Tell that to Tim Pool, because he experienced them first hand. Don't know who he is? He's an independent journalist that flies all over the place to where the stories are. The most recent case where a german journalist decided to dox him, and then handed all of his info to a german antifa group who then tried to attack him and another group of independent journalists.
There were "friends" who told him not to report on those no-go zones because they didn't want him to for ideological reasons. They want to maintain the "happy migrant picture" while burying their head in the sand over the violence, sexual assaults and rape. Others(everything from leftwing groups that support unrestricted migration to antifascist groups) that threatened him to not report on it. You can dig through his twitter feed if you want the names of the people who threatened him to not report on those areas. Yes they do exist, and yes the media is lying to you about them "not really existing."
No, Trump Jr., his lawyer, the Russian lawyer he met with, and Trump's tweets.
You mean that meeting that lasted less then 20 minutes? How funny that the facts don't fit your version of reality especially after it's all been publicly aired.
Odd that as a Canadian you're a fanatical Trump supporter. Perhaps you're butthurt that Harper lost and Canada failed to pursue more American-style politics?
Want to show me that fanatical support? Canada could do more with perusing US style politics, especially weakening of federal powers towards the public and provinces. Actually guaranteeing land ownership(something we don't have in Canada), and having actual freedom of speech. Again something we don't have in Canada. We have "speech which is permitted under law."
Personally I'm not aligned with any of the parties or their platforms, American or Canadian, and consider the Liberals to have been a case of 'least evil'.
The same liberals that have simply rolled from one scandal to another everytime that they're in power? Under Chretien it was Adscam, under Trudeau Jr., it's pay-for-play and multiple ethics violations. Under Trudeau Sr., it was the night-of-long-knives. Yes, less evil there...
Perhaps you should ask yourself how well it's reflecting in the province of Ontario, where the provincial Liberals are expected to be a non-party by July of next year.
When google and facebook(I believe WAPO as well) told you it was. And that in and of itself is enough reason to know that there's going to be some heavy biases involved.
Really? That's the example you're going with? The one where the whole last week has been detail after detail coming to light showing collusion is incredibly likely to any reasonable person?
You mean the one with the sources of "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous source" and so on? Oh yeah. Very solid sources there, just like the one about Russia hacking that electrical grid that WAPO published right.
I heard through an anonymous source that your waifu is shit. That's 100% true right?
Just because your panties are in a twist, I'll even add something that doesn't relate to it. Where Kotaku and Destructiod Turns around and lies about a mentally ill person filing multiple false DMCA's to get games taken down, and issuing death threats against those people. But Kotaku ignores the death threats that the person filing the DMCA's is sending.
But just jumping back to Trump, the only dog I've got in this race is that he's doing more for Canada then Trudeau is. But nice job on showing how much of a bubble you're really in. I'd hate to see what your comments on Andrew Jackson back in the day would have been like.
Fake news doesn't work on people thinking critically, but you're not after those.
Not true in the least. Remember when Dateline used model rocket boosters to blow up the gas tanks on pickup trucks? You know their target audience for that show at the time was 30-45 college educated or higher. Fake news works well on anyone who's ideologically deep in a rabbit hole and wants to engage in confirmation bias.
Let's look at two cases over the last 3 years: Gamergate, where the FBI could find no incidences of harassment from anyone tied to it. Demographics educated at college level or higher, married, has family, has high disposable income, roughly 15% are female, has a significant minority quotient from all over the world to boot and aligns politically left. But the media continues on with the lie that they're harassers who pump out death threats, are worse then isis, and then scrub away those women and minorities because they don't fit the narrative(that is if the anti-gg people simply don't call them house n*iggers, or uncle toms). The media view of the people in Gamergate are: single, white, males who live in their parents basement or are virgins living alone. Nice fabrications huh?
Or you can take a look at the "Trump-Russia-Collusion" story. Which has evolved from "Russia colluded with Trump" to "his son talked with a lawyer who's visa expired that the Obama administration specifically let back in at the behest of Susan Rice" along with "Putin talked with Trump during dinner." But the entire thing has fallen apart to the point where pundits outside of the main of the party are saying "shut-up, this is hurting us more then helping." If the media has one narrative, it's very easy to see from the outside. But it sure is self-reinforcing if you're in that rabbit hole.
You mean the thing that is actually a discriminatory burden?
You mean where half of those cases have been tossed out, and in two others the legalese was adjusted to come into compliance with the courts ruling making voter ID a defacto requirement.
You mean the arguments that actually persuade a court of law, that the point out the discriminatory intent that is quite apparent from the actual statements of the legislators who enacted the law with the specific desire to disenfranchise voters? From legislators, who if your contentions are correct, were not lawfully elected in the first place, thus rendering their position suspect.
You mean those same arguments which successfully won as well? Want to continue running with that line of thought or would you like to try something else?
Yes, I can. You forgot to ask it to be done though.
Apparently you couldn't, or can't. You missed the question mark in the original sentence.
Yes, I can also do this. Of course, since you neglected to ask for any argument to be actually presented, so I don't feel any obligation to do so, and I won't until you address the question of what to do when the state legislature is found to have engaged in discriminatory intent in its passage of the laws. You instead resist any addressing of that concern at all, revealing at best, your own complicity in it.
Seems to me you don't have any actual point in showing this, because if you did. You'd already know that several of those other cases were tossed, or the laws were modified and/or rewritten in order to be in compliance with the courts issues with the laws in the first place. So where and what are those benefits in having someone who's illegally having the right to vote? Besides that they're subverting democracy itself. Something that democrats have a pro-amnesty hardon and policy for.
FYI, using rarely used words for the sake of using them doesn't make you look smart either.
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. We have no evidence of rampant voter fraud, yet are told we need to implement voter ID.
Well, we don't know if there's evidence of rampant voter fraud. Mainly democrat states are blocking the government from trying to determine how much fraud there actually is. But let's go with the extrapolated report from earlier in the year. Which figures that somewhere between 4m and 6m people voted illegally. That includes everything from voting twice, to non-citizens.
The real reason behind voter ID laws is for Republicans to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democratic to vote at all.
So let's run with that. The reason democrats are for amnesty of illegals, is to make sure they always win by subverting democracy.
First, citation? Second, are we talking per capita or absolute numbers?
It was absolute increase, this is Toronto we're talking about after all. 680News was going on about it and so was 1010am the last 2-3 days, while I was driving back and forth through the London-Oshawa corridor, though I can't see it on either of their websites. So I'm guessing either no one has written a story on it, or they can't be bothered. Though, I'm still waiting to hear back from TPS to see if that's true because I thought it was a high incidence number over the last 3 years.
You may want "shitty drivers" punished or removed, but you do not want you to be hounded to get that to happen.
That moment when the anonymous coward goes full retard. Let me know when you see a 1100% increase in cars doing that like cyclists, and we'll talk okie? Because traffic enforcement isn't keeping pace with cyclists. But we should just ignore it, especially in the era of no-fault insurance.
Doubtful. If a city(Toronto) of ~9-10m can't make it work without low overhead, I doubt that Oregon is going to make any money off of it. But considering the number of shitty people riding bikes these days it might be worthwhile just to stop some of them. Especially the, cut off traffic, ride through red lights, ride through pedestrian, cause accident type assholes that are out there now.
Is that Voter ID really free of charge or is it free after you pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate which is required in order to get your free ID?
You mean the part where you don't pay a fee and even with the existing ID that's available so you can get your free ID? You can find lots of democrat and progressive talking points against free ID, using existing forms of ID which you're already required to use for everything from voting in your local primary(including entrance), to buying a pack of smokes, booze, or any type of government benefits for.
Can you make any valid argument where not having voter ID enhances and benefits democracy, democratic votes in any way shape or form? Can you make any valid argument as to how with such a huge problem with illegals, that not having voter ID benefits the state?
Voter ID is voter suppression according to the democrat party policy for the last ~15 years that people, RNC, voter groups have all tried to get into place. And for the vast majority of media, it's also voter suppression. Even if you provide the ID free of charge.
Why? You wouldn't have said that if they cast a guy. The only criteria appear to have used is that the new person is not a bloke. You didn't even bother to check what she'd done. Nope, it was straight to "female == gimmick".
They have a valid point though, it's currently a trend and one that people are getting tired of. The current state of entertainment is to push not "best people fit" for the role, but someone usually based on their sex/race/some identifier/etc for it. So them jumping to it is not unexpected in the least, but rather expected and what is actually becoming the norm with what people say outside of ideological bubbles.
So what happens after they pick said *special person* which bombs in a spectacular fashion? The media comes out with stories and news articles blaming fans, stating that they're sexist/misogynists/racists/etc for it failing. This is then usually followed by "sudden" harassment of the actress/actor/whatever pulling a "woe is me, look at how I'm attacked!" Which has also gotten to the point where people just roll their eyes at.
The ACLU holds it's nose in defending the KKK's right to speech. I'm able to hold my nose defending Gawker's freedom of press.
Then let's make this easy. What part of Hogan screwing someone is newsworthy? Because not even Gawker could answer that in court. Read the court transcripts, Gawker had nothing on top of the fact that there was repeated orders by the court to take it down.
Why do I have a feeling that if Hogan was the opposite gender a whole pile of opinions in this comment section wold be the exact opposite, and asking questions like "why is gawker defending publishing *insert females* sex tape, this is a violation of her rights!"
What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late.
Wrong. What got them was the fact that they refused multiple court orders to take it down. It wasn't the "billionare behind him." It wasn't because it wasn't actually newsworthy(if you define some guy screwing someone else newsworthy). It was simply that: They refused to follow the law, and the jury agreed with the reasoning with that.
Trades are always in demand, there's a need of 5 million skilled trades now. Everything from welders and pipefitters to engines(all kinds) to CNC operators. On top of that, a trade doesn't always mean "get dirty" either. I'm sure you're one of those self-entitled gen-y kids that think their degree in feminist dance therapy and gender studies entitles them to make $250k/year.
Openly or by their actions? Because you can look at the case of when Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at several universities, it came out that when those protesters stormed the stage or hall police were told by the campus or police chief not to do anything. There's a few more examples of universities doing things like this.
You can also find plenty of professors at many universities that support violence against whites(which the new trendy shit), and engage in overt racism against whites as well.
The truth is that conservatives hate education. Educated people ask questions and conservatism doesn't like to be questioned.
Then going by your reasoning, progressives don't hate education. They despise it to the point that they believe that it only exists to indoctrinate people with irrational points of view. So, with that want to point out all those conservative colleges pushing "safe spaces" attacking(sometimes violently) people for different points of view?
You're gonna have a hard time finding that because that's happening in schools that have heavy progressive leaderships and professors. Because the universities like yale, mizzou, berkeley? They're all famous as progressive institutions. But it sure looks like the students in those places don't want their view points challenged to the point that they're willing to try and burn down school buildings. That is if they're not already rioting. Which also explains why so many of those schools would rather push no-platforming(taking away a persons ability to speak because "reasons." Or screaming "cultural appropriation" because someone wore dreadlocks(oh the horror).
You should get your head out of your ass, progressive education has become a literal cancer on the western campus. There's a good reason why republicans dislike the modern campus and I agree, most of them are literal shitholes that get you nothing but $400k/debt and a piece of paper that will ensure you can work at the local starbucks. Get a trade, not only will you earn better money, it'll be better for you in most cases.
Exactly what early warning do you think they'd provide that an outpost or automated system doesn't do better? Some guy out for a morning constitutional isn't going to spot an invasion before radar or satellites.
You mean those automated systems which will happily decide that yes, that friendly plane is actually a strategic bomber and start screaming the ruskies are invading type of system?
Communities aren't viable if there isn't an employer willing to pay a higher salary to cover the increased cost of necessities. Instead, the rest of the Canadian population is subsidizing the communities through both both the Canadian government and through their own purchases at Amazon.
Except that's not happening. Hell the article itself starts off that prime was a boon, then it was cut off. So the person they're talking about suddenly has to start paying the actual price for the goods in question. The problem is that those jobs *do* cover it, prime created an artificially low price that local companies couldn't compete with. The wages haven't bounced yet to reflect the change in prices because people were getting away with such a cheap cost.
If those communities have employers unwilling to pay, people would move out. That's not happening either. To boil it down, the entire premise of the article is talking about a guy who's whining because he can't get things as cheaply as he used to. There's no "government handing out money" in this case. Hell in Canada to even get money from the government for living in a remote community it has to be truly remove. Like just south of N60deg, or 350km away from another town or city.
Except that's not what happening now is it. Hell let's look at this claim of "city-dwelling people" who are actually doing work, Toronto is a stinking shithole of a city that's literally bankrupted the province because governments will pander to large cities while ignoring the small towns that still provide them with their day-to-day necessities like milk, bread, eggs, and toilet paper.
In the USA, those towns that were built around things will live or fail on their own. But if you think automation has made a huge dent in those jobs, you've never worked one in your life. There's a reason why the pay for those jobs is high, they're also jobs that you're likely going to lose your life working on too.
Maybe they will abandon their unviable communities out in the middle of nowhere.
Want to define "unviable" and all that? Really there are very few unviable communities even here in Canada, I can think of a few like Resolute, NVT. A few on the lakes of Hudson's Bay where the only way in or out is by rail link(no flying). But even then those unviable communities have a purpose, like research, early warning in case of military attack and so on. I have a funny feeling that your version it would mean a city with 40k people that's an hour away from another city. Then again, let's also look at what could be considered unviable: A city pop of 4k, 5hrs one way. But that city is also home to an entire sector of lumber, mining and oil extraction and produces 4% of a provinces GDP.
Having lived in small towns and actual big cities(like Toronto). I'll take the small town any day of the week. Far less crime, higher chance you'll have neighbors who aren't pure assholes. Police, EMS, fire that you'll likely know by name or at least on sight and know you. Higher chance that people who work in stores will remember you as well.
Talk about redefining harassment. You are claiming that saying "gamergate was about harassment" is somehow harassing everyone involved with gamergate.
A shit poor job of gaslighting there. Want to try again? I'll give you another chance.
All the ranting you do about "criticism is not harassment" and people needing to have thicker skins, yet when someone claims gamergate isn't about ethics at all, all that goes out the window and everyone's a victim of a sustained hate campaign.
So you want to make the claim that doxing and harassing someone is now criticism? No bad tactics, just bad targets huh? Is your real name Bob Chipman?
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to Tim Pool, because he experienced them first hand. Don't know who he is? He's an independent journalist that flies all over the place to where the stories are. The most recent case where a german journalist decided to dox him, and then handed all of his info to a german antifa group who then tried to attack him and another group of independent journalists.
There were "friends" who told him not to report on those no-go zones because they didn't want him to for ideological reasons. They want to maintain the "happy migrant picture" while burying their head in the sand over the violence, sexual assaults and rape. Others(everything from leftwing groups that support unrestricted migration to antifascist groups) that threatened him to not report on it. You can dig through his twitter feed if you want the names of the people who threatened him to not report on those areas. Yes they do exist, and yes the media is lying to you about them "not really existing."
you've already stopped thinking critically...
Sentence unclear. Contains supposition only, contains no argument. I sure hope you're not a programmer by trade.
No, Trump Jr., his lawyer, the Russian lawyer he met with, and Trump's tweets.
You mean that meeting that lasted less then 20 minutes? How funny that the facts don't fit your version of reality especially after it's all been publicly aired.
Odd that as a Canadian you're a fanatical Trump supporter. Perhaps you're butthurt that Harper lost and Canada failed to pursue more American-style politics?
Want to show me that fanatical support? Canada could do more with perusing US style politics, especially weakening of federal powers towards the public and provinces. Actually guaranteeing land ownership(something we don't have in Canada), and having actual freedom of speech. Again something we don't have in Canada. We have "speech which is permitted under law."
Personally I'm not aligned with any of the parties or their platforms, American or Canadian, and consider the Liberals to have been a case of 'least evil'.
The same liberals that have simply rolled from one scandal to another everytime that they're in power? Under Chretien it was Adscam, under Trudeau Jr., it's pay-for-play and multiple ethics violations. Under Trudeau Sr., it was the night-of-long-knives. Yes, less evil there...
Perhaps you should ask yourself how well it's reflecting in the province of Ontario, where the provincial Liberals are expected to be a non-party by July of next year.
when was snopes ever a fact checking site?
When google and facebook(I believe WAPO as well) told you it was. And that in and of itself is enough reason to know that there's going to be some heavy biases involved.
They're all stupid cunts. Hateful, usually, too.
Oh the irony...
Really? That's the example you're going with? The one where the whole last week has been detail after detail coming to light showing collusion is incredibly likely to any reasonable person?
You mean the one with the sources of "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous source" and so on? Oh yeah. Very solid sources there, just like the one about Russia hacking that electrical grid that WAPO published right.
I heard through an anonymous source that your waifu is shit. That's 100% true right?
Just because your panties are in a twist, I'll even add something that doesn't relate to it. Where Kotaku and Destructiod Turns around and lies about a mentally ill person filing multiple false DMCA's to get games taken down, and issuing death threats against those people. But Kotaku ignores the death threats that the person filing the DMCA's is sending.
But just jumping back to Trump, the only dog I've got in this race is that he's doing more for Canada then Trudeau is. But nice job on showing how much of a bubble you're really in. I'd hate to see what your comments on Andrew Jackson back in the day would have been like.
Fake news doesn't work on people thinking critically, but you're not after those.
Not true in the least. Remember when Dateline used model rocket boosters to blow up the gas tanks on pickup trucks? You know their target audience for that show at the time was 30-45 college educated or higher. Fake news works well on anyone who's ideologically deep in a rabbit hole and wants to engage in confirmation bias.
Let's look at two cases over the last 3 years: Gamergate, where the FBI could find no incidences of harassment from anyone tied to it. Demographics educated at college level or higher, married, has family, has high disposable income, roughly 15% are female, has a significant minority quotient from all over the world to boot and aligns politically left. But the media continues on with the lie that they're harassers who pump out death threats, are worse then isis, and then scrub away those women and minorities because they don't fit the narrative(that is if the anti-gg people simply don't call them house n*iggers, or uncle toms). The media view of the people in Gamergate are: single, white, males who live in their parents basement or are virgins living alone. Nice fabrications huh?
Or you can take a look at the "Trump-Russia-Collusion" story. Which has evolved from "Russia colluded with Trump" to "his son talked with a lawyer who's visa expired that the Obama administration specifically let back in at the behest of Susan Rice" along with "Putin talked with Trump during dinner." But the entire thing has fallen apart to the point where pundits outside of the main of the party are saying "shut-up, this is hurting us more then helping." If the media has one narrative, it's very easy to see from the outside. But it sure is self-reinforcing if you're in that rabbit hole.
You mean the thing that is actually a discriminatory burden?
You mean where half of those cases have been tossed out, and in two others the legalese was adjusted to come into compliance with the courts ruling making voter ID a defacto requirement.
You mean the arguments that actually persuade a court of law, that the point out the discriminatory intent that is quite apparent from the actual statements of the legislators who enacted the law with the specific desire to disenfranchise voters? From legislators, who if your contentions are correct, were not lawfully elected in the first place, thus rendering their position suspect.
You mean those same arguments which successfully won as well? Want to continue running with that line of thought or would you like to try something else?
Yes, I can. You forgot to ask it to be done though.
Apparently you couldn't, or can't. You missed the question mark in the original sentence.
Yes, I can also do this. Of course, since you neglected to ask for any argument to be actually presented, so I don't feel any obligation to do so, and I won't until you address the question of what to do when the state legislature is found to have engaged in discriminatory intent in its passage of the laws. You instead resist any addressing of that concern at all, revealing at best, your own complicity in it.
Seems to me you don't have any actual point in showing this, because if you did. You'd already know that several of those other cases were tossed, or the laws were modified and/or rewritten in order to be in compliance with the courts issues with the laws in the first place. So where and what are those benefits in having someone who's illegally having the right to vote? Besides that they're subverting democracy itself. Something that democrats have a pro-amnesty hardon and policy for.
FYI, using rarely used words for the sake of using them doesn't make you look smart either.
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. We have no evidence of rampant voter fraud, yet are told we need to implement voter ID.
Well, we don't know if there's evidence of rampant voter fraud. Mainly democrat states are blocking the government from trying to determine how much fraud there actually is. But let's go with the extrapolated report from earlier in the year. Which figures that somewhere between 4m and 6m people voted illegally. That includes everything from voting twice, to non-citizens.
The real reason behind voter ID laws is for Republicans to make it harder for people who tend to vote Democratic to vote at all.
So let's run with that. The reason democrats are for amnesty of illegals, is to make sure they always win by subverting democracy.
First, citation? Second, are we talking per capita or absolute numbers?
It was absolute increase, this is Toronto we're talking about after all. 680News was going on about it and so was 1010am the last 2-3 days, while I was driving back and forth through the London-Oshawa corridor, though I can't see it on either of their websites. So I'm guessing either no one has written a story on it, or they can't be bothered. Though, I'm still waiting to hear back from TPS to see if that's true because I thought it was a high incidence number over the last 3 years.
You may want "shitty drivers" punished or removed, but you do not want you to be hounded to get that to happen.
That moment when the anonymous coward goes full retard. Let me know when you see a 1100% increase in cars doing that like cyclists, and we'll talk okie? Because traffic enforcement isn't keeping pace with cyclists. But we should just ignore it, especially in the era of no-fault insurance.
Doubtful. If a city(Toronto) of ~9-10m can't make it work without low overhead, I doubt that Oregon is going to make any money off of it. But considering the number of shitty people riding bikes these days it might be worthwhile just to stop some of them. Especially the, cut off traffic, ride through red lights, ride through pedestrian, cause accident type assholes that are out there now.
Is that Voter ID really free of charge or is it free after you pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate which is required in order to get your free ID?
You mean the part where you don't pay a fee and even with the existing ID that's available so you can get your free ID? You can find lots of democrat and progressive talking points against free ID, using existing forms of ID which you're already required to use for everything from voting in your local primary(including entrance), to buying a pack of smokes, booze, or any type of government benefits for.
Can you make any valid argument where not having voter ID enhances and benefits democracy, democratic votes in any way shape or form? Can you make any valid argument as to how with such a huge problem with illegals, that not having voter ID benefits the state?
Voter ID is voter suppression according to the democrat party policy for the last ~15 years that people, RNC, voter groups have all tried to get into place. And for the vast majority of media, it's also voter suppression. Even if you provide the ID free of charge.
Why? You wouldn't have said that if they cast a guy. The only criteria appear to have used is that the new person is not a bloke. You didn't even bother to check what she'd done. Nope, it was straight to "female == gimmick".
They have a valid point though, it's currently a trend and one that people are getting tired of. The current state of entertainment is to push not "best people fit" for the role, but someone usually based on their sex/race/some identifier/etc for it. So them jumping to it is not unexpected in the least, but rather expected and what is actually becoming the norm with what people say outside of ideological bubbles.
So what happens after they pick said *special person* which bombs in a spectacular fashion? The media comes out with stories and news articles blaming fans, stating that they're sexist/misogynists/racists/etc for it failing. This is then usually followed by "sudden" harassment of the actress/actor/whatever pulling a "woe is me, look at how I'm attacked!" Which has also gotten to the point where people just roll their eyes at.
The ACLU holds it's nose in defending the KKK's right to speech. I'm able to hold my nose defending Gawker's freedom of press.
Then let's make this easy. What part of Hogan screwing someone is newsworthy? Because not even Gawker could answer that in court. Read the court transcripts, Gawker had nothing on top of the fact that there was repeated orders by the court to take it down.
Why do I have a feeling that if Hogan was the opposite gender a whole pile of opinions in this comment section wold be the exact opposite, and asking questions like "why is gawker defending publishing *insert females* sex tape, this is a violation of her rights!"
What got them is they didn't know that Hogan had that billionaire behind him until it was too late.
Wrong. What got them was the fact that they refused multiple court orders to take it down. It wasn't the "billionare behind him." It wasn't because it wasn't actually newsworthy(if you define some guy screwing someone else newsworthy). It was simply that: They refused to follow the law, and the jury agreed with the reasoning with that.
$73k/year must be pretty poor in your neck of the woods then. Because around here the median wage is $48k.
way to move forward ...
Trades are always in demand, there's a need of 5 million skilled trades now. Everything from welders and pipefitters to engines(all kinds) to CNC operators. On top of that, a trade doesn't always mean "get dirty" either. I'm sure you're one of those self-entitled gen-y kids that think their degree in feminist dance therapy and gender studies entitles them to make $250k/year.
Openly or by their actions? Because you can look at the case of when Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at several universities, it came out that when those protesters stormed the stage or hall police were told by the campus or police chief not to do anything. There's a few more examples of universities doing things like this.
You can also find plenty of professors at many universities that support violence against whites(which the new trendy shit), and engage in overt racism against whites as well.
The truth is that conservatives hate education. Educated people ask questions and conservatism doesn't like to be questioned.
Then going by your reasoning, progressives don't hate education. They despise it to the point that they believe that it only exists to indoctrinate people with irrational points of view. So, with that want to point out all those conservative colleges pushing "safe spaces" attacking(sometimes violently) people for different points of view?
You're gonna have a hard time finding that because that's happening in schools that have heavy progressive leaderships and professors. Because the universities like yale, mizzou, berkeley? They're all famous as progressive institutions. But it sure looks like the students in those places don't want their view points challenged to the point that they're willing to try and burn down school buildings. That is if they're not already rioting. Which also explains why so many of those schools would rather push no-platforming(taking away a persons ability to speak because "reasons." Or screaming "cultural appropriation" because someone wore dreadlocks(oh the horror).
You should get your head out of your ass, progressive education has become a literal cancer on the western campus. There's a good reason why republicans dislike the modern campus and I agree, most of them are literal shitholes that get you nothing but $400k/debt and a piece of paper that will ensure you can work at the local starbucks. Get a trade, not only will you earn better money, it'll be better for you in most cases.
Exactly what early warning do you think they'd provide that an outpost or automated system doesn't do better? Some guy out for a morning constitutional isn't going to spot an invasion before radar or satellites.
You mean those automated systems which will happily decide that yes, that friendly plane is actually a strategic bomber and start screaming the ruskies are invading type of system?
Communities aren't viable if there isn't an employer willing to pay a higher salary to cover the increased cost of necessities. Instead, the rest of the Canadian population is subsidizing the communities through both both the Canadian government and through their own purchases at Amazon.
Except that's not happening. Hell the article itself starts off that prime was a boon, then it was cut off. So the person they're talking about suddenly has to start paying the actual price for the goods in question. The problem is that those jobs *do* cover it, prime created an artificially low price that local companies couldn't compete with. The wages haven't bounced yet to reflect the change in prices because people were getting away with such a cheap cost.
If those communities have employers unwilling to pay, people would move out. That's not happening either. To boil it down, the entire premise of the article is talking about a guy who's whining because he can't get things as cheaply as he used to. There's no "government handing out money" in this case. Hell in Canada to even get money from the government for living in a remote community it has to be truly remove. Like just south of N60deg, or 350km away from another town or city.
Except that's not what happening now is it. Hell let's look at this claim of "city-dwelling people" who are actually doing work, Toronto is a stinking shithole of a city that's literally bankrupted the province because governments will pander to large cities while ignoring the small towns that still provide them with their day-to-day necessities like milk, bread, eggs, and toilet paper.
In the USA, those towns that were built around things will live or fail on their own. But if you think automation has made a huge dent in those jobs, you've never worked one in your life. There's a reason why the pay for those jobs is high, they're also jobs that you're likely going to lose your life working on too.
Maybe they will abandon their unviable communities out in the middle of nowhere.
Want to define "unviable" and all that? Really there are very few unviable communities even here in Canada, I can think of a few like Resolute, NVT. A few on the lakes of Hudson's Bay where the only way in or out is by rail link(no flying). But even then those unviable communities have a purpose, like research, early warning in case of military attack and so on. I have a funny feeling that your version it would mean a city with 40k people that's an hour away from another city. Then again, let's also look at what could be considered unviable: A city pop of 4k, 5hrs one way. But that city is also home to an entire sector of lumber, mining and oil extraction and produces 4% of a provinces GDP.
Having lived in small towns and actual big cities(like Toronto). I'll take the small town any day of the week. Far less crime, higher chance you'll have neighbors who aren't pure assholes. Police, EMS, fire that you'll likely know by name or at least on sight and know you. Higher chance that people who work in stores will remember you as well.
Talk about redefining harassment. You are claiming that saying "gamergate was about harassment" is somehow harassing everyone involved with gamergate.
A shit poor job of gaslighting there. Want to try again? I'll give you another chance.
All the ranting you do about "criticism is not harassment" and people needing to have thicker skins, yet when someone claims gamergate isn't about ethics at all, all that goes out the window and everyone's a victim of a sustained hate campaign.
So you want to make the claim that doxing and harassing someone is now criticism? No bad tactics, just bad targets huh? Is your real name Bob Chipman?