That all being said, it’s probably bad optics for Carney right now. It’s probably in his interest to delay this until after the election.

Absolutely. The Chinese ambassador pretty much said that too by saying that Carney’s current stance is a posture for election… Basically giving Carney room to flip the other way after the election without China holding a grudge. At least, that’s how I read it.

Yes, I absolutely think we should prioritize deals with the EU. I think this is the perfect time for it. I worry that it won’t be enough to make up for the US though and we’ll need other deals to make up the shortfall.

This really feels like a huge opportunity for Canada. But I don’t know enough on this to argue for making a deal with China - or against it. This is all just spit balling and I’m ready to be set straight!

I mean I know Carney has come out against China on a number of things, calling them a geopolitical and foreign interference threat. I think he also mentioned their human rights record in the past. Does that change if we increase or decrease trade with them? I genuinely don’t know. Can we exert more influence over China if we work with them? Can they do the same to us? The timing of this particular announcement is interesting. It seems like they find PP more desirable than Carney…

When you look at progress in tech, science and space, China really looks to have a lot of momentum and is poised to take over leadership in these areas. I would hate for Canada to be left in the dust because we hitched ourselves too tightly to a collapsing America.

Maybe we can make an automotive deal with China that helps our own industry? Diversifying away from the US seems interesting.

It would certainly piss off Trump if we made some big trade deals with China.

Not if it’s a Pixel 6 Pro!

There was a Biff question on Jeopardy yesterday (I think, I’m in a weird time zone), and my first thought was the response would be “what is Trum- er Biff! I mean Biff!”

Thanks for clarifying your view - I get where you’re coming from now. I’m not conflating society and government so much as recognizing that in most real-world societies, the line between the two isn’t always so clean. Governments often represent collective values, even imperfectly, and they’re the mechanism through which rights are codified and enforced.

You might believe in total free speech, but I’d argue that most societies - even the most liberal democracies - accept some limits to protect others’ rights or prevent harm. If speech truly had zero consequences beyond social disapproval, that could leave vulnerable groups exposed to abuse. So, societies have a right to draw those lines differently, based on their own values.

Anyways, since you can’t be civil (i.e. you’re a fucking asshole who can’t argue without ad hominem attacks), I’m done communicating with you.

Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You’re either an insane coward or a liar for that one

Perhaps I’m not in Canada right now. Maybe think outside your tiny little box and stop being a numb skull (see, I can insult you, too.)

Do you agree with any limits on free speech in a society?

I won’t give my opinion because I don’t want it to lead to me getting in any kind of trouble, if that makes you feel any better.

But in any case, my point is you can’t project your beliefs onto others.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying you can’t project your beliefs on others.

Sure, but freedom of speech should be protected from government prosecution or suppression…

Why? That’s not fundamental to a functioning society. Its not an inalienable right.

In Thailand, a monarchy, the monarchy is sacrosanct. Who are you to tell them that’s wrong?

…to the extent possible*…

…or to the extent that society/community desires… FTFY

Don’t get me wrong, in Canada, I think speech absolutely needs to be protected. But there are still limits to that. For example, hate speech should be prohibited.

Did you know “obscenity” is not protected by the first amendment in the US? What does that even mean? It really depends on how society views things. https://uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#%3A~%3Atext=Speech+about+sex+and+sexuality%2Cprotected+by+the+First+Amendment

In Thailand, they put limits on speech that include not insulting the monarchy. It really doesn’t seem that different. (And I won’t give you my opinion on it.)

Archive: https://archive.is/9ITeH

https://images.app.goo.gl/i28eWecvx3QWFS1L7

Is there a transcript?

I’m not condoning it, but he sees this his original actions as retaliation. Or purports to see this as retaliation. Sigh.

Edit for clarity

Get on your knees and beg, donny.

Lol, they’re calling you out!

We encourage you to explore this report and its accompanying research brief. However, because Russian entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks, we also encourage you to explore this helpful resource on Russia’s “firehose of falsehood” approach to propaganda and our research on “Truth Decay,” which is a phenomenon that is driven in part by the spread of disinformation.