Moonlight Graham

Pretty much every packaged food is a steaming pile of garbage ready to clog your arteries in favour of shelf-life so they'll be suing for the next century it sounds like.

1. Yeah it's been dead since the 1960's, for better or worse. Moral schisms existed before, like protestant vs catholic, slavery and other issues. A big generation of young people plus a lot more mass media seemed to change things. Everyone believed in God in previous times. Now more of us get morals from our logic/emotions rather than our religion. THose days are gone. 2. ok 3. Well i think the values we teach our kids and morals about how we deal with problems in our society is pretty important. Are you saying you'd have no issue if Trumpism and chudism spreading more throughout our culture, our schools, government and then corporate North America, live and let live? Ignoring or doing nothing is a political stance on your part and which you're advocating to accept what is being sold to us, and that's your choice. And yes I do think it's a deceptive stance because it would ensure many of the political stances you happen to agree with prevail while feigning "peace and civility", and I don't believe that's just a coincidence based on my Trumpism/Chud hypothetical above. Don't underestimate the power of the radical minority: Yes foreign agents can absolutely be a part of things, but when morals turn into policy then you have to accept it or not no matter where it's coming from. Maybe some of the 60's revolution was a psy op fed by the Soviets. Frankfurt school and French socilaist academics and yada yada. 4. Why would I want Trumpsters and anti-vax chuds to prevail? 5. I think that's true. Most seem pretty moderate and reasonable. And then there's Black Dog and Shady who are addicted to twitter and knee-deep in the culture war and taken stark sides and want each other to die haha. 6. Sure I agree we need someone like you're saying. 7. Why not? Mahr has already had a show cancelled due to cancel culture, but it was conservatives back then doing it. He's got balls to risk it again. They tried to cancel Chappelle too but his career was too popular. Had he been a mediocre comedian maybe they'd have been successful, or maybe on another network. Netflix has been pretty good with the censorship stuff. Jimmy Kimmel isn't going to get cancelled in Hollywood for criticizing Trump or taking a pro-trans rights stance.

Hey Loblaws has put in a lot of self-checkouts to save themselves money, and theft has gone up, and so their solution is to harass you by putting in scanners requiring you to check your receipt LOL: https://globalnews.ca/news/10356789/loblaw-grocery-receipt-scanners/

RIP the dictionary definition of racism.

Don't worry Michael, if people don't hate on you it means you're probably doing it wrong. Even Jesus and Abe Lincoln and Gandhi and MLK had haters. In fact, they were all murdered by their haters now that I think about it. Trump and Jordan Peterson are also loved and hated by many. So I guess who is right morally is all in the eye of the beholder. A world where we all agree means nobody is thinking, just complying.

1. "Extreme" sounds more extreme. 2. People don't agree here because they have different morality. A common morality isn't going to happen anyways, it hasn't existed in centuries if ever, and now the crazy people are too crazy and they've seemingly grown in numbers over the last 10 years. Getting the Trumpsters and wokesters to agree is impossible. Getting the wokesters and moderates I.e. Bill Maher to agree is probably not even going to happen. So we're left with the realm of politics: a struggle for power. A battleground for morality. The culture war. It's on tv, in our schools, workplaces, almost everywhere. If people want to change society, whether banning Muslim immigrants and making Trump a dictator OR making society a bastion of woke hyper-sensitivity then the only way to defeat them is to 1. Convince them why they're wrong, or 2. If that fails, stop them any other legal and ethical way possible. My aim is to do both. But I'm not looking for cultural peace if they're only looking for culture war. If I need to meet them in the field to defeat them I will. But I'm scared of being canceled for it like most are, nobody wants to lose their job or lose friends etc, so I and others have to tread lightly. Anonymous msg boards and social media are tools here. But what we need are people brave enough to risk being canceled and stand up to the woke cancel culture mob. Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson and Dr Phil are examples, even if we don't always agree, but at least they're trying. It doesn't take much risk to virtue signal wokeness and go along with the woke moral bullies compared to standing up to them. Standing up to Trumpsters is easy, they do it every night on late night TV to great applause. That's why the woke have an advantage: feigning moral high ground, calling people racist etc, and getting people canceled for it.

Wokeism isn't just marginal though. The US and Canada are run by woke governments. The VP of the US was a diversity hire. DEI has crept into most large organizations throughout North America. The point of highlighting the marginal stories is to speak out against it so that it doesn't become a norm. Not every school has removed certain books from their curriculum for silly woke censorship reasons, but give it 5-10 years and most of them might if people don't speak up. And "trans rights are valid" doesn't get into any context, it isn't black and white as you framed it. There are many issues and rights to be discussed because there can be reasonable and unreasonable trans rights. Washrooms at Walmart are everyone's business because every woman uses them and every man's wife and daughter and sister and mother does too. It's a public issue. Again you're asking people to be quiet about something that affects them because you want that policy to be implemented. That's not going to happen. You need to accept that not everyone agrees with you. I'm not even that interested in a unity figure because someone is going to disagree with them anyways. The left now hates Bill Maher because being moderate and reasonable isn't being woke and radical like they are. What I'm interested in is bad radical ideas being defeated and not having power.

Well a lot of young men like Jordan Peterson. But the young left are the ones that seem to resent the boomers, because boomers don't think like they do because boomers aren't insane. The younger generations are brats. That's the way its been since post WW2 though. Dr Phil has made a career putting young brats in their place on his show. But the brats not on his show aren't going to listen. The only person young crazy people will listen to is another young crazy person.

@Michael HardnerMaher is anti Trump and anti woke. We need a lot more of that. That's how we can unify, around reasonable ideas.

I like most of what Dr Phil has to say politically. Musicians and actors.... meh. At least we have Bill Maher.

Well the economy has had some capitalist reforms clearly but for the purposes of what's being discussed in this thread they remain communist in terms of the total government control they maintain. There have been virtually no democratic reforms in that country.

PP is trying to appeal to the regular voters. It's a smart play. Of course, I don't believe him, because I'm not naive if this is for real then it will take years of similar behavior to build trust because tigers don't typically change their stripes. But I'm confident it's all a sham.

No idea, good question.

What did Peterson say about China that you disagree with? No he's not right 100% of the time obviously. His tweets now are very odd and filled with wrath, so maybe he drinks to cope with half the western world hating him and trying to destroy him and his career. I imagine that's stressful. And when he drinks, he tweets. Who knows.

Dougie Is Elmo And Elmo Is Dougie

China is still totalitarian, the government has total control over whatever domestic businesses and organizations it wants.

He makes up a lot of stuff.

I believe the bill does the opposite. You can say something hateful if it's from a religious belief/book. A lot of Youtubers are trash and just want clickbait. If misinformation gets eyeballs it will continue. Everybody can now publish the National Enquirer from their bedrooms.

Totalitarian governments wish to monitor the population as much as possible to maintain control and power. 1984 says Big Brother is watching. China has the most CCTVs in the world, a fact. Cameras don't lie, but can only be used for justice in a fair justice system which China doesn't have.

You can help them out without taking them on as "helpless" dependents. If they don't want a peaceful transition of power we can't force them to, we can just help. France and Spain set up the country as their colony and brought the slaves etc so they should be primarily responsible for helping them achieve strong institutions to ensure law and order and hopefully democracy. As Cuba and China show, democracy is good but isn't the most important thing for a poor country, law and order and stable and strong institutions are more important because the very worst thing is chaos and civil war. It has nothing to do with "communism", it's about the strength of their government institutions to maintain order and stability. A strong leader and government, even if it's a dictator who isn't a complete psychopath, is better than a country run by competing gangs with constant violence in the streets.

Maybe he wants them crucified like Jesus was

We tolerate a bit too much and should demand more. The current gov is weaksauce.

Example is every DEI policy. Like the new Oscar award nominee rules, or the black only scholarships shown in this thread.

The immigration system doesn't "target" any specific countries or ethnicities. They receive applications from anyone in the world who wants to immigrate and then assesses each applicant based on a points system of different criteria. Applicants are ranked based on things like education, work skills, language ability etc. If more Korean or South Asian people get in over other ethnicities it's because either their criteria just happens to be better and/or more people from that ethnicity apply over others: https://ircc.canada.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp Then you have Canadians sponsoring spouses/children, plus refugees, neither which have any of the above mentioned entrance criteria besides criminality and medical checks. In the case of spouses/children or refugees sponsored privately the Canadian sponsor needs to have enough income to support the applicant for a certain # of years.

DEI is taking opportunities from people from one or more groups and giving them to people from another group(s) perceived as less advantaged. That's literally the entire point. If this wasn't the case then DEI wouldn't exist.