Trudeau flees as first 1,000 Trucks Arrive in Ottawa
Me? Not really; best to avoid re-debating ancient history since my memory fades. If I couldn't create an impression that lasted when the details were fresh, I certainly can't now. But ... I did find the sentence in the article of total anarchy and excessive criminality to be inconsistent with what I recall hearing from friends in the Seattle area, and I do have many. It wasn't a free love hippy fest, but it also wasn't total anarchy. A mix of festival and random aggression, really, is how I remember it being most accurately described. Sometimes society has to let people experiment and get their feelings out of their system, even if it means life will be something less than ideal in a location for a little while. Once people start truly getting hurt, its time for it to end. If I recall, that is what ended CHAZ: a death.
I don't have any personal connections to the Trucker situations so I don't have a grasp on the real story. But severely disrupting the supply chain is a different animal than taking over a small part of a city. I think government should let any protest run its course whenever pragmatically feasible.
Thanks for providing what you remembered of that time.
The request you responded to wasn't a legitimate request though: it was an attempt to back out of a request that MaxE substantiate a claim he made about an article which was posted here, where his claims about it were placed 8 minutes after the article excerpt and link were posted.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if a person can "identify" flaws\etc. in something so fast (8 minutes, including time to make and submit their post claiming their presence in the article), there's no reason that they couldn't quickly and concisely provide evidence to support their claims, rather than trying to hide behind someone else to avoid having to either explain the specific issues they found in the 8 minutes, or to admit that they lied about their description of the content\intent of the article.
When a person can't answer a specific, focused question about something they claimed to see (and post about - evidence-free) in 8 minutes, instead trying to palm off the explanation to a 3rd party to provide, it's hard to believe their initial claims were honest\truthful, but rather that it was an intentional attempt to misinform anyone who read their post.
I wasn't unaware that you were trying to play a gotcha game, I simply choose to stay out of that piece, and talk about what I felt like talking about.
My assumption has been that his initial response may have had a lot to do with how he felt about the media source,combined with the pretty obnoxious sentence I mentioned. Just my personal feeling. If true, I can relate a bit to that approach in that the best way to reduce the influence of a disreputable media source can be to refuse to acknowledge the source. I am OK to leave it at that, and note that the fact a challenge has been made should be enough to put readers on alert for accuracy; from there, they can decide on their own. I know that isn't how you roll, you look at nearly every sentence as it's own statement to be litigated. But, no one can always get what they want ...
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Me? Not really; best to avoid re-debating ancient history since my memory fades. If I couldn't create an impression that lasted when the details were fresh, I certainly can't now. But ... I did find the sentence in the article of total anarchy and excessive criminality to be inconsistent with what I recall hearing from friends in the Seattle area, and I do have many. It wasn't a free love hippy fest, but it also wasn't total anarchy. A mix of festival and random aggression, really, is how I remember it being most accurately described. Sometimes society has to let people experiment and get their feelings out of their system, even if it means life will be something less than ideal in a location for a little while. Once people start truly getting hurt, its time for it to end. If I recall, that is what ended CHAZ: a death.
I don't have any personal connections to the Trucker situations so I don't have a grasp on the real story. But severely disrupting the supply chain is a different animal than taking over a small part of a city. I think government should let any protest run its course whenever pragmatically feasible.
Thanks for providing what you remembered of that time.
The request you responded to wasn't a legitimate request though: it was an attempt to back out of a request that MaxE substantiate a claim he made about an article which was posted here, where his claims about it were placed 8 minutes after the article excerpt and link were posted.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if a person can "identify" flaws\etc. in something so fast (8 minutes, including time to make and submit their post claiming their presence in the article), there's no reason that they couldn't quickly and concisely provide evidence to support their claims, rather than trying to hide behind someone else to avoid having to either explain the specific issues they found in the 8 minutes, or to admit that they lied about their description of the content\intent of the article.
When a person can't answer a specific, focused question about something they claimed to see (and post about - evidence-free) in 8 minutes, instead trying to palm off the explanation to a 3rd party to provide, it's hard to believe their initial claims were honest\truthful, but rather that it was an intentional attempt to misinform anyone who read their post.
I wasn't unaware that you were trying to play a gotcha game, I simply choose to stay out of that piece, and talk about what I felt like talking about.
There was no "gotcha" in what I was after - I hadn't noticed any of what MaxE was accusing the article of containing when reading it, and so wanted to know to what I had missed, but which was apparently so obvious that he could detect and post about in such a short time.
The reason that I wanted to know what I had missed, which was so obvious that MaxE could see it in 8 minutes (yet I missed it), was to understand what to look for in the future, but he has been unable to point to anything in the article (despite several posts since in the thread and many hours having passed), instead trying to palm-off responsibility to a 3rd-party to explain what he (personally) claims to have seen, through his way of looking at (and interpreting) the world.
Unless the 3rd party is able to read his mind, all they can present is their own interpretation, which is not the same as his providing his personal explanation for his remarks, which was what was requested - Without his ability to explain the reasoning (and evidence) which resulted in the claims about the article, it is very difficult to believe or trust the claims he makes, instead seeing them as merely an attempt at smearing the article to try and cover up the observations contained in it.
https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/ ... lice-bill/
Maybe the bill should go to all the foreigners involved in pushing and/or paying for this ...
OK, I'm not fully up to speed, but I am aware that a large chunk of the promotion was traced back to what really are propaganda factories overseas, and I am aware that the truckers union denounced the whole thing, and auto worker unions have denounced the whole thing, and so on. A parade of trucks really did sound like a fun and fresh protest when it started, who cares if I agree with the reason for the protest, but in this day and age it seems there is no such thing as a pure ideological protest anymore. Sigh. To the extent that is true, something is definitely being lost, because the right of protest is like apple pie and, thus, integral to western Democracy.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Me? Not really; best to avoid re-debating ancient history since my memory fades. If I couldn't create an impression that lasted when the details were fresh, I certainly can't now. But ... I did find the sentence in the article of total anarchy and excessive criminality to be inconsistent with what I recall hearing from friends in the Seattle area, and I do have many. It wasn't a free love hippy fest, but it also wasn't total anarchy. A mix of festival and random aggression, really, is how I remember it being most accurately described. Sometimes society has to let people experiment and get their feelings out of their system, even if it means life will be something less than ideal in a location for a little while. Once people start truly getting hurt, its time for it to end. If I recall, that is what ended CHAZ: a death.
I don't have any personal connections to the Trucker situations so I don't have a grasp on the real story. But severely disrupting the supply chain is a different animal than taking over a small part of a city. I think government should let any protest run its course whenever pragmatically feasible.
Thanks for providing what you remembered of that time.
The request you responded to wasn't a legitimate request though: it was an attempt to back out of a request that MaxE substantiate a claim he made about an article which was posted here, where his claims about it were placed 8 minutes after the article excerpt and link were posted.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if a person can "identify" flaws\etc. in something so fast (8 minutes, including time to make and submit their post claiming their presence in the article), there's no reason that they couldn't quickly and concisely provide evidence to support their claims, rather than trying to hide behind someone else to avoid having to either explain the specific issues they found in the 8 minutes, or to admit that they lied about their description of the content\intent of the article.
When a person can't answer a specific, focused question about something they claimed to see (and post about - evidence-free) in 8 minutes, instead trying to palm off the explanation to a 3rd party to provide, it's hard to believe their initial claims were honest\truthful, but rather that it was an intentional attempt to misinform anyone who read their post.
I wasn't unaware that you were trying to play a gotcha game, I simply choose to stay out of that piece, and talk about what I felt like talking about.
There was no "gotcha" in what I was after - I hadn't noticed any of what MaxE was accusing the article of containing when reading it, and so wanted to know to what I had missed, but which was apparently so obvious that he could detect and post about in such a short time.
The reason that I wanted to know what I had missed, which was so obvious that MaxE could see it in 8 minutes (yet I missed it), was to understand what to look for in the future, but he has been unable to point to anything in the article (despite several posts since in the thread and many hours having passed), instead trying to palm-off responsibility to a 3rd-party to explain what he (personally) claims to have seen, through his way of looking at (and interpreting) the world.
Unless the 3rd party is able to read his mind, all they can present is their own interpretation, which is not the same as his providing his personal explanation for his remarks, which was what was requested - Without his ability to explain the reasoning (and evidence) which resulted in the claims about the article, it is very difficult to believe or trust the claims he makes, instead seeing them as merely an attempt at smearing the article to try and cover up the observations contained in it.
Dang, I knew I should have found a better term, but I was drawing a blank, so "gotcha" it was ...
OK, here is the sentence that bothered you:
Breaking it down:
"Sensationalist" can be attributed to the sentence(s) I referenced. The one sided description in the article did feel very exaggerated to me.
"inciting racist sentiment" is unclear. I saw nothing specifically racist about the article. However, I've also been made aware that the need to describe events connected to BLM protests as "lawless" and "criminal" is considered by many to be racist by itself. It's a connect the dots concept; A leads to B leads to C; less obvious and more insidious. But THAT is a school of thought I have zero interest in debating here; its complex and I'm not well enough versed in it to defend or deny.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Me? Not really; best to avoid re-debating ancient history since my memory fades. If I couldn't create an impression that lasted when the details were fresh, I certainly can't now. But ... I did find the sentence in the article of total anarchy and excessive criminality to be inconsistent with what I recall hearing from friends in the Seattle area, and I do have many. It wasn't a free love hippy fest, but it also wasn't total anarchy. A mix of festival and random aggression, really, is how I remember it being most accurately described. Sometimes society has to let people experiment and get their feelings out of their system, even if it means life will be something less than ideal in a location for a little while. Once people start truly getting hurt, its time for it to end. If I recall, that is what ended CHAZ: a death.
I don't have any personal connections to the Trucker situations so I don't have a grasp on the real story. But severely disrupting the supply chain is a different animal than taking over a small part of a city. I think government should let any protest run its course whenever pragmatically feasible.
Thanks for providing what you remembered of that time.
The request you responded to wasn't a legitimate request though: it was an attempt to back out of a request that MaxE substantiate a claim he made about an article which was posted here, where his claims about it were placed 8 minutes after the article excerpt and link were posted.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if a person can "identify" flaws\etc. in something so fast (8 minutes, including time to make and submit their post claiming their presence in the article), there's no reason that they couldn't quickly and concisely provide evidence to support their claims, rather than trying to hide behind someone else to avoid having to either explain the specific issues they found in the 8 minutes, or to admit that they lied about their description of the content\intent of the article.
When a person can't answer a specific, focused question about something they claimed to see (and post about - evidence-free) in 8 minutes, instead trying to palm off the explanation to a 3rd party to provide, it's hard to believe their initial claims were honest\truthful, but rather that it was an intentional attempt to misinform anyone who read their post.
I wasn't unaware that you were trying to play a gotcha game, I simply choose to stay out of that piece, and talk about what I felt like talking about.
There was no "gotcha" in what I was after - I hadn't noticed any of what MaxE was accusing the article of containing when reading it, and so wanted to know to what I had missed, but which was apparently so obvious that he could detect and post about in such a short time.
The reason that I wanted to know what I had missed, which was so obvious that MaxE could see it in 8 minutes (yet I missed it), was to understand what to look for in the future, but he has been unable to point to anything in the article (despite several posts since in the thread and many hours having passed), instead trying to palm-off responsibility to a 3rd-party to explain what he (personally) claims to have seen, through his way of looking at (and interpreting) the world.
Unless the 3rd party is able to read his mind, all they can present is their own interpretation, which is not the same as his providing his personal explanation for his remarks, which was what was requested - Without his ability to explain the reasoning (and evidence) which resulted in the claims about the article, it is very difficult to believe or trust the claims he makes, instead seeing them as merely an attempt at smearing the article to try and cover up the observations contained in it.
Dang, I knew I should have found a better term, but I was drawing a blank, so "gotcha" it was ...
No worries - All I have been looking for from this was an explanation from the person who made the claims, of what led them to be able to do so in such a short period, to understand the facts behind the claim, and so know what I (as well as anyone else who didn't see anything there that supported those claims) needed to look for in the future.
If such evidence can be seen and posted about in 8 miutes, then it should be no effort to provide an explanation to aid those who couldn't see such evidence, pointing out what was at fault in the article - both to support the claims (how else can anyone differentiate between a lie, the truth, or a misunderstanding without evidence\explanation of the reasoning used to support the claim), as well as to educate others.
It is the constant evasiveness regarding providing any such evidence and\or reasoning behind such claims that lead people to believe there was never any truth in them...
[quote="DW_a_mom"
"inciting racist sentiment" is unclear.[/quote]
Where I live BLM is a respected movement. Characterizing BLM activists as rioters who burn down cities (maybe not an exact quote from that article but I've seen it in similar reports) is racist for what to me should be obvious reasons.
Where I live BLM is a respected movement. Characterizing BLM activists as rioters who burn down cities (maybe not an exact quote from that article but I've seen it in similar reports) is racist for what to me should be obvious reasons.
Perhaps in bubble you live in, BLM is a respected movement - but you need to stop focussing on this, and instead look at the movement and it's actions outside this bubble, which is what people are talking about when discussing the movement.
To begin with, criticising a movement for the actions it performs\condones is not connected with anyone's race (the movement contains a number of people from many races, after all).
Denying that the movement was involved in riots and burning down portions of cities, hiding behind claims that pointing this out is "racist", gives the impression of an attempt to conceal facts about the movement, and to cause the observer to wonder about what else (potentionally worse) is being concealed as well.

Think about it: How is burning down or looting businesses (many "black" or immigrant owned), or shooting other "black" people trying to prevent this occurring (David Dorn, for example) going to look to those considering support for the movement that purports to be about supporting "black" people?
Just because you are uncomfortable with the fact that those representing the movement (which is anyone involved in one of the movement's protests) were associated with the actions through not acting to prevent them, doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Equally, criticising the movement for permitting such actions to occur in its name\its members to participate in them does not in any way make that person racist - They are merely pointing out objective facts which are negatively impacting on the movements credibility.
Were the movement to follow the lead of MLK and conduct their protests in a non-violent manner (in much the same way that the trucker's protest in Ottawa is being conducted), isolating\removing from the area anyone trying to start violence\trouble in the movement's name, then there would be much less criticism of them, and likely much greater support. Unfortunately, the BLM movement's leadership have been silent about these actions, which negatively impact on the movement's reputation, and such actions are widespread, rather than limited to a single site\city, which further harms that reputation by giving the impression that this is planned\endorsed\desired behaviour for the movement.
As to BLM (the organisation), criticism of that is entirely different to critism of the movement, and should not treated as though it is connected in any way (critism of one is distinct from critism of the other - The movement does not represent the organisation, and the organistaion does not control the movement).
OK, here is the sentence that bothered you:
Breaking it down:
"Sensationalist" can be attributed to the sentence(s) I referenced. The one sided description in the article did feel very exaggerated to me.
"inciting racist sentiment" is unclear. I saw nothing specifically racist about the article. However, I've also been made aware that the need to describe events connected to BLM protests as "lawless" and "criminal" is considered by many to be racist by itself. It's a connect the dots concept; A leads to B leads to C; less obvious and more insidious. But THAT is a school of thought I have zero interest in debating here; its complex and I'm not well enough versed in it to defend or deny.
I didn't notice you'd updated you post from the one-line when I replied earlier to include the extra information in the 10 minutes between it being posted and me replying to that original 1-line post...
Thanks for doing some of MaxE's homework for him - I can see how one (or more) sentences could be considered "sensationalist", but the article consisted of more than just that - tarring an entire article for the "sins" of a couple of sentences seems a rather large jump to make.
With regards to the "lawless" and "criminal" remarks, what other words would you use to describe an area into which the police were unable\unwilling to enter, even when people inside call for help regarding criminal acts taking place there:
“We are now right in the middle of that autonomous zone,” he said.
Ploszaj said he recently called 911 when he saw a burglar breaking into his courtyard, grabbing a bike and other items.
“The dispatcher told me, ‘We are not going in there, there is nothing we can do. We can come meet you on the outside, but if it’s not life-threatening, there’s nothing we can do.’”
He said days later, he saw it happen again.
“I saw the same guy who had broken earlier,“” he said. “He was wearing different clothes, but he locked eyes on me, he saw me and started working toward me, so I ran inside, and called 911 again,” he said.
Once again, Ploszaj said his call to 911 was futile. Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best said Monday her officers would only respond inside the protest zone for cases of life-safety emergencies, for the safety of SPD officers, and protesters calling for de-policing within the zone.
“We are just sitting ducks all day,” Ploszaj said. “Now every criminal in the city knows they can come into this area and they can do anything they want as long as it isn’t life-threatening, and the police won’t come in to do anything about it.”
Ploszaj said he has also seen protesters policing themselves.
“Someone had broken into the East Precinct, and other protesters were shouting at them, and they went in there,” he said. “They forcibly removed (the intruders). They got them out of there.”
Ploszaj said he and other Pine Street residents tried appealing to CHOP organizers, explaining that many are seniors.
“We try to bring up our points, but we just get shouted down,” he said. “We just get booed.”
Source: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/were-sitting-ducks-here-tenants-protest-zone-asking-spd-resume-response-crimes/MSRAGTVVDVDPBL22YNWNY6ZAWE/
^^^ Brictoria, I don't see any point in re-litigating the events of 2020. But I will repeat a few of my positions, just for the record. Please don't break these points down and debate them; there is no point.
1. The zone wasn't as bad as that article made it out to be. I've lost a lot of the details, but recall that people came and went mostly without harm; most property remained untouched. As I described it earlier, it was a mixed bag, and ANYONE characterizing it as fully lawless or as fully peaceful has to be, in my opinion, pushing an agenda. The article you posted was extremely one-sided and, thus, pursues an agenda that I am not willing to trust. The more you write on this topic, the more I feel like you are locked into an overly negative viewpoint and only seeing what confirms it. On this issue, I simply do not trust your ability to find the most accurate analysis. There are times I am very interested in what you pull up, but not with this situation and at this point in time.
2. I support Black Lives Matter. More the concept than the organization, but I don't buy the charges you wrote. I understand that the organization and its leadership has some issues, but the organization was not advocating for nor condoning violence and destruction. Other players were attaching themselves to the protests for reasons that had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. When there is civil unrest, destructive individuals will attach themselves, and a few otherwise sincere individuals will get absorbed into mob mentality, but both are separate from the movement that created the protest.
3. I don't know why the topic is even under discussion in this thread. What the protests have in common is people frustrated and boiling over, and questionable characters attaching themselves to the protests for some unrelated agenda. But they are separate actions and have to be dissected separately. I am not going to play a game of comparing protests and trying to decide which was/is "better," or which opposition group was/is more "tolerant" or, flip side, more "impatient."
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Last edited by DW_a_mom on 13 Feb 2022, 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
As an exclamation for people outside NA, I live in Maryland which is a fur piece from Canada and have been terrorized by Canada Geese many times.
Someone brought up Doug Ford possibly scrapping vaccine passports and mandates in Ontario. Alberta and Saskatchewan and I believe Nova Scotia have made similar announcements. All conservative governments. However, I would like to remind some that may have forgot.
Ford scrapped the provincial carbon tax and cap and trade with Quebec and California upon becoming premier. Trudeau threatened and pulled through on the promise of putting his own carbon tax in its place if a province didn't have one in its place.
Perhaps my fellow Canadians can tell me if Trudeau could do the same with a vaccine mandate/qr/vaccine passport if a province doesn't put one in place.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 130 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 88 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Part of an e-mail response I just got from a relative in Canada. I hadn't raised the topic of Ottawa in my message to her: