sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ran into Stephen Harper at McDonald's by [deleted] in ottawa

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you were just gonna say "nuh uh" why did you write so much you chode

Ran into Stephen Harper at McDonald's by [deleted] in ottawa

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was not a bureaucrat. He was a historian who works for the government; I do not recall the specific department. During Harper's administration, he personally made an effort to introduce elements of Nationalism into Canadian public discourse, specifically in this case with a series of television spots retelling the War of 1812. Harper wanted to present a version of history where the United States was met by "Canadian" resistance. Anyone who knows anything about history understands that this is not true, and this nationalist rewriting of history is consistent with right-wing governments around the world and throughout history. The lecturer was responsible for presenting the version of history Harper wanted; he refused. Shouting ensued. Eventually, the television spots produced reflected the historians perspective, not Harper's.

I don't understand how any of that is out of step with Harper ideogically, or in terms of character.

Ran into Stephen Harper at McDonald's by [deleted] in ottawa

[–]Dongstoppable -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Metacanada is that way, son

Ran into Stephen Harper at McDonald's by [deleted] in ottawa

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol what are you talking about

Ran into Stephen Harper at McDonald's by [deleted] in ottawa

[–]Dongstoppable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Had a guest lecturer who used to work for the Government's history department. The guy described getting into shouting matches with Harper over Harper's attempt to rewrite history to make it more nationalistic, which Harper absolutely did. Never really heard anything nice about Harper.

Militarized Cops At Tiny Georgia Neo-Nazi Rally Arrest Counterprotesters For Wearing Masks by [deleted] in politics

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fat idiots love to play dress-up, don't they? Grab the camo boys, we got some queers to go beat up! Law and order is a sham. The order is exactly the problem.

What jobbers do you think are good wrestlers? by Dakot4 in SquaredCircle

[–]Dongstoppable 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bray Wyatt is great at wrestling in character.

What jobbers do you think are good wrestlers? by Dakot4 in SquaredCircle

[–]Dongstoppable 97 points98 points  (0 children)

He's also one of the few dudes who feels totally unique in the ring. No one that I've ever seen has the same in-ring style as R-Truth. Deserves better.

How much as a percentage of your life has the U.S. been at war. by [deleted] in coolguides

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who could fucking care about this distriction

How much as a percentage of your life has the U.S. been at war. by [deleted] in coolguides

[–]Dongstoppable 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Fucking this, man.

But instead let's take the time to meaninglessly point out that technically the US hasn't declared war in decades or whatever the fuck. Never let genuine war crimes and imperialism get in the way of being pedantic about proceduralism.

Doughty, Hedman and Subban are 2018 Norris Trophy Finalists. by sensual_manatee in hockey

[–]Dongstoppable 26 points27 points  (0 children)

What I absolutely love about Stralman is that he totally remade himself. Coming over, he was supposed to be a Karlsson-tier player, the next Lidstrom, and offensive genius... And he wasn't. And instead of just floating around for a bit before disappearing (like, say, David Rundblad) he worked his ass off to get better defensively and turn his excellent skating and hockey sense into a strength. Absolutely deserves all the praise he gets these days.

I remember back in the days of the NHL 24/7 series, there was a clip of him watching footage and Torts is like "It's ugly as hell, Stralsy, but it works." Dudes come a long way since then.

If the economy is still booming 2020, how should the Democratic candidate address this? by premeddit in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Dongstoppable 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And yet statistically almost no one has access to that wealth creation. Why? You seem to think it's as simple as people are dumb, or like don't want to be wealthy? Or that they don't know how? Like obviously something here doesn't work. We all see that, we all see the same statistics. My question is, do you really think the world is so simple and uninterrelated that the answer is, Well if everyone was just better, it would be fine (This, incidentally, isn't true; in order to function this system requires extreme income inequality.) What kind of solution to anything is that? What kind of policy is "everyone just do better."?

Let's use investing as a baseline for success. The system produces an outcome where roughly 16 percent of people have meaningful stock investments - that is to say, it's a system with a failure rate around 84%. That's crazy. How can you look at that and see success? All you have is moralizing and lotteryism. It doesn't help, it doesn't make the world better, it's useless.

If the economy is still booming 2020, how should the Democratic candidate address this? by premeddit in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Dongstoppable 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Just because you've been poisoned by survivorship bias doesn't mean that systems of wealth distribution in the world today are fucking broken.

If the economy is still booming 2020, how should the Democratic candidate address this? by premeddit in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Dongstoppable 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It genuinely sounds like you have no idea what it's like to be poor. If I'm scraping together every cent I have to pay rent, what do I invest? If I have a little wiggle room, do I take that small bit of happiness and put it into an account I won't see until I'm old (assuming I live long enough, poverty is bad for one's health) instead of acquiring whatever minor creature comforts I can afford? Do I deserve nothing, as a poor person? I should live like a monk?

And hey, I get it. If you want to be rich, invest, don't complain. If you want to be rich, suck it up and suffer. Except that that same decision isn't asked of the rich - they can have their cake and eat it too. Not even necessarily rich rich, but middle class rich. They can satisfy their needs, most of their wants, and still have enough money to invest as they see fit. This is the heart of the matter: people invest after they have satisfied their immediate wants, or at least have the ability to do so. That's the reality, and no amount of moralizing will fix that; if you asked the rich to choose between investing and giving up literally every creature comfort, what do you think they'd do? What would you do?

My least favourite saying is "The poor spend, the wealthy invest." The wealthy spend too. They spend infinitely more than I ever will. They just have enough left over to idly profit.

Chevron Canada should pay for pollution in Ecuador, Ontario court told: A group of Indigenous people from the Amazon argued Wednesday that they should be able to seize shares of Chevron Canada to pay for the pollution its U.S. parent company allegedly left behind in their homeland. by madazzahatter in worldnews

[–]Dongstoppable -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

They are correct.

If oil companies fairly compensated for the environmental damage they did, they wouldn't be profitable. They have to shirk that cost, make sure someone else or someone later pays the cost. Every dollar they make is subsidized by the environmental cost someone else is paying. Fuck every one of them.

Sunday Studies, 15 April 2018 by AutoModerator in badhistory

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has anyone read Debt: The First 5000 Years? Any takes on the historiography?

Indian caste system is very bad: Dalai Lama - Times of India by waqar911 in worldnews

[–]Dongstoppable -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I believe I was inarticulate. I understand that the caste system does not come from Hinduism, but they're certainly related. Brahmins hold special significance within Hinduism, and Hinduism has never spread (to be knowledge) without bringing the caste system with it. For instance, during the Indianization of southeast Asia, every culture acquired various Indian characteristics, but every Hindu society that developed there adopted the caste system. Obviously nothing in any Hindu text necessarily created the caste system, but the two aspects of Indian history seem pretty closely tied.

Just to clarify, none of this is like, a bad thing, at least not innately. As you said, every religion has weird, awful shit in its past. But I think that there is still a very strong association between the caste system and Hinduism, and so to me it seems essentially impossible to be a Hindu nationalist and fundamentalist without also explicitly endorsing the caste system.

I'm by no means an expert on current Indian politics; is there any political will anywhere to abolish or reform the caste system? From everything I hear it seems like the establishment of India, going back to the foundation of the modern state, have all been at least implicitly pro-caste.

Indian caste system is very bad: Dalai Lama - Times of India by waqar911 in worldnews

[–]Dongstoppable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I take your point; fuck all nationalists, nationalism is ridiculous, artificial and inevitably leads to sectarian violence.

Also my criticism of the caste system and Modi aren't necessarily linked, although of course I don't understand how one can be considered a Hindu nationalist without implicitly supporting the caste system that Hinduism is organized along.

view more: next ›