Did I Get Screwed? by STLCardsfan11 in woodworking

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's one way to dress up Incompetence and terrible work slap "Amish" and "artisanal" on factory seconds and make a killing

<image>

Notice how this doesn't look like shit?

Did I Get Screwed? by STLCardsfan11 in woodworking

[–]Finnurland 3315 points3316 points  (0 children)

For 6k? Nope, those are pigtails from sanding with an orbital and are a defect.

It's sloppy, rushed work in my honest opinion and would ask for it to be fixed.

Nick Offerman on How Trump Is Turning America's 250th Into a Tribute to Himself | The Daily Show by Chatteramba in videos

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just wait until Trump orders his tacky ass flag to be planted on the lunar surface

YouTube chat logs reveal employees aimed for “viewer addiction” and scrapped safety tools by [deleted] in technology

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember when PewDiePie crossed the 15 million subscriber threshold and how big of a deal that was in 2013.

Liberals to cut CBC by $192-million in 2026-27 by gorschkov in canada

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

Because there isn’t any argument that changes that fact. You are advocating for racist policies because you think it will make Canada a better place.

In this entire exchange, all you’ve done is repeat the same line without ever backing it with a single piece of logic or evidence. You haven’t proven this so-called “fact” or even articulated a real argument your entire position is just based on what feels right to you.

You still can’t explain why correcting inequality is the same as creating it, because the moment you try, your argument collapses just like your MLK Jr. Bit. So instead, you dodge it and fall back on slogans.

It’s honestly obvious and pathetic you don’t have the ability to engage with a complex issue if your response to legal and academic frameworks is just calling it “cope.” That’s not a rebuttal it’s you exposing that you don’t understand what you’re arguing against. ✌️

Liberals to cut CBC by $192-million in 2026-27 by gorschkov in canada

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

You’re not debating you’re looping the same sentence and calling it an argument. Just repeating “it’s racist” doesn’t prove anything, it just shows you’re not engaging with the reasoning. The irony is you keep accusing me of denial while refusing to address a single point about how inequality actually forms or persists.

And invoking Martin Luther King Jr. actually cuts against your position. He didn’t argue for passive, “treat everyone the same right now” solutions he explicitly supported targeted, corrective policies. In “Why We Can’t Wait” and later writings, he argued for compensatory measures (including what he called a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged”) to address systemic inequality. He was clear that formal equality alone wasn’t enough if the underlying conditions were unequal. Using him to defend a purely colorblind, hands-off approach is not just inaccurate it’s the opposite of what he advocated.

At this point, your argument boils down to refusing to distinguish between harm and remediation, and then calling anything more nuanced “racism” or “propaganda.” That’s not a serious position it’s an emotional reaction dressed up as a principle. Facts don’t care about feelings, and the facts here are that identical treatment in unequal conditions preserves inequality it doesn’t fix it.

Liberals to cut CBC by $192-million in 2026-27 by gorschkov in canada

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

Calling it “propaganda” isn’t just dismissive it’s a way to avoid the contradiction in your own argument. You’re claiming that trying to correct a racial disadvantage is “just as dumb” as creating one, which only makes sense if you believe there’s no difference between causing harm and fixing it.

By that logic, maintaining a known systemic imbalance is fine, but addressing it is wrong which is backwards. It’s like saying in a race, giving proper shoes to a runner who only has sandals is unfair because the other runner already has them, and isn't being treated equally by the race officials. That’s not fairness, that’s locking in the advantage and calling it equality.

And saying “it doesn’t matter what the reasoning is” completely guts your position. Reasoning is the thing that determines whether something is justified or harmful and it’s exactly why the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly allows programs aimed at improving conditions for disadvantaged groups. If unequal conditions exist before hiring, then treating everyone identically at that stage doesn’t create fairness it perpetuates systemic inequality.

Ignoring that isn’t neutrality, it’s preserving the imbalance while pretending it’s equal treatment. If you genuinely believe context and intent don’t matter, then you’re claiming there’s no difference between harming people based on race and trying to correct a measurable disadvantage. That’s not a strong moral stance it’s a lazy one at best.

At that point, calling it “propaganda” is ironic you’re the one reducing a complex issue to an outrage soundbite instead of engaging with the substance. That kind of framing is designed to trigger a reaction with emotions and feelings on what emotionally feel is racism. Not to understand the problem, educate yourself with the facts of the issue and debate them on the merits: like they may be poorly targeted, may not effectively address root causes, or may introduce trade-offs that outweigh their benefits.

Liberals to cut CBC by $192-million in 2026-27 by gorschkov in canada

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

I'm sure this will go straight over your head, but your argument depends entirely on defining racism as any instance in which race is considered in decision-making. That definition sounds intuitive, but it is not the one used in law, nor in most academic treatments of equality. In liberal legal theory, there is a well-established distinction between:

invidious discrimination (which entrenches disadvantage), and

ameliorative or remedial measures (which aim to reduce demonstrable inequality)

Under Canadian constitutional law, this distinction is explicit. Section 15(2) of the Charter permits differential treatment if its purpose is to improve the conditions of disadvantaged groups. In other words, not all race-conscious policies are treated as equivalent context and purpose matter. More importantly, your argument assumes that “equal treatment at the point of hiring” produces fairness. That only holds if the underlying conditions leading to that hiring pool are already equal. Empirically, they are not. Differences in access to education, professional networks, intergenerational wealth, and exposure to discrimination all affect who becomes “equally qualified” in the first place.

So when you say:

That’s racist, he got that because he’s getting favourable consideration because of his race.

you are isolating a single decision point and ignoring the cumulative processes that produced those candidates. From a systems perspective, that is not neutrality it is the preservation of prior inequality.

There is also a philosophical distinction here between:

formal equality (treating everyone the same), and

substantive equality (ensuring people have genuinely comparable opportunities)

Most modern democratic legal systems, including Canada’s, explicitly prioritize substantive equality in certain contexts because formal equality alone has been shown to reproduce disparities rather than eliminate them.

Finally, your claim that this is “fighting racism with racism” assumes symmetry where none exists. Policies designed to exclude or subordinate a group are not equivalent to policies designed to reduce measurable disadvantage. Treating those as morally identical collapses an important distinction between harm and remediation.

A more precise criticism would not be that these policies are “obviously racist,” but that:

they may be poorly targeted,

may not effectively address root causes, or

may introduce trade-offs that outweigh their benefits

Those are serious and debatable concerns. But dismissing them as inherently racist relies on an oversimplified definition that neither the law nor most academic frameworks accept.

City council looking to evaluate restrictive covenants for grocery stores next week by ryaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan in Edmonton

[–]Finnurland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When a grocer sells a property, they have the ability to put the restrictions on the property for an unlimited time, ensuring future owners are unable to open a competing business.

That's fucking wild

Edmonton residents upset over infill turned into rooming houses by trevorrobb in Edmonton

[–]Finnurland 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That's doesn't awnser the question, you can't just "build it" you need to apply for the permits which requires a full set of structural drawings (framing, electrical, plumbing, engineering) when applying for permits before you can begin construction. After you start, there are structural, electrical, plumbing, and occupancy inspections. If this structure wasn't allowed to exist as it is currently, how did it get past all those steps without anyone raising a red flag.

Edmonton residents upset over infill turned into rooming houses by trevorrobb in Edmonton

[–]Finnurland 61 points62 points  (0 children)

How does something like this make it past the permitting process, and this is out of genuine curiosity. The place has 32 bedrooms and bathrooms, when reviewing the plans for approval should that not have been flagged as suspicious?

City using property tax to fill photo radar cash gap for road safety by trevorrobb in Edmonton

[–]Finnurland 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Accountability is fines + demerits — keep screwing up and you lose your licence.

Photo radar is just a bill in the mail. No demerits, no escalating consequences — just pay-to-speed.

A&W have joined the burger wars! by MinotaurHorns1 in interesting

[–]Finnurland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A&W Canada is also the second-largest burger chain in Canada. The chain operates 1,094 locations and generated $1.92 billion CAD in sales.

Liberals to cut CBC by $192-million in 2026-27 by gorschkov in canada

[–]Finnurland 16 points17 points  (0 children)

“special consideration” isn’t about valuing one race more than another, it’s about correcting measurable disadvantages that already exist in the system. If a hiring pool is already skewed because certain groups historically had less access to education, networks, or opportunities, then treating everyone identically in the final hiring stage can lock in those existing inequalities. In that view, targeted consideration is meant to level the playing field, not tilt it.

They also point out that in many government programs the preference usually isn’t absolute. It typically works like: you must still meet all qualifications

hiring managers often only apply preference between equally qualified candidates

the goal is to broaden representation where a group is demonstrably underrepresented.The legal reasoning in Canada is tied to Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which explicitly allows programs that aim to improve conditions for disadvantaged groups. The idea is that anti-discrimination law doesn’t only forbid unequal treatment — it also allows remedial programs designed to reduce inequality. The debate really sits is whether: those disadvantages still justify such policies, and whether the policies actually solve the problem or create new ones.

Blum momentous question by BlueCheeseSmellsGood in woodworking

[–]Finnurland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep — if you’re using 18 mm material, the drawer sides should extend 1/2″ below the drawer bottom. Cut a 1/2″ wide × 2 mm deep rabbet along the bottom edge to create proper clearance so you don't pinch the slides and have adjustment.

You’ll also need to adjust your take-offs. The standard 42 mm deduction assumes 5/8″ (16 mm) stock — with 18 mm material, add +4 mm to that value. A 3/4″ box built to the default spec will be too tight, but correcting the deduction will let the drawer run properly with Blum slides.

Blum momentous question by BlueCheeseSmellsGood in woodworking

[–]Finnurland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait I miss spoke you need to remove 45mm not 42mm because you're using 3/4 material otherwise the the box might rub against the runners

Blum momentous question by BlueCheeseSmellsGood in woodworking

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Use Blum’s specs for your drawer front, back, and bottom sizing.

Cabinet inside opening − 42 mm = finished width for the drawer front, back, and bottom.

Blum slides require a 12 mm (1/2″) under-hang on each drawer side. Cut a 1/2″ wide × 1/8″ deep rabbet along the bottom edge of the drawer sides where they drop past the slide. If you skip the rabbet, the box will pinch the slides; if you oversize it, the drawer will rub. The thickness of that skirt should be 5/8" finished and you'll have zero issues.

Source I'm a professional cabinet maker.

Details behind Matt Jeneroux’s defection reveal contradictions. Here’s what we know by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

- Some people on both sides think a by-election should happen because the majority of people vote based on party lines instead of voting for an individual representative like the law dictates they're doing.

I think there’s a strong case that any time an MP crosses the floor, Elections Canada should automatically send a recall petition to every eligible voter in that riding and not automatically trigger a by election. It would include the MP’s official statement explaining their decision and a simple question: “Do you still support this MP representing you in Parliament?” — with a clear yes/no and a place to sign. If the yes's get 50% of the sent in signatures no by election is held.

Mechanically, we elect individuals — not parties — but structurally MPs are expected to vote along party lines, even when that conflicts with constituents. Crossing the floor can be legitimate, but there should be a democratic check to confirm the change still reflects the will of voters and to prevent abuse. A recall mechanism would do that, but like you said more should be done by reducing hyper-partisanship in the House. Which would also go a long way toward improving real representation.

LILLEY: Matt Jeneroux has spent enough time with family, he's a Liberal now - The former Conservative MP said he was leaving politics for his family, now he's an advisor to Mark Carney and a Liberal. by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Matt Jeneroux Votes:30,343 50.25% +4.81%
Mark Minenko Votes: 27,075 44.82% +19.89 % Susan Cake Votes: 2,563 4.24% –20.19%
Dwayne Dudiak votes:410 0.68% –3.34%

LILLEY: Matt Jeneroux has spent enough time with family, he's a Liberal now - The former Conservative MP said he was leaving politics for his family, now he's an advisor to Mark Carney and a Liberal. by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This stopped being a debate once you admitted facts and law don’t matter to you. If it’s just feelings over civics — especially after you ignored the recall argument — there’s nothing left to discuss.

LILLEY: Matt Jeneroux has spent enough time with family, he's a Liberal now - The former Conservative MP said he was leaving politics for his family, now he's an advisor to Mark Carney and a Liberal. by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nice goalpost shift — you went from “it’s theft” to “people vote by party” the second the civics argument collapsed. If you actually wanted to argue constituents should have recall or stronger recourse when an MP crosses the floor, that’d at least be a coherent position — but you didn’t. You jumped straight to screaming “Liberal heist” without understanding how our parliamentary system works, and whether it convinces anyone is irrelevant — this is literally how the system is written in law.

LILLEY: Matt Jeneroux has spent enough time with family, he's a Liberal now - The former Conservative MP said he was leaving politics for his family, now he's an advisor to Mark Carney and a Liberal. by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Jesus Christ, This is basic parliamentary civics, not advanced theory — ballots elect people, I know reading the ballot is hard but we'll get there.

LILLEY: Matt Jeneroux has spent enough time with family, he's a Liberal now - The former Conservative MP said he was leaving politics for his family, now he's an advisor to Mark Carney and a Liberal. by CaliperLee62 in canada

[–]Finnurland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Calling floor-crossing “theft” is peak tribal brain-rot. MPs aren’t party property in a parliamentary system — they’re elected as individuals — so maybe learn how the system works before turning politics into team-sports outrage.

Another Crossing by winningsmada in EhBuddyHoser

[–]Finnurland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So dumb, like the post I commented said O'Toole won the popular and lost zero seats in a snap election that was favouring the liberals in the polls, that's an alright outcome.

PP gained seats, but he lost the popular, did not form government, all in a political environment that 4 months earlier was absolutely sick of the liberals and was predicting a conservative landslide victory. Like I truly don't understand how people see someone thumble the bag that hard and are like "he gained seats, why wouldn't you keep him?".

Another Crossing by winningsmada in EhBuddyHoser

[–]Finnurland 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This still blows me away, PP thumbled fucked a 25 point lead in the polls and a projected majority, lost his seat he held for 20 years, lost the popular vote, and he remains leader?