__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
I think I know the answer already but I wonder what the view would be if Vancouver was evoked as roughly equivalent to Toronto as a city, given that the 3 for 1 rapport roughly applies there too. (And let's not even mention Montreal, which is even closer to Toronto in size.)
I already sense a "b-b-b-b-ut... it's not the same thing!" type of post, with something about ''diminishing returns'' disfavouring New York in the comparison with Toronto...
I'm not sure what you're saying with this post, it doesn't make sense. Vancouver isn't remotely equivalent to Toronto. Montreal is closer in size, yeah.
^ Someone mentioned they didn't like how the Palais de Justice dominated some angles of the Montreal skyline. I can understand why, but at the same time I just love it. That large-looming International-style design practically embodies the big-thinking dynamism of 60s and 70s era Quebec.
The design from those years will never be beloved in the same way that, say, Beaux-Arts style buildings are, but in my view they are a real highlight of Montreal's urban landscape. There are so many showstoppers from that era like PVM, la tour CIBC, almost the entire Metro, parc Olympique, Tour de la Bourse... it just goes on and on.
I wish there was a way to tag members here based on what industry they're in. People in the arts (or on the oil patch for different reasons and to a far lesser extent) sure communicate differently to people in commerce, I find them completely illogical and they in turn don't understand a damn thing I say. Age would be another useful category (if we're all willing to self-identify). In real life, we are selective about who we communicate with and who we take seriously, there are many valuable voices on this board and it would be nice to selectively discuss with those that have common interests and on the same page as us when it comes to communication style even if we disagree with things. I think it would be valuable for all concerned.
I don't see the use of this at all. You already seem to have a tendency to try and make dubious assumptions about a person's background in order to explain to yourself why they think the way they think.
Bottom line is people have the views they have. We don't need to present a letter of credence to anyone before giving our opinion on here.
And BTW, I don't find I have trouble communicating or connecting with people from different walks of life either here or elsewhere.
Once again, we see at play here the contemporary Canadianism that is sweeping under the carpet any subject that makes us uncomfortable.
Sorry, but that's not my view of a discussion forum. At least not one that I'd want to be a part of.
^ Someone mentioned they didn't like how the Palais de Justice dominated some angles of the Montreal skyline. I can understand why, but at the same time I just love it. That large-looming International-style design practically embodies the big-thinking dynamism of 60s and 70s era Quebec.
.
I do hate it nonetheless. It does ruin the skyline view in my opinion. Thankfully, the gigantic blind grey whales will be transformed into giant screens at night in 2017 for the 375th birthday of the city. Can't wait for that!
^ Someone mentioned they didn't like how the Palais de Justice dominated some angles of the Montreal skyline. I can understand why, but at the same time I just love it. That large-looming International-style design practically embodies the big-thinking dynamism of 60s and 70s era Quebec.
The design from those years will never be beloved in the same way that, say, Beaux-Arts style buildings are, but in my view they are a real highlight of Montreal's urban landscape. There are so many showstoppers from that era like PVM, la tour CIBC, almost the entire Metro, parc Olympique, Tour de la Bourse... it just goes on and on.
The Palais de Justice de Montréal would be better if it wasn't located where it is. It's ok in skyline shots from far away I guess but being where it is just steps away from the city hall, Place Jacques-Cartier and the old town, it's very architecturally jarring in that part of the city IMO.
The Palais de Justice de Montréal would be better if it wasn't located where it is. It's ok in skyline shots from far away I guess but being where it is just steps away from the city hall, Place Jacques-Cartier and the old town, it's very architecturally jarring in that part of the city IMO.
But that's partly what's awesome about it. It hearkens back to an era in the recent past when rue Saint Jacques was still the dominant financial and business hub for all of Canada... right up to the 1960s and early 70s there were bold new buildings being built. Then it stopped, no doubt due to Montreal's relative decline within Canada. Since then, the area has taken on a bit of a "trapped in time" character... the impressive 60s and 70s edifices speak to forward-looking optimism. Think about it, Tour de la Bourse would never be built where it is today.
I'm not sure what you're saying with this post, it doesn't make sense. Vancouver isn't remotely equivalent to Toronto. Montreal is closer in size, yeah.
What I am saying is that if we can compare Toronto to a city that's roughly three times its size (NYC in this case), then we can also compare for the sake of discussion a city that's three times smaller (like Vancouver). Both are kind of ridiculous in my view but what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
The discussion was ridiculous from the beginning, it's like saying Vancouver has beaches therefore it's just like Rio which has beaches too. Vancouverites compare their city to Toronto often. But not vice versa which makes sense in the context of the discussion. I get why mistercorporate wanted to make the comparisons I just didn't agree with them.
The discussion was ridiculous from the beginning, it's like saying Vancouver has beaches therefore it's just like Rio which has beaches too. Vancouverites compare their city to Toronto often. But not vice versa which makes sense in the context of the discussion. I get why mistercorporate wanted to make the comparisons I just didn't agree with them.
And keep in my mind my quarrel wasn't with you on this one.
I've watched probly thousands of music videos. I don't think these type of videos are suppose to be expressions of art. They are exploitive and used for marketing and image building. You can have a gangster theme, but do it in a respectful and meaningful way. These videos are so ridiculous they almost look like SNL material.
Well of course I agree, except I think you have an overly narrow definition of art. Not all art is high art, nor is it all esoteric or wholesome. The use of art to market something or build a mental imagine has been around for ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit
Unfortunately, that "unappreciated" feeling kind of skews things. Think of how individuals act when they feel that way.
The US boosterism in the post-Civil War, pre-World War I era had a lot of sides to it. When you read material from the time it can seem expansive, provincial, innocent, ominous or whatever else, but there is always a sense that it was essentially the byproduct of an ascendant nation in rude health.
While Canada actually IS in rude health in 2015 (economically and culturally, the country is probably bigger and better than it ever has been, both absolutely and comparitively), the character of our boosterism has this unflattering sort of... cattiness. It is alternately grandiose and bitter, and then this latter category is further concealed beneath a sort of faux-sophisticated "over it all" stance of apparent incomprehension and indifference.
It's like if David Brent was promoted to CEO.
"Well if you hadn't heard about how great we're doing, I guess I just feel sorry for you, ultimately"
The problem I have with this is that I've been on these forums for so long that I've seen how these things tend to work. Once someone has decided that a person or group bears a certain characteristic, any behaviour is interpreted as being indicative of that characteristic. It would be reading through different threads and see the exact same behaviours interpreted in different ways depending on who was doing it.
You act confident? It's just a game face to mask your insecurity
You act indifferent and unaffected? Trying to make yourself seem sophisticated and worldly, while hiding how much you really care
You act smug and boorish? Clear over compensation to disguise what's lacking and to desperately garner attention
You act shy and demure? A rouse to make yourself seem humble and pious and therefore more likeable
You act angry and aggressive? An attempt to make yourself seem bigger and stronger and hide the fears and insecurity
You act humble and self deprecating? Simply using reverse psychology to seek compliments and encouragement
But then if someone else does the same things, they're taken at face value, or given yet a totally different spin altogether.
Now this isn't to say I don't believe any of the suggestions being made. I just require a much higher burden of proof and more specific examples before I find such assertions to be persuasive. In other words, it takes more than accusing someone of not being genuine. It requires evidence (examples) to show the contradiction between one behaviour and another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
I don't see the use of this at all. You already seem to have a tendency to try and make dubious assumptions about a person's background in order to explain to yourself why they think the way they think.
Bottom line is people have the views they have. We don't need to present a letter of credence to anyone before giving our opinion on here.
And BTW, I don't find I have trouble communicating or connecting with people from different walks of life either here or elsewhere.
Once again, we see at play here the contemporary Canadianism that is sweeping under the carpet any subject that makes us uncomfortable.
Sorry, but that's not my view of a discussion forum. At least not one that I'd want to be a part of.
If that's really the contemporary Canadian default, why aren't more of us doing it more often? Don't we have a lot of potentially contentious discussions on here? Why is his "sweeping away uncomfortable topics" behaviour considered a Canadianism, and my tendency to drag uncomfortable discussions out until everyone is so sick of them they're ready to hurl, not?
I can think of plenty of people who exemplify both traits in my daily life.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Well of course I agree, except I think you have an overly narrow definition of art. Not all art is high art, nor is it all esoteric or wholesome. The use of art to market something or build a mental imagine has been around for ages.
[/spoiler]
The problem I have with this is that I've been on these forums for so long that I've seen how these things tend to work. Once someone has decided that a person or group bears a certain characteristic, any behaviour is interpreted as being indicative of that characteristic. It would be reading through different threads and see the exact same behaviours interpreted in different ways depending on who was doing it.
You act confident? It's just a game face to mask your insecurity
You act indifferent and unaffected? Trying to make yourself seem sophisticated and worldly, while hiding how much you really care
You act smug and boorish? Clear over compensation to disguise what's lacking and to desperately garner attention
You act shy and demure? A rouse to make yourself seem humble and pious and therefore more likeable
You act angry and aggressive? An attempt to make yourself seem bigger and stronger and hide the fears and insecurity
You act humble and self deprecating? Simply using reverse psychology to seek compliments and encouragement
But then if someone else does the same things, they're taken at face value, or given yet a totally different spin altogether.
Now this isn't to say I don't believe any of the suggestions being made. I just require a much higher burden of proof and more specific examples before I find such assertions to be persuasive. In other words, it takes more than accusing someone of not being genuine. It requires evidence (examples) to show the contradiction between one behaviour and another.
If that's really the contemporary Canadian default, why aren't more of us doing it more often? Don't we have a lot of potentially contentious discussions on here? Why is his "sweeping away uncomfortable topics" behaviour considered a Canadianism, and my tendency to drag uncomfortable discussions out until everyone is so sick of them they're ready to hurl, not?
I can think of plenty of people who exemplify both traits in my daily life.
Individualism is an important thing in our times, but sometimes we get too hung up on it.
I mean, it is possible to find many Americans who aren't ambitious and entrepreneurial, or a Frenchman who has a naïve and sunny disposition about everything in life, or an Italian who doesn't care about food, Albertans who don't have a "can-do" attitude...
But we're still all part of collectives and these collectives tend to have traits. And now that I think of it, one thing that many Canadians also seem to have is an allergy to generalizations. Again, this is usually a positive trait but when you go to the wall with this idea and say "all generalizations are unacceptable because there are always exceptions!" that it becomes annoying and even contrary to human nature. Which in turn can have the opposite effect and destroy the original and legitimate goal of respecting everyone's individuality in a pluralistic society.
There are plenty of examples on here and elsewhere that show that most Canadians prefer to avoid unpleasant or uncomfortable conversation topics, dislike confrontation, are eager to compromise, are sensitive about not wanting to hurt other people's feelings, etc...
The Palais de Justice de Montréal would be better if it wasn't located where it is. It's ok in skyline shots from far away I guess but being where it is just steps away from the city hall, Place Jacques-Cartier and the old town, it's very architecturally jarring in that part of the city IMO.
Toronto also was unlucky with the brutalist ugly stick, right by the waterfront. A veritable curtain of concrete poo.
westin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
^ Yeah, Toronto didn't fare so well in that regard. However, the ugly buildings on water's edge are easily overshadowed by the nicer buildings in the financial core, and the urban streetscape that's evolving on the Waterfront in part due to the said ugly buildings is still quite enviable.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
I mean, it is possible to find many Americans who aren't ambitious and entrepreneurial, or a Frenchman who has a naïve and sunny disposition about everything in life, or an Italian who doesn't care about food, Albertans who don't have a "can-do" attitude...
But we're still all part of collectives and these collectives tend to have traits. And now that I think of it, one thing that many Canadians also seem to have is an allergy to generalizations. Again, this is usually a positive trait but when you go to the wall with this idea and say "all generalizations are unacceptable because there are always exceptions!" that it becomes annoying and even contrary to human nature. Which in turn can have the opposite effect and destroy the original and legitimate goal of respecting everyone's individuality in a pluralistic society.
There are plenty of examples on here and elsewhere that show that most Canadians prefer to avoid unpleasant or uncomfortable conversation topics, dislike confrontation, are eager to compromise, are sensitive about not wanting to hurt other people's feelings, etc...
My concern isn't so much that generalizations are bad, but rather that they're so open to perceptual bias as to be prone to inaccuracy (exaggeration). Once a person catches the scent of a particular generalization, they're more likely to notice things that exemplify it than they are to notice counter examples, and they're more likely to interpret things in a way to support the narrative when they actually don't support it.
So my the problem isn't with acknowledging that a particular characteristic is very common in one country compared to another, (let's say 20% of people in Canada do something and only 10% of people in the US or UK do it) my concerns is how easy it is for this to skew perception to the point where we "see" the behaviour in 35% of people in Canada and only 5% of people in the US or UK, simply because of our perceptions.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Prev
Linear Mode
