patatas

joined 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Gotta say, when the downvote brigade comes for a comment like the one I made above, it says to me that it's not about the title of the post, or the article's merits. Opinions will differ, of course!

People really just don't want to hear legit criticism of Carney, and will attempt to silence anyone who dares to. I had a large Liberal-supporter's account on Bluesky add me to their public blocklist of "toxic trolls", next to accounts like LibsOfTikTok, because I said - and this is verbatim - "Carney's housing plan is not FDR-like, sorry".

One of the top two comments in these replies makes a point that the piece itself actually agrees with - so they clearly hadn't even read it yet. The other one complains about the fact that the topic was chosen at all. So much for discourse!

Anyway, I've had plenty worse said about stuff I've written (a different essay whipped up a bunch of controversy on the orange site recently).

So, while I won't claim it doesn't sting at all when people are dismissive and rude, my skin is starting to get thicker, haha

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

OK, well, it really seemed like you were defending the PM's policy direction. Even as I re-read what you wrote, I'm struggling to find an alternative explanation.

Anyway if the political game is to pander to what people are demanding, then isn't it the role of the people to be vocal about what they want?

If you are as worried about Bills C-5 and C-2 as you say, then why defend the PM being nice to Premier Smith, who many Liberals were literally calling a traitor just a couple months ago?

Why defend the PM being nice to Doug Ford, who is trying to ram through anti-democratic "special economic zones" legislation in Ontario's Bill 5?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

This is the LinkedIn post, which makes me even more sure you're following me around lmao

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (6 children)

Ah, I see, you're OK with it because you like the policy.

My original post didn't say it was concerning though, so I'm not sure why you responded as though it did.

Edit: also, you seem to be following me around different Lemmy communities with a 3-hour-old account. Any reason for that?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I find it interesting you are so fixated on the pancake aspect when the piece is (to me at least) quite clearly about the PM's personality, and how it parallels his policy and actions.

Thanks for pointing out the broken link, I'll correct that

Edit: that link seems to be working again, but it did take a while to load, weird

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (8 children)

It doesn't worry you that the PM is pandering to that right-leaning audience, rather than standing up for things like climate action?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Curious if you clicked any of the dozen links that back up the claims made in the piece?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago

Thanks for reading!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Oh, lol, I'll take some blame there too, I maybe should have hyphenated 'right-wing'

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

Worth asking what exactly they're collaborating on then, right? Just a couple days ago, ministers from those same two provinces asked the Feds not to renew the requirements to provide safe drinking water to Indigenous communities. And the screenshot here was careful to include the word 'pipelines'.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

How would you frame the PM's post, out of curiosity?

 

The Wonder Valley website is making emissions-related claims that O'Leary Ventures' CEO has openly admitted are false. Are they running afoul of Canada's greenwashing legislation?

view more: next ›