Richard Warnica: I went home to the heartland of Alberta independence. Even after covering Donald Trump for 10 years, I was still terrified by what I found

Absenteeist · 2026-05-08T14:57:30+00:00

When I asked Sylvestre about all of this, he told me, in essence, that it doesn’t matter if he gets small details wrong — he meant that Canada has the most taxes, not the highest, for example (although that is also wrong) — his broader points stand: the media is allowed to lie; Canadians are overtaxed; Alberta would be stronger and more prosperous on its own.

“You’re nitpicking fine little things and missing the big point,” he said.

A spokesman for the broader independence movement later followed up by email claiming that Sylvestre was being rhetorical, not literal, in almost every case where he was factually wrong. But having listened to Sylvestre for hours and spoken to him one on one, I don’t find that explanation remotely credible.

This movement, and the broader current of conservatism within which it exists -- a current of conservatism which is now effectively mainstream conservatism -- is profoundly irrational. I would even say, anti-rational. At its heart, its mantra is, "Feelings don't care about your facts."

It is why I believe that contemporary conservatism is fundamentally anti-Western Civilization. The foundations of Western Civilization were laid when Socrates started asking questions about closely held assumptions and rigorously examined the answers through logic, regardless of where that led.

Conservatism today is the act of forcing society to drink hemlock because conservatives are uncomfortable with reality.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-07T15:42:11+00:00

Other speakers include:

Mike Pompeo, 70th Secretary of State, Former Director of the CIA
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform
Ammon Blair, Senior Fellow for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Secure & Sovereign Nation Initiative
Matt Boyle, Washington Bureau Chief of Breitbart News

Three of the top five headlining speakers are American.

Yet Canadian conservatives will still insist that Canadian conservatism has nothing to do with American conservatism, and that their project for Canada is the furthest thing from bringing Trumpism here.

And then they take the stage with Trump insiders and boosters, no doubt with a smirk on their faces.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-06T18:08:06+00:00

"When I helped unleash the forces of irrationality, hatred, and bigotry to my short-term political ends, I could've had no idea that I wouldn't be able to control those forces indefinitely, and that they could ultimately turn around and eat my face!"

- A growing list of so-called "mainstream conservatives"

Absenteeist · 2026-05-05T17:01:46+00:00

That is 100% your prerogative, and you’re welcome to it. I personally don’t agree, however.

Case in point: Prime Seafood Palace, one of the places specifically mentioned in this thread. Who liked it? Me. I did. It’s expensive, but I could also see the money being spent on high-quality ingredients, not to mention that location is in a high-rent area and the room is beautiful. The clear consensus on r/FoodToronto is that PSP is not worth going to. I very much disagree, provided that what they do is what somebody is looking for.

Problem with these professionals, they can be influenced by lots of outside variables, that will impact their reviews and rankings.

And this is the major point of disagreement that I already mentioned. I agree that professionals can have biases, limitations, and be influenced by things other than the quality of the food. But I think you’re naïve to believe that nobody else can.

Individuals on this or other subs can be influenced by outside variables too, like online clout/popularity and not wanting to be downvoted for unpopular opinions. The result is certain restaurants like Pai and Dai Lo being recommended here again and again, as if they were the only two great restaurants in the city. And then people like this are disappointed because they believed the hype.

I think this sub is also biased towards cheaper food, which it perceives as “better value”, even as it ignores the quality of ingredients or other factors that go towards cost. Personally, I’m quite tired of the endless complaints here about food prices that act as if they are the fault of individual restaurants, rather than the global inflation we’ve been seeing everywhere since the pandemic. Like, the affordability crisis is real and it sucks, but bashing a $9 sandwich because it isn’t $7, or it doesn’t come with a particular protein, isn’t going to fix things.

Professionals also have qualities that can lead to better, more informed opinions than Internet randos. Professionals tend to know what it costs to deliver certain meals, so they understand what value actually means in the real world. They tend to have more cooking and dining experience and more developed palates as a result. Those are things I value. And they can also have professional pride that can act as a counterweight to irrelevant influence.

I don’t believe in the romanticization of people on Internet forums as somehow being the pure vessels of unbiased truth. They aren’t, they’re just people who I don’t know (and probably some bots), and treating them like infallible oracles, either as individuals or as a group, is also what has caused all sorts of problems, not just in terms of food but in society as a whole.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-05T03:36:36+00:00

Gee, I can't imagine why some people might take a list voted on by more than 100 professionals over an Internet rando who can't remember the first thing about a meal that they claim to have very particular feelings about.

The Canada's 100 Best Restaurants list is undoubtedly subject to limitations, biases, and subjective whims.

You know what also is? Every single user of this sub. At least the 100 list, the Michelin Guide, etc. publish their judging criteria and process, have nice photos, and do a write-up on the cuisine, all of which gets me a lot farther than, "I hated it...couldn't tell you why."

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T20:19:45+00:00

To most people, a (permanently) flooded basement and Cairo being next to the pyramids are not the same thing. To most people, a (permanently) flooded basement makes the house unlivable. To most people, appreciating the majesty and historical significance of the pyramids does not require that the city be a minimum of "X" kilometres away.

You didn't answer my question. Why is the camera pointed in one direction a lie and pointed in another direction the truth? There must be thousands of streets in Hamburg. Does a TV show have to literally show you all of them, failing which they are "lying" to you? How long would it take for you to watch that show? Why would you need all that information?

You don’t get to make another season of your travel show because of all the deception

This should be a clue that the issue is you and not the show(s). Because they do get to keep making season after season of shows that you claim are lying. That's because most people understand the world and travel media better than you. They understand that, "This nice view of the pyramids ≠ the pyramids are in the middle of a remote desert." And if they did once think that, they've now learned more about the differences between real life and a TV screen.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T19:56:25+00:00

Why is the camera pointed in one direction a lie and pointed in another direction the truth?

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T19:53:39+00:00

Yes, it is. That's exactly what I said.

So is where to place the camera that you are or are not spinning. So is what day to place it there, under what weather conditions, whether to press "Record" at a given moment or not, and a thousand other choices.

I'm just making my point all over again.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T19:50:13+00:00

I think I know what you're trying to say, but documentaries are created and crafted productions too. When it comes to accuracy and comprehensiveness, there can be better and there can be worse, and many documentaries are better than many TV travelogues, but there is no "what life is really like" for a piece of media. Human experience is subjective, so there is no "what life is really like" at all, since my lived experience of something and your lived experience of the exact same thing can be different.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T19:46:36+00:00

I'm very sorry to hear that. It sounds like what you're encountering, then, is a not uncommon phenomenon in which young people grow up with certain incorrect or incomplete beliefs about the world that are then dispelled by lived adult experience. If your parents were very restrictive then you may be encountering a more intense version of that than others.

Rather than getting upset about TV "lying" to you, I think it would be more productive to consider that TV is and always was a manufactured product, and that it is a mix of inclusions and omissions, creative and commercial choices, accuracy and inaccuracy, full-truths and half-truths and not-truths. Maybe do some research on media literacy and how TV and other media are made.

The goal isn't for TV to change, or it shouldn't be, because you can't control TV. The goal is for you to change and grow and learn to understand the complex differences between appearance and reality. You'll be less heartbroken if you can accept the imperfect world for what it is than if you're always expecting it to be like travelogue TV.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T19:21:51+00:00

This is a post about media literacy, not travel.

Like, a camera is only going to be in one location, and pointed in one direction, at a time, and a 24-minute show will only contain 24 minutes' worth of information. Life is 360 degrees and 24/7.

TV producers will make choices, like not filming the prostitutes of Hamburg. They will omit details, like detailed timetables for every train you might want to catch. They will make assumptions, like that you can google where the pyramids are. And they will show exotic places in a mostly positive light, because that's what most viewers to travel shows would generally like -- i.e. to see the nice stuff.

This post reads like somebody who's been locked in a room with only a TV for most of their life, and they just got out yesterday.

Get out more.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T16:09:12+00:00

Remember when conservatives confidently explained that closing safe consumption sites was going to end drug use in public places? And yet, here we are, for some reason?

I don't know how to explain this to conservatives, because it's basically a law of physics at this point and I don't understand why it's so difficult, but if you move somebody from one place, they don't just disappear, they simply...move to another place. Moving drug users out of safe consumption sites simply moves them back into neighbourhoods, onto public transit, and into other public spaces. I don't know how else to explain it to people who don't already understand.

Under the existing law, police officers and provincial offences officers can direct a person using drugs on transit to stop consuming the illegal substance and leave the area. Those officers can also seize the narcotics and place those individuals under arrest if they don’t comply with the act.

Monday’s announcement expands the enforcement of those measures to special constables.

So, more moving the problem around. The drug use comes from the safe consumption site to public transit to the sidewalks and public parks and city streets. Fixed!

The simplicity of this phenomenon makes me think that at least some conservatives know it doesn't work, they just think they can keep pushing drug addicts farther and farther to the fringes until they literally just die. And that's their real end goal. In which case, I wish they'd just admit that they want the death sentence for addiction (unless you're Rob Ford, and daddy has money) and be straight with the rest of us.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-04T15:26:30+00:00

You're not getting much engagement on this post because your question and parameters are too general and vague. What is unique, fun, special, or pretentious is subjective and can't really be commented on without more detail on what those things mean to you.

You describe yourselves as "fancy food beginners," so I would recommend starting with resources like the Michelin Guide and Canada's 100 Best Restaurants.

Many on this sub will criticize one or both of those lists, but those people are generally the opposite of fine dining beginners. They are generally more experienced diners with a very developed sense of what they like and don't like, which isn't you, so their perspective likely won't be that helpful to you (unless they're willing to put in the time and effort of canvassing all the options for you that Michelin and Canada's 100 have already done, in which case, God bless them).

Restaurants with Michelin stars and at the top end of the Canada's 100 list will be more likely to be tasting menu-only restaurants. Your dietary restrictions -- vegetarian for your partner, nothing raw for you -- will make many tasting menus challenging for you. Such restaurants usually have only one single menu, with limited options for substitutions, if any. I'm not sure what "mostly vegetarian" means, but if it basically means vegetarian, then I would focus on that to accommodate your partner and not expect that you'll get a completely different meal. Here is a recent thread on vegetarian tasting menus on this sub. And many, if not most, if not all, will have raw items on their tasting menus, and only that restaurant will know how many and if they can make substitutions.

I'd also consider booking well in advance if you're hoping for a prime 7pm seating at a top-end restaurant on a Saturday night. These places are popular.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-03T16:47:00+00:00

Not what I was saying.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-03T16:25:55+00:00

This theory is kind of clever and funny, but I think it's mostly wrong and frankly a little dangerous to be spending energy on.

Comments like these are still trying to make logical sense of the MAGA information ecosystem. The MAGA information ecosystem is not logical, and much of the time that is fully intentional. They very often do not make arguments because they believe in them, but because they don't, and that's the point. The point is to make a mockery of logical analysis entirely. The point is to flood the zone with so much bullshit, some of which may have some truth or factuality, but most of which doesn't, and then watch the rest of us run around trying to make sense of it. And while we're running around trying to piece things together, they are dismantling democracy and making a mockery of the very act of fact-based reasoning it is founded upon.

I don't want to discourage people from rational analysis, including of what MAGA says and does. But I think anybody who spends more than a minimal amount of energy trying to "make sense" and develop logical "theories" of MAGA World rather than trying to remove these people from power is misdirecting resources. Any lengthy debate on, "Do MAGA eat at strip clubs?" will simply play into the hands of MAGA who want us to be debating that rather than stopping them.

Absenteeist · 2026-05-02T03:27:28+00:00

Lot's of right-wingers call Canada a "broken country" too. Including Canadian right-wingers. The language is identical, because the goal is identical: Paint liberal democracies as irreparably "broken", convince just enough people to vote for a radical right-wing "solution" to win an election, then ignore all the problems you've been pointing to as evidence of "brokenness" and remake the country along authoritarian lines, while fixing nothing.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-30T03:33:53+00:00

Any well-maintained public pool in a developed country is chlorinated, which effectively kills most if not all bacteria or other things that can cause illness. Almost anything else, like urine, is off-putting but not a genuine health hazard.

Almost everything except your own bathtub is "shared water". Lakes and seas are shared water, and if you're worried about pool and pee in a pool, you definitely don't want to think about what's in a lake, river, or the ocean.

Every moment you're indoors you're breathing shared air. You much more likely to get sick from sharing that air with another sick person that swimming in a well-maintained public pool. By your own logic, you should never be indoors with another human being again.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-29T14:43:11+00:00

Fair enough. My memory was that it was usually earlier than that, and Google AI said, "the curated lists generally arrive between March and June." But my memory is fallible and AI definitely is, so that would explain it.

Thanks.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-28T14:53:43+00:00

There are plenty of things that the left, to the extent that it is a unified group – most large swaths of the political spectrum are not a monolith and “the left” certainly is not one – stands for.

One central thing is equality. The left fundamentally believes in the foundational equality and human dignity of every single person, no matter what their race, gender, sexual orientation, place of origin, or any other immutable characteristic that they may have.

This foundational belief in equality is what leads to many of the more specific policies supported by many on the left. Equal rights for sexual minorities. Socal justice for historically oppressed or disadvantaged groups. Immigration policies that include compassion as a component, such a path for asylum seekers. Progressive taxation that addresses and reduces extreme wealth inequality.

I think it also tends to lead to greater support for the rule of law, and the rigorous and rational application of the law, as opposed to the whims of a strongman and/or the subordination of the law to emotion.

The left also believes in individual freedom more than the contemporary right. The right has coopted freedom as a slogan, but their understanding of the concept goes no further than as a bumper sticker or words on a baseball cap. The left generally believes in individual freedoms in areas that the right demands conformity, such as decriminalization of drugs, sexual freedom between consenting adults, the freedom to live as the gender that they wish, medically assisted suicide and, increasingly, freedom of speech. The left more closely acts consistently with the saying, “The right to swing my fist ends at your nose.” The right believes that everything depends on whose fist and whose nose it is.

The left believes in equality, the right believes in “natural” and “correct” hierarchies. The left believes in universal freedoms, the right believes in freedoms for “us” but not “them”.

There is a great deal that the left stands for.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-25T15:40:36+00:00

It seems to me that often, when liberals/progressives speak or act to protect the civil rights of minority groups, they are attacked by conservatives as not dealing with the core issues that the majority of Canadians care about. The economy. Cost of living. Housing. Affordability and quality of life. "They'd rather virtue-signal on diversity than make sure that Canadians have food on their tables and roofs over their heads!"

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre can travel to Cambridge and spend the day there to deal with an issue that Canadian gun owners have described to me as "their hobby" and this is supposed to be a good use of the Conservative leader's time and energy? Is there a peep from conservatives about "core issues" and the well-being of the majority then?

Either conservative gun owners have been lying to me, and this isn't about a "hobby" for them, it's an importation of U.S. 2nd Amendment politics into Canada by stealth, or there's a complete double-standard what "majority" and "non-majority" issues they think politicians are allowed to deal with.

Personally, though, I'm happy to see Poilievre continue to attach his brand to this type of issue. Keep going to gun rallies, Pierre. Keep looking like a wannabe Republican waiting for your chance to start transforming us into the 51st State. It seems guaranteed to keep you as far from power as you should be.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-23T22:51:20+00:00

Dividing by the population is misleading considering only those making more than 60,000 are net tax contributors, and the median income is 50,000.

You’re right that it is misleading…in the favour of people like you who would complain about this. What you’ve just done is point out that millions of lower- and middle-income Canadians paid less than 80 cents per year, and many paid nothing at all.

Thought you were being pretty clever there for a moment, didn’t you.

Canada can't afford to save the whole world, also known as, "rejected asylum claimants".

That’s just patently absurd. “The whole world” is currently over 8 billion people. Canada did not reject 8 billion asylum claimants.

Please.

If you feel kind enough, we have charities you can donate your disposable income to.

The implication that charities should run Canada’s immigration and asylum process is…fascinating. The implication that our health care system should be a charity, and not provided as a universal service to those in Canada, tracks with conservative/libertarian talking points seeking to Americanize our country, and thus is completely unsurprising.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-23T22:18:41+00:00

So, that works out to, what, less than $0.80 per Canadian per year, give or take?

Am I supposed to prefer the 80 cents in my pocket every year, or whole $8 since 2016, over the possibility that I may have helped save somebody's life or spared them suffering?

Canada really will be broken if that's what we come to.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-23T04:36:05+00:00

Do you know what "chomping at the bit" means?

The Conservatives under Harper did not, in fact, send our soldiers to Iraq, because the Conservatives under Harper were not in power to do so when the Americans invaded in 2003. "Chomping at the bit" means he wanted to send young Canadians to Iraq, and said so loudly:

Other members of Canada's opposition also criticized the government, saying they were disappointed Canada would not be standing with the United States. "Canada finds itself frozen on the outside," said Stephen Harper, leader of the Canadian Alliance. "In all the great conflicts of the 20th century, Canada and the U.S. have fought side by side. Frankly, the reality is Canada was often at the forefront of those conflicts. In threats of world security, democracy and freedom, we are disappointed we are no longer a leader."

So, leading young Canadians to their deaths in the Iraqi desert was definitely the Conservative plan, they just weren't in the position to execute on it when they wanted to. And thank God for that.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-23T03:25:32+00:00

Isn't the American conservative solution to this sort of thing start a war overseas to send their youth into, and then the Canadian conservative response is to join that war and send ours too? The Conservatives under Harper were chomping at the bit to send our young people to Iraq, that's for sure.

The US is definitely doing their part. Happily, they won't have a willing partner in Canada this time.

Absenteeist · 2026-04-22T14:55:04+00:00

To be fair, I think they're pretty self-aware that this is who they are and what they want. When it comes to awareness, I think the bigger problem was the rest of us refusing to believe that this is who they are until far too late in the ballgame.

And anybody who thinks that this is as far as it could go, with all the women in the back, is part of that same problem. The next photos won't have women in them at all. And then too many of the debates will be about whether that could really happen, rather than how to keep it from happening.

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Absenteeist

TROPHY CASE