I would go so far as to say that people like him make it a lot harder for people with more nuanced critiques to enter the fray, because they pile so much baggage onto an already charged conversation.
Incidentally, it's a great way to dominate the conversation.
But if it's rather the issue of land acknowledgements in general you're concerned about, that's a fair conversation to have. I just wouldn't have that conversation adjacent to someone like Gunn because they don't seem to want to engage in any form of nuanced discussion.
Gunn was talking about Federal government land acknowledgements, so I'm not sure it's relevant what one MLA says.
This is someone clearly making a bad faith claim to silence a conversation he doesn't want to have, and I think their reply was pretty apt.
Ppl saying "use AI to get your PhD don't understand higher learning.
And I dont mean philosophically, they don't get the mechanics of it.
To get a PhD, you need to contribute *new* research and demonstrate *original thought*.
So maybe AI does your lit review. Congrats.
There's room to critique or nuance land acknowledgements as performative etc, but people like Gunn are intentionally misconstruing these gestures as a threat in order to silence them and promote erasure. You can tell him to "chillax" or get some perspective without undermining the symbolic value
I think you're missing the point. It's not really about caring vs not caring, but about perspective.
What they're saying is "These are basic and unthreatening statements whose sole purpose is to prevent the erasure of our history. You're acting like they threaten you and they don't, so relax"
Ok smart guy but what it it still FEELS like they're shutting down our oil and gas industry? Ever think of that?
Russia is the main beneficiary and it's no even close.
Negative. The "while" instantly signals to the reader that you're acknowledging something then justifying a perceived flaw or contradiction etc, whereas the mid-sentence "but" is a bit more jarring/dismissive and less effective rhetorically
Serious question: is there data on the trend of paying private companies with public money to do public work? Gut tells me that's at a record high, not just a 30 year high, and everything takes longer to build with garbage results.
He just doesn't care about the Republican Party as an institution. He knows he's term limited and likely only has 5-10 years to live max, and wants to cater to all his base instincts while he'sin power. Doesn't give a shit that he's salting the earth for everyone else.
They're def being dragged... by the overpowering weight of their collective stupidity, racism, gullibility, and greed.
She doesn't "have to manage" them...she's a zealot just like them. The people she's really managing are the more moderate conservatives who need cover to vote for her extremist party.
Now if they had to play under 80s/90s refereeing it might be another story lol.
There's so many layers to this.
But fundamentally the game is played way faster now, with more control and finesse. All the top forwards play with that Federov/Bure footwork, explosiveness, quick release etc. Not to say they're more talented or better hockey IQ, better training.
Wheredis?
If there's one thing you can count on the Canadian pundit class for, it's giving extremist griffers a pass while chiding everyone else for their lack of maturity/realism/perspective/connaissance.
So this is basically an income transfer from those in need of aid to the children of the wealthy
We were even arguably the first to throw an ally right under the bus when DOFO got out there and said he agreed with DJT that Mexico wad a Chinese proxy in autos and wanted a bilateral deal with US.
Carney isn't to blame for all of this but he has done little in material terms to shift the tone.
I think what undercuts Carney's words is that Canada may well have initiated the politics of capitulation that Starmer now embodies.
PMJT flying right to Mara Lago, DOFO pathetic pleas for a "fortress CanAm", Carney's flatery at the White House+ canceling the DST (apparently a leverage point) etc.
Not an LPC partisan but the CPC basically took credit for Liberal baking regulations THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO ABOLOSH, the BoC aggressive rate cuts, and the sheer luck of our IT sector having already undergone heavy stress testing from 2002-2004.
Both Harper and Trudeau delivered (and whiffed) on major policy priorities. But their management of the public service was a collective failure. They both succumbed to the temptation to exercise too much control for political reasons; thereby preventing an efficient, modern, and agile bureaucracy
DRAP was better organized and less rushed than CER, but the politicization of PS scientific research and the lasting austerity measures can't be discounted...not to mention the pay system boondoggle.
Overall, though, successive governments have failed to meaningfully modernize the PS.
Don't tell me how to act james
For Lung Cancer Patients, Shame Is a Deadly Side Effect
The disease is the rare cancer met with accusations, not sympathy, by Simar Bajaj www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/w... via @nytimes.com
Holy shit
Has there ever been such a useless PBO in the history of the office?
Seems like his whole MO was to gin up controversy through negligence and shitty comms
There have been a number of pieces challenging this Minister over small potatoes things and it really makes you fuckin wonder what the aim is. We could rationalize it by saying its just to drive clicks but I highly doubt that's all there is to it.
Even in a perfectly democratic society, being critical of your government and staying engaged would be the only way to stop it from being recaptured by special interests.
Cities are the place to start: 80% of Canadians live in an urban place; too many are mired in car centric planning policy, afraid to take the bold step forward to make better #PlacesForPeople; the time is now. Lead, develop policy, initiate change and watch magic unfold.
