Michael Hardner

1. I don't think this is true at all. The idea is to give an advantage to qualified people who satisfy diversity criteria. I am not saying I support DEI but your statement is wrong on the face of it. 2. What's the difference ? First of all cop is not as risky a job as people let on... you're letting narrative override facts again. Secondly, once they are hired they are in unless they do something wrong. Getting past the barrier is the hardest part and I thought you wanted fairness... 3. Ok, well you just think Canadians deserve to be hired over others... this is the DEI ethic you have framed as being unfair. 4. You're swatting at imaginary people here, stoking a mythical fire you have set. There's no way to test whether your assertion is right, even leaving out the hair colour. 5. Who cares ? This isn't a conversation about facts, it's a long plaint about the way you see the world, with blue-haired HR 1diots ruining everything. 6. Cops do fine. My cop friends retired quite early and make the among the highest salaries of non-managers. Thank the unions and Hollywood. @eyeball did a job that was a risky by many measures, and Bruce Willis never played a tough fisherman... This conversation is about how you see the world, not reality.

There's also the idea of the 'nepo baby'... which most people have a negative reaction to. That is, people getting their role because of their parents. It happens in Hollywood, the Music industry etc. But nobody talks about Police, Hydro Workers, and so on getting their jobs because of family connections. Every cop and hydro worker I know got in that way. I have seen people complaining about Indian folks hiring other Indian folks but that has been in small business. I do suspect Indian people have racist views about white Canadians btw, no evidence though. Nobody asked my question about age. Does 'age' provision in hiring constitute a DEI privilege ? I think people should try to have these conversations with their own biases in mind. Speaking of DEI - did the NUMBER TWO CONSERVATIVE in Canada get her job because she's a married Lesbian, so that they can hold back that card in case something bad happens ? Just asking...

First of all, I would never think you would vote Carney. Second of all, what is it about people that they are SO SURE they know you, from bits on a page, that they would accuse you of lying ? Really something I don't understand about web forums... There is 0 benefit to lying, so why would someone assume you do it ? Why would people do it ? To puff up an anonymous fake profile ? Gee, that's a great feeling... a bunch of dumb strangers and bots respecting you...

Just as you completely ignored my Biden example below the excerpted part you commented on. I won't, however, accuse you of 'strategy and tactics'... Honestly who has the time ? Have a day, brother, have a day...

1. Incorrect. I am a 0% culture warrior. Let me ask you: list the top 5 good things Biden did in office. 2. Am I ? True to my roots let me look at my last 20 posts, a number I just picked at random. Ok looks like 2 mentions... which I would say is me asking about transgender issues generally and how they relate to culture and politics, responding to people who say I am work or somesuch... I don't think that counts as fixated. 3. Yeah... no tactics, no strategy... I had 2 minutes free to answer your post and I did so. I didn't consult a big workflow diagram or mind-map diagram just chatted on it... 4. Appeals to fear are also emotional arguments... if people overemphasize emotions in arguments about the law I think it's pretty fair they're making an emotional argument. I'm a systems guy you see...

Classic Canadian management style: manage to the statistics that the bosses are graded on, nothing else 😠 Exactly. The parties are useless because the leaders have never had to deliver anything, and are advised by political strategists. I have seen some LOCAL mayors take action on healthcare, publicizing their efforts and involving the community in dialogue online. Delivering things and fixing things should be the criteria for election at this point, not posturing and moralizing.

They DID winn, but they didn't win is all. Well... your prediction is as good as any, I suppose... though the odds of it coming true are still long. With an uninformed electorate, we will see instability until they randomly find a champion who will unmistakably improve the fortunes of the masses. Trump isn't it, IMO. Democratic/Corporate/Academic elites who speak above the heads of the people, such as Biden declaring the economy healthy when it wasn't... are not it. I would guess that we eventually fall into a system of guaranteed payments to the masses because it's the easiest thing for people to understand, and see benefit from. Obviously that system has its limits and until there's a reckoning.

I'm not suggesting any policy change, or culture change... even if that were possible.

1. I don't want a fight, but discussion based on facts. That's not vague. 2. It's not a tactic. You doubt my intentions anyway, so anytime you want... you call my discussion approach a tactic as though I'm trying to deceive. 3. Maybe if we used Biden as an example, you would see my problem with the political approach I'm describing. They would scapegoat a particular example of something, implying that it's a wide problem. Again this is something both sides do.... But I will use Biden because I suspect that will work better. This article acknowledges that the inflation in his term was due to a lot of factors. What he chose to do at one point is blame the oil companies for his poor economy. Indeed that might have been part of the problem, but the idea was that he could scapegoat that industry and get some traction. I contend that this board should be better than a political advertisement for the parties you tend to support or I tend to support

1. To foster a discussion based on facts instead of just making a political campaign between two people. 2. I didn't mean to imply that. 3. Yes, every such incident is a concern, I don't mean to imply otherwise. 4. A politician, who plays in the ignorance emotion of an uninformed voter is part of the game, of course, but I see conservatives on here complain when Democrats do it so maybe it's not always great for anyone...

Did you just say we have a WORLD CLASS ACTIVIST on this very web board? Wait till I tell the fellas the at the Elk Lodge... 🦌

1. Far from it, I'm suggesting a way forward. If we agree on cold metrics then one can compare administrations objectively. 2. I think playing is a pejorative word in its use here. Again, metrics and cites are a good basis for discussion 3. No you're so convinced that I'm dishonest that you're going to make this about that. Just don't talk to me then.

Well, the Dorset people and Neutrals aren't exactly around to protest right ? I think we can acknowledge that they were barbaric at the time and simultaneously acknowledge that we could have been kinder at treating the vanquished. But public morality IS a thing. There is a Canadian moral sphere and that includes things that we DON'T say because people could be offended. You're not allowed to say things about white people where I work, but if you did I doubt you'd get fired. You'd get a scolding. If you said something about black folks you would probably get fired. Is that fair ? Probably not but... hey... the winners write the rules. The winners here being the wealthy white elites who need to feel better about their relative comfort etc. etc. If there were no such thing as a public moral sphere we couldn't agree that laziness, avarice and all the rest are bad could we ? So there definitely IS one, and figuring out what it is is going to involve some fighting, let's be honest.

I don't imply, you infer. It's a matter of systems management... you keep sticking your shoe in the door to make it political. How about this - we all should articulate a set of principles, and apply them to leadership whether we voted for them or not. Politicization of numbers is a futile folly engaged in by both sides, and thinking people should discourage that. If I see something I like in a comment I hit LIKE. I have done it to pretty much everyone here, including you, I'm sure, CDNFOX, etc. I don't have a leftist position on transgender issues. I articulated my conservative credentials above. I believe in the system.

Wow. Prescient... how does it end ? 🤔

There's no 'side' when it comes to data, goal setting etc. It should be independent of politics. Anyway, my question was from WestCan - he is capable of continuing the discussion.

1. HAHAHA. I'll stop you right there. I'm a conservative. NOT the conspiracy theory kind. I believe in the courts, academia, science, and a role for religion too. I believe that public discussion is critical to a healthy democracy. 2. I'm not critical of protesters, pretty much ever. That would be something that people who don't believe in our freedoms would do. 3. I don't support false narratives. 4. I doubt I have even posted on this foreign controversy to be honest. I would ask you to go and find evidence of your claim but we both know that is beneath you. 5. What 'debate' ? You just made the debate about ICE not me...

Another one who can't reply without making a little stick figure model of me. I hate humans, I am woke... You are unable to just talk without piling on fakeries. Culture warriors are at war with any culture they don't agree with. There are lot of examples. I'm not at war with any culture, but I am sick of the noise from Chuds here and elsewhere. Trump is in the Whitehouse so why aren't all these things fixed ? Why are there still transgender people ? Why is there still pride ? Why is the economy pretty much the same ? Chuds are crying somewhere... Unfortunately I don't know any

What "side" ? How about this: to what extent do you plan these fabrications about me ? There's a ship somewhere that needs to be bottled - go to it, instead.

Yet, someone has pointed out that if the numbers go DOWN it's not good enough...

Not so. I am a human, and I have human friends. I enjoy humans. Not sure what bugs you ate for breakfast but you seem like a culture warrior. Take some Tylenol, go into bed and turn on AM radio. Are you offended by the word 'chud' ? Because, that would mean you admit to being one right ? There are left- and right- chuds... just as there are left- and right- id1ots... When someone puts their hand up and says "STOP INSULTING ID1OTS" .... well it tells me something ...

So... if we don't have zero rapes at the end of this term... the President is at fault ? Do we really really need to parrot the stupid politics that is everywhere on here ? All politicians switch the parameters once they're in power, we don't need to.

Actually what is stopping people from openly declaring war on whatever "culture" you want to call it, resisting the natural changes and progress of liberal trade and culture as well? At this point, there are culture warriors out there who have no problem declaring war on woke... folks who accept the precepts of openness and reject whatever the openness wants to call itself should maybe push back a little. I am noticing a lot more normies going on Facebook and telling the Chuds to shut up, which is nice to see ie. people expressing their opinions on Chudly embarassments, their bad fashion, fake YouTube, trust in bonkers Demagogues in power, etc. etc. Eyeball - your moment awaits !

What about age?

Yes, that monitoring process was used in the Green Zone, as reported in the Podcast. As I said, personal violence is a good reason to use this. Evidence should be inadmissible otherwise. But American Libertarians freaked. We should also note crime continues to decline, I would say due to social factors versus tougher laws etc. The government is as reluctant to build prisons as schools and hospitals.