And, pretty sure he’ll never mention the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem by Israel…

I listened to him saying that and the first thing I thought was it’s an intentional dog whistle to all the Christian nationalists, white nationalists, and residential school deniers who hold onto the churches burned in the summer of the Kamloops residential school news as a point of grievance.

Talking about churches being attacked across Canada one day before NDTR just screams that he wants to play upon those grievances and feed into those narratives which are also closely tied to great replacement narratives and the superiority of white Christian civilization that Charlie Kirk and his movement were also all about.

It’s really gross, disturbing, and dangerous. Not only is he spouting utter lies, but he’s willingly feeding the flame of far-right white Christian nationalism.

I’llreply here again on the irony of accusations of propaganda coming from an account with 850 posts in 7 months seemingly non-stop driving the same agenda.

Funnily enough, whataboutism is exactly the same accusation Hotznplotzn brought up in the last thread on this type of topic where we interacted a few days ago, Hotznplotzn being another account created 7 months ago with 3,200 posts in that time also driving the same agenda.

Almost like you guys are reading from the same manual.

Accusations of “whataboutism” get thrown around by people taking a particular approach any time someone raises a point that isn’t just expanding on the specific focus the accuser wants the interaction to stay on.

So, keep your accusations of “propaganda” for yourself and let some people who aren’t driving an agenda have a normal interaction.

The propaganda technique? Lol, the irony of this coming from an account with 850 posts in 7 months seemingly non-stop driving the same agenda.

Funnily enough, whataboutism is exactly the same accusation Hotznplotzn brought up in the last thread on this type of topic where we interacted a few days ago, Hotznplotzn being another account created 7 months ago with 3,200 posts in that time also driving the same agenda.

Almost like you guys are reading from the same manual.

Accusations of “whataboutism” get thrown around by people taking a particular approach any time someone raises a point that isn’t just expanding on the specific focus the accuser wants the interaction to stay on.

So, keep your accusations of “propaganda strategy” for yourself and let some people who aren’t driving an agenda have a normal interaction.

deleted by creator

How about that American interference? No? Nothing on that? Okay…

Turning Point Canada

We are likely going to be pouring a tonne of public money into providing security for a resource supply chain to feed the US, with resource companies likely largely owned or controlled by US interests with profits largely flowing to the US.

Also, kind of funny how “freedom of navigation” is such a clarion call for activity off one coast, but when it comes to our coast that’s opening up as a new trading routes the call changes to urging militarization, defense, and keeping others out.

That is so great.

The southern interior is far from immune to this bigotry, sadly. The Indian community is big enough to provide a bubble within which it’s not apparent, but outside that bubble there is plenty of racism.

I understand he’s trying to communicate the idea of a Palestinian state that agrees with the idea of Israel also existing as a state, and that he’s trying to walk a line where he upsets the fewest possible stakeholder groups, but it just comes across in a way that probably pisses everyone off. The double standards are also just absurd. The expectations placed upon the Palestinians after they have been victims of genocide are so much stricter than anything he ever discusses for Israel after they have been the perpetrators of a genocide.

Yep. Keep in mind, when I started, I really didn’t know how much to price my services. What I knew was that I was taking the most unique and high-value aspect of my professional skills and selling that, not all the other stuff that many more people could do and that would fill much of my regular work day. I also knew that I wanted to work with the highest value clients that I could, who would appreciate the value of those skills and have the executive authority both to make decisions on spending and to negotiate. So, I targeted CEO, owner, and board-level consulting and training. I also knew that no company pays their employees the value of their work on the open market, because if they did, they would make no profit, and I knew from my work the types of revenues and costs in the types of businesses I would be selling to. So, I went into my first sales confidently stating a figure that I thought was pretty high, and with a negotiation strategy planned in advance for how to adapt and how to use that initial high price positioning to get commitments on additional benefits that could be offered by the CEO and their company at no cost to them but which would have high value to me. That’s how I got things to work and to find not simply a fixed rate that worked, but a pricing and negotiation strategy that would lead to good outcomes for both me and my clients where we were both satisfied with the value we were getting out of it.

In effect, it’s a good demonstration of the market determining worth. I really didn’t know the worth apriori. My clients really didn’t know the worth apriori either. My clients had a budget, and I had a target. Pricing was ultimately a product of those two factors and the skill in negotiation and delivery. Had I only spoken with clients who had lower budgets, the pricing would have worked out differently, or wouldn’t have worked at all. So, there is no absolute value of something. Value in a transaction really comes down to the combination of buyer and seller circumstances and their capacity to reach agreement.

There is no such thing as overcharging unless you’re charging people for something you don’t deliver. The market decides what something is worth. Nobody is forced to pay you more than they’re willing to pay you. Also, charge less and people will often perceive your work as being of lower value.

When I started doing private consulting I would pitch my rate at roughly 35× what my salary would have converted to on an hourly basis, and depending on the engagement would be open to negotiating down to 15× while seeking added values like referrals and access to benefits clients could offer at zero extra cost to them but which were high value to me. Nobody was ever forced to pay me more than they were willing, I worked hard to deliver, and clients felt good about what they got and would refer me to others.

Just remember, if you’re honest and upfront about what you’re charging and what you’ll deliver, there is no such thing as overcharging. There’s only pricing yourself out of the market or leaving money on the table, and it’s much better to start high while being willing to move down.

I am not really surprised, but that is still hilarious.

Wow, can you point to one place where I said there’s no foreign interference?

I feel like I’m interacting with someone who read about medical benefits of some health technique from a credible source and now believes every huckstery health influencer trying to sell a product on top of the narrative.

That’s basically what a think tank like this is.

Yes. Credibility matters. New information being introduced by a source that has credibility issues should be seriously questioned.

Okay, so now you’re just repeating “I don’t care about questionable credibility because they’re confirming something I care about.”

This interaction was basically: Me: “This source has credibility issues.” You: “But, they’re confirming something I care about, so we don’t talk about credibility issues.”

This think tank even had their own Chair and deputy CEO forced to resign after it becoming known they were engaged in politics with one of their domestic parties while supposedly publishing “unbiased” analysis on the topic, and those two then went to join the campaign.

They’re funded by the US, have history of issues with bias, this is a well-known model for generating propaganda, and their backers have specific geopolitical interests in advancing narratives to generate fear on this topic.

Sure, sure, let’s all take this research about the US’s greatest geopolitical rival from this US State Department-funded think tank without any grains of salt. That couldn’t possibly be a document motivated by the interests of their funders. That’s just not how think tanks work, right?

The article isn’t about the TFW program. It’s a problem for people who are PRs and even those who get citizenship. It’s people coming in with advanced skills who get stuck at the bottom of the pile despite having jumped through all the hoops to be here long-term.

It’s not just about professional qualification recognition either. It’s fundamentally about nativism. Canadian employers just don’t give any credit to foreign experience, even in idiotic circumstances where someone is coming from a situation with higher responsibility in a scenario with higher standards. Then, Canadians will complain about rich foreigners driving up housing prices in big cities when Canadians are responsible for a scenario in which it only makes sense to come to Canada if you’ve already made your money and can afford to just buy a home and enjoy a chill lifestyle where you don’t contribute through work.

I wouldn’t know anything about that 😏