I guess today is the day

[Stasher]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

[Metalcat]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

HAHAHAHAHA

[RetiredAt63]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

HAHAHAHAHA

THE BURN!!!!!

[Canadian Helmet]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

That's the winner.

[Canadian Helmet]

This is a complex topic, but we need to figure out how to access their empathy in their voting activity.

I don't think it's a lack of empathy.  Or at least, not on the part of young men.  There have been several relatively recent movements that became popular on the left that have driven young men away.  In no particular order:

- The discussion around rape, sexual assault, and abuse of women is often very accusatory.  I've been told multiple times both that any male is an abuser of women, and also that any man needs to take responsibility for the abuse other men perpetrate.  I get where this sentiment is coming from, but it drives men away from the left.
- A similar issue involves discussion of sexual orientation, racism, and gender.  The language used to discuss these issues tends to be immediately blamey of men.
- There seems to be little positive reinforcement or message of positivity around masculinity in left wing groups/circles.
- Areas where the stats clearly indicate that young men are being left behind (like in education, where women are significantly outpacing their male counterparts) don't seem to garner much interest or motivation to change things.  Back when women were scoring lower, the left was very interested in figuring out why and putting in place policies to help them.
- There's also always been a bit of an anti-establishment push that comes from young men - a need to rebel.  As gay marriage, gender changing, women's rights, and anti-racism become more normalized and status quo they become targets for this rebellion.  The rebellion is enhanced and driven by how things are getting shittier for the younger generations rather than better - transfer of wealth away from the young to the older seems to have been accelerated in recent years.  It's harder to get ahead for younger people.  It's harder to buy a house.  It's harder to pay for education.
- There's certainly a radicalizing aspect to the algorithmic targeting that social media uses, which is more likely to connect young men with the Andrew Tates out there.
- The left has few traditional male role models, and doesn't seem to celebrate the ones that they have in the way that the right does.  (For example, Obama is celebrated for being black - but not for his masculinity.)

Also the federal government and university job postings regularly state that white, cisgendered men will not be considered.

The answer to discrimination is not more discrimination.   It's no wonder there's pushback against DEI and "wokism".

Could you post a link to one of these common job postings that you're talking about?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-toronto-principal-bullied-over-false-charge-of-racism-dies-from-suicide

Not a job posting but a Toronto principal was bullied out of his job for arguing against eliminating merit based schools in Toronto.  He was called racist for arguing for merit.  Lost his job.  Committed Suicide.

Another article about him... I don't know if this is a far right website... I seem to be a bad barometer for that.
https://quillette.com/2024/07/13/when-anti-racism-training-becomes-vexatious-abuse/

[Canadian Helmet]

Watching Mark Carney meeting Donald Trump makes me wish PP was the PM.  He bumbled that one.

[scottish]

Watching Mark Carney meeting Donald Trump makes me wish PP was the PM.  He bumbled that one.

What do you think should have happened?

[Canadian Helmet]

Watching Mark Carney meeting Donald Trump makes me wish PP was the PM.  He bumbled that one.

What do you think should have happened?

I think he should have interrupted Trump.

[Prairie Gal]

Watching Mark Carney meeting Donald Trump makes me wish PP was the PM.  He bumbled that one.

What do you think should have happened?

That wasn't my take on it. At all. He was barely allowed to get a word in edgewise, but when he did he clearly stated that Canada was not for sale. He held his cool and didn't get into a shouting match. He did better than I would have. Don't forget that this was only the press conference portion of the meeting.

PP would have gone in there and sucked up big time and handed over the keys to the country.

[Canadian Helmet]

Watching Mark Carney meeting Donald Trump makes me wish PP was the PM.  He bumbled that one.

What do you think should have happened?

That wasn't my take on it. At all. He was barely allowed to get a word in edgewise, but when he did he clearly stated that Canada was not for sale. He held his cool and didn't get into a shouting match. He did better than I would have. Don't forget that this was only the press conference portion of the meeting.

PP would have gone in there and sucked up big time and handed over the keys to the country.

I just think MC looked very meek in what I saw.  I thought the same thing about the leaders debate though as well.  I thought MC said he was going to stand up to Trump and call him out on stuff.
Trump was trashing Freeland and I'm pretty sure Freeland and Carny are pretty tight.  MC said nothing in response.

[rocketpj]

In the last year or so I have learned to analyze the bot behaviour on social media to see what the go-to talking points of various political persuasions were going to be.

Most of the videos on tiktok that relate to the meeting between Trump and Carney are swamped with various bots saying variations of 'Carney was weak in the face of Trump, we should have had Polievre to stand up for Canada, Carney was a pushover etc.'  This has been happening all day (since the meeting). 

When I actually watched the meeting I thought Carney held his ground and had the presence of mind not to rise to the various baits and provocations that Trump threw out there.  As satisfying as it would have been for me personally to watch Carney tell Trump off and have a big shouting match, that is not his job.  His job is to interact with Trump in a way that will get what we want and not cause Trump to have a tantrum.  Since Trump has no notion of consequences, nor does he care about second order effects, Carney had to balance standing up for Canada, retaining his (and our) dignity, and making his points.  Against a tide of stupidity and nonsense, I thought he did it very well.  I also think Polievre would have either buckled quickly or overplayed his 'standing up to Trump' act and caused an incident.   

What fun to come into this forum and find somebody parroting the same perspective as the bots in this discussion, almost verbatim.

[rocketpj]

I just think MC looked very meek in what I saw.  I thought the same thing about the leaders debate though as well.  I thought MC said he was going to stand up to Trump and call him out on stuff.
Trump was trashing Freeland and I'm pretty sure Freeland and Carny are pretty tight.  MC said nothing in response.

Carney (and Freeland) know that the job is not to beat their chests, it isn't a playground scrap or a barfight.  Their job is to represent Canada in the face of an immensely powerful moron.  Knowing when to pick your battles is essential.  Freeland has said that Trump's animus to her is a badge of honor, and I suspect Carney feels the same.  If Carney engaged with that it would have given Trump the opportunity to double down on his trash talking, and changed the topic from productive to (more) performative.

Just as Zelensky clearly sees his job as doing whatever he has to do, putting up with whatever he has to, in order to get support for his country, I think Carney and most other world leaders are all developing a master class in engaging with Trump.

[scottish]

I just think MC looked very meek in what I saw.  I thought the same thing about the leaders debate though as well.  I thought MC said he was going to stand up to Trump and call him out on stuff.
Trump was trashing Freeland and I'm pretty sure Freeland and Carny are pretty tight.  MC said nothing in response.

Carney (and Freeland) know that the job is not to beat their chests, it isn't a playground scrap or a barfight.  Their job is to represent Canada in the face of an immensely powerful moron.  Knowing when to pick your battles is essential.  Freeland has said that Trump's animus to her is a badge of honor, and I suspect Carney feels the same.  If Carney engaged with that it would have given Trump the opportunity to double down on his trash talking, and changed the topic from productive to (more) performative.

Just as Zelensky clearly sees his job as doing whatever he has to do, putting up with whatever he has to, in order to get support for his country, I think Carney and most other world leaders are all developing a master class in engaging with Trump.

That's pretty much my take as well.    Certain politicians (Trump, Poilievre, Danielle Smith) have been promoting negotiations by name calling and generally abusing the other side of the table.    It's a very dysfunctional way to try to reach an agreement.

[RetiredAt63]

I've seen other discussions that pointed out that Carney managed to not antagonize Trump while not backing down.  Lots of situations where Trump heard what he wanted to hear.   

Carney went to trump because it would be awkward to point out we don't normally let people with 34 felony convictions across the border.  So Trump is happy Carney went to him, we are happy not to have a diplomatic incident.

Our increased military spending sounds good to Trump because he was pushing more Nato spending.  What Canadians realize is that we are spending more because we have an increased military threat - next door.

[Shinplaster]

Carney is a diplomat.  He is trained to keep his cool under adverse conditions, because the person yelling and/or arguing is the person losing.  If you paid close attention, you could read his face and what his thoughts were.   Him calling Trump's presidency "transformative" was a very subtle dig that went over Trump's head.   "Transformative" as in shit show.    Calling his own term also transformative was the message that things are going to change big time re: our relationship with the U.S.   Of course Trump thinks it was a compliment - it was not.

Also at one point he almost rolled his eyes, and stopped himself and did a half roll.  In diplomatic circles that's the equivalent of a southerner's "bless his heart", or in this case, "what a clown."

He did fine.   The real negotiations are behind closed doors.  This was just performative nonsense that feeds Trump's ego, and he knew that.   Everyone who understands how negotiations work knows that.    Save your powder for the real fight.

[Chaplin]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

Dang! When I ran the Vancouver marathon the sign that hurt the most was "laugh if you pee'd a little," followed by "worst parade ever" and, at the 2km mark, "only 40km to go."

[erp]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

Dang! When I ran the Vancouver marathon the sign that hurt the most was "laugh if you pee'd a little," followed by "worst parade ever" and, at the 2km mark, "only 40km to go."

Somewhere around 32 km I saw "this seems like a lot of work for a free banana" years ago, and it broke me. I still think it's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

[Canadian Helmet]

In the last year or so I have learned to analyze the bot behaviour on social media to see what the go-to talking points of various political persuasions were going to be.

Most of the videos on tiktok that relate to the meeting between Trump and Carney are swamped with various bots saying variations of 'Carney was weak in the face of Trump, we should have had Polievre to stand up for Canada, Carney was a pushover etc.'  This has been happening all day (since the meeting). 

When I actually watched the meeting I thought Carney held his ground and had the presence of mind not to rise to the various baits and provocations that Trump threw out there.  As satisfying as it would have been for me personally to watch Carney tell Trump off and have a big shouting match, that is not his job.  His job is to interact with Trump in a way that will get what we want and not cause Trump to have a tantrum.  Since Trump has no notion of consequences, nor does he care about second order effects, Carney had to balance standing up for Canada, retaining his (and our) dignity, and making his points.  Against a tide of stupidity and nonsense, I thought he did it very well.  I also think Polievre would have either buckled quickly or overplayed his 'standing up to Trump' act and caused an incident.   

What fun to come into this forum and find somebody parroting the same perspective as the bots in this discussion, almost verbatim.

I don't read comments or anything like that... This forum is my only source of social media.  I try my best to see the propaganda on both sides.

I thought "Elbows Up"  might mean more than just reducing the number of words from the typical three word slogan.

[Canadian Helmet]

It was the Vancouver BMO Marathon this weekend and this guy wins the race for me and he wasn't even running.
If you know you know lol

Dang! When I ran the Vancouver marathon the sign that hurt the most was "laugh if you pee'd a little," followed by "worst parade ever" and, at the 2km mark, "only 40km to go."

The signs were great in Ottawa.. I had a good laugh every couple of minutes.  I saw a few "worst parade ever".  I should take a camera with me next time.

[Canadian Helmet]

Stasher and erp... Are you guys still running much?  I am not doing a marathon this year and I miss the training for it.  I am planning on doing a back yard ultra this year but because there is no set date my training schedule is non-existent and I am currently not running enough at the moment to make this happen.

[scottish]

In the last year or so I have learned to analyze the bot behaviour on social media to see what the go-to talking points of various political persuasions were going to be.

Most of the videos on tiktok that relate to the meeting between Trump and Carney are swamped with various bots saying variations of 'Carney was weak in the face of Trump, we should have had Polievre to stand up for Canada, Carney was a pushover etc.'  This has been happening all day (since the meeting). 

When I actually watched the meeting I thought Carney held his ground and had the presence of mind not to rise to the various baits and provocations that Trump threw out there.  As satisfying as it would have been for me personally to watch Carney tell Trump off and have a big shouting match, that is not his job.  His job is to interact with Trump in a way that will get what we want and not cause Trump to have a tantrum.  Since Trump has no notion of consequences, nor does he care about second order effects, Carney had to balance standing up for Canada, retaining his (and our) dignity, and making his points.  Against a tide of stupidity and nonsense, I thought he did it very well.  I also think Polievre would have either buckled quickly or overplayed his 'standing up to Trump' act and caused an incident.   

What fun to come into this forum and find somebody parroting the same perspective as the bots in this discussion, almost verbatim.

I don't read comments or anything like that... This forum is my only source of social media.  I try my best to see the propaganda on both sides.

I thought "Elbows Up"  might mean more than just reducing the number of words from the typical three word slogan.

"elbows up" started on an SNL skit didn't it?

[RetiredAt63]

In the last year or so I have learned to analyze the bot behaviour on social media to see what the go-to talking points of various political persuasions were going to be.

Most of the videos on tiktok that relate to the meeting between Trump and Carney are swamped with various bots saying variations of 'Carney was weak in the face of Trump, we should have had Polievre to stand up for Canada, Carney was a pushover etc.'  This has been happening all day (since the meeting). 

When I actually watched the meeting I thought Carney held his ground and had the presence of mind not to rise to the various baits and provocations that Trump threw out there.  As satisfying as it would have been for me personally to watch Carney tell Trump off and have a big shouting match, that is not his job.  His job is to interact with Trump in a way that will get what we want and not cause Trump to have a tantrum.  Since Trump has no notion of consequences, nor does he care about second order effects, Carney had to balance standing up for Canada, retaining his (and our) dignity, and making his points.  Against a tide of stupidity and nonsense, I thought he did it very well.  I also think Polievre would have either buckled quickly or overplayed his 'standing up to Trump' act and caused an incident.   

What fun to come into this forum and find somebody parroting the same perspective as the bots in this discussion, almost verbatim.

I don't read comments or anything like that... This forum is my only source of social media.  I try my best to see the propaganda on both sides.

I thought "Elbows Up"  might mean more than just reducing the number of words from the typical three word slogan.

"elbows up" started on an SNL skit didn't it?

Well it started with Gordie Howe, all those years ago.  Mike Myers brought it the political meaning on an SNL skit.  Elbows up is mild, gloves off and over the boards and empty the bench means things got serious. You know the old joke, I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. 

[Canadian Helmet]

This is a complex topic, but we need to figure out how to access their empathy in their voting activity.

I don't think it's a lack of empathy.  Or at least, not on the part of young men.  There have been several relatively recent movements that became popular on the left that have driven young men away.  In no particular order:

- The discussion around rape, sexual assault, and abuse of women is often very accusatory.  I've been told multiple times both that any male is an abuser of women, and also that any man needs to take responsibility for the abuse other men perpetrate.  I get where this sentiment is coming from, but it drives men away from the left.
- A similar issue involves discussion of sexual orientation, racism, and gender.  The language used to discuss these issues tends to be immediately blamey of men.
- There seems to be little positive reinforcement or message of positivity around masculinity in left wing groups/circles.
- Areas where the stats clearly indicate that young men are being left behind (like in education, where women are significantly outpacing their male counterparts) don't seem to garner much interest or motivation to change things.  Back when women were scoring lower, the left was very interested in figuring out why and putting in place policies to help them.
- There's also always been a bit of an anti-establishment push that comes from young men - a need to rebel.  As gay marriage, gender changing, women's rights, and anti-racism become more normalized and status quo they become targets for this rebellion.  The rebellion is enhanced and driven by how things are getting shittier for the younger generations rather than better - transfer of wealth away from the young to the older seems to have been accelerated in recent years.  It's harder to get ahead for younger people.  It's harder to buy a house.  It's harder to pay for education.
- There's certainly a radicalizing aspect to the algorithmic targeting that social media uses, which is more likely to connect young men with the Andrew Tates out there.
- The left has few traditional male role models, and doesn't seem to celebrate the ones that they have in the way that the right does.  (For example, Obama is celebrated for being black - but not for his masculinity.)

I saw this and then thought of this is a simplified explanation of why younger men are now conservative.  It's happened to me as well as many people I know who like to discuss interesting topics.

[rocketpj]

I saw this and then thought of this is a simplified explanation of why younger men are now conservative.  It's happened to me as well as many people I know who like to discuss interesting topics.

There is a good point to be found in there.  I see it in my sons, among others.  I don't think progressives are actually accomplishing much by siezing the moral high ground and condemning anyone who isn't up there with them - and banishing anyone who is slightly less absolute. 

I disagree with many things that many conservatives say, almost all the time.  But I do think that reasonable discussion and exploration of ideas has to be the way we move forward.  That means sometimes accepting people expressing things we disagree with, even profoundly.  That doesn't mean we have to accept what they say as truth, we just have to accept that people will say and believe things differently from ourselves.  And we might not be right.

Unfortunately the extremes at left and right have a coda to that, where the slightest deviation from 'THE TRUTH' is evidence of moral failure and grounds for shaming.  This is amplified to extremes on social media.  Witness any 'progressive' commentator who expresses any notion of complexity when discussing the topic of trans and sports*, and is thereby labelled a transphobe and wildly shamed.  Conversely, witness the same dynamic if a 'right wing' commentator dares to say something positive about Joe Biden, or Justin Trudeau, or express some support for the participation of trans people in elite sports.  Outrage, shaming and social exile.

If we are ever going to succeed at having functional democratic discourse that means starting with a tolerance for different viewpoints and an acceptance that sometimes we might be wrong.


*My personal opinion is that it is unfathomably complex and hard to have a solid opinion on how/if trans women participate in sports as a general concept because the issues are fundamentally individualized.  It is also my opinion that the very fact it is a 'controversial issue' is due to a well organized campaign for explicitly political purposes, and the issue has been wildly blown out of proportion at the expense of real vulnerable people.