Michael Hardner

No, this just popped up in my Facebook feed.

I'm not defining anything. Please explain your issue objectively in one sentence.

The first paragraph is indecipherable. If the rights are there, then you're complaining about public morals I guess. Like I say, you are right free to do so. People have been complaining about manners for a long time, as in all of history.

Summary of her opposition: - everyman Poilievre uses economic statistics. Deceptively in the interview - Peterson makes money from pro-life ads that feature during the interview - Poilievre makes false claims about housing in the interview - The claim that present policy imported racism into Canada is ridiculous ---+++ The one thing I found intriguing is the claim about increasing inequity, I.e the rich getting richer. I feel that that is only going to continue under Poilievre, but if a rising tide lifts all boats, maybe it won't matter? What do you think?

The claim that there was no racism before Justin Trudeau is utterly ridiculous. So much so that it's a mark against the conservative leader in terms of being a serious candidate. He won't be able to get away with his stuff once he's PM.

This is all fine except we are on the verge of giving a historically large majority to someone with little charm and popular appeal. Of course, that's a good thing.

So what? Private agendas make weigh their way into the public after a while. Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, rights... Eventually are tested and accepted against the public moral fabric. Do you think it's ridiculous? Okay then you do. But this is a subjective decision. The rest of us are going to go along with it in all likelihood, given that trans rights are already recognized in law. You're free to keep complaining of course.

Well that's just ridiculous People are not going to elect him because they like the sound of his rhetoric, they want a better economy.

What?

Do you personally know any trans folks ?

The sky isn't falling. I am glad to help someone out if it makes them feel better, even if my internal logic doesn't agree with it.

Yeah, that makes sense too...

Terrorism is a tricky one. Sometimes they will have evidence that they won't make public because it will compromise some other case or information. So then you have to believe the state, the deep state that is. And this has been going on for years, so let's note that Musk is stirring the pot..

The other side of this is that people aren't reacting to Trump in the same way. I feel that they're expecting things to get better, and they're expecting him to make it happen.

We are in the midst of a social adjustment, caused by a new, pervasive and powerful social media. We've already started to adjust, and that will continue. If you want to imagine how it ends up, you have to look at the fundamentals of the media: It is point to point, person to person, but there are anonymous scammers and imposters. That's a solvable problem. Once that gets solved, you will have less of a problem of central programming. That's a good thing. In other words, someone with a good idea can spread it and it will be picked up. The instinct is to say... No no no it's all crap. But humans actually can sort out garbage from delicious food. Otherwise we would die. To add: for most of the past hundred years, we've had our culture programmed out of New York and Hollywood, globally. Even. It's hard for us to imagine going back to a time before that. But if we were in the 19th century, it would have been hard to imagine Central programming...

I can feel the love

Thank you. There's no second guessing intelligence operations. That's why they call it. The deep.... Deep... State

No, we're buddies now. I just haven't had the chance to post on one of his posts yet.

No, the first sentence is false.. unless he told you his pronouns! 😂😆🤔😲😜

1. Well if someone DEMANDS you call them that, and you don't want to then there's a disconnect. Too bad for both parties. 2. Well, you want to make what I call someone to be a matter of material fact. But many of us don't want that. Probably most will just shrug, so you won't get your way ... just as the person who wants you to use their word won't get their way with this. 3. It doesn't matter, in the grand comedy of manners. Ms. wasn't real either and people fought about that one as much as this. Make your case, and accept that you might win/lose. I can make a case that my coworker is objectively fat too. If they want me to call them Mr. Thin I can refuse but I can't call them Mr. Fat either. This is an arrangement that most of us can live with. I have to live with much worse in my life, like people saying I can't call myself a Christian or a conservative because this or that. Freedom means I get to define myself. If I'm living in a fantasy world, don't play along. It doesn't have to make sense to you, to me, or to HR...

1. Uh... yeah, I think I said exactly that.

Left wing by post 1989 standards maybe. But they are programmed to defer to private entities if/when they are told. Bureaucrats may be left-ish but they probably all agree that socialism doesn't work. After all look where they work.

So they think. Probably true, as with the "Deep State" .... but ... also depending how it's defined. The lady stamping my license renewal form shouldn't be classified Deep State otherwise it's a nonsense convo.

1. It wouldn't be a crime. Meh. It's up to you if you want to put your pronouns on things or not. Most of the time people don't care in my experience. 2. You might have to accept that most people don't mind this change so much. When I was younger, we were asked to refer to women not as Miss or Missus but Ms. There was a kafuffle then too. But it passed pretty quickly...

Well we know it exists but not how much it matters. So, your analogy is apt.