JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
Looks like another one of the many, many golden boys who had success and decided that 1) all problems have solutions and 2) they know how to figure them out. I predict he wouldn't even do well enough to be crushed by Trump. Though maybe he'll attract some of "like Trump, but not a boomer, because boomers are so passé" audience. I don't expect this audience to be huge.
a campaign centered on truth and national revival
Oh, that's a relief. I was thinking for a minute he's going to run a campaign based on lies and destruction of the nation, as all other candidates always do, but looks like he found the golden recipe here. It's a pity nobody ever tried to run a campaign based on that before, but now I'm sure his success is assured.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
I think most of the narrative for "Musk is ruining Twitter" is actually "Musk is allowing people that we hate back on Twitter". For some people - especially in the Blue Tribe - Twitter used to feel like a "safe space", run by friendly tribesmen and allowing them to get the respect they deserve (blue checks, etc.). Now Musk came and he's not their tribesman, the space is no longer safe, the blue checks are available to all kinds of plebeians and in short, the whole thing is ruined. I personally can't really sympathize and don't have an opinion on whether there's a kernel of truth in it or not - I have deleted my twitter account years ago once I figured out it doesn't allow to do anything I want to do, and using it just pisses me off.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
I think the academia has been preparing for this for years, moving from "objective metrics with AA bias on top" (like SAT scores, but the passing score is different for different races) to "plausible deniable 'holistic' judgements" - where one can't really prove any bias at all. Yes, if you measure by any objective merit criteria, the bias is apparent, but you see, we're not using these criteria, we are using "holistic view", which does not explicitly name race as a factor, good luck proving in court we're using it heavily. They'll just start being more careful about that and develop a newspeak that ensures discrimination is called something else. If academia is consistently good at anything it is at producing impenetrable jargon.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
I wonder how the disclosure of Covid origins information became right-coded.
The Left committed early to the "bat soup" theory and declared anybody who doubts it racist, and instituted a censorship blockade of any opposition (or even critical discussion) to this. While they were forced to roll it back a little because dissent went high and wide enough in scientific circles that it wasn't possible any more to block, the initial commitment still weights heavily on the topic, and was not acknowledged as wrong even at "mistakes were made" level, and this colors every critique of this position as attacking the Party Line.
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
I think it's neither. Bud Light was a special case where significant percentage of consumers were in the anti-audience for the message, and the alternatives were readily available. For most products, either the first (like the movies, for example) or the second (like the sports - you can't just switch to another NBA on the next shelf really) is not true. So, it kinda was a perfect situation for a successful strike, but this kind of situation wouldn't present itself too often, and so far most of other woke megacorps are as woke as ever. So it's a tactical win in a skirmish with favorable conditions, which says little about the outcome of the war. It's surely nice to get a win once in a while, but don't order the champagne just yet.
JarJarJedi
3mo ago
It is clear to me that the Feds/Deep State (pretty much the same thing by now) executed a brilliant (surprisingly brilliant, given their routine incompetence when it doesn't concern their survival) operation of surfacing, isolating and utterly destroying the passionate part of the right that was ready to fight against the left's long march through the institutions and against total alienation of power from any possibility of democratic control on the federal level. That operation was an overwhelming success, the right were easily provoked, totally unprepared and easily routed and utterly defeated, while the "mainstream" politicians either stayed away from the fray, or, like Pence, actively helped to destroy them. Was a specific person an employee of the Feds, an asset or just a fool easily manipulated by them - is not very important, though I do believe Epps had if not direct than at least once-removed contact with the Feds, and there were probably many provocateurs and instigators in the crowd beyond him. But again, the important part is not who they personally were, but the crushing defeat that the right suffered, from which they still did not recover and largely did not even realize what happened. This does not portent well for them for 2024 - even if Trump manages to gather enough votes to overcome the Dem machine efforts - which, given how actively he is promoted by Democrats, is not out of the realm of possible. That I can testify to myself - a year ago, I was very reluctant to the idea of voting for Trump, given his previous record and present behavior. Now, I am thinking I may not have any other choice. Not that my vote would mean anything, living in a deep red state. But the bad news is even if Trump is elected, his election would not be recognized by the left, and he will spend another 4 years fighting trench warfare against the Deep State, collecting more impeachments that any president ever lived, and achieving absolutely nothing. Maybe he'd appoint some good judges. Maybe.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
You use images of hot chicks, fast cars, sweeping vistas, and the fucking moon landings
Nope. You talk about one specific set of ads. But there are many more contexts than that. You do advertise luxury cars with hot chicks. But not cheap used family vans. Not mortgage brokers and realtor services. If you want to sell somebody a dream of laying hot chicks - you use hot chicks. If you want to sell somebody a dream of a happy family in a comfortable van and a cheap, but surprisingly decent looking McMansion - hot chicks won't help you there. Happy family pictures would however.
"why do you care so much?"
I can answer that (no, I am not under that pseudonym, I am completely different person) - because I am told everywhere all the time that I should. Every company has an equity statement, keeps racial statistics, and brags about representation. Did you try to apply for a job lately? Literally every single company would ask you for racial data (they say it wouldn't be used in hiring process, but I wonder why ask then?). Every sizable company constantly brags about these things, and pays people to deal with them and then promote their actions in public. I'd be super-happy to go to my happy pre-woke world where I could just ignore it, where I did, but it's kinda hard when you are surrounded by messages that claim that's extremely important 24/7. You start noticing things.
Why is your (and apparently so many other's) sense of self and feelings of validation so wrapped up in being represented on screen.
It's not. But I still notice things. It's a blessing and a curse.
The lockdowns were actually pretty great for me, personally - I could relocate to a much cheaper place while getting paid the same, without any pushback from the corporate overlords, because WFH became the norm. But I think the fact that this thing happened in America without any serious pushback is a horrible thing, and everybody complicit in it has my full personal disgust and hate.
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
These aren't "buy our insurance because it's 23.6% cheaper than the competition" kinds of ads. These are lifestyle type of ads. They are promoting certain style and outlook on life and associate it with the brand. If this style is offensive to people who previously associated themselves with the brand, then these people would feel negatively towards the brand from now on. And such kind of action is aimed at everybody, all the time - multi-national brand is not something you advertise in secret. And culture war is not something you join unwittingly - not that BL marketers didn't publish plenty of proclamations suggesting very clearly on whose side they are joining.
Let me give you an extreme example. Suppose some crazy marketer, after taking too much cocaine one night, decided that Nazis - I mean the real ones, the guys prancing around with swastikas and tiki torches - are an under-covered market, and his brand needs to have a campaign aimed at them. And suppose, by a series of freak accidents and misunderstandings, this plan gets approved, set in production and the resulting ad - featuring all a real Nazi loves and seeks in life, presented as a positive lifestyle associated with the brand - is posted on official Instagram channel.
After that happened, and the inevitable aftermath - do you think your explanation that people just don't understand that not all ads are aimed at them is going to play very well or convince somebody that it doesn't mean anything that they disliked the ad?
P.S. For the "trigger warning" part of the audience, hopefully minor, but ever vocal, explicit disclaimer - no, I am not comparing anybody to Nazis. Except for, you know, the actual Nazis.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
White men don’t exist.
Almost true, but not exactly. My bank, for example, has a landing page where they show the usual stock pictures of happy people, presumably after using their bank services. I haven't seen a white male for a while there. But recently there were - not just one, but two. And a kid between them. If you get my drift. So there are situations where white men exist. Still waiting for a situation where white heterosexual men exist...
those making the decisions are so ideologically committed that they’re willing to hurt their own bottom line in order to “do the right thing.”
I think this is an experimentally established fact? I mean, Bud Light, Victoria Secret, Disney?
they do so with no guarantee that their rival agency is going to follow the same set of rules,
Here I think they have pretty good guarantee. First of all, they are all product of the same indoctrination system. Second of all, if somebody steps out of the line, online mobs - and in the case of especially stubborn target, actual mobs with actual weapons - will take care of them pretty quickly.
It's not a conspiracy - at least no more than things like money or English or Christianity are conspiracies. It's all in the open.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
Trump wanted to revive the tradition by purchasing Greenland, but small-minded people derailed the plan. Sad!
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
Sure thing, there are many things that are worse than a technocrat golden boy. But when doing something like electing a candidate for president, we're not limited to consider only worse things, we actually can consider better things.
Throw up their hands and say we should wallow in stupidity and despair because it's hard
The problem is not that things are hard. The problem is when people try to "fix" things without realizing how hard they are and why they are hard. Each problem has a simple, clear and wrong solution. And that's the one the golden boy would rush to, breaking through all Chesterton fences on the way. Should we admire him for his zeal, can do attitude and energy? Maybe. Should we entrust him with our destinies because it's better than wallow in stupidity? No way.
Capitalize on feels > reals to grift off the masses
Saying it like it is is a great quality. The problem comes when you start thinking that what you think it is is really what it is. Because more often than not, that's not the case, and lack of epistemic humility, combined with a healthy disdain for status quo and a bias for action, can lead to great things - or to spectacular epic failures. I'm not sure that "exploding lottery ticket" is the right model for a future President. And if we need somebody explosion-prone, we already got Trump anyway.
Technocrats are unelectable, sure, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying.
I'm not sure we should even start, until they unlearn phrases like "science is settled" and "trust the experts".
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
Those in favor argue that any non-violent offender would be offered a lenient deal.
Is that true? Would a random citizen from Sticks, IA get a "diversion program" if he violated firearms laws, while on drugs, didn't pay taxes for several years and also has been involved in a million-sized international bribery scheme, and there were actual multiple witnesses and documents confirming it? Or would he been sent to jail for many years? "Non-violent" alone doesn't cut it - Bernie Madoff didn't hurt a fly, violently, as far as we know it. If the answer is the latter, then we have a problem. We have a two-tier justice system, which is extremely hardcore and unforgiving for plebes and soft and gentle for patricians.
the other side argues that since the facts of the cases do not map 100% perfectly to this one
No two cases ever map 100%. Still, a competent and experienced person would be able to estimate what the prosecution usually requests in similar cases - and, in fact, there are multiple guidelines and procedures about establishing the punishment for such cases. There's certain wiggle room when it comes to plea bargaining, but these things are not arbitrary.
Was this action fair, in an ethical sense?
Absolutely not. Biden got a sweatheart deal, and he got it explicitly and brazenly, to show us all - again and again - that the elites are above the law, and that even is the case where the crimes are known, well documented and undeniable, the Deep State would protect their own and ensure there's no consequences for anything, and they wouldn't even hide it too much, because what we're gonna do? Tweet harder about it? Produce more memes? Note that the main scandal - the bribery schemes - aren't even touched. We had multi-year multi-million hyper-hyped investigation of Trump over much flimsier evidence. Here all the efforts of the law enforcement so far have been directed to burying the case (and insinuating those that want to investigate are foreign agents, and getting them silenced) rather than investigating it. It's not even in the same universe with "ethical" or "fair".
Was this action within precedent
Mostly, yes. There is a long history of political favoritism and elites getting away with all sorts of criminal behavior. We like to pretend we try to do better, usually, but in this case all pretenses are being dropped and the corruption is shoved in our faces with all its naked ugliness. Half of the country is cheering it, because it's their team is getting away with it, so they "owned" the other side. The other half is seething helplessly, suffering what they must and being unable to change anything. This is a completely routine thing for many countries and times, and happened in the US before. It's not a healthy state for the society, it's not where any ethical person wants the society to be, it's likely to end badly and cost us a lot, but yes, it's "within precedent", just as crime and corruption are within precedent - Bidens did not invent either.
Do you think the choice to offer pretrial diversion was politically motivated?
There's an Arab (supposedly) parable: One asked a camel: "Why your neck is so crooked?" and the camel answered: "What in me isn't crooked?"
Of course it's politically motivated. Everything around Bidens is politically motivated. The question is what policy it reflects. The current development reflects the policy of "the elites are above the law". It could reflect the policy of "there are things that are too much even for a prince" (not likely, but could happen in theory) or even "the law applies equally to everybody" (rrrrriiiiight...) but it obviously didn't happen.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
It sounds weird to me too, how "they are dirty people that eat weird disgusting shit and live in anti-sanitary conditions, and that's where the diseases come from" is non-racist, but "they conducted a high-risk high-technology cutting edge research in collaboration with US government and made a mistake" is racist. But then, very little that the wokes say makes sense to me, so that's just one more thing...
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
the second largest politcal party switched from vehemently pro to anti-lockdown with the Pro-lockdown losing their jobs
Everybody is anti-lockdown now. In fact, nobody even knows anybody who advocated for the lockdown except their political enemies. It's not fashionable now, so everybody has been always supporting what is fashionable now, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. This is not victory - once the need arises, the agenda will turn back as quickly and you'll find the same policies implemented again - only now, with full knowledge that there are no costs, except maybe having to move on to the next cushy job as the winds change. This rotation happened in Canada, happened in the US, happened in many other places. Attributing it to the power of the protest is a delusion.
Trudeau's government is basically crippled all of his policies since have failed as seen with his gun ban
I don't really see how Trudeau failing to pass the largest gun ban in history of gun bans (while still feeling free to enact various smaller gun bans by executive order) means he is "crippled" on "all policies". This ban was not especially popular before the protests, and claiming its failure is the direct result of the protests - and that it extends not only to this one but all policies - is a bold claim that needs some better substantiation than just proclaiming it.
Do you want the CBC to pat you on the back and say "No its OK. You won"
No, I want some sign that it's not business as usual for all involved except declaring fascism on demand is now confirmed ok.
Every freedom I had lost from 2019 to 2022, everything I expected to never get back and to suffer across decades of insurgency trying to claw back... Was restored, mostly within a month, and the rest in half a year. THAT IS TOTAL VICTORY.
Man, whatever makes you feel better. You think introducing fascism, doing exactly what they wanted, taking away every freedom with no consequences whatsoever, causing thousand deaths and billions of economic damage on the way, then giving some of them back when the need is no longer there, and to make it a total mockery, make an "investigation", which confirms - yeah, we did everything exactly the right way and will do it again - this looks like victory? Well, your "victory" doesn't look anything like what I would want.
Who needs "decades of insurgency" if you have fascism on demand? The government would just take your freedoms when they are an impediment to them, do what they need, then declare "ok we're done, you can proceed as before" and you'd be happy. After all, they have stopped punching you and even though they didn't return your lunch money, they didn't take any more than all you had - until the next time they want your lunch money - so, everything is well and it is TOTAL VICTORY. If that's victory, how does the defeat look like? Some weird BDSM fantasy where the government comes to you personally to oppress you on schedule with whips and shiny leather? That's not how it works. Nobody cares about you to oppress you when they don't need to. When they need to, they have the option to get their way, when they want it and how they want it, and you can do absolutely nothing about it. In other times, enjoy your total freedom and TOTAL VICTORY.
Grow up. Politics is war by other means, casualties on your own side are acceptable in the pursuit of victory.
Except I don't see the victory. Removing the restrictions a bit later than the other countries who didn't experience the "victory" sounds like copium, not victory.
conpsiracy theorists who've shown themselves more capable that the entire right wing political class
Capable of what? The only organized protests that happened have been crushed with the rubes that gave their lives to them now have their lives thoroughly ruined, bankrupted and getting insanely long sentences, while their supposed leaders are afraid to even say something in support of them. All freedom restrictions are removed when and only when the government decided it's no longer necessary for their purposes, with full confirmation that every single one of them was legal and fully kosher to use again when desired. No significant pushback happened to neither lockdowns, nor nationwide riots and abandonment of the rule of law, nor to the wholesale overhaul of the election system, nor to the complete absorption of the big business into the woke agenda. Where is this superior capability deployed and what is it achieving? TOTAL VICTORY?
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
It'd be weird if Gwen Stacy was someone who followed orders blindly and this was portrayed as a good thing,
Would it be? Marvel is woke, Sony is woke, whoever they hired to do this is undoubtedly woke. Being woke is assumed to be an obviously right thing that is not up to reflection. A thing where you instinctively know on which side (the right side) you are. So, a Spider Woman (!), of course, is woke too, as as a woke, she would have all the appropriate attributes, including this kind of poster. It just confirms to you that yes, this is the right side. Just as a red flag with hammer and sickle would tell one communist that she's in the company of another fellow communist. You don't need to deeply reflect on what the sickle actually means for you personally - it's part of the package.
we saw Uncle Aaron turn into a monster because he did whatever his boss said.
But was his boss woke? Did he give him the right kind of orders? Probably not. I might now know the details (I am not deeply knowledgeable in Marvel universe anyway, and given the direction it all took, it waned almost completely) but in general the whole concept of something being morally right vs morally wrong in the woke world hinges of whether or not it serves the right agenda. Real world example: is segregation bad? It was bad when it served the KKK agenda. It is good now, when it serves the equity agenda. The goals justify the means. If you are told the right thing by the right people, it is right for you to accept it and put in on a poster.
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
What does this phrase mean?
That you are woke and not a deplorable thoughtcriminal and want everybody to know it. That you are fully in sync with the latest agenda updates, and will execute whatever instructions are going to be uploaded next.
The only activist movement I hear about that specifically relates to trans children is their supposed right to medically transition, but my friend says I'm being uncharitable if I assume that that's what is being referred to.
The current release (as far as I know) of the agenda specifies that any child that expresses any interest or ideation about himself being transgender, should be immediately medically, socially and surgically transitioned, parents have no legitimate way to react to it except fully supporting and enabling it, and in case they do anything else, they should be immediately and irreversibly striped of all parental rights. Failing to do this will inevitably and imminently be leading to the child in question killing himself, and it would be the fault of everyone who did not do enough to enable it. That's what "protect" operationally means right now. But for somebody who has such a poster, it usually doesn't mean they reflected on all of that, considered all advantages and costs of such approach, and their own personal opinion, after deep reflection, is that this is what must happen. More likely, it means they are signaling their non-dissent from the agenda and willingness to lend their support to whatever is declared to be the right thing.
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
those same people seem to like DeSantis
I would bet if DeSantis becomes lead Republican candidate, those people would trip over themselves to declare him literally Hitler. Just as it happened to Romney and McCain and Bush and all others. For now, he's not a threat to them, so they "like" him. When he becomes one, they'll show how much that liking is worth.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
I've read an article a couple of years ago (unfortunately, link long lost) about how they did it in California (where explicit racial discrimination is banned). They hire a set of "evaluators", which evaluate the candidates and rank them by their acceptability (I don't remember the exact details of ranking mechanism, but it's largely irrelevant here). They have the training program, which never explicitly mentions race of anything like that. The most they get is the standard "we value diversity, inclusion and treating everybody in the most inclusive and welcoming manner" spiel. And they have a set of supervisors, which oversee the training. The training is done as a set of fake (or maybe real, from past years?) student profiles, which the candidate evaluator has to evaluate, and then the supervisor reviews it and tells the candidate where they may be wrong, if they are. The author of the article was one of the candidates. The supervisors, again, never explicitly mention the race or any prohibited criteria, but if the candidate evaluates certain profiles not in the "correct" way, the supervisor suggests they may want to reconsider - maybe they didn't take all the necessary factors into account, or overlooked something? They may remind them to re-read the policies, etc. That is repeated, until the candidate "gets it" - and starts producing the results that satisfy the supervisors - or the candidate "doesn't get it" even after a set of repeated suggestions, and then it turns out their services are not required at the present time. The author of the article was one of the latter.
If you see similarities to some other, currently popular, area of research - it is probably not coincidental. But it's hardly possible to prove that any racially discriminatory criteria were used. Of course, somebody has to train the supervisors, but it's California we're talking about, Berkeley could supply thousands of such supervisors which wouldn't need a word of discoverable explanations to produce the correct results.
though maybe you could point me to someone actually espousing precisely this position.
Pretty much every "yeet the teets" doctor and their support teams. I've just last month read a number of stories where parents turned for help to doctors like that and were pressed into doing hard meds at the explicit threat of imminent suicide (and probably surgeries too, I just didn't read a specific example of it lately). In fact, this specific threat was just quoted in this same topic, I did not invent it at all (I wish that wasn't the case, but it is).
Please work harder to portray your outgroup's views in a way they would be likely to recognize and agree to
They are already agreeing to it. Moreover, they are already doing it. Moreover, they are already calling people that object to it hateful bigots. How far along it should be going before I'm allowed to notice it?
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
I'm not sure how anybody can talk about persecuting a war when a much simpler task - not letting millions of people, armed with nothing but their feet and sad stories, to cross over the border without any authorization or control - continually remains of out reach of the US system for decades. And I don't mean it's a couple of people slipping through the cracks, which happened even in Soviet Union. I mean like thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.
Messing with Mexico with current societal capabilities is plainly insane, and that's before we remember that if Republicans try to do that, Democrats would actively sabotage any effort on every level, to the level that would make Vietnam time resistance look like kindergarten theater imitation of the real thing. I mean, they successfully sabotaged building a fricking border wall, which every normal country would have on its borders, which didn't require killing anybody and only required doing what Democrats love doing almost above all else - spending the taxpayer money. And then we can remember how fucked up the whole thing in Afghanistan was - and there they didn't even had to do it to stick it to the Republicans, they just did it out of pure idiocy. It's like having a leaky bucket, being unable to fix it and wondering is it strong enough to cross the Atlantic in it? Would it survive hitting an iceberg? It can't survive sitting on our own kitchen floor, what are you talking about?
I'm no pacifist hippy, but I'd say anybody who actually proposes this thing as a real solution - I mean not helping Mexico, not training some troops, not sending them arms and other assistance even, but actually going to actual full-scale war with Mexico - is a loon. It maybe could be a nice thing (or maybe not) if it were possible to solve that problem that way, but it's completely and totally impossible.
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
I had hoped that if you play by the rules and do the right thing, it will turn out right, but that’s not the case.
Nobody actually thinks this, not in the middle of the culture war that now encompassed law enforcement and legal system completely. It's just performative posing. There still might be a-political law hiding somewhere, deciding disputes among neighbors about a bush of raspberries, or trying to figure out who is to blame when contract about shipping gadgets is violated. But not in cases that concern high-value hyper-politicized targets. The Party of Lawyers started it - hoping to win it, because who wins in lawfare if not lawyers? - and now it is on. And I don't see how it could be turned off in any near future. I mean, if blue tribe strikes at NRA, why shouldn't the red tribe retaliate against blue tribe assets? If they don't, they'd just keep losing until their voters get fed up and elect somebody who will stop the chain of losses. How else could it go? In an environment where organizations are encouraged to become tribal (not that PP ever wanted to avoid it, but even if you want to, it'd be very hard to keep out) that's what will keep happening. And the nice ideals would get the treatment the ideals usually get in the middle of the war.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
and that reassured him he was not “mad or delusional
Protip: If you need to be reassured in that by a chatbot, you are mad and delusional. Also if you have sexual (or any other) relationship with a chatbot.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
Unfortunately, yes, some of the right-wingers have the right instincts but are profoundly ignorant about the actual facts and events, especially about places like Russian and Ukraine. So they choose on the basis of "if Biden says Putin is bad, then Putin must be awesome based dude, let's worship him". And "if Biden says there's war in Ukraine, it's all fake and there's no war at all". It is a very sad reality. I hope these stupid guys are a minority, because otherwise the US politics would be completely depressing sight for a foreseeable future.
I admit I don't follow Canadian politics too closely, but I remember the protests happened in early 2022. The ever helpful Wikipedia confirms it was end of January 2022. 8 months from that is October 2022. Nobody had restrictions in October 2022. It's not some heroic achievement. It's like claiming you punched your enemy and he died, 80 years later, in the age of 103. Whatever happened, he didn't die from your punch, that much we could be sure of. In fact, 4 months is June 2022. California lifted its general indoor mask mandate in March 2022 and for schools, prisons and other dangerous spaces in April 2022. Israel (which reacted to covid with very severe restrictions) scrapped their Green Pass system in February 2022 and its mask mandates in April. Removing restrictions in June 2022 is not something that can be seriously taken as a big win of the protest movement.
The aftermath is: Trudeau put Canada under effectively dictatorship for 9 days, and suffered no noticeable consequences. The commission they tasked with whitewashing the ordeal after the fact successfully whitewashed it and confirmed the dictatorship was the appropriate measure to take (which means, in similar circumstances, the Canadian government won't hesitate to do it again). Note also that this is the only use of the Emergency Act ever - thus confirming that this is exactly what it is for, suppressing dissent. The weapon of asset confiscation have been successfully deployed against political enemies, and again, no consequences to speak of, and again, fully confirmed as appropriate and in fact, "unavoidable". Absolutely nothing was "overthrown", or, in fact, changed and absolutely no power was moved from one hands to other. Some victory.
You remind me of Russian liberals in early 2020s (before the war), where they would assemble a protest, get brutally crushed and beaten up, then parade on social media proclaiming "Putin is afraid! We showed him we are the power!" and invent a new form of "creative protesting" - white strips, flashlights, flashmobs, whatever. It ended up with their head person - Navalny - miraculously escaping the murder attempt and ending up in prison, likely for as long as Putin is alive (if he's not murdered by an "unfortunate accident" or "commits suicide"). And all their movement and their goals achieving squat, short of landing the more brave (or less smart, if you will) ones in prison and more smart (or less brave, if you will) ones in exile, where they can continue babbling about how Putin is deathly afraid of them. I'm sure Trudeau is "afraid" of the truckers in the same way.
More options
Context Copy link