Still won’t be enough “proofs”.

In all seriousness, it is nice to see this process continue and I hope that more substantial action will be taken against India because of it.

We really need to stop collaborating with hostile nations.

Ironically, IBM also does a lot of business with the Israeli military.

Until proven otherwise assume every United States Corporation supports the Likud Government and their genocidal aspirations in one way or another, especially US Tech and Military Corporations.

This argument is tiring, and in support of these business’ by pretending like they are unavoidable. They aren’t.

What part of “I have no sympathy for these people” made you think I care about their excuses?

I have no sympathy for people who do business with these companies anymore. Drivers, stores, and customers who get fucked over the same way time and again by these companies deserve it at this point.

Every use, regardless of how you personally justify it, is an action in support of their practices. Every time you use their services, you support union busting. You support wage-slave labour practices. You support the production of waste by buying cheap and convenient products you don’t need. You are literally holding them up and allowing them to do what they do.

Amazon is not an essential service. One does not need an alternative to a non essential service. One simply doesn’t care about the harm done enough to put in any effort to avoid these companies.

This argument is tiring, and in support of these business’ by pretending like they are unavoidable. They aren’t.

Amazon is only a problem because Canadians make it one. You don’t have to use any of their services, and if you agree that what they are doing is wrong you need to immediately stop using all of their services.

Every use, regardless of how you personally justify it, is an action in support of their practices. Every time you use their services, you support union busting. You support wage-slave labour practices. You support the production of waste by buying cheap and convenient products you don’t need. You are literally holding them up and allowing them to do what they do.

Don’t be a part of the problem. If everyone said “We won’t do business with you because X” that business stops doing “X” because “Y” is the only way to make money now.

Good thing I never asked them eh?

I think that you mentioned that the application might be narrow, and they wanted to chime in on how it might personally have helped them.

That is how they took it regardless of how explicit I was with my language.

OK so I can definitely see why it would seem pointless or really narrow, but I think this would have actually been very helpful for me and people like me.

They responded to “… it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use…”, ignoring the rest of the sentence “While it has the potential to be a great therapy tool, it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use beyond that.”, in order to tell me I am wrong about it not having therapeutic uses by using their issues as supporting evidence.

Which is an argument, not an addition. There is also nothing wrong with arguing either, I was simply asking why they posed that argument to me.

Why are you arguing that it would be a good therapy tool with me when I stated that already?

While it has the potential to be a great therapy tool, it doesn’t seem like something that will have much use beyond that. It is a cool idea though.

I don’t consider society in such ways because what we are seeing now is not a natural state of being. The global population is under educated, and that is by design. No one is taught how to think critically when it matters and then they are thrown into a world of non sense. Made worse by modern communication tools because people don’t know how to process information and communicate.

It is not about learning to handle new tech responsibly. If we focused on educating our population social media wouldn’t be so damaging.

AI already exists and is being used as a tool to further extract what is left by the people claiming it will be a good thing for the masses. It is not being made in a way to benefit everyone, and it is being built by people who want money and power. No average person will have a better life because AI is running more things, but a select few will be ever richer.

Exactly like what happened when mass production became a thing.

No offense taken, apologies if I came off that way. I agree with you on how disengaged Canadians are politically, and it bothers me greatly.

Fair points. One thing I would like to point out is Arthur Meighen led under the Conservatives before they became the Progressive Conservative party in 1942, and the Progressive Conservative Party occupied the space that the modern Liberal party occupies so I personally place PC’s into the Liberal camp when I say “Liberal Precedents”.

I wish more people agreed on the system needing changing, and really committing to it. I would really like to see a complete overhaul from the Constitution up, but know there is zero chance of that happening while Canada is still Canada.

Fixed election dates are a weird one for me. I think redundancies to keep a system from being easily corrupted are good, but I also think that fixed election dates aren’t a good redundancy. It felt like something people would see as a good thing without having any real benefit. I agree we need to get money out of politics as well, but I do not see how that is possible when the primary reason a Government exists is to hoard resources which inevitably draws in people who want them.

If I am being honest with myself, I don’t actually believe Democracy works. Specifically at the scale it is being required to work, and the conditions it is being expected to work in. Globally we need some new ideas.

I understand how the system works which is why I disagree with it. I am also against FPTP, for Mandatory voting, and against the party system in general. Doesn’t mean that is “how the system works”, and that doesn’t mean I am an “Ignorant Canadian” for stating something is wrong when it is.

The fact of the matter is right now only members of the Liberal Party of Canada get to decide on who the next Prime Minister is without that person being required to run an election campaign. All you need is a Liberal membership, $350,000, and a few hundred Liberal signatures for the top job. Which is wrong.

Electoral reform means electoral reform, and unelected people allowed a chance at becoming the Prime Minister is one of the things we should reform. Especially when internal party leadership elections are one of the big targets for election interference.

Funny enough, the only precedents for a Prime Minister not winning an election are Liberals. I assume this is because Canadians would lose their collective minds if Conservatives pulled the same thing.

Feel free to read the rest of the thread.

I have already addressed this, and won’t repeat myself.

That is the thing that fear mongering against the Government always fails to address.

Yes, banning one thing out of ten that all do the same thing is wrong. Yes, we do not want to give the Government the ability to ban specific sites because history.

But banning or regulating algorithms, which are the actual problem, does not stop social media sites from existing. It just stops them from being able to manipulate massive groups of people by hiding/pushing the information the company wants one to see.

Unfortunately, the majority doesn’t see algorithmic social media as a bad thing because they really do like echo chambers, and politicians don’t ever seem to understand what a “root issue” is.

Sounds like you haven’t read a thing I said because this isn’t a problem with FPTP, this is a problem regardless of which system we use to choose MP’s.

Feel free to make a point addressing what I said without the upturned nose.

The only people voting for the next PM are members of the Liberal party of Canada. Which includes the MP’s, Citizens, and permanent residents registered with the party.

My local MP is not Liberal, and therefore doesn’t get a vote. I am not a Liberal, and therefore I don’t get a vote. If I had one, it wouldn’t be going to a Liberal.

But I don’t get to vote on the next PM because the next PM’s platform isn’t being tested against the other parties platforms in an election.

My point is if the PM steps down it should trigger an immediate election. The Prime Minister should not be chosen by a fraction of Canadians under any circumstance.

I would not be getting any resistance to this complaint, and minds would be lost, if Pierre Poilievre were PM and stepped down only to have Galen Weston jr. win the Conservative Leadership race and become PM.

My point, that I believe was quite clear, is that if Carney wins the Liberal leadership race he will be PM without having to have been elected running for the party as an MP. Which is wrong regardless of how the voting system is “supposed” to work.

Another public service on the brink of extinction because people do not understand that public services are not there to make a profit.