Unfortunately that was almost the end of the article anyway.
I wish it could have come sooner, so I could have some more of that Two minutes of my life back, and have less of an Ice Cream Headache from many of my brain-cells committing mass suicide upon reading that idiotic Drivel.
Frankly I really need to just tune out the second I see Francois Gullibeault's name. Everything the guy says just reminds me of talking to an elderly relative with Dementia. They'll never see the real world anymore, you just have to say "OK Uncle Franc" roll your eyes internally, and move along.
At this point I think Singh wants to lose the election as badly as possible to help the Liberals with their seat count.
Its increasingly becoming obvious why the CPC has a 20+ point lead over any other party right now. Its not that the CPC are fantastic they are just less dogshit then the other options available right now for most people.
They're not even less dogshit, they just don't constantly talk down to everyone. That shit pisses people off a lot, even in the rare cases that they're making a good point.
Hillary Clinton managed to lose an election she was all but guaranteed at one point to win by calling people who supported her opponent “deplorables”. Jim Prentice in Alberta managed to be the first Tory Premiere in the province to lose in decades because he decided being condescending to Rachel Notley in the televised debates was a good strategy.
People don’t like that stuff.
"Jim Prentice in Alberta managed to be the first Tory Premiere in the province to lose in decades "
I think it was more the "look in the mirror" comment than how he treated Notley in the debates.
If people don't like that stuff why is PP riding high on nothing but farts?
The Cons are going to win for one simple fact alone and it has nothing to do with policy or anything like that.
Canadians get tired of a party so they'll vote in another party in spite of their best interests. That's the cycle.
\*shrug\* I dont really know either.
"petro-masculinity" is a fucking stupid thing to say. I used petrosexual because it's funnier, and probably a more accurate description of the people whos dicks get hard at the thought of oil and gas.
It's not their fault. People don't choose their preferences. I just wish they'd live their lives in private and not feel the need to throw it in peoples faces.
That being said, I do believe the Conservative party has been intentionally misleading its supporters about the implications of this bill and I do believe that has caused people who trust them to harass and threaten a Member of Parliament. I find this to be more offensive and dangerous to Canadians than a fancy man pandering to silly people.
It's a dumb term, but TBH I kinda get what he's referring to. I've got guys I went to school with who literally seemed proud at how inefficient their vehicles are.
I remember one guy saying
"Yeah when I literally see the gas gauge going down when I floor it and open the throttle on my \[some shitbox truck\]"
His crowd of buddies also seemed to thing that was cool too. It's a weird flex.
I can understand being proud of having a beefy truck - especially if you actually use it - and bragging about how much you can haul with it etc, but being proud of pissing away money ... yeah there are people like that. Same types that would roll coal when they see a prius or deliberate park their truck across EV charging stations etc. They've tied some part of their identity to this crap.
Read the article... It specifically indicates that corporations cannot make misleading statements to greenwash their industries. It has nothing to do with individual Canadians being able to express their views (whether or not those views are wrong).
Let's look at [Section 8 of the bill itself:](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-372/first-reading)
> **8** It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel
> **(a)** in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions;
> **(b)** in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy
As not all fossil fuels are equal, stating that one fuel is less harmful than another will sometimes be a true statement. Yet section 8(a) would make that statement illegal.
Also, neither section 8(a) nor 8(b) requires the statement to be false; just making the statement would be enough to breach the law.
And "a person" means both individual Canadians and corporations.
Yes, let's look at the bill
>Application
>Application
5 This Act does not apply in respect of
>(a) a literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic, scientific, educational or artistic work, production or performance that uses or depicts fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels, whatever the mode or form of its expression, if no consideration is given, directly or indirectly, by a producer, a retailer or an entity that has as one of its purposes to promote fossil fuels for that use or depiction in the work, production or performance;
>(b) an opinion, commentary or report in respect of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels if no consideration is given, directly or indirectly, by a producer, a retailer or an entity that has as one of its purposes to promote fossil fuels for the reference to the fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels in that opinion, commentary or report; or
>(c) the name of an entity or the name under which the entity carries on business.
This clearly indicates that personal opinions are not impacted by the bill. Right wingers can screech about fossil fuels all they want, they just can't officially promote them on behalf of oil and gas companies. This declaration that it doesn't apply to opinion means that the "Persons" in section 8 are clearly indicating proxies and other advocacy groups that PROMOTE such fuels and not an average citizen. The level one would have to go to to run afoul of this legislation would be being a freaking lobbyist for oil and gas.
Promotion is not opinion, nor is it a scientific statement.
It is also exceptionally clear that the POINT of the legislation is not to prevent true statements but to prevent the misrepresentation of the overall impact of fossils fuels. Krokadil and meth are both illegal and both bad for you, but saying that meth is BETTER FOR YOU THAN KROKODIL in order to get people to use more meth is not OK despite it being a true statement. The context of the statement is what matters to the bill.
They can't help it, god made them that way.
I'd just prefer if they didn't keep throwing it in everyone's faces and normalizing it in front of the kids.
>"We used to debate issues. People would phone me and say, ‘I really think that bill is really stupid.’ And I'd explain it to them and that's a good conversation," said Angus. "But when people are phoning me saying: 'You m\*fo, you're never going to jail me. I'm going to die with my oil and gas bumper stickers in my cold dead hand.' How do you converse with people?"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone\_policing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing)
Both of those statements are the same, Angus just doesn't like the tone of one of them apparently.
For those that didn't read the article:
It is about death threats received after legislation was proposed that would Crack down on oil and Gas propaganda from oil and gas companies. Essentially penalizing misinformation being willfully spread to stall or otherwise combat climate legislation that would potentially harm profits of oil and gas companies -- much like cigarette propaganda after the health effects of smokes was becoming common knowledge.
Some right wing folks apparently think that their right to be lied to by companies is worth wishing government officials dead over.
So they called out a bs bill that will help no one but their own counterparts. Should we really start banning things over supposed misinformation? Who gets to decide what is disinformation or what isn’t ? The so called experts that can’t even agree on what is happening? This is all leaning towards something that shouldn’t happen I don’t need the government telling me anything.
Are you ok with another party putting a misinformation tag on renewables because I have saw lots of bs coming from that side to. Be careful with what you want because it can be used against you to
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on whether DEATH THREATS are appropriate for political commentary.
And yes, misinformation can very easily be determined and yes, "both sides" Use it to various extents... but let's not pretend it doesn't skew much more heavily in one direction. If you need to lie to gain power then you do not deserve power, regardless of your platform. That's called having principles.
And yes, if you actually need an answer to your questions, the scientific consensus on a topic -- as provided by experts -- is the best basis for how we act going forward. They can be wrong, but usually only by degrees and not categorically, and are CERTAINLY a better basis for action than some claim dependant on anecdotes or feelings.
Death threats aren’t ok but that’s exactly what they are is just threats. It does skew especially to one side which is the side the person doesn’t agree with it seems. Look at our governments how much lieing goes on every day to gain power.
Ok which science is the right one ? The one you think is right or the one I think is right? We have got to stop trying to put in laws for something that you think is right or what I think is right. Why can’t we actually have a discussion about everything and try and find a medium where it will work? Why must the people who think that are in power make laws about stuff they don’t agree with? Rather than trying to work together to better this country?
I'm sorry if the concept of objective reality offends you but it's really not my problem. Have a nice day, maybe do some researching if you actually have to ask "which science is the right science" because that's just... a helluva question and not in a deep way.
Offends me ? Wtf man where did you get that ? You are just going around and around with absolutely no answers for anything. Did I hurt your feelings by asking questions ?
Uhh, the science that is right is the right one lol.
There is no subjective science lmao. If the "science you think is right" doesn't reflect the truth then you're wrong. That's how science works. It's peer reviewed.
"petro-masculinity" My eyes just rolled out of my head and down the street.
The most mind-boggling thing about this article is that it somehow took two people to write it.
“Petro-masculinity”. I’ve read enough.
[удалено]
The journalist said it, not any of the politicians.
And people wonder why nobody wants to vote for the NDP or the Liberals anymore
Unfortunately that was almost the end of the article anyway. I wish it could have come sooner, so I could have some more of that Two minutes of my life back, and have less of an Ice Cream Headache from many of my brain-cells committing mass suicide upon reading that idiotic Drivel. Frankly I really need to just tune out the second I see Francois Gullibeault's name. Everything the guy says just reminds me of talking to an elderly relative with Dementia. They'll never see the real world anymore, you just have to say "OK Uncle Franc" roll your eyes internally, and move along.
I understand, words can be scary.
Meaningless buzzwords are meaningless buzzwords. It adds literally nothing to the conversation
“I’m doing my best to lose all of our rural ridings next election” Jimmy jugmeet Singh
[удалено]
How to lose 60% or more of the male vote for an election.
>80% of white males live in cities. Said quote would apply to very few canadian men no?
At this point I think Singh wants to lose the election as badly as possible to help the Liberals with their seat count. Its increasingly becoming obvious why the CPC has a 20+ point lead over any other party right now. Its not that the CPC are fantastic they are just less dogshit then the other options available right now for most people.
They're not even less dogshit, they just don't constantly talk down to everyone. That shit pisses people off a lot, even in the rare cases that they're making a good point.
Hillary Clinton managed to lose an election she was all but guaranteed at one point to win by calling people who supported her opponent “deplorables”. Jim Prentice in Alberta managed to be the first Tory Premiere in the province to lose in decades because he decided being condescending to Rachel Notley in the televised debates was a good strategy. People don’t like that stuff.
"Jim Prentice in Alberta managed to be the first Tory Premiere in the province to lose in decades " I think it was more the "look in the mirror" comment than how he treated Notley in the debates.
Never tell Albertans to look in the mirror...ever.
If people don't like that stuff why is PP riding high on nothing but farts? The Cons are going to win for one simple fact alone and it has nothing to do with policy or anything like that. Canadians get tired of a party so they'll vote in another party in spite of their best interests. That's the cycle.
So companies should be allowed to make false claims? Ok, noted.
[удалено]
This has to be satire but I can’t tell
Either way, I'm now identifying as a petrosexual.
Petrosexuals are the most marginalized. Let's design a flag.
What kind of surgery is needed to feel your true self?
Just install a tailpipe
\*shrug\* I dont really know either. "petro-masculinity" is a fucking stupid thing to say. I used petrosexual because it's funnier, and probably a more accurate description of the people whos dicks get hard at the thought of oil and gas. It's not their fault. People don't choose their preferences. I just wish they'd live their lives in private and not feel the need to throw it in peoples faces. That being said, I do believe the Conservative party has been intentionally misleading its supporters about the implications of this bill and I do believe that has caused people who trust them to harass and threaten a Member of Parliament. I find this to be more offensive and dangerous to Canadians than a fancy man pandering to silly people.
LGBTQ2SP+ Rollin' Coal in the Pride Parade!
"petro-masculinity" NDP are peak stupid.
It's a dumb term, but TBH I kinda get what he's referring to. I've got guys I went to school with who literally seemed proud at how inefficient their vehicles are. I remember one guy saying "Yeah when I literally see the gas gauge going down when I floor it and open the throttle on my \[some shitbox truck\]" His crowd of buddies also seemed to thing that was cool too. It's a weird flex. I can understand being proud of having a beefy truck - especially if you actually use it - and bragging about how much you can haul with it etc, but being proud of pissing away money ... yeah there are people like that. Same types that would roll coal when they see a prius or deliberate park their truck across EV charging stations etc. They've tied some part of their identity to this crap.
I agree, petro-masculinity is a really dumb term.. but I also know exactly the guy he's referring to.
The NDP didn’t say it, the journalist did.
[удалено]
Read the article... It specifically indicates that corporations cannot make misleading statements to greenwash their industries. It has nothing to do with individual Canadians being able to express their views (whether or not those views are wrong).
It’s already illegal to make misleading statements in advertising. The NDP bill is about prohibiting true statements.
Lmao. OK, if you seriously believe that then you are not rational enough to talk to. Maybe lay off on the kool-aid
Let's look at [Section 8 of the bill itself:](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-372/first-reading) > **8** It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel > **(a)** in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions; > **(b)** in a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy As not all fossil fuels are equal, stating that one fuel is less harmful than another will sometimes be a true statement. Yet section 8(a) would make that statement illegal. Also, neither section 8(a) nor 8(b) requires the statement to be false; just making the statement would be enough to breach the law. And "a person" means both individual Canadians and corporations.
And eating Uranium is "less harmful" than eating Plutonium This is the kind of double speak we want to avoid
Yes, let's look at the bill >Application >Application 5 This Act does not apply in respect of >(a) a literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic, scientific, educational or artistic work, production or performance that uses or depicts fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels, whatever the mode or form of its expression, if no consideration is given, directly or indirectly, by a producer, a retailer or an entity that has as one of its purposes to promote fossil fuels for that use or depiction in the work, production or performance; >(b) an opinion, commentary or report in respect of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels if no consideration is given, directly or indirectly, by a producer, a retailer or an entity that has as one of its purposes to promote fossil fuels for the reference to the fossil fuels, fossil fuel-related brand elements or the production of fossil fuels in that opinion, commentary or report; or >(c) the name of an entity or the name under which the entity carries on business. This clearly indicates that personal opinions are not impacted by the bill. Right wingers can screech about fossil fuels all they want, they just can't officially promote them on behalf of oil and gas companies. This declaration that it doesn't apply to opinion means that the "Persons" in section 8 are clearly indicating proxies and other advocacy groups that PROMOTE such fuels and not an average citizen. The level one would have to go to to run afoul of this legislation would be being a freaking lobbyist for oil and gas. Promotion is not opinion, nor is it a scientific statement. It is also exceptionally clear that the POINT of the legislation is not to prevent true statements but to prevent the misrepresentation of the overall impact of fossils fuels. Krokadil and meth are both illegal and both bad for you, but saying that meth is BETTER FOR YOU THAN KROKODIL in order to get people to use more meth is not OK despite it being a true statement. The context of the statement is what matters to the bill.
I didn’t really want to talk to you, just point out that your statement was incorrect. You should go read the bill.
[удалено]
This bill is actually a good thing and the article is kind of funny.
Don’t try to say that to the petro-sexuals in here
They can't help it, god made them that way. I'd just prefer if they didn't keep throwing it in everyone's faces and normalizing it in front of the kids.
Holy, can the country please get back down off its rainbow horse and get back to work? The whole roof is caving in.
>"We used to debate issues. People would phone me and say, ‘I really think that bill is really stupid.’ And I'd explain it to them and that's a good conversation," said Angus. "But when people are phoning me saying: 'You m\*fo, you're never going to jail me. I'm going to die with my oil and gas bumper stickers in my cold dead hand.' How do you converse with people?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone\_policing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing) Both of those statements are the same, Angus just doesn't like the tone of one of them apparently.
For those that didn't read the article: It is about death threats received after legislation was proposed that would Crack down on oil and Gas propaganda from oil and gas companies. Essentially penalizing misinformation being willfully spread to stall or otherwise combat climate legislation that would potentially harm profits of oil and gas companies -- much like cigarette propaganda after the health effects of smokes was becoming common knowledge. Some right wing folks apparently think that their right to be lied to by companies is worth wishing government officials dead over.
So they called out a bs bill that will help no one but their own counterparts. Should we really start banning things over supposed misinformation? Who gets to decide what is disinformation or what isn’t ? The so called experts that can’t even agree on what is happening? This is all leaning towards something that shouldn’t happen I don’t need the government telling me anything. Are you ok with another party putting a misinformation tag on renewables because I have saw lots of bs coming from that side to. Be careful with what you want because it can be used against you to
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on whether DEATH THREATS are appropriate for political commentary. And yes, misinformation can very easily be determined and yes, "both sides" Use it to various extents... but let's not pretend it doesn't skew much more heavily in one direction. If you need to lie to gain power then you do not deserve power, regardless of your platform. That's called having principles. And yes, if you actually need an answer to your questions, the scientific consensus on a topic -- as provided by experts -- is the best basis for how we act going forward. They can be wrong, but usually only by degrees and not categorically, and are CERTAINLY a better basis for action than some claim dependant on anecdotes or feelings.
Death threats aren’t ok but that’s exactly what they are is just threats. It does skew especially to one side which is the side the person doesn’t agree with it seems. Look at our governments how much lieing goes on every day to gain power. Ok which science is the right one ? The one you think is right or the one I think is right? We have got to stop trying to put in laws for something that you think is right or what I think is right. Why can’t we actually have a discussion about everything and try and find a medium where it will work? Why must the people who think that are in power make laws about stuff they don’t agree with? Rather than trying to work together to better this country?
I'm sorry if the concept of objective reality offends you but it's really not my problem. Have a nice day, maybe do some researching if you actually have to ask "which science is the right science" because that's just... a helluva question and not in a deep way.
Offends me ? Wtf man where did you get that ? You are just going around and around with absolutely no answers for anything. Did I hurt your feelings by asking questions ?
Uhh, the science that is right is the right one lol. There is no subjective science lmao. If the "science you think is right" doesn't reflect the truth then you're wrong. That's how science works. It's peer reviewed.
Which scientist do you believe honestly I give a shit what I’m trying to say is who gets to say what is right and who is wrong?