Cons to Debate Things Normal Canadians like

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

1. That's just a lie. None of it is even remotely true... "Increasing productivity" is not a goal at all, it's a spin. You could rename "beating children" patience and sensitivity training if you wanted to, and say that it increases their "productivity and collaborative efforts" as well, but that's not how we should duscuss the topic of beating children.
2. "Certain training efforts" lol. They're talking about "revisionist history lessons and white guilt/shaming sessions" there, but even that's not the main "policy" of DEI any more than wearing clean gloves is the main goal when one is standing in the batter's box. DEI "alters hiring requirements to prevent the hiring of whites" just like a batter "uses a bat to hit a ball". Right? When you're describing something, usually start with the more important and prominent features first, like: T Rexes had big eyes and a long tail, vs T-rexes were enormous predators with oversized mouths that huge, sharp teeth for killing and eating prey, and comically small front legs.
3. Again, it's "effectiveness" isn't one of DEI's problems, but hamstringing businesses by forcing them to choose lesser candidates is. 
4. that's at least partially accurate, but it would be more accurate to say that it legitimizes racist tropes and slander
5. DEI isn't "a derogatory term for minority groups" at all, and I've never heard it used that way in my lifetime. It's a term that is used to accurately describe minority workers who are underqualified, useless, and unfireable. 

 

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ok, so you don't buy the stated goals of DEI, you think it's a lie and that presumably somewhere behind the scenes the people who are promoting it are saying something completely different.

You still said that the predecessor had more of a need to exist, in 1961.  So what happened ?

I didn't understand the relevance of the Islam reference.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 1/18/2026 at 5:45 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's the point I'm confused on.  To me, "Affirmative Action" (which is what it was called in my day) is virtually the same thing.  Have a look at the Link I posted.  You seem to be saying that it was needed then, and so maybe we're more on the same page than I thought.

2. Yes, you posted those incidents above.  I acknowledge your point about the differences in the current context Versus, say, 1961.  I also acknowledge that there are political machinations that advance campaigns based on the incidents cited.  I'm not familiar with all of the incidents, so I don't have the bandwidth to research and respond to each point.

3. I've never been a fan of the Democrats in the way you describe: being "right".  Parties are coalitions that move forward with a collective set of agendas.  In the rare case where they have to make a hard moral choice, they tend to break a lot of eggs, let's say.  Such as LBJ's Democrats in 1965.

4. I made this point last night, speaking to a friend.  Apply it to any of the Canadian governments... What are the big initiatives of the last generation? I would say three trade deals: FTA, NAFTA, China.  

5. Yes.  And unlike trade deals, Canadians clearly support it..

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/most-canadians-still-confident-in-vaccines-but-hesitancy-has-increased-poll-says/

You asked about a cabal, then refused to comment on all the unsettling evidence of a cabal.

Can you at least speak to the topic of TNI? Is it fair to describe TNI as "a global media/internet conglomerate that's dedicated to spreading disinformation, hiding inconvenient truths from the population, and the eradication of free speech"?   

TNI pushed the pangolin narrative and rigidly defended it, erased talk of the BSL4 lab from the internet, punished people who talked about the BSL4 lab there, hid important medical evidence about ivermectin and the jabs from the public, blatantly lied about the Hunter laptop and kicked the NYPost off of social media for talking about it, etc... Then when Elon Musk ripped Twitter out of that global media cabal, they all started calling him a Nazi for it. The guy basically STOPPED a global book-burning and was called a Nazi for doing so. Am I not 1935% correct? 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I don't know that is why I quoted AI (as opposed to wiki).

Seems both Wiki and AI know a lot more than you so...you are welcome for being enlightened

And you are welcome to talk about things that you know nothing about.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ok, so you don't buy the stated goals of DEI, you think it's a lie and that presumably somewhere behind the scenes the people who are promoting it are saying something completely different.

You still said that the predecessor had more of a need to exist, in 1961.  So what happened ?

I didn't understand the relevance of the Islam reference.

 

Wrong. I:

1. accurately described all of DEI's main features and
2. gave an accurate portrayal how flawed and dishonest the wiki description was. 

My post didn't say anything like "I believe...", I stated the objective facts of the matter, and you're here trying to mischaracterize my post while refusing to address any of my facts.

As it stands, I recited a litany of all the most pertinent and accurate facts of the matter and you apparently couldn't challenge any of them. So are you done here, or do you need to offer another vague, sheepish denial of what's known to be true? 

Quote

You still said that the predecessor had more of a need to exist, in 1961.  So what happened ?

The Dems' own KKK withered to great extent, blacks stopped being persecuted and were allowed into white schools, laws prevented segregationist policies in stores and common gathering places, and discrimination which was formerly codified into law became extremely in unpopular in common culture. Now it's the people who are racist that are ostracized, not teose who were formerly marginalized.

Make sense? Did you get all that? 

Edited January 19 by WestCanMan

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And you are welcome to talk about things that you know nothing about.

And...now you are smarter than before....not a long way but a bit closer.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Wrong. I:

1. accurately described all of DEI's main features and
2. gave an accurate portrayal how flawed and dishonest the wiki description was. 

2. My post didn't say anything like "I believe...", I stated the objective facts of the matter, and you're here trying to mischaracterize my post while refusing to address any of my facts.

3. As it stands, I recited a litany of all the most pertinent and accurate facts of the matter and you apparently couldn't challenge any of them. So are you done here, or do you need to offer another vague, sheepish denial of what's known to be true? 

1.  2. I didn't say anything about the accuracy of your opinion on current DEI.  I don't agree with what you said but I'm not going to discuss those opinions of yours.
3. No, I'm more interested in how you see this conspiracy having developed, given that you implied it had value at the beginning.

 

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

4. You asked about a cabal, then refused to comment on all the unsettling evidence of a cabal.

5. Can you at least speak to the topic of TNI? Is it fair to describe TNI as "a global media/internet conglomerate that's dedicated to spreading disinformation, hiding inconvenient truths from the population, and the eradication of free speech"?   

6. TNI pushed the pangolin narrative and rigidly defended it, erased talk of the BSL4 lab from the internet...

7.   Then when Elon Musk ripped Twitter out of that global media cabal, they all started calling him a Nazi for it. The guy basically STOPPED a global book-burning and was called a Nazi for doing so. Am I not 1935% correct? 

4. I accept that YOU think it's a cabal.  The nine issues you highlighted earlier aren't evidence of a cabal.  

Cabal is defined as "a secret political clique or faction."  There is no evidence of a secret clique provided.
 

5.  You mentioned TNI after the 9-issues post and I didn't respond.  I looked up what it is:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_Institute  Seems like another org like WEF, not secret at all.  Just an organization that says things that you and others disagree with.  

6. Ok, I'm definitely not talking about vaccines here... we're talking about DEI.

7. I don't know about this incident and if Elon banned someone from posting stuff on Twitter that he doesn't like, that matches what I read on the back of his TechBro trading card so I don't have anything to say on that either.

 

I don't get why you seem to be getting mad with me on this: I accept that you have different opinions than me and I'm not trying to convince YOU otherwise.  I'm just trying to understand how you believe a global conspiracy of corporations, governments, groups and the general public developed from something you believe to have had a noble goal at the start.

 

Maybe I'm just not using the right language here.  Let me know, I appreciate your perspective.

[Michael Hardner]

On 1/18/2026 at 1:04 AM, WestCanMan said:

Change was necessary.

No one said that they had DEI. 

This quote is what makes me believe we're essentially on the same page.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I don't agree with what you said but I'm not going to discuss those opinions of yours.

Again, not "opinions", they are "objective facts" which you choose not to challenge.

Quote

3. No, I'm more interested in how you see this conspiracy having developed, given that you implied it had value at the beginning.

I never said how it developed. That would just be a guess. 

Ostensibly BBC started TNI, that's what they claim, but I have no reason to believe anything they say, for obvious reasons. 

I merely point out their litany of lies and their dedication to censorship, and leave it to you to decide why they lied, or what their ultimate goal is. 

Quote

4. I accept that YOU think it's a cabal.  The nine issues you highlighted earlier aren't evidence of a cabal.  

So at least you're admitting that those are all issues now, so that's a start.

Now, if they are issues, then why aren't those issues important to you?

Are you comfortable with media lies, disinformation campaigns, and the eradication of free speech?

Are you comfortable with the slander and libel against Elon Musk?

Quote

Cabal is defined as "a secret political clique or faction."  There is no evidence of a secret clique provided.

That is 100% incorrect, based on your own admission that there are nine "issues". 

Those aren't 'small issues' my friend. They are quite central to MSM integrity, and MSM integrity is a cornerstone the foundation of democracy. 

You're acknowledging the complete erosion of MSM integrity, and a concerted attack on free speech by social media giants which is condoned and even endorsed by western governments.

You know those things are all happening, so obviously someone is behind it. And if you and I don't know who's behind it, then it's secret, is it not? 

Should we have those issues, Mike? Was it OK for the NYPost to be banned from the internet for saying things that were known to be true by the FBI, while "51 former intelligence members" were calling them lies? That's alarming.

Quote

5.  You mentioned TNI after the 9-issues post and I didn't respond.  I looked up what it is:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_Institute  Seems like another org like WEF, not secret at all.  Just an organization that says things that you and others disagree with. 

Google "CBC joins the Trusted News Initiative"

They were created to "prevent the spread of disinformation about the 2019 election", then proceeded to lie about it and use internet censorship to block the truth outright.

Then they did the same regarding covid. 

Quote

 6. Ok, I'm definitely not talking about vaccines here... we're talking about DEI.

Vaccines were one of TNI's largest disinformation campaigns.

Quote

7. I don't know about this incident and if Elon banned someone from posting stuff on Twitter that he doesn't like, that matches what I read on the back of his TechBro trading card so I don't have anything to say on that either.

There was a global Social Media cabal with a virtual monopoly on internet discussion, and Elon broke that monopoly up. The monopoly is gone now.

If you have evidence of Elon "banning someone for something as serious as the NYPost ban and the BSL4 discussion ban" then go ahead and post that here, otherwise your attempt at making a counterpoint is considered defeated.

Quote

I don't get why you seem to be getting mad with me on this: I accept that you have different opinions than me and I'm not trying to convince YOU otherwise.  I'm just trying to understand how you believe a global conspiracy of corporations, governments, groups and the general public developed from something you believe to have had a noble goal at the start.

I dislike your gaslighting and dismissing of serious issues. 

I'm stating objective, easily verifiable facts and you're referring to them as "my opinions". Of course I bristle at that.

If they're merely 'opinions' then provide evidence to the contrary, don't just rely on "I'm the inestimable M Hardner and I hereby decree that your declarative statements are actually just misguided opinions" to make your case for you.

Quote

Maybe I'm just not using the right language here.  Let me know, I appreciate your perspective.

You're trying to downgrade "objective, verified facts" to "the mere opinions of a right-wing internet forum poster" when they are clearly not. 

If you have facts that contradict, feel free to share them here. I am not offended by the presentation of truthful information. 

Edited January 19 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This quote is what makes me believe we're essentially on the same page.

The majority of Canadians and Americans of both sides of the aisle are essentially on the same page when it comes to being "anti-discrimination of all forms". 

For the most part, we only differ when it comes to anti-white discrimination. The majority of leftists support discrimination against whites, as well as slander/libel. 

You had your chance to speak out against Trudeau's vile libel against the unvaxed and you opted to endorse it, without any evidence that it was actually a legitimate criticism. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Again, not "opinions", they are "objective facts" which you choose not to challenge.

2. I never said how it developed. That would just be a guess. 

3.   So at least you're admitting that those are all issues now, so that's a start.

4.   Now, if they are issues, then why aren't those issues important to you?

5. Are you comfortable with media lies, disinformation campaigns, and the eradication of free speech?

6. Are you comfortable with the slander and libel against Elon Musk?

7. That is 100% incorrect, based on your own admission that there are nine "issues". 

8. Those aren't 'small issues' my friend. They are quite central to MSM integrity, and MSM integrity is a cornerstone the foundation of democracy. 

9. You're acknowledging the complete erosion of MSM integrity, and a concerted attack on free speech by social media giants which is condoned and even endorsed by western governments.

10. You know those things are all happening, so obviously someone is behind it. And if you and I don't know who's behind it, then it's secret, is it not? 

11. Should we have those issues, Mike? Was it OK for the NYPost to be banned from the internet for saying things that were known to be true by the FBI, while "51 former intelligence members" were calling them lies? That's a  

12. Google  

1. Yes, I chose not to challenge those statements.  Mostly, we have discussed such things often times before and it doesn't really go anywhere.
2. Ok, fair enough.  I just wanted to know if you had some idea.
3. I called them issues in my post Saturday afternoon also.
4. I didn't say they're not important, I just don't want to discuss them because it won't go anywhere.  I found it most interesting that you thought there was once - very long ago - a point to DEI programs, or their predecessor AA.  It seems that that line of discussion has reached its conclusion too - ie. you believe it morphed into something else, but neither of us know why.
5. No.
6. I didn't look into the TNI case other than reading your sentences.  I am not a fan of Musk, but who knows what he's really like...  Also he flips around a lot. He called himself a socialist at one point.  
7. I don't get it.  Those issues exist, but drawing a line to a secret group behind it isn't evident, at least to me.
8. FOX, being the #1 cable news outfit in the USA, is also MSM.  I agree that MSM has eroded but really that's a huge other thread.  I also look for bias in any of my sources.  
9. Maybe so ?  But if it's happening, it's happening from diverse sources with diverse goals.
10. Why is it 'someone' ?  Can't it just be a bunch of different groups ?  There are media groups, think tanks, etc. promoting all viewpoints and (let's be generous) *persuading* the public with their own take on things.  Why focus on the ones you don't agree with ?  They're all bad.  I can't search but I criticized the left- Centre for Public Policy, I think, for going after Harper for his banks-loan after 2008.  They called it a 'bailout' but it was simply a loan - a punative one at that.   Not that I'm immune from using bad sources or getting fooled. It happens to all of us.
11. Never heard of that.  Banned from the internet ?
12. Ahh... ok I had the WRONG TNI it's THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_News_Initiative

Yeah, seems like a good idea to me.  You have right-wing news on there too, which I like .... A LOT.

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

 

You had your chance to speak out against Trudeau's vile libel against the unvaxed and you opted to endorse it, without any evidence that it was actually a legitimate criticism. 

Yeah, and I retracted after much research to find said 'libel'... a lot of good it did me, you're still here acting like I didn't retract it...

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I found it most interesting that you thought there was once - very long ago - a point to DEI programs, or their predecessor AA.  It seems that that line of discussion has reached its conclusion too - ie. you believe it morphed into something else, but neither of us know why.

There were very real problems with discrimination back then, which have almost completely gone away.

The need to end WWII used to be very great. But now that it's already over, we don't need to end it again. Get it? 

We don't need a revamped AA to fix what AA already fixed.

DEI is discriminatory and unfair. Should an uneducated person with no job experience get the next promotion that you've worked your whole life for, Mike? Should that go to someone who was sitting on their couch for the last 30 years while you were working towards it? It could if the job posting has "People with Mike's skin colour need not apply" on it, and only one "qualified" person applies. 

Quote

11. Never heard of that.  Banned from the internet ?

Banned from "FB and Twitter". My bad.

Quote

12. Ahh... ok I had the WRONG TNI it's THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_News_Initiative
Yeah, seems like a good idea to me.  You have right-wing news on there too, which I like .... A LOT.

When was the last time that you saw people sit around and try to get their stories straight when they weren't lying? 

And how is it possible that all of the people in all of those companies were all so stupid and wrong? How is it that I, a random internet poster with one MacBook, was able to get so far ahead of NYT, WashPo, Twitter, FB, AP, Reuters, Euro Broadcast Union, CBC, BBC, etc on every single covid story? Shouldn't that be absolutely impossible? Would you bet on me against all of them, Mike? Do I have more brainpower than the entire left-wing media in North America and Europe? I'd like to think not. 

Edited January 19 by WestCanMan

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And how is it possible that all of the people in all of those companies were all so stupid and wrong? How is it that I, a random internet poster with one MacBook, was able to get so far ahead of NYT, WashPo, Twitter, FB, AP, Reuters, Euro Broadcast Union, CBC, BBC, etc on every single covid story? Shouldn't that be absolutely impossible?

Utterly impossible. What's far likelier is that you're utterly insane.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. There were very real problems with discrimination back then, which have almost completely gone away.

2. Banned from "FB and Twitter". My bad.

3. When was the last time that you saw people sit around and try to get their stories straight when they weren't lying? 

4. And how is it possible that all of the people in all of those companies were all so stupid and wrong? How is it that I, a random internet poster with one MacBook, was able to get so far ahead of NYT, WashPo, Twitter, FB, AP, Reuters, Euro Broadcast Union, CBC, BBC, etc on every single covid story? Shouldn't that be absolutely impossible? Would you bet on me against all of them, Mike? Do I have more brainpower than the entire left-wing media in North America and Europe? I'd like to think not. 

1. 2. Ok.

3. It seems to be like the PRESS COUNCIL or some such that the newspapers used to belong to.  Not one story, no, but one set of principles for governance and a process for complaints.

4. No I wouldn't bet on you against them.  They're not all left wing either.  Trump himself championed vaccines and took ownership of their success.  That said, sometimes a crackpot is right and everyone else is wrong.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. No I wouldn't bet on you against them. 

If you bet $10 on me in Jan 2020 and let it ride you'd be a trillionaire right now. 

[Moonbox]

On 1/16/2026 at 4:04 PM, Goddess said:

Of course.

I just don't believe as Mark Carney does that "Muslim values are the same as Canadian values."

57 Muslim-ruled countries tell me otherwise.  The Palestinians being 80% in favour of Hamas, tells me otherwise.

As with everything, I think it depends.  Having grown up around the GTA with and around plenty of Muslims, nothing about them seemed much different than the rest of my friends other than that they didn't eat pork.  The fact that I was in a very white collar community might have something to do with it, but there's nothing inherently awful about Muslims or their "values", IMO. 

That doesn't mean I think we should have open-doors to Somalians or whatever, and I think we could be a lot more strict in refugee filtering, deportations etc.  I recognize the problems and agree with a lot of the conclusions around western immigration policy.  Some people are just a lot more reasonable about it than others.  By most accounts, the refugees from Syria a decade ago have by and large integrated extremely well into Canada.  I don't know exactly what the difference was, but already being a mixed population of mostly muslims living alongside christians and druzis or whatever probably helps.  Escaping warzones with young families probably helped too.  

 

[I am Groot]

On 1/19/2026 at 11:52 AM, ExFlyer said:

And...now you are smarter than before....not a long way but a bit closer.

Dan Burmawi on Islam

I’ll publish a longer article on this tomorrow, but here is the simplest way to explain what makes Islam fundamentally different from every other major religion, and why it is uniquely destabilizing.

Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic religions, which means they preach belief in one deity. Islam adds a second, inseparable layer, and that is exactly what makes it problematic.

In Judaism, Sikhism, and Christianity, you are only required to believe in one God to be considered a monotheist. You can believe in God while living under any number of political arrangements without ceasing to be Jewish, Sikh, or Christian.

In Islam, you are required to believe in one God, Allah (monotheism) and one governing authority, Sharia (mono-cracy). If you believe in one God but reject one governing authority, you are not considered a Muslim, even if you believe in Allah, this is called (Alhakimiyya). To be Muslim is not only to believe in one God (Allah), but also to affirm one governing authority, sharia.

Belief in God without submission to God’s law as governing authority is insufficient. A person may believe in Allah, pray, fast, and still be considered outside Islam if they reject the idea that only divine law should rule. In that sense, Islam is not just monotheistic, it is mono-cratic. Under this framework, Muslims who reject the rule of sharia, Kurds, secular Arabs, or “moderate” leaders, can be declared apostates or unbelievers.

This is also why figures like Mohammed bin Zayed can be labeled infidels despite being Muslim: political sovereignty, not personal belief, is the dividing line. Most Muslims believe in one God and accept sharia as the ideal governing authority.

What separates them from jihadists is not theology, but strategy and timing. They may not seek to impose sharia themselves, but they accept its legitimacy, which is why jihadists are frequently rejected tactically while being defended ideologically.

This mono-cractic principle is not a fringe interpretation. It is what the Qur’an commands “And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” (5:44) and what Muhammad, his companions, and the Islamic caliphates practiced throughout history.

[I am Groot]

Why Muslims Hate You (by Raymond Ibrahim):

This little known doctrine is the root source of all hostility. Its first part (al-wala’) commands all Muslims to be loyal and helpful to one another; its second—and much more problematic—part (al-bara’) commands all Muslims to disavow and even hate all non-Muslims.

It is, in fact, what fuels jihad (warfare) and jizya (mistreatment on conquered infidels). Although there are many Koran verses that support this doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 9:23, 58:22), Koran 60:4 is its lynchpin.

Allah informs Muslims that: "You have an excellent example in Abraham [Ibrahim] and those with him, when they said to their people, “We totally dissociate ourselves from you and what you worship besides Allah. We reject you. Enmity and hatred has arisen between us and will last until you believe in Allah alone."

The hate is intrinsic; it is so final and so total that even if a non-Muslim is genuinely good and kind to a Muslim, the Muslim must still hate him, or her.