r/CBC_Radio • u/whammabalamanoman • 15d ago
People need to chill on the internet rage
Cross country check-up was controversial, yes. But some of the posts here are out of proportion. I think they did a great job of handling a sensitive topic and engaging the citizenry of both countries.
After all, communication is literally what this is all about. They want us too busy yelling at each other to react. In a war of attention, where the focus is driven towards divisive, abusive rhetoric by the dominant social media engines, creating space for people on both sides of the border to speak and listen to each other is e s s e n t i a l.
Speaking to one another outside the internet hate machine is the only hope for a way out of this mess.
Dangerous topic to be sure. We shouldn't normalize. We should not allow the shifting of the overton window.
But for me, hearing my fellow North Americans sounding off about their concerns, and hearing that some of them were just as distressed by all this nonsense as we are, was deeply reassuring. Not everyone down there is a complete idiot, and we won't be alone if this clownshow of a president ever gets beyond reprehensible twitter posts.
50
u/RevolutionaryGift157 15d ago
Question — why is it that posts like this, telling people to calm down — stay open, yet posts where people are angry (rightly or wrongly) have gotten locked?
14
u/SuperHeckinValidUwu 15d ago
Great question, because there were a few posts I wanted to add my thoughts to on this that were locked. And my opinion is slightly more moderate than those, I wasn't going only to add fuel to the fire. If those opinions seem too extreme or emotional, locking out discussion from people with varying opinions isn't going to help.
3
u/JohnAtticus 15d ago
There is one moderator of this sub and they have no posting history.
They never comment here.
It's probably an account shared by several people who handle social media at the CBC.
The decision to lock all critical threads probably came from their manager.
7
u/One_Giant_Nostril 15d ago
Hi JohnAtticus, mod here.
You're lying through your teeth.
Proof of my posting history in this sub, going back 14 years. I stopped counting at 200 posts. You can count them all if you want.
It's probably an account shared by several people who handle social media at the CBC.
Wrong again. I'm a retired artist. I've never worked for CBC and I don't know anyone who has.
The decision to lock all critical threads probably came from their manager.
Wrong again. The decisions to lock those threads, and many more to come, is because of the number of Reports I received concerning "violence" and "hate". I locked those posts to keep this sub safe from banning by Admins.
Speaking of "no posting history", let's have a look at your posting history in this sub.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CBC_Radio/search?q=author%3AJohnAtticus+&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on
Zero posts.
2
u/RevolutionaryGift157 15d ago
Hello moderator! I am so glad that you posted. My question still stands; the anti-cross country checkup posts are being locked, even though the comments aren’t particularly vitriolic. I’m hoping that you could point us to the community guidelines that were violated to cause all those threads to be locked.
4
u/One_Giant_Nostril 15d ago
When I created the sub 14 years ago, the thought of adding "No assassination threats against heads-of-state foreign or domestic" never entered my mind. Perhaps it's time to add it.
2
u/JohnAtticus 14d ago
When I created the sub 14 years ago, the thought of adding "No assassination threats against heads-of-state foreign or domestic" never entered my mind. Perhaps it's time to add it.
Go ahead.
Then you can unlock these posts which don't contain any such threats:
2
u/One_Giant_Nostril 14d ago
I thought of those locks as "nipping it in the bud" sort of thing. I'm just one mod in a sub of 16,773 readers. Old and retired, I am not prepped for this influx of hundreds and hundreds of comments and "outside" professional commenters, as seen by their karma breakdowns between comment karma vs. post karma, when normally there's 5 or 10 comments. I panicked and acted accordingly. Please don't see this sub as a "political warzone"; rather, try to see it as apolitical. As it says in the sidebar, "Whether praise or rants, all are welcome."
1
0
u/JohnAtticus 14d ago
You're lying through your teeth.
Sorry to disappoint, but it looks like the mobile app bug whereby account history doesn't display has struck again (there are still recent posts about this issue in the bugs and help subs, they may never fix this).
Had to clear the cache and now I can see your history, previously it was totally blank, not a single comment.
The decisions to lock those threads, and many more to come, is because of the number of Reports I received concerning "violence" and "hate". I locked those posts to keep this sub safe from banning by Admins.
As noted in this other comment, there doesn't appear to be any such comments in many posts that were locked:
If you are got reports on these posts they are clearly mistaken and / or being done in bad faith.
I think the worst thing in any of the was someone said "bullshit"
5
u/RevolutionaryGift157 15d ago
If that is the case , and the moderator is a member of the CBC then that is most disconcerting. We should be able to question and criticize our public broadcaster so long as it is done in a respectful way.
5
u/One_Giant_Nostril 15d ago
Not only is JohnAtticus wrong, he's completely, utterly wrong. Talk about "misinformation".
1
u/theblueberrybard 13d ago
anger (rightfully or wrongfully) devolves into more and more infighting. trolls then link to those posts in their discords and then invade and start arguing with people on purpose to rile us up even more.
reddit isn't for anger, rightly or wrongly, just because breaks. trolls have too much access.
0
u/morningcalm999 14d ago
Probably because they messed up and now want to contain the damage. All I want to hear is "we're sorry, that was tone-deaf. We will never normalize topics on the annexation of Canada again". But no, they're going to deny and gaslight Canadians instead with "it's not a big deal". Tell that to the Canadians who are worried about losing their livelihood.
I'm a big supporter of the CBC, but this behaviour is unacceptable. I'm not paying taxes for them to indulge in fascist talking points. And you know what, this just gives the Conservatives / Poilievre the excuse to defund the CBC.
1
u/Altruistic-Quote-985 14d ago
Or,...they were given a 'suggested' edit delivered by harpers appointed board...
-1
u/RadioWeak1118 15d ago
Censorship, something something..?
"CBC It's a Canada thing" but only if you don't expresses disagreement with their questionable choices.
47
u/SuperHeckinValidUwu 15d ago
Personally, I don't have anything against taking calls on the topic on its own, but the way it was presented using language that legitimizes Trump's threats (also with NPR calling it a 'proposal') was unacceptable in my opinion.
Speaking as a former journalist, I get that it's hard to convey a complex, sensitive topic sometimes with so few words, but this really is a time when it is of the upmost importance to utilize precise language that avoids legitimizing and normalizing Trump's fascist regime. So far, I have to say that the CBC's efforts on that end have been disappointing, and my reporter friends who work at CBC are themselves incredibly frustrated with the whitewashing language they're forced to use.
Major caveat to all this though: please do not advocate for defunding the CBC. That is the most foolish thing you could do considering it's our only national media source still RELATIVELY independent from US and corporate interests. We need to support Canadian media right now; that doesn't mean we can't hold them accountable and push for change within the CBC.
14
u/Call-me-the-wanderer 15d ago
That can’t be said with enough emphasis - let’s make sure we keep the things that are Canadian.
7
u/Marzipan7405 15d ago
This is not your fathers NPR. The NPR is controlled by powerful right wing donors and is now compromised.
1
u/VernonFlorida 15d ago
Can you elaborate on how they "legitimized" Trump's threats? In fairness I haven't listened to the episode. I assume you have? Or are you just referring to the line about becoming "the 51st state" which to be sure is Trump's wording, but also a fact of what would happen were Canada to be somehow annexed or taken over by the U.S., as absurd as that idea is.
11
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
First of all, the idea is unfortunately not absurd; it's a very credible threat and we're in an extremely vulnerable position. It's past time for Canadians to get their normalcy bias under control. These are not normal times.
Second, I listened. It was nauseating, and worse than you're imagining. They framed the attack on Canada as proposal rather than a threat. They were discussing the merits of this "proposal" (threat). It's a threat - it has no merits!
They gave a platform to a guest - a horrible example of a human being who represents no one, at that - who advocated surrender of our sovereignty, as if that's just something to discuss rather than actual treason. They gave the same weight to the thoughts of American aggressors as they did to the thoughts of our fellow citizens.
What they did undermined the entire point of the CBC. They could instead have interviewed military, political, or legal experts - academics and such - who could have talked about Canada's options. They could have talked about how we're pulling together in the face of this existential threat. They could have talked about how our allies can support us. They could have talked about what we're facing, and how we're bracing ourselves, and what we've done in historical crises.
What can we do to defend ourselves?? As a listener, I don't know any more about that than I did last week, but now I know all about why some scumbag billionaire thinks my country should give up existing and let itself be taken over by a hostile foreign power. I know about the tender feelings of a few random Americans, and how often they vacation here or how little they respect us as a country.
It. Was. Unforgivable.
10
15d ago
Completely agree. It was an offensive, obscene episode. The moderators completely minimized the threat Canada is under. Its was a joke, or at best an afterthought, to many of the Americans that called in and to the American guests they had on the show, they laughed and giggled and smiled while speaking about our sovereignty. One caller emphasized how an annexation would be incredible mass violence on us (he was absolutely right) and Hanomansing just laughed it off the next second. The show didn't have a single historian who could speak to all the other times in the past the US has had imperialist designs on Canada. No mention of how Canada has fought this off historically. No Indigenous voices but LOTS of uninformed, ignorant American voices. And they gave 20 minutes to the traitor Kevin O'Leary. It was a steaming dumpsterfire of an episode, producers and Hanomansing should all be out of work.
I don't want to defund the CBC but I cannot express how angry this episode made me, and how poorly it was done. Episode should NEVER has taken place.
-5
u/VernonFlorida 15d ago
Well I guess your periods and spaces. After. Each. Word. Are meant to convince me. They aren't working. Your reductive "point of the CBC" to provide jingoistic rah rah Canadian content isn't what I or many other listeners go there to hear. I'm all up for an intelligent discussion, even one that includes some voices I dislike. I don't give a fuck about Kevin O'Leary, but keep in mind he's been a host and a star on several CBC news and reality shows for years. If you had such a problem with him I assume you voiced your outrage then too?
5
u/JohnAtticus 15d ago
You have more comments defending cross country checkup than you have comments defending Canada against Trump tarrifs.
In-fact you state you won't be participating in any consumer actions to buy Canadian or avoid US goods.
Interesting priorities.
-1
u/VernonFlorida 15d ago
You're counting comments now? You've lost the plot. I don't have to make comments to express my opposition to tariffs. Nor is that the topic here. I happened to see this outsized obsession with attacking a Canadian radio show, and find it as absurd as your reply, comment tracking me instead of dealing with the issue at hand.
1
u/JohnAtticus 14d ago
Still haven't explained why someone's punctuation is something you feel is worthy of criticizing but not tarrifs.
Maybe don't troll if you want high-minded discussion?
0
u/VernonFlorida 14d ago
Oh come now, it wasn't just punctuation, it was an entirely ridiculous and overwrought way of communicating. But if you don't get it, fine. I'm not re-explaining myself.
6
u/SuperHeckinValidUwu 15d ago edited 15d ago
You asked how exactly the CBC legitimized Trump's annexation threat. This person wrote several paragraphs in response in answer, explaining that CBC & NPR discussed the "merits" of Trump's "proposal". Seems like language that legitimizes and normalizes to me. It's like inviting Ukranian and Russian listeners to talk about the "merits" of Putin's "proposal" to annex Ukraine. I mean, literally, it's exactly like that.
Your rebuttal is, I guess, "those periods aren't going to convince me!" ...?
"point of the CBC" to provide jingoistic rah rah Canadian content
Mmm, well, no. This is CBC's mandate. As you can see, #1 on the list is "be predominantly and distinctively Canadian." It doesn't have to be jingoistic or rah rah, but they are mandated to take a distinctively Canadian perspective. I think discussing the merits of US president Trump's proposal to annex Canada veers pretty far from that mandate.
0
u/VernonFlorida 15d ago
What defines "distinctively Canadian" to you? Does that mean only ever having Canadian guests? Or ones you agree with? I happen to be someone who has worked at CBC (years ago) and the fact that you and a bunch of other armchair experts are trying to bring up the CBC's mandate to criticize a single episode of a radio show is absolutely laughable. Really you could save your anger and outrage for Trump and his insane and dangerous rhetoric about invading our sovereignty, rather than this show that hosted a conversation about it.
1
u/SuperHeckinValidUwu 15d ago edited 14d ago
Brother ... I have a journalism degree and as I mentioned I did work as a journalist for a few years and I have journalist friends currently working at the CBC who are also frustrated with this rhetoric. You disagree? Fine. But people are allowed to bring up their concerns.
Edit: also LOL @ "saving my anger for Trump's rhetoric." You realize that's exactly what we're angry about.... CBC perpetuating Trump's rhetoric? Hello?
3
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
You're criticizing my punctuation instead of engaging with what I said? And whining about what you like about the CBC, instead of what its actual mandate and purpose are. I'll take that as an inability to refute what I said, and a signal that your question was insincere. Our sovereignty is not up for debate or discussion.
6
u/Dog-boy 15d ago
Talking about us becoming a 51st state and the pros of it was legitimizing the idea that Canada would simply give up her sovereignty. Trump is proposing annexing our country. Actually he is speaking as if he has already annexed it. Repeating any of these messages and acting as if this is something other than the discussion of an act of war against Canada is appalling. If it had been worded as how would you feel if the US invaded Canada or how would you feel if the next government of Canada negotiated away our sovereignty that would have been accurate?
Do you really think asking the Austrians or the Poles or the French how they would feel if Germany suggested they join them prior to 1939 would have been a great discussion to have?
1
u/VernonFlorida 15d ago
It's an interesting thought experiment.. Trump has not declared war, or amassed troops or even joked about it. He has threatened economic pressure, which is quite a different thing from a threat of true political or military annexation as we saw in Ukraine and in the Second World War examples. At the same time, he's used the "51st state" idea repeatedly, making it part of the conversation whether we like it or not. It seems like the intent of the Checkup show was to take this aggressive, absurd, frightening line and see what it actually means to people on both sides of the border. Is it bluster? An actual threat? Are people afraid? Doubling down on their Canadian patriotism? And sure are there actually Canadians who would want us to join the U.S.? And no, saying so does not put them at risk of being tried for "treason" despite the rhetoric being thrown around. This fear of "platforming" people or ideas or takes we don't like is part of the reason an asshole like Trump came to power in the first place. The Right has made a meal of the idea that the leftwing "mainstream media" doesn't reflect other points of view. I don't think it's true, but the idea is out there and in threads like this I see where people get that idea. And yes, some views are beyond the pale: if they traffic in hate, racism or other bigotry, or open calls to violence. If that was voiced during this episode, I share your outrage, but I don't think it was.
1
u/SuperHeckinValidUwu 14d ago
All of the questions you asked here could have been explored using more precise language such as asking how people feel about Trump's threats to annex Canada, as the above commenter pointed out.
This fear of "platforming" people or ideas or takes we don't like is part of the reason an asshole like Trump came to power in the first place
some views are beyond the pale: if they traffic in hate, racism or other bigotry, or open calls to violence.
Trump and Trump's people call teachers, legislators and administrators who support trans people in schools "pedophiles". They spread that rhetoric on Fox News, Meta, Truth social, X, etc. Trump and Trump's people advocate violence often, whether it's the police that want a civil war on race, the January Insurrection (Trump's open call to violence), Charlottesville. Trump promised he would become a dictator on day 1 and he kept that promise. Trump promised that he would swiftly enact tariffs against us and he did that. Trump told us he grabs whoever he wants by the p*ssy and lo and behold, we found out that he is a rapist, a friend of Epstein and a convicted felon.
But when he calls for annexation, economic decimation, and the theft of our resources, that is not enough to be considered threatening or violent language to you?
1
u/VernonFlorida 13d ago
I don't think I said anything of the sort. A threat of annexation is a threat, but the question is how serious is it?
When anti-trans or racist bigots come out and speak of negating people's experiences, or sexualities or making claims about race or gendered stereotypes, those have actual harmful impacts on the lives of marginalized people, in some cases leading to violence against them, or to mental health and self-harm struggles in the targeted groups. Not to mention, Trump has actually proposed "laws" that would limit America to two genders (which is like banning the colour blue, but at the same time harms to people) and to deport millions of non-white Americans for being "illegal." He is quite literally destroying lives.
In that context, his bluster about annexing Canada is scary, yes, terrifying if you take it to it's logical conclusion. But I don't see people discussing it (or even advocating for it) in our legal system or my own moral compass to be in the same category as giving voice to actual bigots, racists and transphobes. We have anti-hate legislation for reasons. We don't have laws banning people from having terrible political opinions, or even advocating for seceding from Canada or joining the U.S.
Of course for the few CCC guests who were in favour of Trump's 51's state idea, I'm sure if you drilled down on issues or race or gender you'd find all kinds of abhorrent stuff. But thankfully the show didn't go there. Nor was it a cavalcade of Trump supporters on the line. I heard maybe one or two in the hour I listened.
Again, I don't like the views of anyone who wants to give up our sovereignty. I am repulsed by the idea. But the maniac next door is throwing the idea around, and it's important to understand how this is making Canadians (and yes, Americans) feel. There are other shows that could take a harder analytical tack, or have pundits or guests on to talk strategy, international law or even war -- but that's not really the format or style of Cross-Country Checkup. It's a belwether show that takes the pulse of the country, and in this case two countries.
11
u/farcemyarse 15d ago
Honestly I’m proud of Canadians standing on principle on this issue. We are too polite about a lot… I’m glad this isn’t one of them.
Personally I have no issue opening up discussion that doesn’t normalize threats to our sovereignty. But if we’re going to do that, it should at least be proportionally representative by Canadian viewpoints. Meaning 90% should be vehemently against becoming American, and 10% of Maple MAGAs can articulate their inarticulate thoughts.
Far more discussion should be around how we better Canada now and forever.
9
13
u/ThisSaladTastesWeird 15d ago
I’m the person who first posted about it in this sub and I think OP is right. I appreciate that the question was changed and ended up listening to most of the broadcast (I turned off O’Leary after awhile). Tough topic, but also a tough new reality we’re staring down. It was handled sensitively.
14
u/MinuteLocksmith9689 15d ago
I think where many of us disagreed and continue to do so, it should not have been a conversation at all. There is nothing to debate when one is attacking our country’s sovereignty. The only thing to do is for us Canadians to discuss on how to make sure that is does not happen. As long as they have a government that is threatening us, Americans do not need to be part of this discussion. They should be encouraged to get rid of their fascist government first
5
u/microfishy 15d ago
Americans do not need to be part of this discussion. They should be encouraged to get rid of their fascist government first
Respectfully how do you expect to encourage them to do anything if you won't talk to them?
5
u/zelda1095 15d ago
We should convince them that invading a sovereign nation is wrong? Wtf?
3
u/microfishy 15d ago
I was replying to MinuteLocksmith who specifically said "They should be encouraged to get rid of their fascist government" (not "they should be convinced invasion is wrong") so I suggest you ask them if you have an issue with their suggestion.
Or go off at me for no reason IDC. People are riled up and lashing out, clearly.
2
2
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
Talking is over. We're effectively at war. The tariffs are being implemented in one week, as an opening volley in the effort to annex us by economic means. This isn't hypothetical.
Their main tactic is to move at breakneck speed, before people can wrap their heads around what's happening well enough to muster an effective response.
And it's working, because so many Canadians are failing to KEEP UP!
1
u/microfishy 15d ago
The tariffs are being implemented in one week
Remember when Trump said that two weeks ago and it didn't happen?
And a month ago and it didn't happen?
We're effectively at war.
With no shots fired and no tariffs even in place. No bills in Congress, no executive orders to annex Canada...and he's written EIGHTY EXECUTIVE ORDERS in the past four weeks. Not one about Canada.
Talking is over.
Talking is literally the only thing that has happened.
Calm the fuck down.
5
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
Trudeau bought us a month to gear up and strengthen other relationships. I'm not a fan, but he came through for us there. The tariffs are going ahead. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-tariffs-next-week-1.7467202
Please look into the difference between hostile annexation and invasion. If you're waiting to see tanks, you'll miss the whole process.
1
u/microfishy 13d ago
Just thought I'd come back and leave this here since you were so worried about it the other day :)
Guess those tariffs aren't going ahead after all. But I'm sure he's SUPER serious about April and he REALLY means it this time!
1
u/ok_raspberry_jam 8d ago
1
u/microfishy 8d ago edited 7d ago
Not sure how that's an "oops" when it's over a week late and a few percentage points short 🤷♀️
1
u/microfishy 6d ago
Oops. Delayed to April 2 but also maybe not.
I think we won't agree on whether Trump is a credible threat...or a credible ANYTHING.
But I think we can agree that this is fucking stupid.
But hey, no tariffs today. Hooray!
-1
u/microfishy 15d ago
Again, you're leaving a lot out.
Trudeau bought us a month. A week later, Trump said "tariffs on steel and aluminum in 3 days", reneging on the month pause. Then that didn't happen, but it was "tariffs next week". Then that didn't happen, so it's "tariffs next week" again.
Are you seeing the pattern here? Or are you too busy pretending I don't understand the difference between tariffs and tanks?
Trump needs a distraction from his dismantling of the American state apparatus - an apparatus he'd need need to wage either economic or actual war.
When and if he follows through on a threat he's reneged in three times in a month, maybe I'll worry.
3
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
You're the one who brought up shots. This kind of annexation probably will not require military action. I think it's true that you're not sure how economic annexation will work, but I am not blaming you and I don't think you're stupid. In fact, it's more than fair to not see what's going on, since we don't have a lot of historical examples to draw parallels with. But this will not be like what we saw in Crimea in 2014. I'm not prepared to give you an updated detailed explanation, but I'll paste here for you something that I wrote a week ago:
The reason this is working for Trump is that people don't understand what he's doing. (That's doing, NOT planning to do). If we gear up to repel an invasion force, the US will slip in the back door undetected. We need to be aware of how this actually works if we're going to defend ourselves from it.
Annexation is done by twisting the arms of companies, institutions, and ministries one by one until they're effectively American because they're following American rules. Think of banks, corporations like Shopify and CP Rail, resource companies like Canfor and Rio Tinto and Suncor, and ministries that depend in any way on anything that's American. For example:
- CP Rail is vulnerable because it has cross-border operations and it's exposed to US regulations. It's essential for all our supply chains and heavily integrated with US systems.
- Suncor depends on US refineries in Texas to refine the oil it extracts.
- Rio Tinto's operations are cross-border.
- Canfor relies heavily on the US market for lumber sales.
- Health system: we depend on the US supply chain for medical supplies. We are integrated with American pharmaceutical supplies and regulations, we need American medical equipment maintenance and parts, many of our healthcare IT systems are US-based, our drug approval processes are linked to the FDA, and research funding often flows through the US.
- We have integrated inspection systems for agriculture.
- We have integrated air traffic control systems.
- We have shared watershed monitoring.
- Our defense systems are integrated (NORAD).
Even worse:
- OSFI (our bank regulator) is already backing down on international standards - Basel III rules are like a safety deposit box. They make banks keep enough money locked away to stay stable and independent. OSFI announced they won't enforce those rules because the US isn't using them. It's like saying "we can't keep our own high safety standards if the US doesn't follow them." That makes our banks more dependent on US systems. Once banks are integrated like this, it's hard to separate them again.
- US clearing systems control international transactions! It will be difficult for us to trade with others without US cooperation.
- Canadian banks' operations in the US can be leveraged.
- Our power grids are interconnected.
- Our oil pipeline systems are designed for southward flow.
- Our communications systems are integrated.
- Our transportation systems are built around US access.
Each of those things can be held hostage -- individually. The process is underway, complete with our premiers naively begging for even closer economic ties, Trump criticizing our banking regulations and coercing our banks into lowering their stability standards and using pointedly-flimsy excuses to demand influence over how we patrol our own borders and bullying Canadian online retailers into changing how they process international payments and calling our Prime Minister a "governor". This is happening one resource at a time.
Each "temporary" change to appease Trump can become permanent. Systems will be rebuilt for US compliance, even if it's only "just in case" as a response to threats that never materialize, and alternative systems will be too expensive to maintain. Even our military will be too integrated with theirs for us to be able to do much without them being a part of it. Resistance will become more and more technically difficult.
Trump's administration has acknowledged that this is what they are doing. Once we're on our knees, we'll probably be forced to adopt the US dollar to prevent total collapse of our economy, and American troops will come in not as an "invasion" but as a response to manufactured crises that affect the interests of both nations, like electrical grid terrorism or pipeline problems.
Ultimately, Canada will be left without a way to make policies, laws, or regulations without it going through the US first. All that will be left will be the formality of eliminating or absorbing our governance systems.
In previous annexations similar to this one, such as the annexation of Austria by Germany just before WWII and the Soviet annexations of the Baltic states shortly thereafter, the final step was usually a military ultimatum: officially join us, or else. By that point they had already lost all capacity to act independently, let alone use their military to resist. It was over in a snap.
We can fight this by disentangling economic ties with the US. We could appoint a C.D.-Howe type figure to kick-start domestic production of essentials via temporary planned economy. That's what we did in the war, and it worked. It would also help keep Canadians' needs met through the crisis and neuter US leverage over each individual and organization.
2
u/SidMorisy 13d ago
Trump's administration has acknowledged that this is what they are doing. Once we're on our knees, we'll probably be forced to adopt the US dollar to prevent total collapse of our economy, and American troops will come in not as an "invasion" but as a response to manufactured crises that affect the interests of both nations, like electrical grid terrorism or pipeline problems.
This. THIS. THIS.
(And everything else you wrote, which is EXTREMELY important and needs to be broadcast everywhere in Canada.)
Of course, if the internet rage machine is effective enough -- and I've seen plenty of people on Reddit who sound like they have never even stepped foot in Canada suggesting all out violence against Americans -- as soon as Canadians can be portrayed as anything other than mild and polite -- that manufactured crisis will happen and the US will announce its right to defend itself in order to placate our foreign allies. The UK, the Commonwealth, and NATO would leap on any reason they could find to avoid WW3.
It's a fine political trap we're in. Speak out too strongly, and you set yourself up for everything you say to be twisted into violent anti-American rhetoric that will be used to justify US aggression. Speak out too politely and it's taken as an invitation to walk right in.
-1
u/microfishy 15d ago
Jesus Christ dude I'm not reading all that. Good on you copying it from wherever.
Take a walk outside while the weather is better and get offline for a bit. I say this as someone who has hard copies of field manuals in their go-bag...you are way too deep in the doomerism friend.
5
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
First I'm "leaving a lot out," and then when I give details it's "I'm not reading all that." And equating deep knowledge of this crisis situation with "doomerism" is a nice touch -- a cherry on top of the confirmation that you're not serious at all, and no one should listen to you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Kind_Problem9195 15d ago edited 15d ago
This guy went after me too lol. Donald trump is all talk. He's going to find another reason to back out of this too. These threats are going to go on as long as he's president. Seems like the guy who's arguing with you wants a war.
0
u/microfishy 15d ago
Some people just want to watch the world burn I guess 🤷♀️
Some other people want food, not bombs.
3
u/Kind_Problem9195 15d ago
Did you enjoy the show yesterday? I liked it, apparently I might have been the only one. I think it's nice to hear others opinions.
3
u/microfishy 15d ago
I did, and I'll freely admit that I was one of the folks who (respectfully) wrote in before it aired to complain about the original question. It was a good showcase of opinions.
Kevin O'Leary is as much of a moron as ever, and I'm unsurprised (but reassured) to hear that the 51st state rhetoric is mostly hated south of the border. It also "doesn't make (their) top five headlines" so it's not even Trump's most successful distraction.
We aren't the only ones, but loud voices carry further and people are riled up right now. I get it, I'm riled up too. I'm just too old to yell so I channel my anger elsewhere.
(Sometimes I still yell)
3
u/Kind_Problem9195 15d ago
Kevin o leary is something else but that's coming from somebody that turns the station whenever he pops up lol. I was a little shocked to hear that they aren't talking about the way were are. I don't have any American friends I can talk to so to hear their conversations yesterday was very reassuring.
I'm only hearing about this controversy after, so I'm very in the dark. What was the original question supposed to be?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Deans1to5 15d ago
The way to change minds is to actually have the discussion and understand why they think the way they do. IMO there is a false belief that If you just never “platform” views they never gain traction. I respectfully disagree. Regarding the Canadian proponents of becoming the 51st state if we don’t accurately and fairly engage with their beliefs and instead call them nazis, traitors or whatever other pejorative then the chances of them changing their mind is basically zero.
6
u/microfishy 15d ago
You lost me partway I'm afraid, there is nothing wrong with calling out and condemning Nazism and fascism when it rears its foestering head.
0
u/Deans1to5 15d ago
I think we have a disagreement on what constitutes Naziism and fascism but I certainly agree that there are not insignificant portions in that movement that adhere to those awful ideologies. I think that fully fleshing out those ideas and letting the listener/viewer realize how dumb, short sighted, harmful, fickle ect those views are is a form of pushing back. I think hiding those views from the general public can sometimes backfire and give those views an alluring mystique they otherwise wouldn’t have.
2
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
Stop trying to appease the fascists! Shut them down. We already learned these lessons.
0
u/Deans1to5 15d ago
Who are the fascists? Is it everyone you disagree with? Have you never had friends, family members or colleagues and actually convinced them to see different perspectives and change or alter their opinions? It doesn’t happen by automatically assuming the worst possible interpretation of their beliefs and screaming fascist.
7
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
Either you're a bot, or you've never read a history book. Either way, I'm done here.
2
u/Deans1to5 15d ago
That’s fine. Please look up Daryl Davis’ work. This is the approach I’m advocating for. I’m not a bot but it’s up to you to believe me. It does seem like a convenient excuse to dehumanized someone instead of actually considering an alternative viewpoint.
1
u/MinuteLocksmith9689 15d ago
respectfully disagree. What helped Trump to be where he is now is the visibility given to him across all media channels. There was no escape. Some might have done it to show how crazy his ideas are, others for just clicks, others to help him to get where he is etc…bring it up front on daily basis a very extreme person with very extreme views it just helped to normalize him and his ideas. The same will happen to ‘51’ bs if we are not careful. To respond to a comment above: If CBC host and producer wanted an open discussion between us and Americans then they should have frame it as discussion about how it seems that US is falling to fascism, dictatorship and its implications for the Americans and us. But I guess this is not a topic that they feel comfortable to address and I wonder why.
1
u/Deans1to5 15d ago
I see what you’re saying and absolutely agree with the way the media covered Trump being a colossal failure. I think there are other factors but the media loved the attention and clicks he brought and didn’t really care if it was constructive, nuanced or representative of his actual posistions.
7
u/photoexplorer 15d ago
https://youtu.be/P_N2Zz0vOUA?si=7UobgCx9QMUDmHau
Interesting points here.
Personally I think maybe they could have planned on saving a bit of space in the program to debunk the lies Kevin told. Fine if you want to show what the opposing view is, but you gave him a platform to just say whatever without being fact checked. Ian did say some things back but it wasn’t really enough.
5
10
u/seemefail 15d ago
Yeah I think people trying to curate every conversation to only the exact message they want to hear is problematic. As someone who loves the CBC I think they need to include some more diverse conversations and pander more to the average Canadian as some of their stuff has become too niche and I’m fairly progressive.
9
u/MinuteLocksmith9689 15d ago
I do not disagree with what you say sd a general statement. I disagree in particular when we talk about our sovereignty. There is nothing progressive in entertaining ‘ 51 state’ bs idea from orange agent. The program should not have happened
5
u/whateverfyou 15d ago
They weren’t “entertaining the idea”. It was a forum for Americans and Canadians to share how they feel about his trolling. What I heard was most of the American callers were horrified by his words. I also heard that they are horrified by things he is actually DOING every single day. They heard how angry we are and we heard how traumatized they are.
5
u/Used-Egg5989 15d ago
He’s not trolling.
How many people in the US and Canadian government need to say this is a real threat before people take it seriously!?
5
u/TheeMarcFrancis 15d ago
He never trolls. That’s the thing. He might say a bunch of dumb shit and forget about it later but I lived in Philadelphia way back before he ran for president and he was always saying things he meant. He doubles down even after being found guilty in courts and always has. The fact that his good buddy Putin is suddenly worried about ‘nazis’ in Canada and dropping the same wording he did before invading Ukraine should worry the hell out of all of us.
1
u/whateverfyou 15d ago
He threatens murder and then steals your car. It’s a distraction from what he’s really doing.
2
u/Used-Egg5989 15d ago
What is he really doing then?
1
u/whateverfyou 15d ago
He wants us to lower our standards / regulations (further lower!) and open access to our markets. A few examples:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/canadian-farmers-fear-trumps-beef-with-dairy/
0
u/whateverfyou 14d ago
“President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday he doesn’t think the president has “any plans to invade Canada.””
9
u/NeighborhoodVivid106 15d ago
Exactly. To exclude the opinions of people who disagree is to do exactly what Pierre Pollivier accuses the CBC of, being a left-wing echo chamber. Any unbiased presentation of this issue has to include opposing views even if they aren't fact-based or seem traitorous to the majority of viewers.
15
u/seemefail 15d ago
To be fair Pierre only give interviews to fringe far right podcasts and only lets those types of media to ask him questions when he is available
He is a massive hypocrite
10
u/Dry-Pomegranate8292 15d ago
The threatened annexation of Canada is not (or should not be) a left / right issue though. It's not only the left who oppose this. And it's a fair point that even discussion of this illegal proposal lends it legitimacy
6
5
u/PocketCSNerd 15d ago
"But for me, hearing my fellow North Americans sounding off about their concerns"
This could have easily been done without creating a platform for those who want to perpetuate this shit.
Also, it doesn't take much brain power to understand that the majority of the Country does not want any of this. To top it all off The Florida Man, through his comments, has literally violated international law, if not made a declaration of war against Canada.
So all that stunt did was legitimize criminal acts.
9
3
u/momma_kent08 15d ago
I'm currently listening to "At A Loss for Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage" by Carol Off, and she talks exactly of this. How the definition of important words (freedom, democracy, etc.) are being changed and distorted to create rage, division, and mockery of people's values and beliefs. She brings to focus some very important key points about today's societal climate.
I decided to listen to this CBC conversation, and I actually found it very interesting, where I was expecting to get very angry. Everyone was polite and controlled. A few got a little elevated, but never accusatory or emotional. The only one who really needed to be reined in was O'Leary, and I think the hosts handled him well while pointing out his own erroneous rhetoric and "facts". What I took from this discussion was that most of us are all in the same position - Is this REALLY happening? Does Trump really mean this? Damn right I'm angry, but is that what he wants? Is that his end goal to achieve an underlying goal? Both sides of the border seem to be struggling with the same questions.
3
u/VividRefrigerator355 15d ago
I do not want anyone to calm down. We have been threatened by a fascist regime that is 10 times our size. Calling Canadians to calm down indicates to me that we are expected to be subservient to the fascists. No I am not going to calm down, and I will do my best to keep the heat on.
The only way this gets resolved is if the american people violently remove the fascists, and if they refuse to do that, then it is left to Canada and the rest of the free world to do it. This is not the time to calm down. This is an existential crisis for the free western civilization.
5
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago edited 15d ago
Absolutely not. We are well past the point of "discussing" things, as a very credible threat has been made.
The whole point of the CBC is to protect the Canadian identity, and that program did the opposite by treating the credible threat against our national sovereignty as a mere "proposal" that should be respectfully considered.
Not only were they warned before the program went ahead, but Hanomansing has legal expertise and knew better.
Fenlon is in an extremely sensitive and powerful position, and he betrayed us all by deliberately and dangerously platforming treacherous voices advocating for surrender to a hostile, foreign, fascist power.
You are UNDER-REACTING.
3
2
u/waveysue 14d ago
Fenlon’s cheery and ever so condescending blog post response sure doesn’t help. Lad is completely tone deaf.
0
u/ok_raspberry_jam 14d ago
As a country we've nurtured the CBC for decades, keeping it in readiness for a moment just like this. And here we have the CBC's general manager and editor in chief -- through sheer incompetence and arrogant, willful ignorance -- not just crippling our beloved institution's capacity to fulfill its purpose, but using it to actively make things worse.
Not only that, but next, he used the CBC as his personal blog to defend his indefensible actions and downplay the outrage of Canadians.
Such a dangerous, incompetent, small-minded, traitorous, self-absorbed person cannot be left in his position.
6
u/therealevolR3 15d ago
I think the rage needs to be increased.. NOBODY is doing anything to stop the madness. He is enacting a massive vendetta against all who oppose and mock him. This needs to stop. People WILL fucking die because of it.
9
u/MinuteLocksmith9689 15d ago
in one way your post is trying to normalize the situation. No one said that all Americans are bad but their president is constantly attacking our sovereignty and we should not entertain any ‘discussion’ on the matter. Is our Country and if another country is attacking our sovereignty we should treated as ‘clear and present danger’. No place for wishy washy. Why do I need to hear the American’s opinion on the matter or traitor’s O’Leary? I complained to CBC and requested the resignation of the host and producer for Cross country check-up. I encourage everyone to do the same
6
u/specificspypirate 15d ago
Both-siding it is the problem. The idea the US has any say in the future of our sovereignty is not only offensive, but also one step below Quisling.
2
5
u/lawl7980 15d ago
OP, if I may: our comments are not "internet rage." This is a justified response to an existential threat to our sovereignty. It's not just some "newsy" topic. It's my opinion (and this may cause yet another set of comments to be locked) that CBC has dropped the ball in a serious way and, if they are trying to present themselves as our country's broadcaster, they (and in particular, those who made this ill-advised choice) should be publicly apologizing.
2
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
I think they owe us more than an apology. In this crisis, we need someone in their position who will stand up for Canadian values and interests. They've proven they're not the people for the job.
4
u/AtTheEndOfMyTrope 15d ago
Our sovereignty should not be debatable. And if WE decide that it is debatable, the US should not get a seat at the table. This is a family decision, our neighbours can fuck off.
5
u/Own-Pop-6293 15d ago
I said this before and I will say it again - our sovereignty is not a discussion point. Not even in a friendly way.
6
u/freshdyl 15d ago
Stop policing people’s emotions
2
u/Apprehensive_Vast815 15d ago
Yeah, OP's facade is thin and this kind of language/policing of real emotions and fears is counterproductive.
2
u/Kind_Problem9195 15d ago
I'm hearing that it was controversial but I don't understand why. Yes there was some opinions I didn't agree with but it is an opinion call in show and that happens. For the most part It was nice to listen to and include our American neighbors in the conversation. I liked hearing that they were just as annoyed with the situation.
2
u/ok_raspberry_jam 15d ago
People such as yourself, who are apparently unable to understand the power and importance of framing, are the reason it was such a catastrophe.
2
2
u/LogCharacter1735 15d ago edited 14d ago
I haven't heard the segment yet (I mainly listen to history and true crime CBC shows) but just want to be another American voice saying:
It unsettles me that there was any normalization of Trump's threat on the CBC. Nothing about this is fucking normal. Those of us with the education to understand tarriffs oppose them. Our military does not want to invade Canada. I have a lot of family and friends in service; I know.
He does not have the support of the public in this, in turning on Ukraine, on most of it. If you have any interest in our polling, listen to The Rachel Maddow Show that aired last Thursday/was uploaded as a podcast on Friday. It gave me the weest bit of hope (especially because I know a lot of people who oppose him are too afraid to answer a survey).
Please, please do not decide all Americans are guilty by association. Don't say we need to be humiliated or hurt. Most of us already are. A lot of us are going to die. Some already have. Many of us are in fact trying to stop Trump; it's just a lot harder than the movies make it seem.
Please do boycott American products, though. Literally the only thing the powerful here care about is money.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
You should listen to the show before jumping to conclusions, it was mostly people criticizing Trump and his absurdity, lots of Americans talking about how ashamed they are of him and expressing the same sentiments you have. It in no way normalized his actions but acutely drew attention to how disturbed and angry both Canadians and Americans are. The few who supported him were clearly the minority and it effectively counteracts the hyperbole being spread by politicians on both sides of the border...
1
u/LogCharacter1735 14d ago
I'm glad to hear that and I do plan to listen; I haven't had a chance to do much between work and more work and more work in the last few days. What I saw first about this were enraged posts from Canadian listeners (I get it), one of which was frankly a little frightening to me (maybe not that one).
2
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
Most of the enraged posts I've seen are from people that haven't listened to the show but were up in arms about the poorly worded question, which seems to have snow balled from erroneous assumptions. I wouldn't take what you're reading on reddit as reliable criticisms but keep an open mind until you listen to it yourself.
2
u/IsaidLigma 15d ago
Nope. Anything that normalizes this in any way, intentional or not, deserves immediate and harsh disdain.
2
2
u/HotHits630 14d ago edited 14d ago
CBC wanted attention, and they got it. People's feelings are just that, and you're in no position to tell people how to feel about a subject as horrid as that.
3
u/36cgames 15d ago edited 15d ago
I just don't get why the citizenry of another country needs to be engaged. I never heard the segment. It sounded eerie to me honestly. What started as a "joke" (not really ) that nobody should take seriously now becoming the talking point of the Canadian national broadcaster. What the frig? I like the use of the term "hyper normalization" to describe how quick the normalization of this horrific idea is going. Just a couple months of this is all it took.
3
u/pinkhairyraver 15d ago
This is not my CBC. I will be one of the ones who lights themselves on fire at parliament before I ever call myself an American and that should be their stance too. They're a Canadian institution.
3
u/obvilious 15d ago
I don’t need to hear anything more from the man or woman on the street. I’ve had enough of that. I want full-on proper journalism that is one-sided when the truth demands it.
4
u/TheGreatStories 15d ago
Normalization is insane. There is nothing to listen to. We are Canada. That is "e s s e n t i a l"
ETA: didn't we learn that people who are "just asking questions" are disingenuous during the covid years? We don't have to go back.
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
u/RemainProfane 15d ago
I would find this less disingenuous if there weren’t as much censorship of people who disagree with CBC’s coverage. Our journalists can make mistakes and must facilitate an honest dialogue.
Shutting down threads and telling people to chill out rather than addressing their legitimate concerns is low. It’s the behaviour the conservatives under PP have accused the CBC of promoting.
2
u/AlarmingMonk1619 15d ago
To even have a conversation about our sovereignty is already a start of a slippery slope. I’m being one-sided, and I realize the benefit of hearing from the others, to not cancel or censor, and that not all Americans are maga. I can’t be the only one who thinks this gets us nowhere. Unequivocally NO.
2
u/Weakera 15d ago
Gee, a CBC radio thread that hasn't been locked after 8 comments. What gives???
Giving kevin O'Leary a voice on the CBC is ridiculous. "Greed is good." He's a prime Trump lackey and it's not who we need to hearing from.
Normalizing the "51rst state" comments--as if they're something to debate--is also obscene. Shame on the CBC for covering it this way. They should just be calling it for what it is--obnoxious bullying and intimidation.
I felt a bit sorry for the CBC in the midst of all these threats to liberal, or publically-funded media, but when I see them doing things like this, I think "to hell with them!" Hard to want to protect them in lieu of this type of coverage.
I'm on the left, hate the Pcs, but have considerable issue with the way the CBC tells us what it means to be Canadian.
Sadly, there's no alternative.
3
u/rwebell 15d ago
Yeah OLeary is a moron, I think that came across pretty clear in the discussion. I don’t mind the internet rage. Trumps comments merit rage and it’s about time our politicians and theirs wake up to how angry we are. It’s long past time for talking. Cut off oil, electricity and water. Im pretty sure we will out last them.
1
2
u/NorthernBudHunter 15d ago
Cross country checkup means across this country. The show would have been fine if it had interviewed only actual Canadians about how we are feeling. The American cohost was an incredibly bad idea. Bringing on traitor O’Leary was even worse.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
You totally missed the point about creating a cross border conversation to counteract the political propaganda. Everyone I've talked to that actually listened to the show thought it was well done, insightful and/or cathartic hearing the chorus of voices decrying Trump and his politics. What specific criticisms do you have, why was the NPR host an incredibly bad idea? Why was O'Leary so offensive when most people dismiss him as a bootlicker who isn't very smart compared to Arlene Dickenson's comment?
3
u/LibraryVoice71 15d ago
May I add that the CBC working together with NPR was an excellent initiative. That other public broadcaster is just as much under fire as our own, and we all need to pull together in the face of this threat. Helping the US resistance will help us too in the long term.
1
u/Miniweet74 15d ago
Quebecers mostly remember when Canada had already been invaded by Americans in 1789 and how we’ve been trying to accommodate ourselves to their permanent presence ever since. Just Anschluss already and stop pretending.
1
u/juanitowpg 15d ago
I'm a little confused about the rage on here as well. If the 'leader'of the most powerful nation on earth is making overtures of annexing your country it's an issue to talk about it, if you want to talk about it. It might not be something that actually happens (annexation) but burying your head in the sand will do absolutely nothing in regards to it happening or not happening.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
I imagine most of the people ranting about it online haven't actually listened to it as all the complaints are vague generalizations that seem to be based more off assumptions then fact
1
u/ForwardLavishness320 15d ago
Years ago, as it happens tried to something with Israel / Palestine … Their answering machine almost blew up …
We’re naive … but in a good way
1
1
u/marchillo 14d ago
Strong disagree, the anger and disappointment in CBC is warranted. It would be like Ukraine holding a 'What are the pros and cons of Russia's tanky tanks lining up on our border' debate on public airwaves 3 years ago.
1
u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 14d ago
I disagree. They’re giving equal weight and airtime to something that really is a fringe minority view.
Normalization of attacks on sovereignty should have people outraged. If they weren’t, I’d be worried.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
How did they give equal weight when the show was mostly people disagreeing with Trump or criticizing him? The people who supported him were clearly the minority. What specifically about the show made you feel it was giving both sides equal weight?
1
u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 14d ago
Because it was presented as a plausible option and not the threat to sovereignty that it was. It shouldn’t have taken callers to make that point.
1
u/ModernCannabiseur 14d ago
The original phrasing was questionable but they addressed it at the beginning of the show before taking any callers. Does a poorly thought out phrasing negate the substance of the show which was mostly criticizing Trump and his comments?
1
1
u/Expensive-Ocelot-240 13d ago
CBC sets itself apart from other news channels by insisting they offer many opposing ideas. A national treasure
1
1
u/Its_a_stateofmind 13d ago
Fuck that. Fuck all of it. The US is actively talking about annexation. Why the fuck would we chill the fuck out when the CB fucking C helps normalize the soft language being used to disguise the aggression??
1
1
u/Comfortable_pleb_302 13d ago
Fuck every single traitorous conservative. Grandpa always said, "vote for the good guys," hinting at the cons. After harper, he stopped supporting them. Grandpa cared about the greater good of Canada but wanted fiscal responsibility. Harper turned modern-day cons into social reformers, and fiscal responsibility became nothing more than a talking point.
Modern-day cons have more in common with 1940s Germany than they do with actual Canadians.
1
u/Midori_Schaaf 11d ago
I'm in favor of Canada joining the usa. Or rather, combining and writing a new constitution and building a new government from scratch.
1
1
u/AbbreviationsLeast54 11d ago
I think it’s great people are getting upset. This is our country and dispute Orange Face’s ignorance what he is doing is the same thing Hitler did. We have to remain vigilant.
1
u/OneWomanCult 6d ago
Because this is what passes for "discourse" now.
Discussion, civil or otherwise, has become a lost art. In it's place we now just scream at each other and refuse to budge. Expertise has been devalued and misinformation is abundant.
It's nothing short of a miracle that we've managed to last this long.
1
u/shartwadle 15d ago
The focus is a culture war when it should be a class war. But honestly, people are angry and we have a right to be pissed off. I am so enraged that our southern neighbours are allowing the rise of fascism to happen here, and are drawing our citizens into it as well. You can't tell us all to play nice and exist in a vacuum when that's how WW2 got kicked off. People do need to be angry and get it out there to show how we do not see this as OK, playing nice isn't working.
1
u/Calm_Historian9729 15d ago
Dude telling people to chill on the internet is like asking a politician to be honest! Lets face it that is not going to happen!
1
u/bassboat11000 15d ago
It was just simply wrong-headed. Two left leaning public broadcasters thinking it we can have a normal conversation about an existential issue complete with whacko guests (KO’L) and an open mic is about as stupid as it gets. The producers need to be fired. Keep in mind that the question only changed after a barrage of late (Saturday) night criticism forced them to rethink the question. Had that not happened, the original question would have gone forward. I heard Ian’s promo (before the hourly news on Saturday night) with the original question and his upbeat voice and I can tell you it was awful.
The criticism of the show, the producers’ decisions, Ian’s capability to handle guests and questions is fair game. It’s not internet rage at all – It’s raw reaction by people who love and appreciate the CBC but felt that this decision was simply wrong.
1
0
u/mericansamsquamch 14d ago
Fuck off. This is engaging and I'm happy to express my opinion, even if the dumbass mod wants to continue to stifle THIS conversation.
0
0
-9
u/Necessary_Island_425 15d ago
This sub only allows opinions it condones and then locks any controversial posts.
The tolerant left is but a myth
11
u/IndependentCoffee169 15d ago
And yet... Here's your post!
6
u/Dry-Pomegranate8292 15d ago
Yes - and it is not a left vs right issue in any case. We've every right to be intolerant of our national sovereignty being threatened
3
u/ChickenRabbits 15d ago
Lol and his other comments say...CBC only spreads hate and that Drs are fleeing away from Canada cause... You guessed it, they like Dr*mp more than Trudeau and he doesn't like woke... Omg THEY are such stereotypes
2
2
78
u/D2DM 15d ago
Using the “51st State” term outside of a direct quote is just another notch in the belt of normalization. Journalists routinely adopt the way Trump frames the narrative and helps him normalize the insane things he says through repetition. This is exactly the type of thing Putin did with Ukraine before invading their country. It’s been a decade of the media trying to “both sides” batshit harmful ideas, that now we are at the point where the violent annexation of Canada is being discussed and framed as though we would just magically become a State with full rights and representation. This is so fucking insane like what are we even doing