Trump’s comments on Canada prompt surge of patriotism – in a Canadian way
-
I truly believe it will be, if for no other reason than we're currently watching a preview from Trump on what will happen to us if PP is elected. And most of us don't want a wiff of that shit crossing the border.
-
I am not a Canadian, but may I humbly suggest that responding to asshole American right-wing attacks by being as rude as possible in French would be quite the patriotic response?
Throw down your English-speaking Canadian "sorry" chains and be rude like the Quebecois!
-
So your rebuttal to a nuanced argument is to toss out an insult and a link? Brilliant. Truly, the pinnacle of intellectual engagement. Did you even read the article you linked, or are you just hoping it does your thinking for you?
Economic instability is a factor, not a blueprint. Historical parallels require context, not cherry-picked fragments slapped onto unrelated situations. If you’re going to invoke history, at least try to grasp its complexity instead of wielding it like a blunt instrument.
Maybe next time, bring an actual argument instead of relying on lazy deflection and name-calling. It’s embarrassing for both of us.
-
Your "nuanced" agreement dismisses out of hand the utility of soft power leading into hard power. I'm not interested in having a conversation with a lazy or disingenuous actor, I posted the link for other readers not you.
-
This dude is actually very liberal, take that as you will. Hates conservatives, communists, anarchists. Might be a libertarian? His posting history is... wild to say the least.
-
Franky, I read all of your comments here, and the main message that comes through is a lot of vague specifics with the subtext of, "I am very smart."
Yes, we know there's a bigger picture, but bigger pictures are easier to focus on when the details don't include bombs falling.
-
Bagel, munching rope pisser
-
I read what you say, and all I can keep thinking is that annexation would be a lot easier if you used economic and cultural manipulation first. I don't see it as an either-or and more as a case of doing one first makes the other easier later on.
-
While you're not wrong, this is exactly how nothing ever gets done. The whataboutism of pointing to another problem whenever any issue comes up is a surefire way to ensure that both problems never get dealt with. It's not only destructive because of this though, the other issue is that the person that started derailing the positive momentum obtains a false sense of accomplishment, and they harm the cause that they were originally fighting for. So while your cause is valid, you're coming about it in the most destructive way that won't help anyone. If you truly care about indigenous rights, you should take a solutions-oriented approach instead of one of negativity and vitriol.
-
The irony of your reply is staggering. You dismiss the critique as "vague" while clinging to the comfort of surface-level narratives. Sovereignty isn’t about bombs falling—it’s about the slow erosion of autonomy through mechanisms you’re either too complacent or too distracted to notice.
Your fixation on "details" is precisely the problem. Details are breadcrumbs, not the loaf. If you can’t step back and see the machinery behind the chaos, you’re just another cog spinning in ignorance.
Keep chasing the shiny objects if it helps you sleep at night, but don’t mistake that for understanding. The bigger picture isn’t optional; it’s the only thing that matters.
-
Fly your flag along with a pride flag
️
-
So your solution to centuries of systemic erasure is… tone policing? The irony of demanding "positivity" while sidestepping the core issue is almost poetic. The problem isn’t the delivery; it’s the refusal to engage with uncomfortable truths.
You talk about "getting things done," but progress doesn’t sprout from feel-good platitudes. It comes from dismantling the structures that necessitate this critique in the first place. If calling out settler colonialism feels destructive, maybe it’s because the foundation was rotten to begin with.
This isn’t about "false accomplishment"—it’s about accountability. If you’re more concerned with the tone than the content, you’re not advocating for solutions; you’re advocating for silence.
-
Dude! Why have I not thought of this????
-
Nope. I'm just saying the way you're approaching this will absolutely not work and actually harms the cause you fight for more than it helps. The more rhetoric and logical fallacies you use, the larger a divide you create.
-
If the "way I'm approaching this" is the problem, then what you're really saying is that discomfort is the enemy, not injustice. The divide you speak of isn’t created by rhetoric—it’s been there all along, carved by centuries of exploitation and denial. Pretending that softer words will bridge it is a delusion.
This isn’t about "fighting for more than it helps"; it’s about refusing to sanitize truth for the sake of palatability. If calling out systemic rot feels divisive, maybe it’s because you’re standing on the wrong side of the fracture. Solutions don’t come from coddling; they come from confrontation.
-
Up yours derelict vacuum
-
You're starting to take a hostel tone
-
So a speck of your projection ¯_(ツ)_/¯
