I won’t tolerate casual Trumpism in my personal or political cohort anymore. Derek Sloan should not be in the Conservative caucus and certainly shouldn’t have been allowed to run for the leadership.
Sorry can you please explain what was so offensive to you about Sloan that you would say he should never have been allowed to run for leadership, really?? That sounds like cancellation my friend. He is the only conservative with any courage to tell it like it is, especially on issues of gender ideology shoved down children’s throats and immigration. He still has my vote as a real conservative.
He mischaracterizes what constitutes an extreme position. He larps as some sort of moderate, but in reality, he by default sides with the extreme on the other side. Projection is confession.
I would add to Ken Boessenkool's thoughtful essay the reality that, around the world and here in Canada, "Trump" Conservatives and conservatives are mostly antagonistic towards and resistant to facts, reality, evidence, and best practices. Most, it seems, too, are also highly susceptible to conspiracy theories, falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation.
Indeed, invoking facts, to many of them, is considered provocation and personally insulting. This allows political and other 'leaders' and influencers to easily gull, con, and manipulate them and their emotions to gain political power and money. As the Capitol in Washington was being occupied and vandalized, for example, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley sent out a fund raising email to capitalize on the sedition.
The problem we face as a society is that about 25-30% of our fellow citizens suffer from this condition, and (thanks, in part, to Canada's electoral system) often have undue, damaging, and even deadly influence over public policy thereby harming other Canadians.
Both sides think they are right; both sides are complicit. The problem is that positions have become entrenched and extreme. How we get back to anything like civil discourse is beyond me. Perhaps forums like this are a good start.
I refer to the complicity that flows from stating, in public, "I am right and you are wrong, and I will not tolerate you", not a simple difference of opinion. You, of course, think you are right, or you would not think what you think; I, of course, think I am right, or I would not think what I think; KB, of course, thinks he is right, or he would not think what he thinks: the mischief occurs beyond the disagreement, and KB's article reflects the very attitude that has characterized discourse over the past few years. He is part of the problem, not the solution.
Sorry can you please explain what was so offensive to you about Sloan that you would say he should never have been allowed to run for leadership, really?? That sounds like cancellation my friend. He is the only conservative with any courage to tell it like it is, especially on issues of gender ideology shoved down children’s throats and immigration. He still has my vote as a real conservative.
He mischaracterizes what constitutes an extreme position. He larps as some sort of moderate, but in reality, he by default sides with the extreme on the other side. Projection is confession.
Bingo.
I refer here to the author of the piece, in case that isn't obvious.
I would add to Ken Boessenkool's thoughtful essay the reality that, around the world and here in Canada, "Trump" Conservatives and conservatives are mostly antagonistic towards and resistant to facts, reality, evidence, and best practices. Most, it seems, too, are also highly susceptible to conspiracy theories, falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation.
Indeed, invoking facts, to many of them, is considered provocation and personally insulting. This allows political and other 'leaders' and influencers to easily gull, con, and manipulate them and their emotions to gain political power and money. As the Capitol in Washington was being occupied and vandalized, for example, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley sent out a fund raising email to capitalize on the sedition.
The problem we face as a society is that about 25-30% of our fellow citizens suffer from this condition, and (thanks, in part, to Canada's electoral system) often have undue, damaging, and even deadly influence over public policy thereby harming other Canadians.
This is, of course, your prerogative. I'll expect no hand-wringing from you when tensions escalate; you are complicit in the division.
Both sides think they are right; both sides are complicit. The problem is that positions have become entrenched and extreme. How we get back to anything like civil discourse is beyond me. Perhaps forums like this are a good start.
I refer to the complicity that flows from stating, in public, "I am right and you are wrong, and I will not tolerate you", not a simple difference of opinion. You, of course, think you are right, or you would not think what you think; I, of course, think I am right, or I would not think what I think; KB, of course, thinks he is right, or he would not think what he thinks: the mischief occurs beyond the disagreement, and KB's article reflects the very attitude that has characterized discourse over the past few years. He is part of the problem, not the solution.