A weird thing about anarchy is people have the freedom to not care about what you are saying.

The sentence can be “How rightists look when you criticize billionaires” or “What rightists look like when you criticize billionaires”. Combining both makes a hideous mutant sentence that begs to be put out of its misery.

Ouch, I guess I’ve triggered you. Apologies. I believe your previous post is in violation of Rule 1, but hey I get it. Life’s busy and it’s easy to get caught up in and forget civility and respect. I’ll block you in a bit and you can continue on your way.

Apologies, I saw a post in a community on lemmy.ca and foolishly presumed that its default view wasn’t one of Americentrism. Silly me I guess.

What are talking about? Marijuana isn’t illegal federally.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/

I’m not sure what this has to do with Canada. Though if someone wants to do that here as a copycat, then I guess it would be related.

I’m a vegetarian, but I do make cultural exceptions.

I’ll renew my membership when the party’s executive is purged of the Liberal autocrats. And hey, maybe this time they can an executive that actually listens and works with its grassroots.

Avi as a leader is an excellent first step to reform.

Hate speech is not narrowly defined. It is barely defined. C-9 doesn’t even need hate speech.

The proposed amendments in the Bill would create four new criminal offences: (1) an intimidation offence that prohibits conduct that is intended to provoke a state of fear in another person to impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places

Those of us old enough to remember the satanic panic will remember a lot of pearl clutching christians who can easily be provoked to a state of fear that would impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places.

Whether someone intended to provoke such pearl clutching is a matter of interpretation. And pearl clutters have a proven track record of getting interpretations in their favour - no matter how much evidence indicates otherwise.

You could also call it logic.

Or empathy.

Or heck just contrarianism.

Lots of room on the anti-capitalism bus.

Sorry, this is a failure of compassion on my part. But it’s like a real life reenactment of Niemöller‘s “First they came”

They are detaining white people? NOW THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR!

This lady is a shill for Israel.

I’m trying to work out the logic in the meme. It seems like it argues against itself somewhat.

A requires B to function

Divided C lowers difficulty of exploitation C. The two lines seems to imply the that exploiting C is required for the functioning of B.

Having something easier does not normally indicate it is a requirement. Typically tha is especially so if there are multiple ways to make something easier.

This meme seems lazy in its argument. But then I’m very very far from a logician.

Let me get this straight: So we want to entrust the institutions committing residential school denialism with the power to throw people in jail for residential school denialism?

How about we make the law shield people who punch the perpetrators of residential school denialism in the face instead.

Just basic decency, compassion, and respect are so very much lacking in most of Canada’s levels of government.

We slip further and further into petty authoritarian states ruled by government buerocrats.

What? No. A step would be collecting data on the whereboats of CEOs , gathering information on their movements, securing arms, making contacts, etc. Jumping immediately to the murder of hundreds of thousands is far, far, far from a first step.

I’m not sure this comes even close to the most responsible course of action.

deleted by creator

What’s the high score for retractions?