• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hate gate...the Canadian bogeyman or a real problem?

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,048
Points
1,010
This worth a watch. I have to admit, I find words like hate, X-phobe, fascist and racist have been thrown out very (excuse the pun) liberally these days.

I also notice how current GoC, government unions and activist group seem to be very quick to attach these words to the Conservatives or anybody who doesn't agree with them.


 
‘Hate’ is just one more term that #TeamGaslight (aka LPC) likes to throw out in an attempt to continue the polarization of Canada…interestingly, a phenomenon it blames on the CPC, yet the records of words used, from PMJT on down, is anything but conclusive that the COC comes anywhere close to owning the Hatespace.
 
‘Hate’ is just one more term that #TeamGaslight (aka LPC) likes to throw out in an attempt to continue the polarization of Canada…interestingly, a phenomenon it blames on the CPC, yet the records of words used, from PMJT on down, is anything but conclusive that the COC comes anywhere close to owning the Hatespace.
Why have a reasonable policy debate on anything when you can just label anyone who disagrees with you a "ist/phobe", and carry on with your day?

Of course, it seems they may have drawn from that well a bit too often, and the the tactic isn't working as well as it used to.
 
I agree that words like they are used quite often these days, and far more often than is anywhere near justified.

I still don't understand how PMJT can hear murmurs of some convoy of truckers protesting mask/COVID mandates and presume in extremely short order that they are all racists or misogynists. For him to know that about the individuals involved would imply he knows each of them personally, which if that was the case I doubt they'd all be driving across the country.

Or it could be, ofcourse, that those are words straight from a political strategy book to discredit a group's message...the general public is less likely to listen to a group if the perception is that they are extremists. (Kinda backfires when it's the government being extremist, and the protest group comes from all parts of a disapproving society...you'd think his political advisors would have pointed that out!)


In a government context, I think the jig is up. Or at least I hope it is. The current government has lost all credibility with the population when it comes to using labels or trying to divide us --- people have caught onto the strategy and don't appreciate the manipulation.

In a public entity context (unions, special interest groups) I'm not sure if those attempts are as obvious or transparent as the government's.


If one wants other people, or the public, to side with them on an issue...they should make sure their arguments are reasonable and sound, and based on a sound judgment that others can easily behind. Calling the other side racists, or sexists, or whatever shouldn't be a tool to win people to your cause if your cause happens to be a dumb one
 
If one wants other people, or the public, to side with them on an issue...they should make sure their arguments are reasonable and sound, and based on a sound judgment that others can easily behind. Calling the other side racists, or sexists, or whatever shouldn't be a tool to win people to your cause if your cause happens to be a dumb one
Some are still very much beholden to the words…the mind boggles.

Some still think that virtuous words from an alleged statutory rapist, purportedly-reformed attention-seeking theatrical racist and counter-acting verbal feminist are to be believed. What do you do with those types? 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
Some are still very much beholden to the words…the mind boggles.

Some still think that virtuous words from an alleged statutory rapist, purportedly-reformed attention-seeking theatrical racist and counter-acting verbal feminist are to be believed. What do you do with those types? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Offer them up as sacrifices to the Mayan Gods?
 
If one wants other people, or the public, to side with them on an issue...they should make sure their arguments are reasonable and sound, and based on a sound judgment that others can easily behind. Calling the other side racists, or sexists, or whatever shouldn't be a tool to win people to your cause if your cause happens to be a dumb one

Yes, but if one wants a mass of the unthinking public to vote to give you power, especially if you have dumb, unworkable ideas that for which two minutes of sober reflection would be enough to inspire doubt, then ad hominem attacks are absolutely crucial. You gotta get people riled up if you want their votes!
 
Yes, but if one wants a mass of the unthinking public to vote to give you power, especially if you have dumb, unworkable ideas that for which two minutes of sober reflection would be enough to inspire doubt, then ad hominem attacks are absolutely crucial. You gotta get people riled up if you want their votes!
True, true...


I like the idea more of making them walk around in public with a sign proclaiming “I knowingly voted for this person!”
View attachment 80148
This is much more civil, please excuse my overly bloody idea of beheadings (I'm not quite the same without a coffee in the mornings)
 
True, true...



This is much more civil, please excuse my overly bloody idea of beheadings (I'm not quite the same without a coffee in the mornings)
I’m still thinking the execution, - pardon me blood sacrifice - is a better solution.
 
‘Hate’ is just one more term that #TeamGaslight (aka LPC) likes to throw out in an attempt to continue the polarization of Canada…interestingly, a phenomenon it blames on the CPC, yet the records of words used, from PMJT on down, is anything but conclusive that the COC comes anywhere close to owning the Hatespace.
It’s an old dictatorship trick and the fascist and communist sides use it effectively. We are at a tipping point…and I am hoping these people that seeks to divide us are tarred and feathered. Figuratively of course.
 
Slightly off topic but related to Mr Mendicino's remarks: I remain suspicious that there was a "second team" involved in the Ottawa "occupation."

It always seemed pretty clear to me that the "front face" of the occupation, Ms Lich et al, and the people most evident on and around Wellington St were socio-political naifs driven by a totally uniformed ideology. But, in Confederation Park and out at the ball park - where I went a couple of times and was not hassled, I hasten to add - things were different. The stadium grounds looked like a well run tactical DP. I didn't ask anyone any political questions, just wandered around the fringes and listened a bit. I didn't hear much political talk but I did hear how they had good police cooperation and how resupply runs were being coordinated with the police. It seemed then and still seems, top me, now, quite different from the demonstrations on Wellington St.

Maybe it's just that "loggies" are mores serious people than "operators" or maybe there was a more serious, better organized group backing up the "occupation."
 
Slightly off topic but related to Mr Mendicino's remarks: I remain suspicious that there was a "second team" involved in the Ottawa "occupation."

It always seemed pretty clear to me that the "front face" of the occupation, Ms Lich et al, and the people most evident on and around Wellington St were socio-political naifs driven by a totally uniformed ideology. But, in Confederation Park and out at the ball park - where I went a couple of times and was not hassled, I hasten to add - things were different. The stadium grounds looked like a well run tactical DP. I didn't ask anyone any political questions, just wandered around the fringes and listened a bit. I didn't hear much political talk but I did hear how they had good police cooperation and how resupply runs were being coordinated with the police. It seemed then and still seems, top me, now, quite different from the demonstrations on Wellington St.

Maybe it's just that "loggies" are mores serious people than "operators" or maybe there was a more serious, better organized group backing up the "occupation."
And that worries me more then the two buffoons on trial .
 
Back
Top