Michael Hardner

This applies to pretty much 90% of all people at this point. Unity is gone, tribalism rules, and objective knowledge is dead.

I'm guessing that they're not spies anymore? 😂 At one point during the dinner, Trump noted of an unnamed country that the attendee said was clearly China, “almost every student that comes over to this country is a spy I kid, but reporting on this story now requires that you subscribe to Trade Podcasts, think tanks etc. The misinformation is pervasive on both sides.

Canada is also "native" foundationally. But... WHO is surprised by American patriotism? It's not really something that happens to a significant degree IMO ie. People being surprised by an aspect of culture that's pervasive The cultural lens always blots out blind spots though, and generally I agree that THAT is a thing

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement.[1][2][3] It is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3] Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism,[4][5] fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][5][7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Wikipedia is a more centrist and more widely accepted source for general knowledge.

You can stretch definitions enough to try anyone for anything. Biden created a national emergency intentionally as many will tell you. So why not imprison or even execute him ? Based purely on the rhetoric I see here, I don't understand why more people aren't calling for the Democrats to be banned. Then again, it would be impossible to blame them for the worsening state of things so maybe better to keep them.

I'm thankful for a status quo that resists manufactured emergencies.

They did have different bodies.

Indeed, this is the logic of the xenophobe. I don't like how you look, dress, speak: it's an affront to my rights.

WestCanMan laughing at murder.. 😔

The coverage of this act of terrorism was fairly muted in Canada, as reported by Canadaland. The Bostom Marathon bombing received more newspaper coverage, in comparison, according to Jesse Brown. This is in spite of the fact that the latter bombing happened in another country and had a smaller impact upon reporting time (fewer killed at the scene) When horrible acts occur, people more and more go to defense of those they agree with politically, and excuse based on factors such as mental health, duress etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting " The Quebec City mosque shooting (French: Attentat de la grande mosquée de Québec) was an attack by a single gunman on the evening of January 29, 2017, at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood of Quebec City, Canada. Six worshippers were killed and five others seriously injured after evening prayers when the gunman entered the prayer hall shortly before 8:00 pm and opened fire for about two minutes with a 9mm Glock 17 Gen 4 semi-automatic pistol.[2] Approximately 40 people were reported present at the time of the shooting. The perpetrator, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder.[3] On February 8, 2019, Bissonnette was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 40 years.[4][5] Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of Quebec found 40 years without parole to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, adjusting the sentence to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years.[6] "

A lot more Muslims were killed by white people in recent years than the other way around

David Brooks is a rando 🤔 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(commentator) Unbelievably arrogant people who think that achievement has no value...

It's always about narratives, which means stories. There's a story that if you work hard you'll do well. Ok. Looking at impacts of the industrial revolution and the mechanization of agriculture, you can find out about HISTory AI may well bring a wave of labour change bigger than Globalization ever did. So, what needs to happen in response? The same thing that follows any technology change: social change. We're going through one of those now, with global communication, networks, technology enriching the investment class to the point that they have to scapegoat immigrants and transgender people to keep their hands on power. I liked the previous setup better:: where they pretended to love browns and LGBTQ to keep power. It's just nasty out there now. When the AI hits, or some other downturn happens, as they do, it's going to get even meaner.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-massachusetts-lgbtq-tshirt-student-speech-e04fa045740e3e8ab21b0e14781ce3ad# Lower Court ruled that it would disrupt education. Supreme Court, Trump's supreme Court, lets the ruling stand. Makes sense I suppose.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/05/22/utah-lawmakers-own-study-found/ "Utah‘s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth was meant to be a moratorium, giving lawmakers the chance to reevaluate the policy once experts reviewed research on the impacts of treatment. This week, nearly 2½ years after the law took effect, lawmakers received the findings of that study. Utah health care experts concluded, in a more than 1,000-page report, “Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes” as a result of gender-affirming care. But some Republican legislators are already dismissing those findings." Why call for a study if you are going to dismiss the findings? It seems to be because a lot of people don't want to listen and don't want to care.

1. What would be the actual policy implementation of your "it's on them" approach? 2. I think that I answered that. They're women but they're different. 3. The definition of trans women is "dudes" who think they're women. No, that's something you wrote. 4. Conspiracies exist. And you think I'm part of one. Ok then. 5. Ok. Let's stop.

1. 😂 Meaning what? You can legally beat them up? Come on.... 2. Yes. Trans women are women but not the same as women who were born as such. That's why there are exceptions in law and elsewhere.. policy. I guess you call it. 3. I did to find it but you want me to use your definition. Not going to do that. 4. No, the word play is all yours. I'm answering your questions with politeness, and you seem to think I'm part of some conspiracy. Can we stop now? There is really nothing else to talk about. I don't enjoy answering your questions to have you come at with me with your peashooter...

1. I answered the question. I do NOT believe a trans woman has some right to be nude in front of biological women. That's the question, not whatever wordplay you wish to attempt. We agree and the answer is solid, a lot better than saying trans folks can't use a washroom (ANY washroom?) because "it's on them"... 2. Because trans women aren't exactly the same as women ? Maybe that will shut you up or maybe it will launch you into a tizzy of word carving again, I hope it's the former. Trans women are women though, just not exactly the same as every other woman which is why there are rules on this... everywhere.

1. Incorrect. 2. I didn't say I was more open minded. It seems we're the same on that front. Although it's pretty clear, you think you're better than me. 3. Incorrect. 4. You have me jumping through hoops, and when I satisfy your request, you simply reject my answer. Meanwhile, the answers you give are impractical and I think sometimes avoidant. 5. Yes I do. That is why I keep asking you to skip past our different definitions and get to the root of it. We actually agreed on something with regards to change rooms, and you seem to be unable to accept that. I have said, a few times. I think, frontal nudity only with consent. You never responded even though it's a point of agreement. I think it's because you you are hell bent on defeating me. Not very engaging. 6. Now this is obfuscation. We have come to an agreement, or close to it several times... Then you come back and insist on switching from the general to the specific or vice versa and then using language to say that I'm saying things that I'm not. It's not very engaging. I'm not going to give you the example, just look further up in the thread for it. But I said I was okay with men in women's spaces, as a general comment. You interpreted differently from how I intended and then started shrieking at me. It's not very engaging. 7. Aren't you pushing your position ? How is what I'm doing different? Oh right, it's because I'm wrong and you're better than me. Did I get it? ...... I'm just trying to find out how you arrive at your conclusions. We're not going to agree, you know that right?

1. 2. Yes, I'm even confusing myself at this point. Let me try again: It feels like you think I am ridiculous, crazy, and that your roll here is to talk sense into me rather than listening and engage with my ideas. Are you open to the idea that you could be wrong about things? I sure am. I've learned lots here from other people. Again, the point of discussion is that you arrive at the scene with the idea that it's a productive engagement, not a competition. Otherwise why am I here? You're only going to keep trying to beat me and I don't enjoy going back and forth over what words mean to us personally. 3. No we don't have to agree, but we have to understand the differences and where they come from I think. At least to a point. If you value personal freedom more than safety, or more than I do, for example... Example... You may not agree with police being able to detain without warrant, wiretap etc. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of a human being making a human assessment and coming up with a personal choice. This is the only interesting thing about this board, because I can learn the perspective of someone else and maybe change my mind. And that does happen. Otherwise it's just an insult board, or a shouting board.

Ok, well why would I want to discuss with someone who doesn't respect me? This speaks to a fundamental problem with this board. That is... It's a political discussion board but many people don't respect those they engage with.

Saying that I promote madness is clearly an insult. You have no respect for my position at all, so you shouldn't be discussing with me.

1. So you're not going to stop insulting me it seems. I don't blame you for walking away. You didn't want to discuss matters of importance, you only wanted me to use your language. Sorry to disappoint...

Meaningful is subjective. My definition is very meaningful. Sugar is sweet and women are feminine. Do you want to continue, or do you want to block the conversation on this point? It's not that interesting to just go back and forth like this is it? Probably more interesting to discuss how societies negotiate nudity etc.? There's nudity in public, in my town (Toronto). I don't feel comfortable with it, as there isn't always consent but it happens. Have you ever seen a nude person, including yourself?