innsertnamehere
Superstar
those are wards that the majority of people voted for ford or not, there were still plenty of people in the red area that voted for him. ford won on a citywide vote, it wasn't winning the most wards.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
those are wards that the majority of people voted for ford or not, there were still plenty of people in the red area that voted for him. ford won on a citywide vote, it wasn't winning the most wards.
bobbob911
Active Member
Massoudi has responded to the Vice story:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/05/...ensational-vice-story-says-emails-are-a-hoax/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/05/...ensational-vice-story-says-emails-are-a-hoax/
James_D
Active Member
Well, I guess we'll just take his word for it. He seems like a stand-up guy and would have no reason to lie.
r937
Active Member
classic!One of the few times Bürgermeister = Mayor fits nicely
SFO
Active Member
And also definitely no reason to have a lawyer compose a response for him.
animatronic
Senior Member
Occam's Razor, folks. Someone transferred the video from the phone to a computer. They used the computer to encrypt it, posted the encrypted file to the cloud and then deleted (but forgot to overwrite) the unencrypted original. Blair even said that they recovered a deleted files. Nobody cracked any encryption.
That said, it's still an amazing coincidence that the video turned up at exactly the right time.
Finally, that screenshot of the supposed drop box is bullshit. They didn't even try to mock it up to look like it was a secure page. That's the kind of shit you're supposed to see on unfuckwithable's blog.
pattycakes
Senior Member
Hype
New Member
OSS 117
Senior Member
In this particular situation, everyone who thinks the worst of Ford has generally been proven right so far, and everyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt has been proven wrong. Maybe not in every little detail, but definitely in spirit. Are there any exceptions where you feel that wasn't/isn't going to be the case?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
pattycakes:
Not sure about OPP, but RCMP? No thanks - considering how much internal trouble and historical baggage that org has.
re: Agar
Sorry, I strongly, strongly disapprove of the whole "would you not think of the kids" slant to this saga - it is a concern, but at the end of the day, the issue at hand is his behaviour as the chief magistrate. Frankly, his kids is something for the CAS to concern themselves with, not the public discourse per se.
AoD
Not sure about OPP, but RCMP? No thanks - considering how much internal trouble and historical baggage that org has.
re: Agar
Sorry, I strongly, strongly disapprove of the whole "would you not think of the kids" slant to this saga - it is a concern, but at the end of the day, the issue at hand is his behaviour as the chief magistrate. Frankly, his kids is something for the CAS to concern themselves with, not the public discourse per se.
AoD
zang
Senior Member
For those who want an explanation for FordNation's resilience need only look to Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
In it's simplest form, it says that when we invest ourselves in an idea and we hold another idea that conflicts with the first one, dissonance is created. Our minds seem hardwired to have harmonious and consistent thoughts, so this brings on negative physical and emotional feelings. Our brain's reaction is to try and reduce the dissonance by inventing special rules, self-justifying or latching onto other validating ideas.
Worse yet is that dissonance reduction can create a feedback loop, which then makes the reduction self-sustaining. This is dangerous from a cognitive sense as it leads to greater and greater irrationality and greater lack of reason. The more emotionally invested in an idea, the more cognitive dissonance is likely to happen. Part of this is why the army prefers those who aren't gung-ho pro-military in basic training; the more a person can be broken (i.e.; creating cognitive dissonance through the building of camaraderie with their fellow soldiers), the more likely they are to try and self-justify and ultimately become better soldiers themselves.
How does this fit with Rob Ford and Ford Nation?
If the knowledge of Ford's substance abuse issues had been as well known and widespread as they are today, Ford Nation would not exist. When Ford came on the scene, he wasn't the classic image of a well-dressed, charming "mayoral candidate". He had a few minor gaffes. There were rumours of his issues, but those really didn't extend beyond tight city hall circles, and not much was known of him by the general public. So, they took him at face value. He looked like them, he sounded like them. In a way, voting for him was a little narcissistic. I mean, in that way we all like people like ourselves.
And then more little gaffes started happening. Little gaffes are more forgivable, so people who'd invested in this person who reflected them were more likely to excuse them. But as time has gone on, the gaffes have gotten bigger. Those who continue investing in him are forced to reduce dissonance as their own logic is telling them something's not right. Those who are lesser invested have less reason to create new excuses and eventually give up on him. But those who are truly invested (likely from day one), will continue to dig in deeper, creating greater and greater leaps in reasoning to justify their choice. The common example of dissonance reduction is a smoker knowing about the health hazards of smoking justifying it by claiming it keeps the weight off, but a sample Rob Ford flow:
I like tough on crime candidates and Rob Ford is like me -> Rob Ford is only human, and we've all done stupid minor illegal things like using a cell phone while driving -> Rob Ford saves me money, so the talk of criminal activity must be a lie -> Rob Ford is the best fucking mayor this country has ever seen, so his crimes don't matter.
The suburban/urban, us vs. them divide is one way of dealing with dissonance. Dehumanization is one of the major paths for dissonance reduction.
Unfortunately too, when a large enough group are participating in dissonance reduction, there are those who will come to capitalize on it. With cancer patients there are those selling shark cartilage; with those in grief there are psychics who will let them "talk" to their dear departed loved ones. And with Rob Ford there are Sue-Ann Levys, Joe Warmingtons and Christie Blatchfords. They all capitalize on feeding Ford Nation. I don't even believe that they themselves believe what they wrote, but they justify it through their own dissonance reduction ("If I don't, someone else will", or "It's just a job").
Cognitive dissonance theory explains a lot of conspiracy theories where massive leaps in logic must be taken to explain away the dissonance. In the case of Ford (and this is the belief of at least one Ford National I've encountered):
"The video is a lie and the massive amount of time and money spent on a police investigation was done solely to keep Rob Ford from voting on the police budget."
Logically, this would require the complicity of hundreds of police officers. This also directly ignores that Rob Ford has previously been caught lying about substance abuse. No one with zero knowledge of Rob Ford would reason on their own that a man with previous drug issues current drug issues are actually just a conspiracy. With no previous knowledge, we tend to mentally take an Occam's Razor approach; that the simplest answer (or the one with the least steps) is usually the correct one.
There is often a breaking point, but where that is depends on the person. Some Ford Nationals have abandoned him for lying about the crack video. Others still believe in him, but think he needs help. Others yet believe he's done absolutely nothing wrong.
There's enough out there to say that Ford could possibly be complicit in a murder and a couple of murder attempts. If proven true, this is likely to be the breaking point for most. But there will be some who will question whether Ford had knowledge. This is ignores the fact that if he had an implied contract with someone to "take care of the problem" and that person commits murder against his knowledge, he does bear some responsibility.
(Evoking Godwin's Law here, but…)
Soon after World War II, and all the knowledge of Hitler's atrocities had come to light, Hitler and the Nazis still held as much as an estimated 40% approval amongst Germans. Not because 40% of Germans are heartless sociopaths, but because Hitler had appealed strongly to the disenfranchisement that post-WWI Germans felt. In their minds he was Germany's saviour; the man who would make Germany an economic power once more. He made promises of such, and for a while made it look like he was doing that. When he started invading other countries, Germans reduced their dissonance by making excuses like Polish and French lands have been contested by Germany for ages. It just went downhill from there and it became costlier and costlier (cognitively) for those feeling dissonance to break away.
Forcing those who've emotionally invested that much into an idea to suddenly be enlightened is forcing those people to suddenly snap their entire worldview in half. It's hard to admit we're wrong, but even harder to admit we've continued creating illusory ideas to support our being wrong. You are asking people to essentially rewrite their cognitive selves.
In time, the brain changes its ways of thinking naturally and without force. Many will actually realize the dissonance reduction, think back and say "man, was I stupid for believing that guy." Many others will continue to reduce dissonance by accepting he was a failure but by saying "there wasn't a better candidate at the time".
We ALL commit some dissonance reductions in our lives. We all have something we've been wary of and then doubled down on once there's no turning back. Acceptance of ones mistakes and learning to question one's self regularly seems to be the only way to deal with cognitive dissonance. The earlier you catch it, the more you'll be able to catch it in the future.
For the record, the studies seem to show that cognitive dissonance reduction has zero bearing on intelligence; so implying that Ford National are less intelligent is incorrect.
In it's simplest form, it says that when we invest ourselves in an idea and we hold another idea that conflicts with the first one, dissonance is created. Our minds seem hardwired to have harmonious and consistent thoughts, so this brings on negative physical and emotional feelings. Our brain's reaction is to try and reduce the dissonance by inventing special rules, self-justifying or latching onto other validating ideas.
Worse yet is that dissonance reduction can create a feedback loop, which then makes the reduction self-sustaining. This is dangerous from a cognitive sense as it leads to greater and greater irrationality and greater lack of reason. The more emotionally invested in an idea, the more cognitive dissonance is likely to happen. Part of this is why the army prefers those who aren't gung-ho pro-military in basic training; the more a person can be broken (i.e.; creating cognitive dissonance through the building of camaraderie with their fellow soldiers), the more likely they are to try and self-justify and ultimately become better soldiers themselves.
How does this fit with Rob Ford and Ford Nation?
If the knowledge of Ford's substance abuse issues had been as well known and widespread as they are today, Ford Nation would not exist. When Ford came on the scene, he wasn't the classic image of a well-dressed, charming "mayoral candidate". He had a few minor gaffes. There were rumours of his issues, but those really didn't extend beyond tight city hall circles, and not much was known of him by the general public. So, they took him at face value. He looked like them, he sounded like them. In a way, voting for him was a little narcissistic. I mean, in that way we all like people like ourselves.
And then more little gaffes started happening. Little gaffes are more forgivable, so people who'd invested in this person who reflected them were more likely to excuse them. But as time has gone on, the gaffes have gotten bigger. Those who continue investing in him are forced to reduce dissonance as their own logic is telling them something's not right. Those who are lesser invested have less reason to create new excuses and eventually give up on him. But those who are truly invested (likely from day one), will continue to dig in deeper, creating greater and greater leaps in reasoning to justify their choice. The common example of dissonance reduction is a smoker knowing about the health hazards of smoking justifying it by claiming it keeps the weight off, but a sample Rob Ford flow:
I like tough on crime candidates and Rob Ford is like me -> Rob Ford is only human, and we've all done stupid minor illegal things like using a cell phone while driving -> Rob Ford saves me money, so the talk of criminal activity must be a lie -> Rob Ford is the best fucking mayor this country has ever seen, so his crimes don't matter.
The suburban/urban, us vs. them divide is one way of dealing with dissonance. Dehumanization is one of the major paths for dissonance reduction.
Unfortunately too, when a large enough group are participating in dissonance reduction, there are those who will come to capitalize on it. With cancer patients there are those selling shark cartilage; with those in grief there are psychics who will let them "talk" to their dear departed loved ones. And with Rob Ford there are Sue-Ann Levys, Joe Warmingtons and Christie Blatchfords. They all capitalize on feeding Ford Nation. I don't even believe that they themselves believe what they wrote, but they justify it through their own dissonance reduction ("If I don't, someone else will", or "It's just a job").
Cognitive dissonance theory explains a lot of conspiracy theories where massive leaps in logic must be taken to explain away the dissonance. In the case of Ford (and this is the belief of at least one Ford National I've encountered):
"The video is a lie and the massive amount of time and money spent on a police investigation was done solely to keep Rob Ford from voting on the police budget."
Logically, this would require the complicity of hundreds of police officers. This also directly ignores that Rob Ford has previously been caught lying about substance abuse. No one with zero knowledge of Rob Ford would reason on their own that a man with previous drug issues current drug issues are actually just a conspiracy. With no previous knowledge, we tend to mentally take an Occam's Razor approach; that the simplest answer (or the one with the least steps) is usually the correct one.
There is often a breaking point, but where that is depends on the person. Some Ford Nationals have abandoned him for lying about the crack video. Others still believe in him, but think he needs help. Others yet believe he's done absolutely nothing wrong.
There's enough out there to say that Ford could possibly be complicit in a murder and a couple of murder attempts. If proven true, this is likely to be the breaking point for most. But there will be some who will question whether Ford had knowledge. This is ignores the fact that if he had an implied contract with someone to "take care of the problem" and that person commits murder against his knowledge, he does bear some responsibility.
(Evoking Godwin's Law here, but…)
Soon after World War II, and all the knowledge of Hitler's atrocities had come to light, Hitler and the Nazis still held as much as an estimated 40% approval amongst Germans. Not because 40% of Germans are heartless sociopaths, but because Hitler had appealed strongly to the disenfranchisement that post-WWI Germans felt. In their minds he was Germany's saviour; the man who would make Germany an economic power once more. He made promises of such, and for a while made it look like he was doing that. When he started invading other countries, Germans reduced their dissonance by making excuses like Polish and French lands have been contested by Germany for ages. It just went downhill from there and it became costlier and costlier (cognitively) for those feeling dissonance to break away.
Forcing those who've emotionally invested that much into an idea to suddenly be enlightened is forcing those people to suddenly snap their entire worldview in half. It's hard to admit we're wrong, but even harder to admit we've continued creating illusory ideas to support our being wrong. You are asking people to essentially rewrite their cognitive selves.
In time, the brain changes its ways of thinking naturally and without force. Many will actually realize the dissonance reduction, think back and say "man, was I stupid for believing that guy." Many others will continue to reduce dissonance by accepting he was a failure but by saying "there wasn't a better candidate at the time".
We ALL commit some dissonance reductions in our lives. We all have something we've been wary of and then doubled down on once there's no turning back. Acceptance of ones mistakes and learning to question one's self regularly seems to be the only way to deal with cognitive dissonance. The earlier you catch it, the more you'll be able to catch it in the future.
For the record, the studies seem to show that cognitive dissonance reduction has zero bearing on intelligence; so implying that Ford National are less intelligent is incorrect.
Last edited:
Jado
Active Member
Sorry if this has been covered here before, but - do we know who was in the room with RoFo in the hour or so preceding his big non-announcement yesterday afternoon?
I'm assuming Doug Ford and Norm Kelly were present - anyone else? Do we speculate that a debate went on? While I have no doubt that DoFo ensured that he would be verbally cleared and distanced (because we're that gullible), I wonder if there was any chance at any point that the announcement might have taken a different direction.
I'm assuming Doug Ford and Norm Kelly were present - anyone else? Do we speculate that a debate went on? While I have no doubt that DoFo ensured that he would be verbally cleared and distanced (because we're that gullible), I wonder if there was any chance at any point that the announcement might have taken a different direction.
SFO
Active Member
Probably, just like everyone else's in the office, but: a) we've all seen how well that's been going, and b) as the Vice article (if accurate) details, most of the communication with the so-called hacker happened while Massoudi was still working in Doug's office, and so is not (due to some policy reason I don't get) accessible by FOI.
Seems like this story isn't going anywhere unless the hacker goes public or new info/evidence emerges that confirms his account. Otherwise it's 100% anonymous and uncorroborated, basically hearsay, even though the details sound pretty par for the course.
Last edited:
OSS 117
Senior Member
His response was basically "You can't prove it was me".
animatronic
Senior Member
He was a political staffer for Doug at the time so outside FOI.
- Status