I would adore it if you could produce even five sourced for that

I'm serious when I say I was being nice and read your comments graciously and intentionally. No, this does not misrepresent what you said, what you said simply does not have the meaning and effect that you wanted it to. I didn't ignore a single thing, and you're awfully full of yourself if you expect people to literally quote every word of your comments when they criticize you; we don't even do that for professionals.

"You guys," are obnoxious Reddit/Lemmy guys who insist they know about something they clearly do not know well enough about, and would rather pretend that their critics are just making up things (the exact kind of person who would refuse to engage in self-criticism in any worthwhile way). I don't think "bad faith" has any meaning anymore because we have so many men who behave like this and take any unwanted criticism as purposefully misleading attacks. Nice attempt to force some self-victimization in here though, very in line with how you've behaved so far.

Don't try to act serious if you aren't ready to be serious then.

You guys always pull out "bad faith" when you don't like how visible your underlying values are in what you say.

I'm not saying it's wrong to look at these groups, I'm saying you're looking at them wrong because you lack a deeper understanding of how this system came to be and why it functions the specific way it does. Whether you intend to do what you do is not what defines the consequences of what you do. When you tried to construct a sympathizing narrative, you didn't talk about any vulnerable groups, you didn't talk about indigenous peoples, you only talked about the most privileged groups of people in this system. Yes, that says something more than what you want the words to say, and you are also responsible for that.

"Racism isn't because of settler-colonialism because I am a settler and other settlers like me engage in racism." I can't think of a clearer example than this to demonstrate this misunderstanding. Whiteness is a fluid category, it does not literally refer to the melanin content and physical attributes of a person's body, it is about privilege. White Europeans (Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Slavic, etc.) were historically racialized and marginalized incidentally in this country, experienced systemic disadvantage, but certainly do not experience racism today; black and African Canadians still do. There are also differences in privilege delineated by gender, sexuality, ability, and class within those groups, that does not mean racism isn't specific to some and only benefits some. Your being an immigrant means you are potentially open to discrimination along those same lines, but also means you participate in racism and settler-colonialism by merit of your privilege over First Nations and indigenous peoples; whom are also racialized. Racism exists to naturalize the subordination of others, it literally came into being through settler-colonialism, and being a racialized settler does not exempt you from benefiting from that racism.

You are taking effects as causes, and yes, by dojng that you are naturalizing these things as inevitable human reactions that cannot be curbed. Whether you want to or not, that projects a moral meaning onto those things.

"It's the same if it was a woman*" further demonstrates the issue here. No, women don't subscribe to racist values and actions at the same rate as men, even if everyone here is socialized within a white supremacist culture. Why? Because they do not benefit from that system in the same way white men do, because they are subordinated more than white men are already by merit of being women. No, that is not the same thing as saying women do not internalize racist culture, they do, but the way that they do does not even come close to fascists -- the overwhelming majority of which are men. The labour market doesn't tell them that, and it isn't some "lost cause," (hope you understand the irony of applying that narrative here) it is the consequence of the settler-colonial foundations of this country. They understand that it is an option because they understand that Canada is fundamentally white supremacist and is going to exploit them less than vulnerable groups. Just because you can empathize with those people because you have similarly been raised in a white supremacist culture does not mean that their choice to remain racist is sympathetic. There is an amount of anti-racism that could challenge that, which is any, but the ultimate goal of anti-racism is to completely deconstruct this system for this exact reason. It's also worth noting that you think this only applies to immigrants when this racism is readily turned on any racialized peoples within Canada as well as indigenous peoples and First Nations, strange that a sympathetic narrative for these people would have to ignore the effects of their actions in order to be more believable.

You have once gain naturalized the very specific and intentional conditions of this system with human nature. You think that fascism is a human respnse, but its logic is entirely dependent on prexisting liberal, capitalist, and settler-colonial values to exist and is oriented around reinforcing those values. These are also not "girls" and "guys," these are adults who have the responsibility to change once they are made aware of their harmful behaviour. Even if this was reflexive in a natural way and not a socialized way, they still have the responsibility to change and their choice to remain racist makes them a threat to everyone else's safety and wellbeing; sympathizing with them is saying that saving an actively harmful person is more important than helping their victims. Again, it is right to empathize with them and understand why they make the choices they make, but it is wrong to make that an excuse to misrecognize the harm they intend. Everyone in Canada today is offered worse conditions than previous generations, that isn't special to them and it isn't like other groups in this country haven't had similar experiences without having racism as an option and without resorting to violence.

This is not a failure of the system to regulate the economy in an effective way, everyone in positions of power understand that this is the consequence of neglecting privileged workers and petty property owners. They expect them to react this way because they have been socialized to think this way, which again points to how it isn't "natural." Race is a class in this system, and they are responding in solidarity with maintaining the privilege of that class; however distorted that is from the material reality of class dynamics and struggle. If you're truly anti-capitalist and anti-racist, these people are not your friends.

Cool, too bad that the world isn't what you want it to be just because you think it ought to be. You think it's happenstance that it is so easy to form a government with an extreme minority vote in this country?

I know you don't understand what you're saying.

Edit: just realized this is the same dipshit who got mad that I said Mark Carney is a Neolib and that the Post Service should exist. Either politically illiterate or actively promoting disinformation, won't be giving this attention beyond this point.

Yes, read the comment.

This is exactly the wrong application of empathy to this topic. The last group of people to be trying to excuse through empathy is racist young men who feel aggrieved entitlement to women's bodies. It is good to empathize to the point of understanding their motivations, but their conclusions are an appeal to privilege, not an excusable and "natural" human reaction.

Young men who resort to fascism (we're not gonna pretend racism and misogyny isn't fascist at this point) because they don't have good jobs and a guaranteed wife are doing so because they feel the system should guarantee them these things, has failed to deliver it, and they want to use this ideology to reassert what they view as their natural spot on the hierarchy. They are not sympathetic people, they are fascists who would rather commit violence than give up that privilege.

Whatever feeling you have for them that amounts to "well, I used to think that and I could see myself failing to change" or "they don't know any better," is misrecognizing your shared internalized values with these men as a natural human response. It is not, these are socialized values that benefit a select group of people disproportionately; which means they are most certainly not against harming others and any suffering this system has caused them is not making them question those values for fear of harming the rest of us.

Of everyone who suffers under this system and commits to actions that people do not empathize or sympathize with enough, these men are not the ones to spend our time being gentle with. They're a problem, they're going to keep being a problem, and the overwhelming majority of them will never change because they are already in a system that is built to reproduce that privilege. Racism would not be an "obvious candidate" to explain their discontent if they did not already feel entitled to certain things by merit of being white and Canadian.

You can empathize with people and still accept that they are harmful.

Edit: Before anyone says anything this, I don't care if you think men don't get enough consideration. They do, and there are many, many more groups of people who do not. If you are a man and angered by something like this, you better bring some actual proof that you've read about gender studies, sociology, or at least about vulnerable groups in this country if you want me to take anything you say seriously.

Not a new thing even remotely. That isn't the "single factor," these are the inevitable conditions that liberal-capitalist systems produce. They are fundamentally organized around the subordination of othered groups of people to the benefit of a privileged group(s), which means the value of human life or any life is not a real consideration. Polarization like this appeared in the late nineteenth century as well (Progressives and Populists), and similarly people looked at that as the cause of problems and not the result of a system that will never adopt an idealized form of democracy as that would inevitably mean a group of exploited people have power within that system.

What you are identifying is a particularly energetic moment in political rhetoric that has been very effectively proliferated through corporatized media (not just social but yes, social media) and internet services. To suggest there are "two camps" depends on erasing the variability of people's material and social interests in politics, which just works to the benefit of privileged groups and their political interests. I'd hardly call Liberal voters the same thing as NDP voters or, god forbid, someone who understands the liberal legal and political system as only a part of our politics and not the entirety of it. The split I figure you're thinking about is between Liberals and Cons (which can be understood as "liberals and conservatives," "progressive and traditional," "fascists and republicans," but is really just oriented around party politics and not actual ideological differences) and, go figure, they happen to be ideologically aligned under neoliberalism. Their differences are a consequence of different marketing and rhetoric strategies based on target demographics and regions.

Cons do better in the counties with mostly white settlers who have poor political literacy, a lack of cultural diversity, and a high economic dependency on extractive industry and agriculture. So, they use rhetoric that enforces "traditional" values and relies on an elitist crisis narrative that constructs local economic decline or struggle as a consequence of decadent wealthy people in positions of power who have corrupted the country, i.e. the only other large party: Liberals. Liberals tend to do better in cities and suburbs, particularly affluent ones, and use rhetoric that evokes welfare liberal ideas of "progress" and a balance between private and public spending to address a crisis in market forces and bad actors within the system, namely Conservatives. They must produce certain outcomes to maintain that image, and of course their different interests means they attract different financial supporters with their own imperatives that factor into policy-making. So, they sometimes push different policies, but usually their motivations and outcomes are ideologically compatible.

The result is the construction of this adverserial narrative that really just refers to what the most privileged groups associated with voting trends in each party are concerned about. Fascists are particularly energetic, and both parties here in Canada have readily embraced that energy to their ends. PP pushes transphobia and racism, Carney plays on the anxiety caused by it to frame the same neoliberal policies as acts of self-reliance and sovereignty. To even suggest this system was democratic to begin with is also deeply ahistorical and difficult to defend rationally. You could certainly say there's "two teams" in that there really is just capitalism and its supporters and then people who are invested in the value of human life, but then the politics just melts into one team which is "capitalism's supporters." I'm sure you can understand how that would be reductive as well.

Please, do not buy into narratives that simply these issues; simplicity is easier for them to control.

Unforgivable? You're what, gonna take responsibility for it? People like this who want to act like this is a moral failing of society and not the intended outcome of an unequal system seem to want group punishment without counting themselves among the groups they are a part of and want to punish.

The province did not vote him in, his admin won with minority of a minority vote each time. Before you say that low turnout is also a moral failing of society, he could have won with a minority if everyone in the fucking province voted because this system is not designed to empower people, it is designed to concentrate power into the hands of a few individuals. Suburbanites and county people voted this admin in; why not blame them specifically if you're looking for groups to not forgive?

I mean, all they'd have to do is treat their workers with more respect and maintain realistic expectations for features with that in mind. 2077 was a fucking disaster because they were on crunch almost the whole time and leadership kept adding in features mid development.

See, you can tell who is actually pretty well aligned with him by their response to this. If the immediate reaction is to be insulted that Canada could ever resemble what is imagined as a global south state like Mexico (yes, even if crime measurements show us that it is in fact true that crime rated are higher there nationally), then they are responding from a place of white aggrievenement. The point of this line is to convince racist Canadians that Vancouver is in a crisis because it resembles Mexico, so if your response is to accept that this is an insult to Canada, you are close enough to his target audience to still accept the narrative.

This means that of your only issue with this is that it is statistically unsubstantiated, good job, you've shown your values. Yes, it is statistically unsubstantiated, but he isn't using Mexico in this way because the evidence is sound, he's using it because many Canadians are racist and do not understand the causes and meanings behind those statistics. Crime rates are higher in the US too, and yet he's using Mexico. Besides this, you've taken for granted the fact that Canadians go to resorts in Mexico, and therefore would likely feel safer there than the street of a big city here. You've then accepted the notion that Mexico is homogenously and universally more dangerous by that presupposition, which reaffirms reductive and white supremacist perceptions of Mexico and Latin America generally.

Be careful about how people criticize things; even true criticism can carry harmful narratives and motivations. Part of the point of these obviously untrue statements is to reaffirm all of the values that make its purpose legible to you, which means they're betting on you taking, "of course Canada isn't like some brown country like Mexico, the crime rates are higher there," as substantial criticism because it appeals to your most intuitive internalized values.

"... biggest exporter of terror." Oh, look at that, a Canadian PM constructing self defense as aggression, how novel. I wonder what happens if we look at why Iran funds terrorist groups outside of its borders and who those terrorist groups fight.

Then you best learn more about your history. This is pretty Canadian.

Right, and as we all know, whatever you call a thing is definitely what it is, prommy.

You'll recall that much of the UK economy and political landscape mirrors and is deeply influenced by the US. Either way, just a few years ago, I'd get shit every time I said Canada was subordinated to the US even though, as we've seen, resistance against it is very easily appropriated by liberals (as in liberalism, not exclusively Liberals as in the party) as they actually do benefit from that subordination. The common capitalistic objectives and settler-colonial culture creates the same interests between them even if they are separate, which is why "Elbows Up" has just meant "funnel even more money into extractive industries the US benefits from."

That also isn't "our" official name, just Canada. You aren't part of it even if you think you are.

Could you imagine? Being a colony? In Canada? Only now is that a problem. It's so strange how many Canadians are just now learning what Canada is in 2026 and then talk about it smugly like they realized something others haven't.

Wow, you don't spend much time around Conservative Canadians.

Love that you're talking smug on this comment but ignored all the other ones where you're obviously wrong.

You fundamentally do not understand what you're talking about, imperialism is not accurately described through formal political alliances alone, even if what you described here represented that. I do very much remember the CANZUK/EU bs from a few years back, apparently better than you. It's been an idea that's kicked around for decades, but was popularized again in the mid-twenty tens in response to Brexit. Calling it "big" is graciously hyperbolic (it amounted to acknowledgement from colonial leaders and that's about it), but it certainly caught attention because it was an effective way to articulate the "Anglosphere" anxiety about being fractured and overpowered by local political and economic forces. Now, why do you think that would be relevant in someplace like Canada specifically? What local influence would Canadians be anxious about? It's worth noting that it was the PC Party (I honestly forgot about O'toole until seeing this term again) that was most energetic about it in Canada until quite recently, when it appeared in Liberal party leadership debates. Curious, I wonder what kind of anxiety would make it a topic at that level today and what that says about its purpose in this rhetoric. (Even if you want to pretend that it was a real popular movement of some sort, go look up what "appropriated" means and think about why this doesn't even address what I said)

Are you really going to suggest that the need to address a purported distance between these "culturally similar" countries was endorsed by neoliberal parties closely aligned with the US to signal that Canada is actually independent from US influence? CANZUK is a neoliberal and imperialist campaign that seeks to reassert some sort of common settler identity through formal agreements; it's tough to argue it's anything other than symbolic when the actual policy proposals are nonsensical and widely dismissed save for these brief moments of recognition. You have to lie about its importance to create the narrative that it was a sign of how Canadians were oppositional to the US, let alone whether popular discourses articulated this in terms of imperialistic subordination (they did not). It is also a deeply settler-colonial fantasy that believes shared "heritage" is somehow more relevant to the economics, politics, and culture of a settler-colonial state than its actual material conditions and lived history. Gee, I wonder whether there's some sort of shared material interests and white, english-speaking, settler-colonial histories among any states in North America.

At this very moment you are acting as though Canada is not subordinated to the US while trying to act like Canadians widely recognized that subordination before the current tensions. I don't think you really understand what you're saying.

Also, stop saying "we;" you aren't a part of any of these decisions and you aren't a part of the state or in a position of power within it. It's embarrassing to see people associate themselves with this as though they're participating on a team of some sort.

I won't be reading whatever desperate nonsense you respond with. Just fuckin learn something for once.

What exactly did you think my comment referred to if not the US?

Maybe you should take a lesson.

Oh good, it's always tough to be gracious with people on here.

This could work as a meme, but I don't think we'll ever get Carney to give a Pokemon Go soundclip on camera.