Jump to content

Canadian Politics Thread


Sharpshooter

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Colin Kaepernick takes a knee and conservatives lose their minds and boycott the NFL. A punch drunk douche goes on a homophobic rant and all of sudden it's free speech. Oh the fucking hypocrisy

 

Kaepernick also compared the NFL to slavery then immediately tried to make a comeback.  All them slaves with multi million dollar contracts.  Ahh what a racist country 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Colin Kaepernick takes a knee and conservatives lose their minds and boycott the NFL. A punch drunk douche goes on a homophobic rant and all of sudden it's free speech. Oh the fucking hypocrisy

All the conservatives who stopped watching football due to kap sure are mad taylor swift keeps getting shown on football games

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2024 at 3:24 PM, bishopshodan said:

 

Thanks, I understand what you are pointing out. I have been doing some courses this week on fairness, equality and bias. The family, or even the tribe (fam, friends, town, country etc..), have an unbalance of those things that I have been studying. It's very 'us and them'. I suppose in my idealism, my hope would be that we eventually all see ourselves as 'brothers ( sisters) from another mother' for lack of a better term. It's why I brought up adoption, gay people can still feel that pressure/expectation from their parents to have grandchildren....and a point of why does bloodline really matter? other than legacy...the belief that for some reason ones blood matters more than anothers.

 

On a personal level I am very optimistic, confident person. However for humankind I have little hope. I share this opinion with a person I admire, Brian Cox. I dont know how the rational people will be fine when, as we see around the globe, our leaders are anything but...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10869651/Brian-Cox-warns-law-nature-lead-human-race-wiping-out.html

Professor Brian Cox has said it could be 'a law of nature' that when intelligent species get power they eventually use it to wipe themselves out – suggesting humans' extinction could be caused by climate change or war.

 

 

 

haha, and here I am derailing the thread going on about a really different type of familly.... a global one, adopting each other in to one big collective... that might give some cons real fits!

 

It's a nice concept...and maybe one day we'll evolve mentally/emotionally enough. But you're also fighting billions of years of evolution. It's literally one of our most basic and primal survival instincts... "MUST PASS ON DNA!".

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Kaepernick also compared the NFL to slavery then immediately tried to make a comeback.  All them slaves with multi million dollar contracts.  Ahh what a racist country 

 

Kaepernick used his free speech. Your reaction and how you perceived his comments are the a consequence of his free speech.

 

If you do not agree he used free speech, then you do not believe in free speech.

 

(Editted for accuracy)

Edited by The Lock
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think CK was right to take a knee. That being said, free speech is when you build your own little soapbox to stand on and then speak from that perch. When you are on someone else's soapbox, you don't have free speech so much as you have permission to say certain things while you are on that platform. That is all I had to say on the subject. I think CK was blackballed for taking that knee, generally speaking though, his employer while under contract and at work could tell him not to take a knee. Just my two cents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Kaepernick used his free speech. Your reaction and how you perceived his comments are the a consequence of his free speech.

 

If you do not agree he used free speech, then you do not believe in free speech.

 

(Editted for accuracy)

 

Disrespectful to the country that paid him millions to throw around a ball but yeah it was free speech.  Good on him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

I think CK was right to take a knee. That being said, free speech is when you build your own little soapbox to stand on and then speak from that perch. When you are on someone else's soapbox, you don't have free speech so much as you have permission to say certain things while you are on that platform. That is all I had to say on the subject. I think CK was blackballed for taking that knee, generally speaking though, his employer while under contract and at work could tell him not to take a knee. Just my two cents. 

 

Could you define what you are referring to as "being on someone else's soapbox"? This can make a huge difference on whether or not I'd agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Disrespectful to the country that paid him millions to throw around a ball but yeah it was free speech.  Good on him 

 

And you're using your free speech to disagree with what he has to say. I also can use my free speech to disagree with you.

 

This is why when people use freedom of speech as a defense, it falls short before it even begins because EVERYONE has freedom of speech including the people that disagree with the person using it as a defense.

Edited by The Lock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Could you define what you are referring to as "being on someone else's soapbox"? This can make a huge difference on whether or not I'd agree with you.

You can't go to your job at McDonalds and say out loud Wendy's is better and folks should go to Wendy's, all day long. You are on McDonalds soap box at that time. 

I mean you physically can say it, but you will be fired with cause.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

WTF does this nonsense even mean?

 

Comments on hockey forums have gone extra conservative/politically outraged and soft.  They get pissed off every time someone mentions taylor swift or vegetables and then cry about it.

 

See how stupid comments like that sound?  Trying to label everything is LITERALLY one of the loudest rallying points of the conservative movement right now but they are currently the fastest group to label things and be offended by them.

 

It's just really fn sad


 

Barney, Barbie, BBC, Bank of America, Beatles, Ben & Jerry’s, Beauty & the Beast, books, Bud Light, Budweiser … and that’s just the Bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

You can't go to your job at McDonalds and say out loud Wendy's is better and folks should go to Wendy's. You are on McDonalds soap box at that time. 

 

So I'd argue you CAN do that, but you'd have a consequence of saying that... likely you'd get fired.

 

Freedom of speech means you CAN do something. Freedom of speech does not mean you SHOULD do it. Big difference there. 😉

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Disrespectful to the country that paid him millions to throw around a ball but yeah it was free speech.  Good on him 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/09/646115651/the-veteran-and-nfl-player-who-advised-kaepernick-to-take-a-knee

 

So disrespectful that he contacted a vet and implemented his suggestion as to how to protest respectfully.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Kaepernick also compared the NFL to slavery then immediately tried to make a comeback.  All them slaves with multi million dollar contracts.  Ahh what a racist country 

 

Your little freedom speech boy is a total piece of shit and what he says is hurtful.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

So I'd argue you CAN do that, but you'd have a consequence of saying that... likely you'd get fired.

 

Freedom of speech means you CAN do something. Freedom of speech does not mean you SHOULD do it. Big difference there. 😉

semantics: I am talking about the legal right to not suffer consequences of your speech or have your speech legally stiffled. To avoid those things you need to be on your own soapbox, that is all, have a good one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

You can't go to your job at McDonalds and say out loud Wendy's is better and folks should go to Wendy's, all day long. You are on McDonalds soap box at that time. 

I mean you physically can say it, but you will be fired with cause.

 

There are many limits on our freedom of expression. Until we get Skippy in of course and then we  will be freest. 

  • Haha 2
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

Disrespectful to the country that paid him millions to throw around a ball but yeah it was free speech.  Good on him 

A nation built on freedoms and democratic principals and he chose to simply kneel during a song.  That's disrespectful?  

 

An act that sent grown men who call people leftists and libtards and soyboys in to such a rage that they burnt $200 jerseys and made millions of videos  and posts about how upset they were and how hurt their feelings were

Edited by Warhippy
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Your little freedom speech boy is a total piece of shit and what he says is hurtful.

 

 

Kaepernick kneeling during a song is disrespectful

 

Strickland saying he'd essentially abandon a child that was gay while defaming the entirety of the lgbtq community, then shitting on an entire nation and its government because of covid related freedom convoy BS is just freedom of speech or expression and totally ok.

 

Just really think about what a person is really saying or believing when they make that statement and comparison.  You absolutely know full well what type of person you're dealing with when Strickland is a freedom icon but Kaepernick is disrespectful

 

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

semantics: I am talking about the legal right to not suffer consequences of your speech or have your speech legally stiffled. To avoid those things you need to be on your own soapbox, that is all, have a good one. 

 

Well, I'd argue that protection doesn't truly exist. You can still make a statement people don't like, lose your job, and get thrown out onto the street. That legal right did not protect you from that; therefore, there are still consequences. There can even be consequences of that free speech in a court of law. (ie. anything you say can be used against you in a court of law)

 

The way I see it, freedom of speech is more of a formality of the government to allow you to freely agree or disagree with that government. Outside of that, it's not going to protect.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to be a nuisance here or anything. It's just I think the notion of freedom of speech is way too often misunderstood as something to protect people from their own soapboxes, of which it is not.

Edited by The Lock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Well, I'd argue that protection doesn't truly exist. You can still make a statement people don't like, lose your job, and get thrown out onto the street. That legal right did not protect you from that; therefore, there are still consequences. There can even be consequences of that free speech in a court of law. (ie. anything you say can be used against you in a court of law)

 

The way I see it, freedom of speech is more of a formality of the government to allow you to freely agree or disagree with that government. Outside of that, it's not going to protect.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to be a nuisance here or anything. It's just I think the notion of freedom of speech is way too often misunderstood as something to protect people from their own soapboxes, of which it is not.

it isnt even a thing in our Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, take care, all good.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

it isnt even a thing in our Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, take care, all good.

I blame the prevalence of American media.  Same with Miranda rights and people pleading the 5th in Canada.

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1
  • ThereItIs 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

A nation built on freedoms and democratic principals and he chose to simply kneel during a song.  That's disrespectful?  

 

An act that sent grown men who call people leftists and libtards and soyboys in to such a rage that they burnt $200 jerseys and made millions of videos  and posts about how upset they were and how hurt their feelings were

 

"Just a song" yeah way to downplay it.

 

An anthem that those very free speech values are represented by.  At the end of the day players are still allowed to kneel if they choose, are they not?

 

At least he didn't have his bank account frozen and wasn't thrown in jail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

"Just a song" yeah way to downplay it.

 

An anthem that those very free speech values are represented by.  At the end of the day players are still allowed to kneel if they choose, are they not?

 

At least he didn't have his bank account frozen and wasn't thrown in jail.  

He also wasn't holding a city at ransom, or blocking international borders, or taking foreign money during his protest, or using his kids to block out the police.

So, seems a lot different to me, actually

  • Upvote 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

 

"Just a song" yeah way to downplay it.

 

An anthem that those very free speech values are represented by.  At the end of the day players are still allowed to kneel if they choose, are they not?

 

At least he didn't have his bank account frozen and wasn't thrown in jail.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/10/18/star-spangled-banner-racist-national-anthem/

 

Maybe the US should consider changing their anthem to something that doesn't have this racist history.  It sure as hell wasn't written with the intention of representing freedom for someone who looked like Kaepernick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...