scientific method in all social interactions is obviously a bit much, and impossible. But in the context of a political party making policy, just the opposite. [23:14] <@svulliez> That doesn't mean that science isn't the best way to prepare for the situation. Dogs [23:15] <@Rintaran> A great way to prepare for situations once you're able to comprehend it, or surround yourself with those who can. Certainly. [23:15] <@svulliez> Dogs can't use the scientific method, but they are still subject to the laws of the material world. That is part of the reason they shouldn't run for office. Same with babies. [23:17] <@Rintaran> We can use science to explain things, but that's not how they're comprehended by the person or animal acting. And it's that comprehension that is the knowledge, not the study of the comprehension. Science is just the way we systemically arrange the facts, not the facts themselves. [23:18] <@Rintaran> Hence, why I think Knowledge is a better description. The other parties work on feelings, we work on knowledge. Much better. :) [23:18] <@svulliez> I like Knowledge as a description too, but I feel like the distinction is very very political [23:19] <@svulliez> we live in a political atmosphere where people consider science and faith to be dichotomy when it's just not the case [23:19] <@svulliez> science is latin for knowledge [23:20] <@Rintaran> Well, it's derived from the same root word anyways. [23:20] <@svulliez> Yeah. regardless, I'm glad that Knowledge is a decent middle ground [23:21] <@Rintaran> Anyhow, I gotta turn in. Work in the morning and all that. [23:21] <@svulliez> I think I'll vocalize support for it now that I've seen how the debates will go if I say "science" [23:21] <@svulliez> Have a good night, let's rock this boat [23:21] <@Rintaran> Well, they may go a lot worse. Depends who you're proposing it to. : [23:21] <@Rintaran> :P [23:21] <@Rintaran> G'night.

Return to Political Board

Return to Main Page