Michael Hardner

1) I said it at the top - I might care to discuss it based on the scale. My interest in this thread relates to how we discuss social issues in the public sphere and that's all. 2) Ok - well you seem to be diving into the subject itself. I accept your summation of your position without comment. 3) Maybe they're angry... but I'm pretty sure conservative white males like myself are even angrier from what I can tell. And Jessica Yaniv is relevant because... public sphere or maybe in her case pubic sphere... ( hold the applause until the end please ) 4) Pubic sphere. 5) My fantasy would be for someone with a PhD in economics to dissect Canada's real economic interests in Asia and how the inside-baseball policy wonks of the major parties agree/disagree. Might have more relevance than a guy in a dress playing softball in Moncton or something... ( see I can joke on both sides... because I'm in the centre on this stuff ) 6) The comparison is of scale of the problem to be solved. Number of people directly impacted vs the anger-sphere... @TreeBeard did you delete a post ? I got a message that you responded here but ... nothing

I said JK !!! I even put one of these -> 😂 All in fun my friend...

1) Sure but that's a done deal. The cake baking thing is implementation details and I don't have to care about that to the same degree. So the idea that there's some inconsistency between caring about Trans rights but not this sports issue as much seems to me to be analagous. 2) I mean, you know they CAN discuss it, I am not saying otherwise. And every time I post on this topic I hear that from people. I am simply asking people to reflect on whether this is actually important or they're just posting because they're angry about the issue. If people were REALLY REALLY concerned about Jessica Yaniv I don't understand why they didn't post the result of the HRC decision as much as they posted when they thought she would "get away with it" 3) Yes that is my problem but I don't think people will always talk about it. The Yaniv thing handled it and I don't remember a giant Trans movement to get that decision reversed. 4) Well maybe but it's beyond hypothetical that any of that would happen ... lots of decisions go against what I would agree with and I have to accept that the process happened. 5) You aren't saying anything much about the public sphere here though. My point is that "the" public needs to weigh in on things to a certain point, just as the government only needs to legislate things to a certain point. The rise of social media has presented a host of problems including the one that people think everything they care about is important. And these things end up being important anyway just because people have an opinion. Imagine if people cared as much about the court backlogs as they do about Jessica Yaniv or some woman boxer wimping out of a fight ( JK 😂 )

Right but we're not a 'Women's Boxing" forum so I don't get why we are discussing it... especially in the 'Federal Politics' subforum...

1. This is something I recollect from discussion of "Women in NASCAR" from decades ago... just an analogy to talk about the real issue to me, which is our collective use of the public sphere. 2. 3. I don't know and I don't care either. Participation in individual sports and jurisdictions can be addressed with the stakeholders involved, I trust. I'm just fed up with the discussion.... It started with Jessica Yaniv and that one evaporated when the issue was dealt with appropriately... calling the entire controversy into question IMO.

1. Somewhat, yes ? But if people wanted Parliament to protest Danica Patrick not being allowed to compete in NASCAR because of a weight advantage I would say "really ?" Do we need to talk about this ? And why DO we talk about these things ? Because they're important ? I think it's more because it upsets us and therefore feeds the angertainment sphere. 2. I mean... they ARE trans women so if you want to engage with your opponents politically then to me you should use the terms we all agree too. An analogy would be to call the Convoy people Nazis which is not ok in my books. Use the terms of the people involved as they would prefer so we can engage in .... politics. 3. You are asking an honest question and here's my honest answer: no I don't think people born as men should automatically be allowed to compete against people born as women.

1. Well that would be a problem but in order for us to say that this indicated that freedom of speech is in actual decline you would need to understand more than just what you have stated here. It's a deep dive topic for sure. Suffice it to say, for now, that I don't accept your statement automatically as indicating we're in decline and how to frame the problem. Start a new thread if you want to discuss with me and I'd be glad to participate. 2. See #1 3. You said political unity is something ONLY a dictatorship would wish but we need at least some political unity in order to function and probably more than we have now IMO. 4. I am not sure what you are saying about my point but... "Agressive" "Elementary biology" are subjective terms, I'm sure you would agree. I'm sure that people who oppose you would use similar language. I'm in the middle so I can see clearly that the answer to this is political. 5. I agree but I think the whole discussion includes more than 'freedom of speech' but how to design our system of public feedback on issues that are contested including economic, environment, social etc. I'm pro-transgender people but in that way that Conservatives are: preserve our institutions and tolerate those who can't accept the newness of this phenomenon to a point.

1. I totally disagree. There is MORE speech and therefore more freedom but people confuse 'freedom' with 'having a platform at the level they would like' 2. 100% unity, yes, but that's not what I mean. I would like to see the type of unity we had nationally in our Centenary. 3. There's a limit to said plurality. Democracy is a framework to give all a voice... in DECISION making. It's not intended to stop all forward progress on economic and social fronts until there's 100% consent. Consumer society has infected us. People can't stand the idea of not getting what they want and so the very idea of politics is repulsive to them. I would like trans youth to be allowed in sports, but if they worked it out so that there was a blanket ban somehow and people were generally ok with it then so would I be.

1. Because of the scale, that's all. It's like saying because I care about gay rights at all I should care whether there's a federal law about same-sex-marriage cakes being guaranteed by bakers. I don't. And if people posted on here 24/7 about a cake baker in Lethbridge I would probably post that the issue belongs in court and the discussion was unnecessary. 2. I think a blanket 'ban' would probably be excessive but if nobody else cared then I wouldn't either. 3. So all of the trans people, LGBTQ+ people and their allies would stop talking about it and therefore so would all of us ? I don't think so. 4. I wish that were the case for things I disagree with Like "Sorry you aren't allowed to cough on people so you have to wear a mask" would result in people NOT driving trucks to Ottawa and acting like asshats for 2 months...

As much as the Likud-supporting folks hold peace at bay, let us remember that peace will come one day and it will be Israeli Jews who will make it happen and will deserve the credit. May the memories of all the dead be a blessing... hard to write that without feeling the weight of the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

1. How ? On a federal level ? At that point yes I would care. But how trans women are designated in amateur boxing ? No... I cared about the issue when the Trans law was being introduced... the details are to be worked out... 2. If you think that action would solve it you're very wrong. I think that the issue would be solved by letting the jurisdictions that address it facilitate a dialogue and come up with a solution. Maybe not make it a federal issue... literally. And there are channels for working through that... Parliament doesn't seem to be the right one to me.

Biggest issues are: Political Unity, and Economy + Environment (tie) in that order. Trans women's boxing matters almost nothing in that context, and I'm offended by the space being given to these topics. From what I can see its mostly from people who hate the idea of transgender people. But I can't say for sure.

Can't say I don't but since we're being honest (or I am) let me ask if you would change your mind about all this if someone close to Trump testified that they knew he lost ? That would mean that all of his statements that the election were stolen were made with the intention of attaining the office of presidency that he knew he did not win. Would that change your mind ?

Yeah, I don't get why they haven't dealt with this issue but on another level... who cares and an even other level why is this in Federal Politics ? There are bigger things to deal with but some people are just obsessed with trans issues I guess.

I'm pretty sure that it will come out that Trump himself didn't care that he lost democratically as well.

Why? The gains from technology and organization are leveraged for a better society by a public that administers laws and institutions well. They must balance how the society encourages the excellent while caring for all.

You need to understand more than math to understand money deeply. History, for example. In ancient Sumaria, money was developed as a centralized system of exchange to address "want". Fast forward four or five thousand years, and digital global money doesn't address want in some quarters. It's time to talk about why.

You dispatched the OP pretty efficiently, it seems.

I'm confused. I thought YOU did.

Liveable wage is supposed to come automatically from a system without the need of government intervention. Isn't that so ?

The good thing about Ignore List posters commenting is that I can catch comments like this that I missed. My fave is when I go to a page and there's an entire wall of hidden comments that I have saved my precious eyes from.

Cite?

Before I finally bought I was renovicted twice, the first time my rent went from $1000 to $3000. Then I bought before I had to try to rent again... Good for you, you're inspiring me to do more.

No. Similar stories elsewhere but Canada seems particularly bad. God forbid you should be renovicted in this environment.

I think you mean "on here".