Using a one-sided narrative to counter a one-sided narrative comes off as disingenuous to me. Despite Marx's urging, the US turns out to be the place where a worker can strike with his union and own a gun.
softcat
joined 1 month ago
It feels like they turned an article about this weird rape game into a Netflix ad.
We've already seen it happen in Canada under Harper, there's no doubt that it could happen again.
The supreme court would ultimately strike it down, and I only see it as a ploy to bring in private prisons, but at the same time there's a genuine problem in this country with sentencing habitual, dangerous offenders. I can think of at least three women in my province murdered by people who just kept getting in and out of jail for violent crimes their whole lives. One was even on day leave from the prison, which seems like insanity.
The biggest, wealthiest, most advanced polling firms in the US couldn't get it right either, horrendously so in recent memory. I don't think that's down to conspiracy, but how to weight your samples when so many people don't want to answer a phone call from an unusual number.
Starting to think a ban from there should be considered a rite of passage.
Too bad unglues your panels
The reports all bear notes of caution about the summaries being possibly uncorroborated, single-sourced or incomplete. CSIS Director David Vigneault told the public inquiry that intelligence is not necessarily fact and it may require further investigation.
Actual facts on election interference are, hard to come by, but conjecture from unidentified interests isn't good enough. Blindly trusting intelligence agencies without proof is how you end up invading Iraq.
The "critic" in question was a supporter and fundraiser for the Khalistani rebel movement, on and off no fly lists and wanted by Interpol. Arms training programs in the BC interior seemed to have spooked Modi into action, can't imagine why after the Air India bombing and the trial the RCMP fumbled. Most Canadians are content to forget the event after all.
It's hardly the same situation, given that one country is trying to annex Canada and the other isn't.
In the first place I think a better way to establish "is life in this given place good", would be to address to good vs bad in that place, as opposed to the good in that place vs the bad everywhere else.
If you must make the point through comparisons, using the weakest possible arguments while standing in for the opposing side makes it seem you've either want to misrepresent it, or don't feel secure enough in your position.
I could get into the factual claims that could be challenged but maybe that was the AI. There's absolutely an argument that Western media and cultures create intense, xenophobic biases, but there are more compelling ways to make it.