@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn’t just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.

That constitutes deliberate misinformation.

If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of “civility” for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.

@otter@lemmy.ca if it is “uncivil” to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?

and yet I’m getting comments removed for calling out people for disinfo who are deliberately muddying the waters around these cuts. Shameful moderation

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yeah, that was in June, they hadn’t updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn’t been announced either

Again, not saying you’re a bad faith actor, but

Here’s a direct quote from the PBO on June 5th when asked about the Carney Liberals’ planned tripling of the defense budget and simultaneous tax cuts:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

The Liberals’ platform explicitly talked about capping the size of the public service, not cutting it. It’s frankly ridiculous to pretend they never said this.

Notice the language: “without significant cuts”. The PBO did not say “without cuts”. This implies that cuts are assumed, it’s just a matter of degree.

Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about “personal benefit” to unions raising the alarm.

Not saying you’re a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it’s not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here’s a direct quote:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

Read the article.

Um no, you claimed that people were “fear mongering” because it is to their “personal benefit” to do so.

I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney’s government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn’t they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

But it’s only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there’s a material benefit to them for speaking out.

Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you’ve declined to do so. Take care.

I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we’re done here

Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?

And if, as you say, there’s no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from “fear mongering”?

OK so you’re saying the quotes from the unions and PBO are fake news?

I ask because some people seem to think that “media literacy” means uncritically discarding all information from a particular outlet, rather than recognising the ways in which bias can affect what, and how, events are portrayed in media, and using that as a lens with which to interpret the mix of fact and framing that all reporting invariably has

Well, the ministers aren’t talking, but the unions and the PBO are.

Also the fact that departments were not asked to find only non-personnel cuts is another good indication that the warnings are correct.

Do you have anything concrete to back up the idea that all these indicators are wrong, or shall we go ahead and use Occam’s razor here?

You should read my questions then, because this doesn’t answer them

I have read the article. It doesn’t answer my questions.

Does putting it in larger font over and over again make it more true?

Also are the reporters and editors Canadian? Not saying there’s zero influence from ownership or that the editorial slant is completely unbiased, but like, this is quoting union folks, it’s hardly some fabricated outrage from a right-wing US think-tank.

Does it say 15% cuts in the platform? All I can see is where it says 2% increases.

Also, what else will ‘save’ 15% other than cutting jobs?

Carney did not run on tripling the military budget, nor did he run on slashing 15% from the public service.

He didn’t run on cancelling the DST, nor cutting the CBC.

Those facts alone should be enough to oppose these cuts just on principle.

And we don’t have a US electoral system. We did not “choose between Carney and [Poilievre]”, we elected local MPs. Carney didn’t have to “support crazy stuff to get elected”, because ha’s not dependent on multi-million-dollar dark money PAC funding.

Anyway, you didn’t really address my question.

Here’s a question: if it’s so easy to find 15% waste or BS jobs in every government department, then why not keep funding on the same trajectory, and leverage these apparently obvious paths to efficiency to drastically improve the quality of programs and services?

Why is the ‘solution’ seemingly always to cut funding?