Vancouver is quite expensive, I'll be honest. If you are okay with a commute, you can live in surrey, Langley, or even abbotsford/chilliwack. Long commute to Vancouver, but anywhere from 10-30+% cheaper rent last I checked.

Canada should be seen as a time-delayed America in a cultural+political sense. A thing that happens in america will generally occur in a similar manner 1-10 years later here. Our Liberal and NDP (Progressive) parties continually move further to the right at differing paces, and all of our parties & leaders have major issues (in differing amounts):

Trudeau (LPC) is a proven corrupt man who has abandoned the working class more every time he shuts down a major strike (every major strike).

Poilievre (CPC) is a less charismatic, cryptofascistic version of trump, and is very likely to win the next national elsction. This could be any time between tomorrow and Oct 20, 2025 and could be catastrophic for Canadians.

Singh (NDP) is a very lovely man, but has a tendency to make decisions that give his party less bargaining power (See: canceling supply and trade agreement without trying to use it as a threat first)

Paradox of intolerance to some extent. Residential school denialism in politics and media is still negatively impacting public perception of indigenous people.

It is possible I misunderstood, who knows

I think they were talking about electoral votes lol

Sorry are we supposed to be working on the assumption that there is some broad support for the mass revolt of the working class or something?

Protest, rally, petition, write, learn, educate, participate, vote. Doing only one is not doing enough.

No-one directly suggested this was intended for a company deployment. If people want to break TOS in the privacy of their own homes then that's up to them.

Edit: I'm dumb, didn't see this was c/sysadmin

I dress like this in the summer as a nonbinary person

I just want to clarify, is this calling OP a tankie? (And if so, what am I missing)

For once I have nothing to say except:

I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them.

From my reading, all the people doing blocking that I've seen were against my opinion and against the meme and were more inline with the centrist position. I would be happy to have evidence otherwise though

I still think it's easier than you would suggest. If you're willing, please bear with me as I have a lot to say in response (as you can see)

How about this sentence: "Chinese tourists are loud, obnoxious, have no respect for the places they visit, and are harming our city."

If they (the person in the example) think it's inherent to all Chinese tourists, then yes. It's racist. That easy. In this particular scenario, saing "the're harming our city" is particularly something i would investigate. Now you might ask "well how do you determine if the person thinks it's inherent?" And well... you can't. Not really. But if I respond to the person with "well, there might be things influencing youe experience. Not every Chinese tourist is rude, in fact a lot of tourists are rude worldwide", they can either respond by reflecting on the opinion and realize over a larger disussion that maybe it's just rich tourists in general that are rude, and the Chinese tourists that they've met have seemed somewhat wealthier... or they say "no, they're all rude it's just their culture." The latter response of course being a refusal to engage with the discussion. You can continue trying to convince them if it's a friend or family or you're just really persistent, but at a certain point... Some people will not change their mind in 1, 2, 5, 10, or even 100 discussions on the topic and it's better to say "I understand your experience, but you are factually wrong, and we won't consider your opinion for lawmaking and social outcomes"

Another example: "Whenever I read a story about an elderly Asian being attacked in my city, it's always by a black man."

Still pretty easy, I might ask for clarification if I heard that, but given the wording you've provided, it doesnt set off any dogwhistle alarms in my head. "Whenever I see a natural disaster in Florida on the news, it's always a hurricane" is a lot different that "Hurricanes only hit Florida" or "Florida only gets hit by hurricanes"

"Never engage" sounds nice but in practice that philosophy tends to lead to ever-narrower echo chambers.

If I gave you the impression that I was advocating for "never engage" I'm sorry but that's not my position, and it's seemingly not the position of many of the other people in the thread. No one reasonable is saying to exile people for disagreeing on a retirement funding policy, or whether it's better to put your child in sciences or arts, etc.etc. What is being said per the tolerance paradox is that intolerance should not be tolerated and the people that try to compromise between "everyone should have the same rights" and "I want to ban/hurt/endanger this group" or "this group's mere existence endangers our own" should go with them.

Because anyone who argues for something being not racist is seen as a suspected racist.

🧐

This kind of absolutism is why Leftism always descends into a circular firing squad imo.

I'm feel as thought most people in the thread have been rather nuanced. If nothing else, I feel I have been. The only "absolutist" thing being said is "bigotry shouldn't be tolerated". Do you mind providing an example of this that doesn't just point at the intolerance paradox?

Easy. Something is racist if it essentializes characteristics of a person or group, based on their skin colour or ethnic group; or if it makes derogatory assumptions about a cultural item/act/thing.

• "Jews are greedy" = Racist statement

• "Immigrants are violent" = Racist statement

• "Asians are better at math" = Racist statement

• "White people don't season their food" = I don't give a fuck personally (am white) but yes there is some level of racism in the statement

• "Dreadlocks are dirty" = racist statement

• "Israel is an genocidal state" = not a racist statement

• "People native to Tibet, the Andese, and the Ethiopian highlands are better adapted to high altitudes" = not a racist statement

• "white people have historically been more responsible for subjugating other races" = not a racist statement

Some things are worse than others, but the point isn't to just shun anyone who says something bigoted. It's to shun anyone who is bigoted and truly believes that they are correct so they won't engage with arguments that they are presented. Or to shun centrists who argue for "finding a middle ground" between the bigoted position and the correct one.

I fell down the alt-right pipeline in highschool, and now I'm a nonbinary leftist landing somewhere between social democracy and anarcho-communism. I of all people have to believe in not just sending bigoted people to the gulag... But the trick is that no matter what, democratic platforms shouldn't be given to those ideals. You shouldn't be able to run on a platform of blocking trans healthcare, deporting a made up number of ""illegal immigrants"" (undocumented migrants), or fucking "being a dictator on day one". And defending those acts also should be heavily looked down upon.

I was recently reminded about the caveats that Germany has on the "no Nazi parties" rule. It's truly insane that it's essentially (this is hyperbole, but less than you'd think) "you can ban a party from running if they're Nazis... As long as they call themselves Nazis, and they've won an election, and the leader is called Hitler, and the leader went to art school. All other parties must be allowed to run"

Thank you!

Sorry, tone doesn't come across well. I can't tell if you're trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.

To everyone pearl clutching in response to this correct meme with one of the following phrases:

• "That's how you create an echo chamber"

• "paradox of intolerance doesn't say how to fight fascism"

• "This is about silencing opposing thought"

I would like to take this moment to remind you that the paradox of intolerance isn't about exiling those who disagree on economic policy; it's about recognizing and directly opposing those who are trying to harm or disadvantage others and doing so in a meaningful way that will actually change the outcome. You can't debate Hitler out of doing a genocide, but you could have jailed him before he gained power.

Being too spineless to call out and fight intolerance enables fascism. The longer you live wrapped up in your civility politics, the overton window shifts further right, and it strengthens the fascist support. It happened in pre-WW2 Germany, and it's being repeated in dozens of countries worldwide. If you feel the urge to block me, go ahead...

...but know that this is your fault

Edit: spelling

Sorry, i dont want to be rude, but do you actually have any arguments other than gesturing at the article & giving both-sides-isms?

Hamas has committed war crimes, yes, however it shouldn't be ignored that Israel is currently engaged in terrorism, genocide, land grabs, torture of prisoners and more. Simply saying "both sides bad" lays the blame more evenly than it should be laid.

The article also mentions that Israel has started using it in their own propaganda videos. showing the triangle over targets as they're hit, and when you flip it like that there's a very clear implication of destroying the symbol of freedom... Which is to say, I still fail to see your ultimate point. You're just pointing at the news article and saying "SEE! THEY SAY ITS BAD!"

Could you provide some actual argumentation to go with that?

And just so it doesnt seem like I'm running, "Targeting reticle" would imply a weapon optic or similar, hence my confusion. "using it to mark targets" would have been clearer.

Asking you what you mean by calling the triangle a "targeting reticle" absolutely does not mean I don't know the topic at hand, its me asking you to clarify your argumentation.

What is this even in reference to? Do you care to elaborate on the propaganda you're trying to spew, or are you just expecting me to know the same talking points as you?