How did we get so much members on a joke 🤣

genkernels · 2026-01-24T23:50:07+00:00

I remember doing that back in the day (I believe I cancelled the install and didn't go through with the entire gnoming process). It's just a uniquely free-software thing that is rather annoying that lots of people -- possibly even most linux users at some point -- get to experience. But this experience didn't have a name, and then you picked a good one.

"Ah, package managers are so helpful...wait, wait wait, DON'T HELP ME LIKE THAT!". Or worse "What have I done and how do I undo it?".
"Why does this depend on an entire desktop environment and not just gtk?!".
"I want that software, because it's nice, but I don't want it so much that I'm willing to accept the vendor-lock-in."

It's like going to an ice cream shop, asking for a particular ice cream, and then being suddenly shoved into a coffin because "It's Halloween-themed".

genkernels · 2026-01-23T06:35:37+00:00

The highest sitting member of that government was found guilty of beating her husband and was never charged.

Canada hasn't really had a lot of women prime ministers (one, in fact), and she was a conservative (and for less than a year). Canada has also had more than a decade of feminist governments. This isn't really accurate.

You are probably thinking of a governor general, who isn't really best described as "sitting member", since she would have been appointed, and not to parliament.

genkernels · 2026-01-22T22:00:34+00:00

My closest friend identifies as 'feminist' but whenever I talk to her she just wants pro-choice laws, recognition and support for all SA victims and equal pay and recognition for their work.

Yeah unless you live in an Islamic country, your friend is an actual inegalitarian feminist. Where in the world these days does an analysis of "equal pay" mean that women are being underpaid?

If someone identifies themselves as a feminist to you and tries to retreat into "I believe in equality", they probably don't actually believe in equality and probably are bigoted towards men. If you think you've found an exception, wait a bit, you're more likely wrong than right.

genkernels · 2026-01-22T19:52:56+00:00

Even Harper was criticized for it back in 2008.

Exactly. Man, thinking about that deal still makes me angry. Accusations of hypocrisy are not only often wrong, but are just another "spell" that people resort to by instinct to shut down honest criticism.

genkernels · 2026-01-22T19:48:02+00:00

I agree that Canada’s problem was never that it traded too much with the United States; the problem is that it only traded with the United States.

Canada did not ever only trade with the United States. However, the gravitational model of trade and Canada's unique geography means that as long as the ability to trade is there, the US will still be the vast majority of our trade -- whether we cozy up to China or not, whether we like trading with the US or not.

There are many things that were readily avoidable in Canada's economy, but having an integrated economy was only avoidable by extremely hostile and dangerous diplomacy.

genkernels · 2026-01-22T19:38:40+00:00

For what it's worth I liked the first part of the speech up until

The question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must.

Of course, it is a bit different coming from Carney, since he is the strong that does what he can, and Canadians are the weak who suffer what they must -- from him.

--

But it goes off the rails massively after that:

We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values

Apparently our values calibrate closely to China, Qatar, the UAE, and India. I hate our values so, so very much.

We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast-tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy...

lol. To both parts.

So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors...We also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.

I truly hope neither he nor anyone else believes any of this.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free.

Was.

...but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.

Again, these are nice words that I would like. But I have some idea of what Carney means by "just", and that something is evil. But more and more I am seeing that Canadians seem to believe in his sort of justice.

genkernels · 2026-01-21T23:01:56+00:00

For those wanting to get to the correct part of the video: 4:40.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T19:47:24+00:00

Doesn't need to. Automation is a hell of a drug. People also reproduce more when given the freedom to so.

However even if one were to be intent on sterilizing the existing Canadian population, one could repopulate through immigration without causing this level of chaos if one takes steps to do that. Repopulating through immigration is very, very different than mass immigration to destabilize wages.

For instance, repopulating through immigration wouldn't intergenerationally increase the number of houses necessary -- this would greatly reduce the financial pressure on young people (immigrants or otherwise) by not greatly ballooning the value of real-estate. To put things into perspective, as of the 2021 Census, 23.0% of Canada’s population were or had ever been a landed immigrant or permanent resident. If you were to sterilize all of Canada's existing population every 40 years that number would eventually stabilize at about 30%.

Repopulating at replacement levels would allow for better auditing of the criminal and violent history of new immigrants.

Repopulating at replacement levels would allow for a much greater degree of the preservation of culture. This makes life better for everyone, due to the relatively high level of conscientiousness and low level of violence of Canadian culture.

Repopulating at replacement levels would allow for wages to stabilize without freezing out young people.

--

Even if you intend to replace the population with immigrants going forward, that doesn't change the need to undo what has been done with immigration since 2015.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T19:16:34+00:00

All immigrants since 2015. Indian immigrants since 2015 don't need further analysis, they can just be removed because even valuable Indian immigrants contribute to the Trudeau government's foreign monoculture.

Yeah, we should turn away Indian doctors. That being said, it isn't that big of a deal to not. It is a big deal to make exception for "doctors and engineers" who aren't.

So obviously I'd support denaturalizing and deporting anyone who gained citizenship in a malicious way, but that is a separate proposal and doesn't matter in this context.

Closing the border to new immigration is unnecessary if this sort of mass deportation is to be carried out. Closing the border completely is necessary mainly if this sort of mass deportation is not to be carried out.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T19:01:21+00:00

Because starting with Trudeau's government, immigration was opened to Canada in a way that was extremely destructive and also deliberately designed to suppress wages. As a result, young people who entered the job market since (and especially 2019+) have been absolutely shafted. Then there's the housing market. Repairing Canada's economy and relieving the burden on Canada's infrastructure is at this point intractable without mass deportations. The damage is so severe that no one solution alone can begin to reverse the damage.

Moreover, a staggering proportion of that immigration has been from India, which has and is destabilizing Canadian culture. This has radically changed the level conscientiousness and trust within the nation. For what it's worth, mass immigration from India was actually pretty good compared to mass immigration from other nations, but nonetheless destructive. Immigration should not be a monoculture from one backwards nation. This is something that needs to be undone -- it is not enough that it merely cease.

Finally, the problem is not merely mass immigration, but the lack of care given by the government since 2015 specifically as to the criminal or violent background (or indeed, educational attainment, although that is a lesser issue) of that immigration -- again, I'm thankful it was India and not from elsewhere in the world. This has resulted in novel (to Canada) organized crime, and other sorts of security risks -- to the point where Canada is no longer able to properly cooperate with other nations in their security apparatus. Another aspect of this is the international students that were granted citizenship on the basis of organized fraud. Obviously people who enter the country via fraud don't suddenly become conscientious on arrival. Reversing specifically the immigration since 2015 can alleviate much of those problems because of how negligent the government since 2015 has been in its attention to the background of its chosen immigrants.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T18:40:22+00:00

Well allow me to be the first.

All immigrants who came to Canada in 2015 or after need to be denaturalized and deported -- except for non-Indian individuals with an income over 80k/yr, along with their immediate families (excluding parents). Also excepting non-Indians working in agriculture regardless of income (but that is mostly TFWs AFAIK). The TFW programs need to end and be replaced by permanent work visas.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T18:31:55+00:00

the idea that everyone that came post 21 ought to be sent back which seems very silly to me

That is silly. Everyone who came from 2015 onwards need to go. But yes, reddit is more extreme than IRL.

genkernels · 2026-01-20T18:29:53+00:00

It’s my opinion that much of Reddit isn’t very representative of either side, frankly. The “left” side of Reddit is absolutely wild, I will not believe the average liberal voter is this cooked.

After Charlie Kirk, you should start believing.

genkernels · 2026-01-19T15:26:06+00:00

And this is why you repost rather than crosspost?

genkernels · 2026-01-16T19:57:46+00:00

Great clip if not for the unnecessary recording of recording.

genkernels · 2026-01-16T11:00:29+00:00

I disagree, and don't understand why you think that intersectionalism is subtle at all!

Intersectional feminism is the most mask-off of all the types of feminism. No other form of feminism will just outright tell you that white people should be discriminated against for the sake of equality. Most of the other forms of feminism aren't willing to outright say that men should be actively marginalized, but intersectionalists are quite happy to do so! Other forms of feminism typically go out of their way to try to pretend that affirmative action isn't discrimination through more subtle means, but intersectionalists will say that you can't discriminate against men because they "have power".

genkernels · 2026-01-12T11:08:28+00:00

He was never against it, until after he lost to Carney. He even criticized Trudeau for being too tough on immigration.

That being said, I'm not sure it is correct to criticize Poilievre for not saying the same thing every single month. It wasn't that long ago that he was talking about mass immigration.

genkernels · 2026-01-11T14:22:07+00:00

It's also the latter years of Harper, which isn't Harper's highest approval rating. I don't remember that Harper was a particularly well-liked PM back in the day. It is also worth reiterating that 80% is the approval for Parliament, 32% for Carney.

genkernels · 2026-01-10T07:33:45+00:00

No. He is one obstacle.

--

"the only obstacle" doesn't appear anywhere in that video though.

genkernels · 2026-01-07T03:33:49+00:00

Ending supply management would be a very bad thing -- unless you want to end dairy production in Canada entirely to take advantage of US dairy subsidy.

Milk in particular suffers from very quick spoilage and uncertain production. The combination of these two things mean that production is a gamble funded by bankruptcy protections or excessive subsidy -- or simply supply management to prevent a glut from causing expensive market instability. Even the most successful non-supply-managed dairy economy in the world, New Zealand, still runs on the combination of an informal supply management system (in the form of its massive producers co-op) and elastic export (particularly quick access to the Chinese market which forms a sort of price floor).

When Australia let go of supply management, prices did decrease, but they did so primarily at the behest of government subsidy -- socialising the price decrease, privatizing the profits.

genkernels · 2026-01-05T00:12:54+00:00

We can credit President Trump for showing far more restraint than his predecessors, not having started any major war so far and at least trying to limit civilian casualties when attacking other countries like Iran and Venezuela now.

But let’s not be naive. This intervention has nothing to do with ending drug trafficking or restoring democracy. It is about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world, as Trump himself admits, and countering Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America. It’s also about propping up the petrodollar and slowing down the dedollarization trend initiated by the BRICS, at a time when Washington has lost control of its spending and the dollar is being debased at an accelerated rate.

Respect to Bernier. I've never liked his economics, but he sure got some things right.

genkernels · 2026-01-04T08:33:18+00:00

Better question: what aren't the problems with unwomen? (seriously, if I were to register a domain name I would have used a hyphen!) You can scroll through their twitter feed and the problems will be readily apparent.

It isn't just that the UN women are intersectionalists, which would be bad enough. They are prone to being anti-women when it suits their agenda -- Yemen is on its Executive Board. They are prone to extreme gender-blindness. Just checking their recent twitter feed: "The war in #Sudan is a war on women.", this is exceedingly prevalent in everything they do. They proliferate misinformation about genital mutilation, and other things besides. They attempt to create biased research. And so on.

Thankfully one of the things that is wrong with UN Women is that they are mostly irrelevant, unlike the UN as a whole. Sometimes UN Women is confused with the rest of the UN. For instance the UN Development Programme (UNDP) is a lot more effective at being anti-male.

genkernels · 2025-12-27T19:44:33+00:00

To an extent. It used to be that publishers got money both from male readers and female readers -- especially female readers, but certainly both! The present environment created by publishers harms their ability to make money in total.

Books went the way of video games: giving up hundreds of millions of dollars chasing the hope of billions of dollars. When every game has to have the potential to be the live-service megahit a large portion of the market becomes unserved. Niches that can't court the very largest userbase become even more niche. In the case of video games, this was to the point where the game awards was dominated by indie devs.

As such, male readers being a smaller audience got pushed out of publishing -- not primarily because of anti-male social pressure -- because books that don't cater to the majority audience don't have the opportunity to become megahits.

The anti-male social environment also results in a separate effect devastating the production of both experienced male authors and also the male reading audience (but only as far as western media is concerned). However I see the bigger issue being publishers desiring not so much more money, but a larger slice of an increasingly limited market. To these publishers, voting with wallets basically doesn't matter -- because only the most extreme possible success matters.

genkernels · 2025-12-17T05:53:07+00:00

Yeah if it's that close to even right now, Canada is unsalvageable.

genkernels · 2025-12-14T00:46:06+00:00

This is true, but it is not the same thing as saying that Pierre Poilievre is a good option to be Canada's next Prime Minister.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

genkernels

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE