- 2 Posts
- 111 Comments
1·7 个月前You’re very focused on what Poilievre does, even where it doesn’t actually affect you and even though you have no control over his words or actions.
You have complete control over your own words and actions. Nothing any politician does will change who’s character that reflects. That’s power you are granting him, and it only diminishes yourself. But by all means, have another go at re-articulating your whatabout defense. Maybe the third time’s the charm.
He uses his daughter as a prop. Is he your role model now? Being a prop (whether unwilling or conditioned) still does not make a child responsible for her father’s behavior. She’ll still be affected if Poilievre is removed from leadership, but at least that’ll be only once and for a political impact more meaningful than poorly targeted personal revenge.
I used to think leaving people’s children alone was the red line Canadians still had the decency to toe.
If we’re debating what “the point” is, it looks to me like pettiness is the point. Why else would someone get emotionally invested into an issue that isn’t even bothering Poilievre’s own personal political rivals?
Rich kids are still children and not political pawns. And hypocrisy is the least of my concerns around the party shamelessly espousing shitty values, but a meaningful concern around the parties and leaders that claim to be better.
If you’re so deeply invested in extracting your pound of flesh, endorse making him pay rent between leadership positions. Alternatively, just choose an issue to champion that is considerably more…productive.
We’d rather divide the provinces against each other and deal with 13 different sets of regulations we can bully into changing rather than have a single, consistent nationwide standard because [checks notes] “uncertainty.”
Did they even try inventing an excuse, or just randomly grab a word from any headline in a U.S.-centric financial publication?
Indeed. He was the first federal Green besides May that actually impressed me as an individual. Further, I don’t think the circumstances of this election should be treated as a “normal” loss. But I don’t know his prior vote share, and this time was not close. He came in last place, behind BQ and NDP candidates.
Realistically he’s probably making the right choice, but I’m still sad about it. May needs a strong successor, and I got the impression he was that.
The intended meaning is too easily subverted. Just ban or tax them out of existence on Canadian soil. Nothing says outsider like having to dispatch your propaganda from the outside.
I’m no expert on international trade relations, but this feels like a meaningful reciprocation of our earlier outreach. It’s heartening.
I’m sure Modi will be delighted to join a coalition against authoritarianism. India would make a pretty tenuous ally – to put it mildly.
Maybe men should start supporting each other. You know, as long as admitting to having feelings isn’t too gay or whatever.
I was waiting for some context like this before forming an opinion. Thank you for surfacing it.
The article seems to be rather incomplete. Just off the top of my head I notice the absence of anything regarding foreign affairs at all, let alone tariffs, and no mention of sales tax, national defense, food safety and supply management…
Presumably, it’s pruned to focus on the things people confuse. But these days that’s likely to include foreign affairs and trade. I don’t think premiers are normally anywhere near as involved in that as currently, and I don’t have a solid understanding of provincial authority there myself.
Earning condemnation from Campaign Life Coalition is an extremely low bar. Case in point: even Poilievre cleared it. I don’t know what could possibly warrant even mentioning the opinion of a gossamer-masked hate group.
There’s a generalization being made here that’s only supported by one anecdote. But as anecdotes go, holy hell and fuck that guy. One could have no regard for the most basic human decency and he should still be deposed for abject incompetence as a negotiator/salesperson.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford said some overtly divisive stuff in his zeal for mining developments. But behavior like Rivet’s cannot be laid at Ford’s feet. That’s the behavior of a man who made a choice long, long ago about what kind of person he’d be.
Strongly agree. It’s a service that federal or provincial governments could maintain for all (lower) levels of government, crown corps, etc. where account creation is restricted to those entities and prominent public figures within them. And just like that you have a secure, reliable, and accessible general purpose communications platform where every post is from a verified identity with clearly specified qualifications.
A conservative woman is still a conservative, so…
I think the problem is partly that at least a couple generations have been taught about exactly one genocide: the holocaust. So to them anything short of the holocaust isn’t genocide, because they simply have no grasp of the general concept beyond systematic mass-murder of epic proportions. These people grew up with the UN Genocide Convention – arguably the most authoritative definition and certainly the most influential one – and have probably never even read or heard Article II (the definition).
But it certainly doesn’t get much more explicit than:
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The other part is just refusing to recognize crimes committed against a group you don’t like or want, if doing so might negatively affect you. I shake my head when people complain about leftist discussion getting bogged down on definitions. These things matter, which is exactly why the right treats words like a game based on deception and subversion. Caring about definitions is just a communication fundamental necessary so we can actually have the same conversation. But individualistic philosophies don’t even need that; they need wedges for grievance politics and maximally-flexible boundaries.
The big question in my mind is why are dictionaries adopting modern slang and responding to other drift in linguistic meaning while still maintaining super-narrow and otherwise vague definitions of genocide?
This looks really promising. I was never at risk (during youth) because I was under the thumb of religious fervor, but I imagine I would have responded much more favorably to this kind of “know yourself” approach than the usual “everything is bad” propaganda. The latter is inherently self-defeating because it always contains some elements of both lying and hyping things that are non-issues on a personal basis. Both discredit any value delivered in the same package, and it’s not a “messaging” issue or figuring out how to be cool enough to make kids listen.
I might go so far as to identify this kind of self-understanding as the most notable absence in the most egregious shortcomings of my education and overall upbringing. That probably shouldn’t be so surprising, with western religion’s adoration for “one size fits all” approaches to everything. But the key factor to maximizing reception and impact would be staying well clear of pseudoscience and limiting the program’s ambitions to assessment backed by solid evidence.