bleeding heart

But you keep making the claim that "certain posters" are being singled out. (And that it's in fact one of the major problems...if not THE major problem.) My point is that this is not obvious. You even concede it's not obvious, because we don't know. These are competing claims. How can something be perhaps the major problem....when it might not even be occurring?

"Voters starting to pay attention"..... That's a sly one.

I do think it's a retrograde idea....that it's practiced by "socially progressive" Natives and "liberal cosmopolitan Jews" (and it is) doesn't change that fact one bit. I knew a girl who was being coerced by her parents into not only marrying a Lebanese man...but he of course had to be a Christian Lebanese man. (I don't know if she acquiesced or not.) I do think mixing and matching is the way to go....mongrelize the world....and avoid hip dysplasia and other problems inherent to "pure" breeding!

I agree with WestCoastRunner and a few others. This does not warrant investigation. This is so normal it's banal. Unless anyone believes that the Prime Minister has some actual, real-time personal responsibility ( as opposed to the "buck stops here" sort of Executive "responsibility").

smallc, as you have long been a cautious poster, not given to flights of illogic--and servility to Power--I find your two-step here a little baffling: You say that the notion of changing the status of protected whales for wholly politicized reasons to be "conjecture" (which it is); but you then state, categorically in fact, that the Government's decisions are transparently what they claim...until proven otherwise. Why don't you understand that this is every bit as "conjectural" as that which you decry? I mean there is no difference at all...except that the view with which you disagree is critical of Power, while yours is reflexively defensive about the honour of Power. There is zero reason--zero--to take any government claims at face value; and if the claims and actions coincide with a much-publicized and controversial set of policy initiatives, there is every reason for suspicion. I don't mean this from a partisan stance (unlike your unbridled nodding along, which is partisan, given that you see the Party as "the only adults in the room,"...incidentally, a formulaic conservative response, from Northern Europe to South America, and a residue of the Cold War); I mean it as a bedrock principle of democratic citizenship. Hell, if the default is to "trust the government," there is no good reason for a Parliamentary democracy at all; our system of government, much like many of our closest allies, is built in large part on the cherished and crucial belief that we cannot trust people in power. That's not an unfortunate side effect; it's a pillar of why we do it this way. We seem to forget that, and to instead think that we should trust them...unless "proof" is offered otherwise. Fine for a court of law--morally and intellectually insane otherwise. So, again: why are the criticisms "conjecture"...whereas the support (with similarly zero evidence to defend said support) the sober and rational stance?

To call CBC, BBC and VoA journalism as "impartial" is such an anti-intuitive and remarkable assertion, that I think the onus is on you to explain this and to expand upon it. And, as I'm anticipating the typical response here, I hasten to add that I am not in disagreement about Russian media. I also agree that Putin is a thug, and that Russia is instigating problems intentionally. I am repeating this--for the umpteenth time--because you, Shady and a few others remain bizarrely unwilling or unable to read what I and many others have said....choosing the "Why are you defending Putin" line of "reasoning," the literal opposite of what is being said. Having said that, the Western media reporting on the subject has been massively distorted and propagandized, both through commission and omission. It's not unusual; it's the way they behave generally in international reporting.

Yes, I understand the reasoning behind the comparison, but I'm not totally on board. I do agree that some of the "proper distance" rules for smoking seem arbitrary, even absurd. But auto emissions are a different subject, because vehicles are a different subject altogether.

Obama?

I'm trying to distinguish between "child molesters," and those who screech at me, "It's either us or the child molesters!" and I'm afraid I'm finding the line less than crystal clear.

I have not had much to say about Trudeau, and don't even yet know how I feel about him.... .....however, if someone put a gun to my head, and said "Talk!"....I would be inclined to roughly agree with Keepitsimple's post. The man is not impressing me.

Me too....either that I'm awesome, or a giant douchebag. Both are partially true, but simplified.

It's a reasonable response, AC...revising older thread is not illegitimate, and obviously no one has to respond in any case.

I'm just a little bored by the fact that eyeball, myself, Big Guy, and several others--have been charged with "supporting Putin"--which means nothing more than reading the literal opposite of everything we say. I take it that those making the "accusations" simply aren't eager to have a serious discussion...though their tone remains always serious as a heart attack. So, the tone is combative and silly....and the content is empty. I suppose totalitarians get piqued if you only agree with them 50% (ie that Putin is a thug, for example...an obvious truism). Disagreeing with them on their other (usually servile and inane) points is to render a person the enemy of civilization. At least they're good enough to unwittingly prove the ideas on propaganda that I've been talking about. For that, my jaded thanks.

But Betsy, what you are calling "unfair moderation" perhaps only speaks to the fact that humans are moderating. There's no way every insult is going to be punished...and no way that every insult is going to go unpunished. It's imperfect, but what isn't? You'd have a point if you thought certain posters were being especially targeted...but everytime someone has made that claim (and they usually claim ideological bias), this argument is easily knocked down...effortlessly, actually. So when you suggest that I should wonder why my post earned me a suspension, while others in the thread did not, I'm not sure I even agree with the implied point. It would have to be regular and consistent for me to ascertain that "something was up," as it were....and I'm just not seeing it. There are a lot of complaints lately about heavy-handed moderation...a slightly different issue. On that, I guess colour me agnostic. I can't make myself get too exercised about it, frankly, and I feel there is a little overreaction. But ok, for the sake of argument, let's say it's true....it still begs the question of "bias" and "unfair" moderation. Always remember, Betsy, that you don't know what warnings or suspensions other posters are receiving. Many don't bother talking about it. (I myself have never bothered, until it became relevant to the conversation about "politically-biased" moderation.)

You're edging into, "Sure, but when lefties get suspended--unlike myself--they undoubtedly deserve it, ("if the transgression of the rules is pretty obvious"...sheer speculation, and so useless to this discussion); and you can guess this because the moderator has a leftwing bias. ??? A pretty convenient argument. So, to recap: some of the suspensions are undoubtedly fair...like when the lefties are the subjects.

It's probably just a matter of time.

Yeah...I mean, being lectured that "There are no children in his paintings" probably speaks for itself. I'm just surprised that all political humour--even when it appears in "Arts and Culture"--is "trolling." My bad.

Non-permanent banning.... Right, I see what you mean.

In fact, if teachers' strikes were more rare, I think the public would have more sympathy for them. As it stands, some people feel a slight "boy who cries wolf" issue about it. Personally, I support the existence of unions, and I think strike action is sometimes justified. However, I think it should be used responsibly...which is to say, rarely.

Nothing wrong with drinking. A fine past-time.

I understand, Betsy...I'm saying that a lot of people with wildly different views have been suspended. Heck, I was suspended because of the tone of a post I wrote towards...you! I'm not complaining about the suspension, just to be clear. I only wish to point out that, whatever issues folks may have with the moderation, I don't think "bias" is a correct charge, nor a fair one.

Oops. My apologies, to both the fine OftenWrong and the fine Overthere. I only meant to suggest that the permanent banning of BC_2004 would not self-evidently improve MLW.

Yes. I like my cable, but it's true, there are far more inexpensive options. If I liked Netflix better, I'd switch, but I find the formatting cumbersome and irritating.

No, for some reason unknown to me, only a couple of conservatives believe that political bias informs his moderating. I have no idea why.

Nothing wrong with WestCoastRunner. A fine poster.