Scott Mayers

This is a quote that I copied from CNN just now. It points out the logical assumption of an implication itself 'misinforming'. The actual history regarding Hitler's stance against the Jews regards the fact that they actually thought they were embracing a model OF the Jews and that their purpose of ridding them was akin to Israel's own present fascist constitution that hypocritically just proves the case. As such, without context, we have to not assume that the Russian comment was 'implying' that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust but could be an argument against the STATE of Israeli influence and their own foundation in National Socialism throughout history. The German' National Socialism ("Nazi") was only signficant due to HOW they chose to vengefully annihilate the Jews. But the logic of the idea is literally modelled on what they would have interpreted was Jewish. And given their Social Darwinism popularly apexed in those time, the choice to annihilate them was intented to DISPLACE which 'Nationality' get to reign. Both extremes prefer a govnerning system that prioritizes some extreme EXCLUSIVITY from all others. But where German national socialism was relatively 'novel', the Jews had much more experience at how they 'exterminate' the undesirables. The difference is that the National Semitic who embrace their facism use INDIRECT means of harming their targeted hate. When you have power on the basis of some belief in one's genetic class who are unrepresentative percentage-wise of the most wealthiest positions as the Jews, they don't NEED a "holocaust" form of abuse to nevertheless abuse regardless. This is not a comment against Semitic people but against those Jewish Supremacists who embrace a hypocritical stance of BEING National Socialist fascists in which places like Israel represents. ['Nationalism', in National Socialism refers to ones' Nationality being recognized regardless of boundaries, not the mere 'pride' of one's Country that modern propaganda has redefined past defeated people's believed.]

I understood that Hitler DID have a Jewish connection. Is this being denied? This originally was pointed out BY Jews and others pointing out his hypocritical 'hate' based upon some assumption about one's genetic inferiority. I don't trust Israel's own involvement here given they are inappropriately advocationg for ALL Jews elsewhere. While they are welcome to presume their own superiority in judgement, it disgusts me more how others, like our PM, are granting it more relevance as 'hate' in a literal hateful way! We are also likely censoring out AND in information with more likely subterfuge than the Russians. Our own world capitalizes on granting virtue to the skills of deception with PRIORITY! We have the world's best professional entertainment industry that creates actors and fakes as a norm. We promote deception in our use of advertising, more now than ever before. I think we need to be skeptical of the noise from our side regarding other's words. We lack sufficient evidence to trust interpretations by those who themselves believe in censorship as a means of deceiving the 'weak' minded individuals as though we need a matriarchal babysitter for society.

What the fuck? Don't try 'gaslighting' me on this absurdity! I'm a logician and KNOW my evolutionary biology thank you. The fact is that the whole of all beings on the Earth are 'territorial' to this planet if you want to get technical. So collectives have just as much right to assert 'ownership' of this planet that some of you think is yours alone! You also intentionally ignored my comment about the limits of one's 'territorial' reach to be proximate, just like the dog. Do dogs 'own' houses and cars? Do they have POWER over others that human 'ownership' implies: the power to rule against other's freedoms on the mere basis of belief in what is your 'own' exclusive of all others? As to the topic, Desantis' intention part and parcel of an intentional conspiracy to get religious laws, like Creationism, into legal position. The hope is to penalize those who don't follow suit. Disney represents an 'open' club for all and to the religious fucks OR the cons using religion as a mechanism to control, do not approve of 'FREEDOM' for all but simply special freedoms for your own. Note that "National Socialism" is precisely this. A belief in a special 'nationality' to have a system run ONLY for their own 'socialism', their 'Nation' or Tribe.

Do you know a nonhuman animal that 'owns' territory it is not PRESENTLY on and that is limited to no more than a few yards from wherever it happens to be? Interesting....

I know politics very well. Here's a fact: NO political view is valid with respect to nature. In general, the "Right" political ideology is a CLASS of views based most specifically on a belief in private 'ownership' rights with greater priority than the "Left" ideology classes, who believe in priority to favor collective 'ownership' rights with priority. Nature doesn't permit ANY animal other than humans to 'own' more than what they can hold onto in their teeth and must restart the 'fight' to survive from scratch again EACH day. Also, collectively, ALL animals 'own' collectively the Earth they are born on. Yet, the conservative side fights to enhance PARTICULAR individuals who 'own' to have more 'freedom' but relies on 'enslaving' others to some degree for merely lacking such power. [You cannot 'own' more that you give that 'profit' implies, if you lack power over others. ]The liberal side fights to enhance personal lifestyles as 'freedom' but relies on the fact that it needs means to be sure that hungry bears (privileged owners) don't harm others in expressing its own freedom as bears. That is, the Left favors MORE people 'democratically'; the Right favors a BELIEF against 'democracy' BEYOND their OWN, however one's "own" is defined. I don't like politics but know that it is necessary because the greediest and most powerful will rule ruthlessly IF there were no means to keep them in check. If we are to adopt capitalism to its extreme, then Putin's behavior is symbolic of the 'virtue' of capitalizing: His use of the threat of nuclear war along with his attacks against Ukraine are the example FORCE that concentrated power in the hands of non-democratic interests AND in a way that legitimizes his 'ownership' power. [That the Right favors guns is about this factor. Since ownership is not a Natural right, it also favors utilizing religion (or myths about what is 'natural') as a mechanism to justify WHY they have this 'right'.

I'm not a fan of Twitter and I go into more depths just to BE more clear. You can't express complex concerns in just a Tweet. Thus I come to forums that permit the depth but still have many like you who don't appreciate it (??!!) Politics is not just some topic to treat as though we are discussing our favorite music; And, voicing ones' unqualified opinions without defense is more insulting to me. I think this goes without saying. How do you alter opinions without investing the depth needed when or where needed?

Oh Dad! you must be close to 90 if I'm your 'son.' You miss that DeSantis is definitely against the personal freedom of gay people as well as most non-Evangelical Christians. I know my politics. Still don't know your acronym, "TDS", by the way. The nefarious intent exists contrary to the fact that you are simply not sufficiently well versed in the essential political philosophy and manuevoring by those who believe in extremes. The BILL falsely bases its assumptions that there is some intentional conspiracy to make pedophiles or other misfits under the smokescreen of "CRT" as an excuse. Disney refused to respect this precisely for those who are 'weird' by some stereotypical standards that include gay people especially. They believe that teachers are 'normalizing' the acceptance of one to BE 'gay' for instance, as well as to anything non-traditionally Christian.

Don't know what your "TDS" stands for. I'm not affiliated with any party and prefer the American's First Amendment clause that separates church and state. Favoring 'culture' is just a con to PREVENT us from adopting that separation. That's why we have a system that predominantly protects the Catholic school system. By the way, our system is shunned in the U.S. (as well as other countries) precisely for permitting what they call, "vouchers" for the Catholics to transfer their tax dollars away from the normal public school system (or to those other cults that the Catholics permit). The 'deception that is intrinsic' to the Right refers to the literal ideology that conserves wealth by any means. We advertise with lies, utilize TRICKS to get people to buy as though this is appropriate behavior placing the onus on the ones being conned to require finding means to NOT be conned alone. Thus, yes, the Right believes intrinsically based upon their philosophy. You promote a right to DECEIVE because it is ONLY by such that enables one to take more than they give. The term 'profit' means "more than fit", for instance. Trump used deceptive language with utmost extremes by very intention to steal the election. He used clever indirect methods of manipulation. [I even know what his particular Machivellian tactics are and what sources he is using based upon his methods. They are like someone knowing how a magician does his (or her) tricks!] Putin has recognized this and why he too is exploiting deception so faithfully now. He has learned from the Rightwingers of this world just how effective gaslighting and other deceptive tactics are. He is practicing one major tactic: being so BOLD as to threaten the whole world with nuclear annihilation. He is the perfect Right-wing capitalist now wiliing to treat the world like it is some 'game' just for fun.

You're way off. I'm white and male. I'm non-religious (athiest) and have a background in logic. If you're confused about the way you cannot understand, own it; Telling me that I'm unclear is gaslighting bullshit. Your head is hurting? Its' called "THINKING".

I already clarified that I AM NOT AGAINST QUEBEC. I appreciate their anti-religious stance where it exists too. I was arguing that given people will fight tooth and nail to KEEP their 'cults' where they exist, Quebec will always be USED to defend Multiculturalism™ and GIVEN 'culture' should NOT be something GOVERNMENTS representing all people, should have a right to conserve and promote in a 'free speech' society, we need to get rid of the powers of government to culture. "Religion" is actually the intent given when a politician is religious, they could suddenly opt to behave in some arbitrary way based upon their power to BE 'religious'. Note that religion IS the MAJOR component of any 'culture' that is particularly being protected here. How can any further abuse OF 'cultural genocide' exist if our governments were not permitted to make laws that FAVOR the SPECIFIC cults that the Catholic powers protected under the constitution into perpetuity are EMPOWERED to arbitrate over? Note that the Muliculturalists are also promoting DEAD cultures based solely on one's genetic coincidence to those ancestors who had some specific 'culture'. That is, this system PROMOTES the religiousity and Nationalism of specific people. And this is done ONLY to conserve the right of the Catholic/Anglican families of ancestrally established power to CONTROL what happens politically. The promotion of Native tribes to EMBRACE old stereotypes (the 'culture') occurs by favoring those Natives who follow suit and in turn PENALIZES those INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL's right to create their own 'culture'. We have laws that favor granting a genetic persons' ancestry as though the GENES pass on the living behaviors of ancestors. YET, no one seems to notice that you can't promote ONLY the 'positive' stereotypes let alone IMPOSE someone to ACCEPT such racist ideals. I also know the politics well. Our Constition was intentionally written to BIAS favor to SPECIAL 'superior' catholic or the general religiously devout people, as they think of themselves and their cults. I favor the right of the individual to CHOOSE their 'culture' without being forcefed to embrace what others think that they SHOULD embrace. This is like allowing government to dictate what the citizens should be allowed to wear regardless of whether that is relevant OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT! AS to language, the means to LOCK IN a perpetuous means to manipulate others is to advance segregate language rights to those most privileged. Our system favors unfairly those who have BOTH English and French when the ONLY reason ANY country has ONE language is due to its assurance that the wording is uniform in meaning. [Note that the Muslims justified their own use of requiring everyone to read only the Arabic regardless of which Native language you hold for the same reason: uniformity of the 'official' language assures that one doesn't intentionally alter the meanings when translating. It doesn't mean that one cannot speak their own language but that their 'constitution' for the religion is an EXAMPLE of how the collection of people from all different languages use a single OFFICIAL language. If you are not aware, linguists have discovered long ago that language shapes culture and perception along with trouble in translating things properly from language to language formally while maintaining the identical meaning. But this should still be irrelevant given the point about how it unfairly favors those who have the unnecessary redundancy of learning distinct languages. That belief is a private 'cultural' belief itself and IMPOSES it upon us all to accept them BY DEFAULT regardless. Two or more "OFFICIAL" languages is PROOF of unfair bias to one or both cults, not the people of this country regardless of beliefs ('official' is only for LEGAL clarity, not something that prevents people from speaking their own language.)

Yes, and I think it should be a crime to be a pretentious Christian who gaslights society into thinking that the liberal side is seeking to make everyone favor pedophilia when this is not true. The idea of 'liberalism' is to be FREE of ones' choice to behave WHERE THEY DO NOT IMPOSE UPON OTHERS OF THE SAME. So where the liberal side tends to promote their supports are about the freedom of one to be gay or come from a different race or ethnicity or have equal access to real jobs, etc. Your side believes in IMPOSING against personal behaviors YET you think your ARBITRARY right to pass on inheritance and wealth to ONLY those you favor (while passing on debt to the society as a whole) are precisely what is going on. Those on the Left in power in the groups also favor a lot of the same as you do but recognize they cannot do so unless they have more power that collecting together provides. As such, they tend to require accepting the different choices people make as a right due to the inablity of any one cult to DICTATE. The conservatives of all societies have always been or become more and more concentrated to one SPECIFIC cults with associated 'familiar' relations due to inheritance. There are no threats to children by Disney. Oddly, they too are 'Rightwing' normally. The only reason they defend their stance relates to the specific KIND of business that appeals to universal acceptance of people's differences.

Hi Scotty. Yup...it's me. Your non-religious fellow free-speech advocate. Teaching pre-teen kids about sexual behavior is a bad idea. Teaching them about abnormal sexual behavior is even worse. But not because of some religious reasons, as you elude to here, but because they're kids. You know...young people who are still trying to learn basic academic skills as well as basic social skills. But on the positive side...you got to say "pedophiles". READ the response on the other thread regarding your false interpretation of what I said. I already know that most people leading anywhere politically require at least PRETENDING to be religious. Trump is good example. As for this argument, what you are conflating is the assumptions about CRT if you are concerned ABOUT the 'cultivating' of unsual behaviors. That it should be none of your fucking business about another person's sexual behaviors given it is PRIVATE is completely ignored given you PRETEND to favor exclusive benefits for someone based upon one's right to private ownership. That is, their private behavior is strictly their "OWNERSHIP" as a person. If you think you can impose your own lies about what people ARE, you have to stop being hypocritcal. Your side falsely associates the 'liberation' of peoples personal behaviors that are NOT infringing on your own as somehow STILL YOUR OWNERSHIP. THAT is 'religious'. The threats to Disney is based upon being called out on DeSantis' insistence that CRT is more extreme than it is AND the deception of his is to feign that the literal material in question was or was not PROMOTING of these lifestyles. It is an ACCIDENT of one's own ego that they would 'promote' their own behavior as unthreatening regardless of who you are. That is, people have a right to be 'religious' when that is itself a fraud AND where those who are the pedophiles normally come from in irony of your side's accusations. Why do you think it is fair to threaten Disney for FREEDOM OF SPEECH all of a sudden....especially considering the other thread on Elon Musk's reasoning for his purchase of Twitter? That Disney asserted they will ignore the intolerant assumptions about the INTENT of the way teachers or their materials teach for their community is justified to the theme of their own business. AND the real reason for DeSantis' actions are BASED ONLY on the fact that Christian Creationists can't get their own cultivating textbooks in public for directly being 'religious'. I have the actual examples of what is called, "CRT" by the Right from textbooks and while I too was not in favor of putting forward unrelevant 'heroes' based upon putting racial or sexual lines, the Right is NOT actualy concerned about that but hoping to eventually make it illegal for anyone to have any kind of non-Christian relationship. You guys are also GASLIGHTING when you declare the 'facts' that is only 'opinion' or out-and-out deception.

Well gee whiz Scotty...this might even make sense...were I religious. That's right son...i belong to no man's religion. Not Christian, Jew nor Muslim. Not even Budhism. But do keep trying son. Hell your first half-sentence was on the mark. Swing...an' a miss... I was commenting on your ignorance about where the problems originally lie: the right and those, like Trump, who believe intrinsically in deception. Extreme capitalists believe in exploiting what another doesn't know and what they can get out of them in terms of profiting on the deception. As such, your anti-liberal campaign is a fraud given the faults that lie on the Left are due to those who are aslo 'Nationalistic' (the original reference of this refers to one's FAMILY, race or clan, ...their 'nationality', not their 'pride of country' that patriotism refers to.) The problem of democracy is that people regardless of which side of politics they are on are PREDOMINANTLY 'nationalists' and this nationalism is what is creating the problems on the left as MULTIPLE groups. The Right is being 'capitalized' by the extremes who believe in ONLY serving their own....which defaults to minimally mean, one's tribal or racial associations. Trump's success of getting stupid people to follow him like blind obediant sheep is based upon a form of religiousity itself. And the deception that is favored there is what Putin recognized and is not exploiting himself. ...because of the 'success' of the Right to prove that lying is functionally able to prevent people from determining what is or is not true or real. This is intended. And you can't blame Communism for it given both Russia and Ukraine are 'capitalists' now. [Their own problems begun when they transfered to private property given only the leaders had the power to choose WHO gets the properties] As to this topic, the free speech extreme is fine for me but your assumption of the fault is deeper than the mere collectivism of those cults on the left who rob the 'democratic' power from the independent individuals there, ...especially the poor who have no religion or 'nationality' they associate with. This is true of the Right too but they are just more minimalized to the fewer BUT MORE POWERFUL cults that agree in general to PROMOTE religion. I am FOR some forum to be 'free' but it is unlikely regardless. Elon Musk is known to have shut out (ie, ''censored") those who disagree with him which raises questions about whether he would change that. Also since his belief in 'ownership' is absolute too, there is NO guarantee nor means to assure whether he WOULD support real 'free speech',...certainly if it threatens his own power. We are all still required to 'have FAITH' in those like Musk to NOT abuse such power. But even just the fact of his wealth status suffices to assure us that he becames successful by excessive exploitation. [You can't become a Billionaire without this, regardless of where you sit politically).

Yes, let's encourage the free speech aspect of it but then have those 'libs' focus on Decultivating religious people's irrational thinking instead. I'm not sure how we can succeed competing against those who believe intrinsically in deception as the Conservatives do though. The anti-liberal campaign that you hold is also troubling given you don't actually believe in 'free speech' per se. In fact, it IS your extremist ways of thinking that has created the fear of misinformation given you pander to dumbing people down more in order to manipulate them easier. What pisses me off most here is that the political extremes of the Right to BE cultural puritanicalists make them MORE dangerous then the collective fascists that infiltrate the Left. Those 'Libbies' you complain about also think like you....they just figured out how to CAPITALIZE on joining up with the Left, not because they believe in liberal democracy but precisely because they SHARE the same intolerance of those arrogant religious nuts on the Right like you. They are only on the 'Left' to as a tentative decision. The problem with politics here is the fucking religious people who think in terms of 'cults'. Unfortunely, for the actual majority of INDIVIDUALS not tied to one of your cults, we have no fucking representation anywhere.

Isn't ANY place that specifically favors 'family', especially children, more likely than not to eventually have apparent issues involving violations of children regardless? Maybe we should penalize the churches for IMPOSING adult-related biases upon them in isolation of their 'free choice' to choose what they want to become independently? Personally, it is more likely than not that someone LIKE that DiSantis to BE of the type to abuse children in the first place. They know just how to 'appear' as though they are child-friendly as the very pedophiles that use the same methods to appeal to children as 'friends' most predominantly.

You are logically missing the fact that 'Bi-culturalism" IS "Multiculturalism" by the definition of having MORE THAN ONE 'culture'. The problem for the Trudeau's invention of our constitution relates to the PANDERING of those in Quebec throwing a temper tantrum on why their own CHILDREN tend to INTEGRATE without force to adopt English and whatever FREE choices their children should DARE to choose voluntarily. Because the Trudeau-created Constitution 1982 could NOT have a logical respect for ONLY the two discrete cults, they too LOGICALLY recognized that they cannot be unhypocritical UNLESS they grant the APPEARANCE of supporting ALL cultures. Thus, the choice to use the term, "Multiculturalism" and their clear intent to NATIONALIZE the natives to think in the same isolated cultural terms. Our own country's influence is also more powerful indirectly on the world stage as others are attempting to utilize this same type of arrogant 'culture-centred' thinking to JUSTIFY making laws concerning religion. I also recognize and agree to many of those in Quebec but am proposing the separation not out of disrespect for them but because the whole rest of society is FORCED to comply with the intolerant 'culture' laws being imposed just to SAVE the generic 'Trudeau' wish to conserve bI-lingual, bi-cultural background. What most here agree to is to SEGREGATE into their own cults as though we are genetically born to OWN some 'culture' of our parents. They INTENTIONALLY wrote our Constitution to prevent the American-style First Amendment rights by clevery PRECONDITIONING our rights as requiring to recognize the 'supremacy' of both traditional areas of teh French and English. BOTH are at fault and the only time you see resistance to 'cultural' impositions BY Quebec is where it AFFECTS them independently ....rather than defending ALL people in Canada now and into the future. We have an intolerant system based upon a real fraudulent means to PRETEND compassion for all people as individuals. The ONLY 'minority' of minimal concern should default to the independent individual apart from any religion or belief about what 'culture' means. There is no such thing as 'culture' apart from what CONTEMPORARY PEOPLE CREATE. But it is being diminished in favor of some MYTHICAL interpretation of past 'cultures' as being relevant. The contradictions you think appear in the Liberal's approach for supporting MORE THAN just the two is due to the clear bias it represents for merely HAVING a system defined by using ONLY TWO specific langauages. As a comparison, Apple Computer architecture was a proprietary language and 'culture' that evolved along-side the OPEN architecture of all other PCs. This is similar to what happens here. All that is necessary for a constitution is ONE language and we run into trouble when we require anything MORE than ONE. The best kind of example of the problem is what happens when some international effort to be inclusive of all countries to shared goals, like the space programs of NASA, confuses the Imperical measures with the Metric ones. Note that these act as distinct languages. When we mix them up as both 'official' we prove WHY we end up having planes crash for mistaking how much fuel to put into the tanks. Imagine if we permitted people to select ONLY to use Imperical measures OR, exclusively, Metric, dependent upon one's own personal 'cultural' preference AND the potential fact that the system permitting this 'bicultural' choice of measure is an independent right of the individual's freedom. Obviously it would be a problem if the Metric 'cultured' person at an airport got to express his own bias next to another preferring Imperial 'culture' WITHOUT requiring an excessive need for a translater. The option is to REQUIRE all people learn BOTH languages. This is NOT able to be viably realistic let alone reasonably efficient. It also biases DEPENDENCE upon those inbetween doing the translating. Obviously, using the last example, if we then ENCOURAGED other 'cults' to impose distinctly separate rules for measuring, things get even worse. But the logical problem begins with expecting to conserve TWO languages. Note that this would be akin to having two or ,more distinct hardware chips in a computer that redundently make architectures that can operate on distinct machine languages. Because the hardware languages may not truly be logically essential, if you conserve a SPECIAL privilege to have ANY arbitrary second language, you OPEN the right of other designers of different languages to rightfully demand their architecture to be added also. There DOES happen to be some of this being done in architecture too. For instance, for emphasizing gaming,a chip can be designed to move to a faster chip when using graphics and thus we have those graphics cards that utilize this effectively. But they are NOT 'arbitrary' languages that those like French versus English are. In contrast, we ADD novel languages, like the jargon a profession might use on top of the prior 'official' languages. Our system thus cannot be repaired without deciding on ONE language. But since 'culture' is also the biword to permit RELIGION in politics, this is unlikely to happen WITHOUT completely segregating those systems. Our system is defined to SEGREGATE while trying to INTEGRATE simultaneously. This helps ONLY those with the luxury to be a part of both segregated cults, as those with bicultural backgrounds of the English and French have, including those catholic religions they share ("catholic" here means to include Anglican given it only trades particular roles of who gets to be the final arbitor as a 'pope' technically).

"Affirmative action" was a term referring to the American's use of making TEMPORAL (non-Constitutional) laws. They are variable and their organizations defending them protect even those considered racist with fairness. An example of just such an action is the busing of people by random draw of people who live in one neighborhood to go to a school in another area. This is used to break the barriers that large communities of distinct ecomomic differences impose unfairly upon citizens. Another example is the laws that demand buses not to discriminate against others based upon race. It used to be true that blacks were required to move to the back of the bus and/or allow non-blacks the right to force blacks people to give up their seats for Whites in a similar way we now do (properly) for anyone with clear physical needs. By contrast, our Canadian system ENTRENCHES the faulty beliefs Constitutionally because they are conserving the means to make laws based upon religious interpretation and to protect the French and English catholic power into perpetuity. So our biases are even more dangerous: they lock in 'affirmative FAVORITISM' of some specific minorities that they alone get to DEFINE non-democratically. That is, the Catholics and Anglicans are the arbitors of who GETS to be defined as a 'minority' or 'majority' and which are the perpetrators or victim classes.

First off, the complaint about CRT by the 'Right' is originated in the U.S. and contrary to their own lack of concern, they actually owe Canada to the actual evidence of our own imposition of cultural laws that represent WHY they are most fearful. For instance, I'm watching Big Brother Canada this season when at the beginning everyone was introducing themselves with the addition of presenting their preferred pronouns. THAT IS an excellent example of how our own education system, ...not the U.S., is literally utilzing theories regarding race and sex in ways that are very presumptuous. I was somewhat shocked at the fact that all these young new contestants were in sync with this volunteering of these pronouns and don't get it. The next night after seeing that, I also happened to notice a pharmacist with an added "She/her" to her name tag!!? I asked her and she didn't quite get it either but HAD to wear it. While I have already defended the traditional meaning of "CRT" as a body of research regarding these issues, in Canada, we DO have a political impositon of 'culture' to which we have to pay attention to. I don't get how it is expected that others are to ABIDE by these arrogant expectations. A 'pronoun' is just a variable shorthand way of referencing something without having to formally spell out the particular person's name constantly. But to DICTATE that others SHALL use the pronouns when speaking to you is LITERALLY "ENTITLED". I think that if I had a right to have others respect my pronouns, I could demand that one use "your excellency" as a pronoun. It is a TITLE if one demands specific WAYS that others shall refer to them as and "entitled" is perfect to describe this arrogant expectation. So, if you agree, I PROPOSE creating equally justified words for use as your own 'pronouns' that may help demonstrate the absurdity as "your excellency"; But note that those complaining about CRT in most other places are NOT like Canada. We actually DO impose "CRT"-type abuses worthy of complaint. The right-wing use of complaining about it elsewhere is due to how those of us countries exploiting 'diversity' by segregating people based upon genetic identity as though our genes hide 'culture' IS a flaw regarless. They borrowed the original label, "CRT", as a very generalized reference to those who believe teachers should teach cultural ideas in school as per Americas First Amendment. But the use of it BY the Right in the U.S. is a counter assault against their OWN preference to teach 'cultural' material as science: namely and most popularly, the Creationists who are pissed off for not getting this taught as 'equal' science in the classroom. That is, those 'Rightwingers' are not technically against a critical theory about race but to their own disappointment for not getting their own 'critical race theory' like Creationism, to be taught freely. Thus, the attack is more about the hypocrisy of those proposing teaching methods that they themselves are not permitted.

I'm fed up with our country's approach to identity issues and cannot see that we will ever be able to escape them if we don't encourage Quebec to simply separate. That one province has 'justified' the means of our government to constitutionalize our system as a theocratacy pretending to be a 'democracy'. The force of us to require recognizing Quebec as 'distinct' has been utilized to CONSERVE the specific actions generally referred to as 'multiculturalism' but hides that it is not actually universally applicable. The actual reasoning behind all of the quickly legislated accolades for 'minorities' since the introduction of the 1982 Constitution is due to recognizing that the traditonal cults that predominated the Canada's wealth cannot presist without being held liable to the faults of their racist and sexist ancestor's they owe their inheritance to. Without such protections, the cults of the strongest wealth here in Canada recognized that their liability would require them to LOSE their power. So, to save it and their unearned inheritance and associated heritage, they opted to steal the thunder from those they harmed by acting as though they are the repentent good guys while hideously transferring the debt to the society as a whole. To appeal to the racist and sexist issues, they choose to SPEAK FOR whole races and sexes as though all of us conform to THEM based upon external appearances! That is, for those like the Liberals who are predominantly representative of the traditonal stereotypical "Canadian" ancestry, in order to EVADE liability AND to also GAIN PERMANENT power into the future for them and ONLY their loved ones, they require pretending that the CAUSES of the abuses to others are based upon ONLY derogatory stereotypes about those who are genetically of European White and predominantly patriarchal (male) beliefs. The French Catholics and the Anglicans who CAUSED the racist and sexist history of problems cleverly noticed that since these PARTICULAR groups just happen to be 'patriarchal' (by nature of the established hisory of these religions) AND 'white', enables them to conveniently BROADEN their liable class to these larger more inclusive classes so that it HIDES their particular liability. Thus, the con is that our constituitonal founders (1982 on) first wanted to remove was any potential possiblity of an actual LOGICAL 'right' of free speech of the American form. The American's First Amendment clause includes the sepation of church from state. But since the desire is to hide the faults are founded on religious 'cultural' beliefs, having a fair logical recognition of such separation of powers would prevent this con from being played out. Since the arguments for setting up special unfair provisions in the Constitution cannot favor the French Catholics or English Anglicans (and their 'friends' of similar shared beliefs), they needed a means to include those they also STILL actually disrespect but pretend to treat as 'equal' among the Segregationists, the "Indigenous". The proof of their bias is to declaring them as DISTINCT 'Nations'; They literally continue to think of the Aboriginals as DISTINCT genetic species in kind to their promotion of everyone else who equally disagrees with things like inter-specie relationships. That is, the function of enhancing 'distinction' is to BE racist and sexist but just in a different way. The present paradigm is not to treat each other equally fair but to deceptively flip WHICH stereotypical class gets to be on top and which to the bottom. In this case, we are trading Patriarchalism for Matriarchalism and hideously staging the 'enemies' to be the scapegoated people who have neither wealth nor privilege. Thus, the very Caucasian stereotype of someone like Justin Trudeau, who inherited both the bilingualism of French and English AND the corresponding Catholicism, transfers his own degree of fault to those who are white and male who happen to NOT have the power to do anything about it for not being those who are actually privileged as he. Here's the math: If one is inherently empowered due to their ancestor's Canadian heritage, they are most likely both White European AND Male. Therefore, it is technically true that White European males are more likely to be representative of the wealth here today. Analogous example: Hitler was an evil German leader in history. But if he had offspring who inherited some fortune based upon his rule, they can JUSTIFY the fault as based upon the LARGER inclusive classes, ....being European, White, and Male, all accidental physiological and environmental features that are technically true but not relevant to the flaws at isue. Then, to pretend to prove that you are not biased, young Hitler the Second, would argue in FAVOR for culturally segregated groups as a VIRTUE but that instead of annihilating their nemesis groups of the same fascist fervor, agree to strengthen them but as DISTINCT beings, distinct peoples,....distinct species. So he might be apologetic towards the Jews, for instance, but favor those in particular who embraced the same fervor by creating their own segregated community, such as Israel (Zionism == a National Socialism of Judeaism). Now, although an improvement in broadening ones' acceptance, young Hitler the Second might declare those NOT affliated with these cultish extremes as requiring to ACCEPT the debts of these groups' greivances. That is, if you are European, White, and Male, regardless of whether you particularly inherited any wealth OR 'heritage' or are even German for this example, the generalized burden gets passed onto you in spite of the lack of logical connection. AND furthermore, by making anyone who dares to speak against this 'apparent' DIVERSITY of formally decreed "OFFICIAL CULTURES", they are targeted as though they were directly part of the original Nazi regime. Since our formal Constitution LOCKS IN this very hideously racist, sexist, and pro-religious anti-intellectualism, we are DOOMED to be subject to the degrading of society into ISOLATED cults with a fermenting of hate as they continue to ENHANCE the arrogant rights of national socialist mentality! It is just as unlikely too that these strenthening collection of fascists will volunteer to INTEGRATE (It is odd and misleading for those associating German Nazi's use of the term "assimilation" when it is actually being expected that we 'assimilate' to one or other DISCRETE CULTS as defined by the 'official' arbitors of Multiculturalism. The actual flaw of German 'assimilation' was to segregate: those who are deemed 'non-German' are required to submit to being segregated and must later decide to either leave the German club, or be eliminated for violating tresspass. We thus need to separate Quebec given they will not change their bias. It is religious for those people and they will NOT give up their 'heritage' and you cannot backtrack to reconstitute something more universally fair without taking the factors that only hardened their resolve to be distinct.

Now you are sounding like a banker pretending to be a humble home owner! What are the odds of that kind of propaganda happening? ?

I live in Saskatchewan and Tim Hortons only came here in the mid to late 1990s. They arrived just in time to celebrate some '50th' anniversary for ALL of Canada as though they've been here all along. Such Eastern Canadian bias suffices to make me not like this company. Their coffee is NOT as good quality and, any accolades regarding paying for 'ethical' sources of coffee seems more of a justification to prop up their charge to the customer. While I also understand things like smoking should be discouraged, that company also lead the campaign to promote an anti-smoking hatred of others, something that seemed to me to go against the correlation that most smokers have with drinking coffee. ....and, finally, they brought larger prices for donuts with smaller sizes and managed to encourage all others to do the same. I can still remember buying apple fritters that were huge here in Saskatoon before they came. Tim Hortons introduced those cupcakes that have a cup-size of about an inch with the top part seeming to be normal. I know some who buy daily there out of some belief in it as 'supporting Canadian business'. But that was always expected prior to any Covid crisis. I agree to also NOT supporting places like A&W who boasts how they make their burgers from Canadian cattle that eat grass. But what is that in contrast to? I never thought cows ate beef! And IF they ate something other than plain grasses, like perhaps, corn (?), wouldn't that just mean they are admitting to feeding 'our' cows with the lowest possible quality of grass? Eat in. Save your money. Yes, it may affect the success of restaurant businesses. But those companies have always been the most cost cutting with respect to employee wages and other means of exploitation.

No, it would just allow people to budget better and make housing more affordable.. It is a federal income tax deduction in the US. Explotiing is done by many people, wealthy or not. Not sure what you are trying to relay with that last paragraph. I am in no way saying we should become the US just saying that we could have mortgage interest be a tax deduction on our income taxes "like" in the US. "Affordable" for whom? I've never noticed any benefit for owners that trickle down to the renter, for instance. And given you never see rent go DOWN, this is indicative of the fact that owners wouldn't pass the same compassion for any 'benefits' to those who lack even the power to buy. If any benefits are granted to people based upon income, this includes both those renters AND owners by contrast. When laws favor the 'owner', those with excessive capital in property ownership on a large scale would exploit the shit out of such 'benefits' with priority. "Exploitation" occurs from those with power over others. Wealth represents that power most predominantly. While it may be true that all people have the same tendency to be 'greedy' equally under the same conditions, only those with the power to successfully exploit matter, not those empoverished whom you can expect to behave less maturely by default of how poverty affects their psyche and others within their environment. Instead, I think the Federal government CAN demand banks to be the ones to grant those very 'deductions' you'd like. Why should the bank be granted the right to not sacrifice. These times are most profitable for bankers and, in general, most investors who would 'capitalize' better when government is burdened rather than they themselves. The banks should be challenged to stop interest rates contrary to contracts (like mortgages are). AND, they should not be permitted to merely DELAY obligations as they have for some. Rents have not gone down but up, just as new home owners are also locked out permanently from ever having the same luxury to own. The banks, the media, and other essential 'middlemen' profiteers should be the ones taking more responsibility during times of crisis ....voluntarily. Yet, opposingly they are definitely exploiting the present dispostions of those perhaps like yourself for NOT volunteering relief while simultaneously gaining more profit than normal. They would be the ones who would 'benefit' for being ASSURED they are not required to sacrifice.

accidental new post meant as an edit for the last.

Wouldn't that be a 'tax' benefit for those WITH wealth, and just as well interpreted as "a way" that wealthy people exploit most predominantly? P.S. We are not a country made up of independent 'states' that founded a Federal government like the United States, but a Federal state that interprets each 'province' as subject to it. If you want a system like the U.S., then we need to redress our constitution.

Thanks Happbo and Goddess. I 'forgot' this thread given it was basically ignored. We don't have access to the stats on whether people at least LOOK at ...read....our posts/threads. Only literal responses keep the issue alive. It may be widely agreed to which then has no further reason to 'debate'; But it gets buried and forgotten in a counter-effective way. Many here do not welcome the logic because it might be in direct conflict with their contemporary foundational beliefs or political activity, but I tried to relate it to what I believed many here should be able to relate to.