Michael Hardner

Are you bored? I don't need to explain what a chud is...

I assist with every post. Q:What kind of beer does a centrist drink ? A:The one that provides the best taste for the price.

Beer can't be woke or anti woke. The pure will devour the pure to retain purity. I will eat my Chik Fil A - no I won't. I will drink beer... no beer is qweer and so ... wait they cancelled Dylan? I will not shoot my beer I will drink it. I will promise to wear my MAGA burka when pushing my cart through the supermarket, think of the children and amen.

The MAGA Chud sphere is turning on itself in an act of ultimate purity. Chik Fil A is both woke and anti woke. Pretty soon you and all the centrist.ca folks will be the only customers...

This is only true in the land of "I need to change the language to make this even tenuously plausible, then use the language so the unawares are alarmed". Kind of like calling a teacher who is teaching approved curriculum a groomer...

Racists gonna racism. Don't try to fix it too much, it's collapsing on its own.

NASCAR already banned the confederate flag at their events, and is trying to change their image. If you don't like it, there are other entertainment options. But, again, I would rather just have conversations about moral choices than get a new Pepsi can design with a requisite freedom symbol on it.

How about the anti-immigration types who go to Home Depot to get cheap labour when they need something done ?

Is anyone else here disturbed that consumer choices are now a proxy for moral discussion in the public sphere ? Is the arrival of compromise on social issues itself so detestable that it requires protest ? What about the private moral beliefs of corporate owners ? Does it make any sense at all to boycott a national chain of stores because the owner is Christian ? Are such things signs that politics has failed ? I feel like that could be the case.

1. I was one at the time that the rules were strongly enforced. 2. Ok. So, what about social rules ? Etiquette ? Rules of decorum ? Is it a case by case thing ? I am guessing for your responses that it is because of... 3. This. "Try" to be polite I guess is fair enough. 4. In your scenario the person who is politely but irritatingly pointing out the facts was booted from the house, the forum equivalent being ... was banned from the forum. -------------------- Am I off "ignore" now ? If so, I would continue with the discussions of woke politics, perhaps focussing now on explaining why your statements, which you perceive as harmless, are seen as offensive. Or maybe draw parallels between the social response to certain unwoke ideas has parallels in other moral responses. Suffice it to say everyone involved in these discussions appears to be a moralist, present company not excepted.

Politicians using language to demonize them and make them seem like pedophiles is part of it. Implying that they're part of a conspiracy, denying that they exist, that they're allowed to live that way, and purposefully using language that they ask us not to use. They used to demonize Muslims, but they moved on. Language is a big part of it. The ones who control the language win the wars.

I was talking about Christian charity, and how some Christians didn't believe in it. You're taking a side with those who didn't believe in Christian charity, or the public safety net. That's my guess anyhow. If you're asking me to assess why it's worthwhile at all, I guess I would say compare 2023 with 1923. The excesses of laissez faire economics resulted in public response with more and more government intervention. That's not a defense exactly, but an explanation.

It's really important for people who love freedom to celebrate this year. People have been scapegoating LGBTQ+ based on paper thin associations, execute image-based propaganda attacks (like posting pictures of fat gay men), use concern trolling to do things like ban books, ideas and assert things like sexual and gender preference represent "ideologies" that need to be " eradicated: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/ The real damage that is being done is to the public sphere. People are eroding our trust and our civility to gain an edge in the polls, which is the equivalent of burning the wood from the cabin walls for heat IMO. Happy Pride. We deserve it.

...like wearing a rainbow shirt or something ?

1. No, people have been banned from here. 2. What is fair is what the guidelines say. 3. When did I refer to people who share your opinions as something derogatory? I wouldn't do that. I try to be polite.

1. That's not the issue. The issue is when you call ME a derogatory name. 2. No, it's rules of decorum. There is a precedent on here. We didn't even allow people to call the PM by their last name. 3. Of course YOU decide what is 'demonstrable' right ? 4. Except, we haven't got to the actual issues because you demand to set the rules of engagement. 5. Moralizing and virtue signalling... can't you see that there are two sides to things ? Why can you moralize about how women are treated and you decry 'virtue signalling' ? I'm not gaslighting or debating ANYTHING here, I am asking you how YOU feel about this, which honestly seems to be to be a dichotomy.

1. Well, I would say to the resolution point of those engaged in the discussion. 2. Yes. This is why participants get to veto names and tags associated with them. Or at least they did. There was also a rule against calling Liberals and Conservatives "libs and cons". 3. Memes aren't against the rules. I think that we both have a problem with them, from your comments.

That's for the poster to defend the point they're making. But since I did not actually come up with the rule I can't provide the justification exactly as it was meant.

There was a general discouragement of images, which was relaxed. But memes were not allowed in any form, which is why images are mentioned in the guidelines.

You just wasted breath, my friend... Oh damn, am I quoting a different thread... sorry...

1. Hm ? What are you talking about ? Workfare has been in place for maybe 25 years now ? 2. I'm not sure what you are talking about sorry.

1. The rules of the board used to be stringent: NO memes. You are right that I am being irrational because memes bother me. Someone says 'don't use memes' and I get happy. Then they use them and I go off... 2. I simply quote him. The context is his to set. I will admit to being out of balance on the topic. 3. I didn't look closely at them - so I went back. Three pictures of peoples' faces and an ugly person sitting on their butt. No, not a week point... no point. 4. I was responding to him with the meme thing, maybe highlighting it for you. What of my own principles am I violating ? I welcome your criticism. 5. Ok. 6. We're not debating a subject here, we're talking about rules and decorum, and whether principles matter. I don't see how I was 'twisting' anything. He ridiculed memes as a method of argument, then he used them... Seems to me if anyone violated principles then he did. That principle being: "Memes are an insufficient mode of conveying ideas". Let me know your thoughts, I am looking at my behaviour more closely thanks to your assertions...

1. But how can you deploy 'logic' without principles ? Principles are axioms or rules that people go by. Such as "I believe in freedom. Trans rights support freedom. Therefore I support trans rights." 2. Yes, but you can incorporate the extra condition into the principle, eg. "I don't believe in abortion unless it's a case of rape or incest" 3. This I agree on, however we have this forum for exactly that. Note that if somebody has different principles than me to start with - and they're consistent - you don't really have a logical base to criticize them. 4. Ok - well I admit perpektiv's arrogant moralizing gets under my saddle so... what if instead I said something like "Interesting point, but what about this assertion that you made in the past ? How to resolve this?" 5. Here's the big secret on debating with me. Just stop in the middle and ask me how I feel about it. In most cases, my guess is I don't care so much about the matter as I do about the decorum and community rules around discussion. This might be surprising, the example I will give: I think that I can live with parents keeping children home for sex ed, of any kind. If they want to stop a child hearing about some community value they don't agree with whether it's Canadian history, Remembrance Day, the history of LGBTQ+ rights etc. What I think is FAR worse is a nation who would tear each other apart - lie in the media, hype up conflict and dehumanize the other side in order to "win". When I see people who refuse to brandish humility, and who openly imply that parents and educators are pedophiles I see red. Insisting on using a word that a group finds offensive is bad behaviour. You might think a black man would understand that. 6. I disagree as I said in #1 above. 7. That you, that's overtly VETOing someone's statement of opinion. Thanks for this - I enjoy trying to clarify the mechanics of discussion in our Repolitics community...

Absolutely... and this stage of the discussion is a step forward also.

Ok do you support government restrictions on immodest clothing? An example might be imposing some kind of hooded garment on women?