HonoredMule

Maybe men should start supporting each other. You know, as long as admitting to having feelings isn't too gay or whatever.

I was waiting for some context like this before forming an opinion. Thank you for surfacing it.

The article seems to be rather incomplete. Just off the top of my head I notice the absence of anything regarding foreign affairs at all, let alone tariffs, and no mention of sales tax, national defense, food safety and supply management…

Presumably, it's pruned to focus on the things people confuse. But these days that's likely to include foreign affairs and trade. I don't think premiers are normally anywhere near as involved in that as currently, and I don't have a solid understanding of provincial authority there myself.

Earning condemnation from Campaign Life Coalition is an extremely low bar. Case in point: even Poilievre cleared it. I don't know what could possibly warrant even mentioning the opinion of a gossamer-masked hate group.

https://archive.is/OZbom

There's a generalization being made here that's only supported by one anecdote. But as anecdotes go, holy hell and fuck that guy. One could have no regard for the most basic human decency and he should still be deposed for abject incompetence as a negotiator/salesperson.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ford said some overtly divisive stuff in his zeal for mining developments. But behavior like Rivet's cannot be laid at Ford's feet. That's the behavior of a man who made a choice long, long ago about what kind of person he'd be.

Strongly agree. It's a service that federal or provincial governments could maintain for all (lower) levels of government, crown corps, etc. where account creation is restricted to those entities and prominent public figures within them. And just like that you have a secure, reliable, and accessible general purpose communications platform where every post is from a verified identity with clearly specified qualifications.

A conservative woman is still a conservative, so…

https://archive.is/gOp8v

I think the problem is partly that at least a couple generations have been taught about exactly one genocide: the holocaust. So to them anything short of the holocaust isn't genocide, because they simply have no grasp of the general concept beyond systematic mass-murder of epic proportions. These people grew up with the UN Genocide Convention -- arguably the most authoritative definition and certainly the most influential one -- and have probably never even read or heard Article II (the definition).

But it certainly doesn't get much more explicit than:

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The other part is just refusing to recognize crimes committed against a group you don't like or want, if doing so might negatively affect you. I shake my head when people complain about leftist discussion getting bogged down on definitions. These things matter, which is exactly why the right treats words like a game based on deception and subversion. Caring about definitions is just a communication fundamental necessary so we can actually have the same conversation. But individualistic philosophies don't even need that; they need wedges for grievance politics and maximally-flexible boundaries.

The big question in my mind is why are dictionaries adopting modern slang and responding to other drift in linguistic meaning while still maintaining super-narrow and otherwise vague definitions of genocide?

I entertained similar interpretation for a bit as well. But after a while, the absence of any attempt to control the narrative while clearly losing public support was at best tone deaf (if there wasn't some trick up their sleeve).

After watching Singh act like he's got a clear shot at forming government while his ratings are tanking and legitimate criticisms basically went unanswered, the possibility that they're just oblivious started looking all too plausible. It seems like every party's leadership can only see other parties' faults and weaknesses.

That said, doing nothing wasn't the worst strategy. Responding with explanations of why things are actually good and/or getting better in Democrat style would have been way worse.

I can't speak to the construction value of wood species that grow in the Amazon, aside from it being home to some species that are prized for high-end uses but are most definitely not sustainable or even economical to harvest at the scale needed for construction anyway.

But North America is covered with temperate forests loaded with a mix of hardwood and softwood, and boreal forest above that that are predominantly softwood. The hardwood species available have really good structural and furniture making properties while growing relatively fast (for large hardwoods). Most (virtually all) of the construction lumber is softwood, which grows very fast. It has no value for furniture nor is great for large beams and such, but it's quite suitable for plywood, studs, and leftovers that make good structural sheet goods, paper products, etc. It also gets used as a substrate for hardwood veneers, stretching the dearer hardwood way farther.

What's more, harvesting softwood is super easy. The ground is mostly firm and relatively flat, so large machinery can just roll in and start yoinking trunks, which are also pretty straight and tall. It's relatively trivial to pile them onto a truck for transport to the nearest sawmill. The only processing done in-situ is stripping the branches which don't make up much of the material -- I don't know if the branches are even collected for byproduct inputs.

Boreal and temperate forests can replace sustainably harvested softwood in as little as 30 years. Even shitty clear cutting methods are ready for the next clear cut in 50 years if seedlings are actively planted. That's how a company like Irving can lay waste to the countryside and then brag about what great environmentalists they are because they plant so many trees. 🙄