This is Canada. So while the below excerpt may make it seem mild and OK by US standards, this is the type of thing that led to where the US is today.
Cowichan-Malahat-Langford MP Jeff Kibble, who hosted the town hall, said he wasn’t aware of the women being asked to leave at the time, and was “saddened” to hear about it. He said he’s been in contact with Koons and the other two women and agreed to meet with them for a coffee sometime this week to offer them the opportunity to discuss their concerns and points of view, and answer any questions they had hoped to ask at the town hall. Kibble said they are welcome to wear any T-shirt they want at the meeting.
She had presumably forgotten that conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Situations like this show how differently people interpret public spaces. Calm conversation and clear rules usually help more than escalation.
That shirt directly opposes the conservatives’ bedrock beliefs
Most full of shit people ever end up being totally full of shit. Big surprise.
Well from the conservative perspective, it does
They’d no longer have the “right” to discriminate at random
They’d no longer have the “right” to force their religion down everyone’s throat
They’d no longer have a the “right” to behave like a complete dick
I mean, they stand to lose a lot, y’know
This is it right here.
Though of course they don’t think this way.
Conservatives want to oppress. They believe everyone is equal until it interferes with their desire to oppress others. They would rather suffer themselves then lose the ability to be openly racist.
Conservatives want to oppress
I don’t think it’s that simple. I don’t think that most conservatives want to do that, per se, they don’t have the desire to oppress others.
But as far as I can remember from a YouTube series from some years ago, the conservative world view is a very hierarchical one in which everyone has their place. So to conserve the “natural order” some people (especially that pesky lower class, or the homeless, or those LGBT+ people, or women… Take your pick) need to be kept in check.
Oppression is a means to do that. It’s a tool, and it’s useful to get people in line, and to restore that kind of order gives a feeling of superiority and satisfaction in a “everything is back in its place” kind of way.
So yes, if that’s their mindset, I also agree that they truly believe that they’re having their rights taken away, i. e. their right to preserve the hierarchy.
Needless hierarchy is just an excuse to oppress.
Yeah, I guess that’s pretty much what I was trying to get across, thanks.
Is the video series you’re thinking of the Alt-Right Playbook, by Innuendo Studios? Because that was something that really helped me to understand how conservatives think — I hadn’t realised just how central “zero-sum thinking” is to their ideology
So it is that simple. You went on a word salad just to conclude that it is that simple.
That wouldn’t be my conclusion, no.
But, well, I may have “gone on a word salad”, if you say so. It made sense to me.
I don’t understand the aggressiveness, though.
I believe the series you are references is The Alt-Right Playbook series by Innuendo Studios. Fantastic series that i recommend everyone watch
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
That’s the one, thank you!
Conservatives: “actually it is pie and there’s none for you”
Leading inevitably to:
He said he’s been in contact with Koons and the other two women and agreed to meet with them for a coffee sometime this week to offer them the opportunity to discuss their concerns and points of view, and answer any questions they had hoped to ask at the town hall.
A nice little tea party where everyone can ignore her and whatever she has to say won’t be heard by conservative voters.
a town hall featuring federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre
That’s all you need to know. The man didn’t even get re-elected in his riding and had to accept a hand-out spot from his fellow party member who decided to step aside.
The “snowflake”, “facts over feelings”, and “anti-cancel culture” people don’t actually stand behind their beliefs?
Ugh, it’s honestly hard to pretend to be surprised anymore. Can we just change every headline about conservatives to say, “Giant pieces of shit are still shitty”?
It can do though, if one of the rights you enjoy is the right over other people’s bodies for example, then giving those people equal rights means you don’t have the right to tell them what to do anymore. Which is why many men are against giving women rights.
I mean, maybe my bar has been lowered to subterranean levels- but at least her local rep said she should have been allowed to stay and offered a private meeting so she could be heard.
RCMP said it was the event organizer, local guy said it was RCMP but it looks obvious to me this was Pollievre’s team that was acting shitty. True to form for that jackass.
I feel like there’s a serious problem barely hinted at by the article: That a “town hall” meeting was considered a private event. That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would it be private? If it is private, why would the police be on hand to work security?
But in fact is like pie as those keeping you from equal rights are benefiting because of it. If that unfair disadvantage is lifted from you, they lose their benefit and that’s why they can’t allow it.
There is a very real aspect of loss that these people will feel if their unfair advantage is taken away.
And…? I mean, water is still wet, right?
World will be better off the day every one of them experiences that loss.
Ackshually, water isn’t wet. Water makes things wet. 🤓
That implies that water can’t make water wet.
Because it can’t.
“Wet” is a transitive property; here’s why.
How do you tell if something is wet? You take something dry (not wet) and touch it to the supposedly wet thing. Is the dry thing now wet? If so, the thing you touched with it was also wet.
Now, apply that same logic to water. If I take a dry towel and touch water with it, the towel will be wet. Therefore, the thing I touched with the towel (the water) is also wet (but now slightly less wet because of the towel).
Wetness is a liquids ability to maintain contact with a solid object. Scientifically, water is not wet.
https://scienceinsights.org/why-isnt-water-wet-the-science-explained/
https://biologyinsights.com/is-water-scientifically-wet-the-science-explained/
Okay so despite agreeing with the message on the t-shirt, I am so fucking tired of all the media click-baitiness.
The article does not say whether this was a conservative woman who was “shocked” at being treated thusly (seriously? NOW you realize that your face is being eaten off, after all this time?) or an agitator (no judgement there but… are you really so “alarmed” then?), but it does say things like:
Kibble [the meeting organizer] said they are welcome to wear any T-shirt they want at the meeting. “I’m not sure who made the decision to ask them to leave, but the RCMP are in charge of risk assessment and I appreciate and thank them for leaving willingly,” Kibble said. “All people of all political beliefs and opinions were represented at the town hall and were welcome to participate in a healthy and respectful conversation. That’s what makes for a good democracy.”
Which aside from not being true (I seriously doubt that leftists were meant to feel “welcome” there), does not match the vibes that the article is trying to push in the title. And - no joke - the woman and the organizer are literally making plans to go for a coffee the following week, to engage in a more respectful dialogue.
Confirmation bias is a real thing, and I dislike how we make fun of it when conservatives do it, but ignore it when it is convenient. Why degrade ourselves to stoop to that level?
Its not clear. Reading the whole article, the RCMP points the finger at the event organizers for the removal of the women. That the organizers are allowed to determine who is permitted to attend.
The part you’re quoting is the local politician politicking a response for damage control purposes. Thats how I read it, anyway. Pierre Pollievre didn’t want them there, he is the Federal Opposition Party Leader, so they were removed.
The ladies can wear whatever T-Shirt they want to meet with the local MP.
PP threw them out because he is a bitch ass little weasel
There is the reading comprehension. You need to share!
Alright class, today we are combining our sixth grade english and social studies classes into a single lesson.
Read all the words in the article from start to end. /
Ask yourself: “does this actually make sense to me?” /
Don’t leave any comments that are emotionally motivated. (Hint: Righteousness is an emotion)
You’ll never take my smug satisfaction. Hell at least you understood the article
There is a lot of information missing. I am in no way saying that she deserved such treatment, but I agree that I’m not entirely sure what she expected either.
I’m assuming that the woman was neither conservative nor an agitator. Based on this statement she seems just like someone who went there in good faith potentially expecting open conversation.
“I’m an engaged community member and I often sit at (discussion) tables with people that have many points of view. I work hard to try to bridge the gaps and I have big worries these days about where we’re heading, particularly with what’s going on south of the border.”
I understand that there’s more civility north of the border. Regardless, that was a conservative meeting featuring Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Canadian conservative party who regularly kisses Trump’s ass.
People really, really need to learn that you cannot have open dialogue with conservatives. It doesn’t matter what country they’re from, how polite they might seem, or their position on the conservative scale, the agenda is ultimately the same. Spend your energy on meaningfully opposing them, rather than gratifying them with these impossible attempts at communication.
!leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world, or more apropos here, !leopardsatemyface@lemmy.ca.
I don’t really know how to say this without being a dick, but where is the reading comprehension!?
The meeting you’re referring to was the organizer offering to meet with her after she had been removed from the original function, and he said she may wear whatever shirt she likes.
Obviously she is not a conservative woman having her face eaten, the shirt itself should be enough evidence of that. Unless I’m way off the Canadian conservative base.
And you’re call out confirmation bias? It’s like you’re looking for a bad guy and can’t pick a target.
Again, I’m sorry, but we both read the article (allegedly), and I didn’t have any trouble understanding the situation. Woman wears LGBTQ friendly shirt to a town hall meeting. She is asked to leave. After leaving, probably a few days, she is in contact with the event organizer who is offering to meet her for coffee, in whatever shirt she likes, to discuss her concerns and address any questions she would have liked to raise at the previous meeting, the one she was removed from.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alarmed:
Worried; anxious; panicky
Moderate conservatives are just finding out about the paradox of intolerance now?
They’ve promoted unrestricted free speech for years. Then the most intolerant speeches got loud, and now the supporters of intolerance feel entitled enough to take over and restrict their freedom of speech. That’s text book!
