Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
So you’ve read through the link then, as opposed to just the title.
The moment I read "Forget Trump, it is always the progressives who want to take away our rights" I had to stop before I hurt something from laughing.
But to humour you, I tried again, bypassing the stupid title and byline.
I will agree with the author - the guy from the EU did overstep himself... sort of. Because of the laws over there, warning Elon to watch what he says was a warning. Yes, Elon is in the US, yes, the US is not the EU, BUT Twitter-X does have service in the EU, and that could lead to backlash against it. So I'd think it's only fair to warn the sonofabitch to watch himself (after hearing how he treats his kids, he deserves no fucking respect what so ever on that alone).
And considering the absolute... whatever the hell THAT was of an interview... the guy was right. (WAY!)
Harper AND Trudeau have done some stupid, stupid bullshit things while in office. Neither are exempt from being fucking twats.
But the absolute best line of the article is the last one. "Seldom has more damage been done to the world than by people who believe themselves, beyond all doubt, to be in the right. "
So... like this guy, the guy from the EU, Musk, Trump, Trudeau and every other asshole that lives on this rock.
And none of it has anything to do with progressive per say and yes, yes, SOME do go beyond reasonable, but the point of Progressives is to, you know, PROGRESS, rather than CONSERVE, as Conservatives do.
If it wasn't for Progressives (either as Liberals or open Progressives), the world would be different now and you'd be allowed to hit your girlfriend, I'd be at home with gods know how many kids (if I survived labour and the kids survived infancy) and a whole host of other issues.
I'd say Progressives do try to advance society, while dipshits like this author don't have any clue to the reality of the world's problems.
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts.
H. L. Mencken
H. L. Mencken
London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.
“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
The redcoats are coming!
www.youtube.com
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: 'We'll come after you'
A British police commissioner warned that even Americans across the Atlantic could be extradited to the UK if they run afoul of their rules in commenting on the wave of riots.
London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.
“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
The redcoats are coming!
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: 'We'll come after you'
A British police commissioner warned that even Americans across the Atlantic could be extradited to the UK if they run afoul of their rules in commenting on the wave of riots.www.foxnews.com
And... there's an issue with that?
It's mostly performative; if they're outside of the UK, it's not like they can enforce the ruling if the citizen - especially in the US - decides to ignore the judgment if they have one.
So it’s ok then? Because it’s performative? Probably performative? Mostly probably performative?
Shouldn’t adults be able to shift through the information available and decide upon what is the truth and what is not (?) or is it up to the government to decide upon the truth (?) with threats and censorship?
Who is in charge of deciding what is truth or not & doling out punishment for what it decides is mis/cis/dis-information? Who do you want to trust to censor your intake of information for you, upon penalty of law, of course?
Amy Hamm: Free speech isn't a threat to the U.K. — censorship is
British police are 'scouring' the internet for harmful content to quell riots, but online expression was never the root problem
Yup. Or you can howl about your OUTRAGE on an obscure Canadian comment board. . .
A brief glance at history demonstrates that that is a traditional function of government.
A brief glance at history demonstrates that that is a traditional function of governmentWho is in charge of deciding what is truth or not & doling out punishment for what it decides is mis/cis/dis-information? Who do you want to trust to censor your intake of information for you, upon penalty of law, of course?
Amy Hamm: Free speech isn't a threat to the U.K. — censorship is
British police are 'scouring' the internet for harmful content to quell riots, but online expression was never the root problemnationalpost.com
Didn't say it was okay. Actually said I agreed with the guy of the original article.
But what the chief said about outside comments about the riots was a 'had to be said' thing. Because the Internet and stupid people and easily pissed off right wing snowflakes who jump before looking to see if there's even water to jump into.
Who would then get pissed off someone stopped them from jumping and claim it was their right to jump even if a sign was there that said no jumping.
Basically "Fuck around and find out".
LOL - considering the "Adults" being discussed... do you really want an answer to that?
Truth can be subjective, that's, well, true, but in the case of breaking laws, there are written, well, laws, that dictate what's 'true' and what isn't. And it's up to a judge and/or jury to decide.
Judge/jury.
Who do you want to trust to censor your intake of information for you, upon penalty of law, of course?
Amy Hamm: Free speech isn't a threat to the U.K. — censorship is
British police are 'scouring' the internet for harmful content to quell riots, but online expression was never the root problem
Or as TB said, that's the purview of Government as elected by the people, so ergo, the people (supposedly) decide. Since, you know, we can always fire them next election and get someone else in to change those laws.
Ron, you keep throwing the NP out as if it's an unbiased source of intelligence in this. Here's a hint for you.
It's not.
This isn't about free speech, either. This is about ignorant, bigoted, racist assholes taking a lie that was spread and using it to continue to spread their bullshit and lies against people who "Aren't Us (aka white)". People who feel that somehow they "get" how the Native Americans feel for immigrants coming to their land.
This has everything to do with doing shit and having consequences against that shit you just did.
No news service in this day & age is unbiased.
The National Post isn’t behind a paywall most of the time, & it’s easy to post a link that others can actually open without a subscription.
False equivalence. Like saying "everybody is violent, so there's no difference between punching a guy and shooting up a schoolroom."
Yep. I peruse from all over the place, & post links from what (at least for me) are non-paywall sites…so yes I must be guilty. News articles, opinion pieces, YouTube, newspaper comments & other forum boards, outlets from other countries inside and out of the commonwealth, etc…news from India & China to try and get the perspective from the outside, looking in, or just from different directions at a third-party.
I (I know it might sound bizarre) kind of enjoy reading from different sources about the same story, but looking at the different spin put on by different outlets. It’s sort of like looking for the differences between two “almost” identical pictures, etc…then asking why the emphasis on different or conflicting (or what’s intentionally omitted) pieces of the puzzle.
Follow the bouncing ball sort’a thing.
Yes, I’m a Canadian in Canada, and on domestic (non-paywalled) news stories, one of the news sources I skim regularly is the National Post or the many-many Suns or for more local stories the written news feeds off of radio stations, etc…
If acknowledging that there is bias from different sources in different directions on the same stories is false equivalence, then yeah, I’m guilty as accused. For every story there’s usually at least three sides and sometimes many more.
Eventually (maybe?) there will be one official source & story and the rest are blasphemous mis/cis/dis-information, but currently we can surf through multiple sources to try to find the bigger picture.
Well, that's not true.
But if you are interested, try a place like Ground News; they pull stories from all over and all 'leanings' and sort it via biases. Pretty good way to keep things 'center' and 'unbiased', or as unbiased as one can be.
So are other places - Reuters, AP - so that's not an excuse either.
(From those nine sites? Or is that just the first thing I looked at there?)
Ground News a subscription service, for those that don’t have the wherewithal to hunt out multiple versions & sources themselves, right?
Their claim for themselves is:
….& good on them. Who decides what is where on their bias (that they don’t have)?
That little tiny blue blip on the right is their balance against burgundy 1/2 on the (what they believe is) the left….& the white chunk that’s most of the right 1/2 is what they believe is the middle.
An aggregate of nine sites, 4 that they believe are to the left, 4 that they believe are center, & 1 token site that they believe represents the right 1/2 of the spectrum? Is that what I’m seeing?
Wanna confirm their un-bias? Upgrade to Premium. Wanna know who owns “Ground News” for an idea of their direction they’re coming from? Upgrade to…etc…
Ground News - Wikipedia
I’m not knocking “Ground News” & if it works for you, then great!! Is it 33% Left, 33% Middle, & 33%
Does that eliminate a bias? The decision as to where something fits on the Left/Right/Center graph on their site would be a bias unto itself,
I’m more than willing, time permitting, to wade through multiple sources myself. Do I always post “opinions” or articles from the “center” on a debate forum, or do I post opinionated things to start or continue debate & discussion? That would depend on who you ask, wouldn’t it?
Hamas' new leader Sinwar directed Oct 7 attack from Gaza — Reuters
Yahya Sinwar, named leader of Hamas on Tuesday, masterminded the bloodiest attack on Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, having made no secret of his desire to strike hard at Israel, the country that imprisoned him for almost half his adult life.
Cool…or we can decide for ourselves… potato potato tomato tomato.
Did you notice Holocaust mentioned in the first sentence?View attachment 24162
View attachment 24163
Hamas' new leader Sinwar directed Oct 7 attack from Gaza — Reuters
Yahya Sinwar, named leader of Hamas on Tuesday, masterminded the bloodiest attack on Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, having made no secret of his desire to strike hard at Israel, the country that imprisoned him for almost half his adult life.apple.news
Cool…or we can decide for ourselves… potato potato tomato tomato.
Dead give away its propaganda.
Its so you stay brainwashed. Trauma and memory...
But…it’s from Reuters, not the National Post…so the Holocaust was just propaganda? A Reuters conspiracy piece? It’s become unmentionable because…?
Mentioning, or copy&pasting a Reuters news article on the Hamas/Israel war in the thread on the Hamas/Israel war means I’m brainwashed? When did mentioning the Holocaust in a news story become taboo? Was there a memo or something I missed?
Anyway, I posted this link as an example of me citing Reuters as a new source. Happy Sunday! I’m just stalling over coffee before I have to go dig into real work.
Why is is that mentioning the holocaust has become taboo?
D
Source doesnt matter and again equating Antisemitism with Zionism? Im not southern bapist type that falls for this shit or a leftie. An onion stinks no matter how many layers you peel away.
So sources do or don’t matter, & I threw out a Reuters news story that I had posted on this forum as an example of citing stories from other places as opposed to just the National Post… juxtaposing Reuters against the National Post (not Zionism against whatever) in a thread about censorship (You can read into whatever whatever you wish), so sources do matter unless it’s about Zionism or Antisemitism (?) as I’m wading through the positions of both of you here this morning?
This is the thread about censorship, right? I’ve kind of been bouncing back-and-forth this morning/afternoon depending on where on the continent you are located, I guess.
Honestly, I didn’t notice the first sentence above until it was pointed out, as I was just looking for an example of myself using Reuters here…then I was just googling to try and figure out when it became taboo to mention the holocaust in a new story once it was pointed out.
Thats your argument with her not me.
Its just good to see there are glimmers of reality here and there.