You have a hard time making comments without getting homophobic or misogynistic, is that in consideration of Canadian interests?

Uhuh, Trump is when you use terms right then make fun of someone who won't.

I don't know why you're being so self-righteous when you're just another STEM unc who doesn't know what they're talking about and refuses to learn. Nothing about your behaviour says, "mature."

You'll learn what neoliberalism is in three years when your kids put you in a home.

Okay so, firstly, go actually read the comment you're responding to. You're making mistakes here that I specifically adressed from your first comment. Go look up what it means, seriously, you'll see that my description is actually pretty useful.

None of this relates to neoliberalism since, again, it doesn't just mean, "when a government does things." But I can see more clearly here that you brought up something less relevant than say, the past fifty years of public spending and international economic policy, because you misunderstand the influence the US has over Canada as being primarily in terms of military power, which is not what I referred to even once. Imperialism does not just manifest as military might, it is a complex system of power that involves political, cultural, and economic subordination, which is why neoliberalism has been so prominent in imperialistic spaces like the US, Canada, EU, UK, Australia, Japan, etc. over the past fifty years. This plane project seems to intersect with some special interest you have, but I'm afraid that doesn't mean that it is the most effective or useful way to understand this topic. You also seem to think I said "imperialism" began in the 1980s, which, no, I didn't, and it's very unreasonable to draw that from what I said. It is literally objective fact that people have warned against this power imbalance since the neoliberal era began; go look up CUSFTA and NAFTA discourses. This isn't even something debatable, and I know you don't understand what you're arguing against because of that.

Before you spew some more, y'know, read this comment first, but I'd like you to please find some sources to corroborate the incredible claim that fifty years of public and economic policy has "absolutely nothing to do with canada's current position," as it is about as an unsubstantiated claim that anyone could make. Even if just because Mark Carney, the current Prime Minister of Canada, subscribes to neoliberal politics and has occupied positions of power both in the UK and Canada over the past two decades. You don't know enough about this dude, ffs.

You had to ask yourself that more than once?

.....neoliberal doesn't mean, "Federal Liberal Party of Canada." It is a set of politics that emerged in the late 20th century which rearticulates the classical liberal, "laissez-faire" rationalizations for massive wealth stratification and privatization of public works as an attack on the more welfare liberal policies and programs of the post-depression era. Reagan is the most famous advocate for this form of economic policy and is often (wrongly) credited for its formulation. It is characterized not by "small government" as many of its advocates say, but by the privatization of previously state-owned or operated programs and services. Canada's "mixed" economy is a great example of this form of policy exactly because it follows the philosophy that public capital is more efficiently spent through private hands, or at the very least through the logics of capitalist efficiency. So, when you see Conservative and Liberal governments defunding say, education or medical in favour of privatized "efficiency," that is an element in neoliberal politics. Or, when you consider that Carney's "sovereignty" fund is essentially a funnel moving public wealth into privately owned fossil fuel and mining corporations. With that in mind, it means that even policies related to business are subject to the capitalist imperatives of profit maximization, infinite growth, and simply the private wealth interests of individual policy makers.

So, I'm not sure why the Avro Arrow project failed, but I know it was cancelled in 1959, roughly a decade and a half before the neoliberal era that I am describing. From what I recall, the second proposal during the Harper admin was cut due to to concerns over cost, which would potentially reflect neoliberal rhetoric, but I don't know enough about aircraft design to speculate on whether that was a realistic estimate of it. But, the fact that Canada does supply its airforce with an assortment of privately owned companies for British-, Euro-, and American-made planes exemplifies how investment in those companies also creates an incentive for any investors in the admin to vote against a nationalized project.

Look up terms before you say shit like this or presume to know better than others when you clearly should be questioning how you understand these things.

Edit: Notice how they didnt comment under this one, but rather my response to a different commenter.

As hyperbolic as this is, I am concerned by how many Canadians dismiss this out of hand. I know many of you haven't had to actually think about imperialism until quite recently, but how do you think the US got into such an advantageous position over the Canadian state? Did it not occur to you at all in these past decades that US ownership over so much Canadian businesses and resources, and the converse dependency Canada has on US finance and commodities constituted a power imbalance that could he weaponized? What about the fact that virtually all internet information platforms are moderated and surveilled by US corporations, or that the majority of hardware brands are American-owned?

They're saying it in such a blunt way to correctly assert that the US can exercise that power imbalance to its benefit. Even if Carney's diversification strategy works, we're going to see a massive shift in the cost of living in Canada in the meantime, and it is already beyond tolerance for many of us. This is not good, and this is what people have warned against for decades since the neoliberal era began.

Edit: refer below for a description on what "neoliberalism" is, as I get the impression there's many people here who may not understand what that term means and think that the word "liberal" is just some vague attack on the Liberal Party (which, make no mistake, they are neoliberals) or "progressives."

Refer to my other comment above for a description of what it is. How tf did both of you see a term you didn't understand, and did not think to simply look it up?

Sure, what piece of his writing? Would be very interesting to find something of his that directly addresses positionality in that way. Please, tell me where.

Cool, so, we're gonna tell kids gender doesn't exist until they're 18?

I'm sorry, are you asking for a source for how Canada, the fucking British colony, was white supremacist before the US had the amount of influence it has over it today?

The Canadian Constitution, The Indian Act, the 1793 Act Against Slavery (I feel the need to explain to you that the need for this law proves the pervasiveness of chattel slavery here, enough to necessitate restrictions).

There's three, one before confederation, one during, and one after. You racist dipshit.

Tell ya what bud, you bring a citation, and I'll read this. I know you don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to engage with you until you show that you do.

Jesus fucking Christ with you people. A great example of a liberal who thinks that people can only see what you show them.

Material security is a fucking privilege. The fact that people are miserable doesn't mean they aren't privileged. And why do you think they are privileges? Hm? Where did they get the idea that they are? Is here, perhaps, good reason to think that in the white settler state? Hmmm, almost like the entire fucking country was designed to the benefit of people like them, specifically.

The amount of Canadians in this thread who pretend to not get what this place is is getting on my nerves. They know they're miserable, nobody is having fun, they want to be secure and they know they can get that by being bigoted because that's how they fucking got what they have.

It's obvious that many of you warp reality to parse some sense of empathy or understanding for these people, and it shows that you clearly don't care about the people who are victimized. Everyone has bigots in their family, you have to learn to understand they're sad people and also that nobody is going to force them to be otherwise, they're still a threat. This piece of shit country was about to elect an explicitly trans-genocidal PM before Trump stole the election for Carney, maybe you shouldn't say anything about this if these people weren't about to fucking kill you. No, they aren't being tricked, they're adults, grow the fuck up.

Hey, kys.

And of course you're a misogynistic transphobe dipshit too. Unreal.

Hey, dummy, "tomboy" is a label, and this is the exact age kids are learning what they want to express their gender as. Of course you also think it's just "women," because it's 2010 and you saw the helicopter meme.

Unreal the amount of liberals who try to claim ownership over values they clearly don't subscribe to; wonder where they'd learn to do that so comfortably.

Bud, that world does not exist, the one with a Canada in it does. I am not tricking anyone when I tell them that doing exactly what is currently done is going to do with it currently does. You're working backward from a fantasy because you think that's what "socialism" is. No, socialism is about materialism; analyzing the social relations oriented around material needs to generate cricisism and prescribed ideological solutions. These people, including yourself, live in a system where white supremacy is already the norm and is the system of power by which they experience the high standard of living they are afforded by default by being compliant with that hierarchy, willfully or otherwise.

You seriously have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and your whatever, hypotheticals are irrelevant since they do not actually contend with the reality of what this system is, again (and honestly, shows that you have never learned about any revolutions outside of YouTube and History Channel). Do you actually think you've gotten to the party this late and know better than people who have fought this system for generations? Yeah bud, hey, why wouldn't there be a fucking ballot like that in this system? Why is every major party neoliberal? Almost like there's reasons why the current state of affairs have developed the way they have. And of course you've arrived at the conclusion that you do by not even reading about it, otherwise you would have used these terms that have been normal in polisci and poliphilo fields for fucking sixty years.

You literally had to invent a convoluted scenario to describe what you think is a "trick" to describe appropriation, which is how libs ** like you** use language to rearticulate preexisting settler-colonial values through the terms of challenging political movements. No, you and every other dumbass colonizer like you is not "tricked" into supporting a system that already produces your material security through these social relations. People act in accordance with their security, bigots recognize correctly that if this system continues to their benefit, it will do so through white supremacy, heteronormativity, and settler-colonialism, as it always has and why they are benefited by it today. People like you do that, but your discomfort with the obvious immorality of such behaviour encourages you to convolute some reasoning where whatever you were taught to believe by the state is only misguided, misused, and not fundamentally incompatible with an empathetic way of life. Whether or not that this system is sustainable is irrelevant to the fact that people benefit from it now and therefore are inclined to maintain their level of material security. The only difference between you and a bigot is that they are far more comfortable with the violence of this system than you are, the values are fundamentally the same; neither of you are free of responsibility or liability for your beliefs. If you do not like the sound of that, maybe take a minute to think about this.

Go back to talking to your chud uncs at the bbq, that is clearly where you worked through these ideas.

It is actually so annoying how many Canadians will be whiny about the shit they say meaning exactly what they meant it to mean. Yes, you meant sex worker as in a "prostitute" since you were directly comparing the cronyism -- the obvious exchange of wealth for the favour -- to being a "whore." You knew that, you know that right now, you just don't have the spine to own it.

No idea what the "Francis" is supposed to be, but I imagine it's some more whining.

I think it is very funny to suggest that Canadians would need to be tricked or convinced into being bigoted. Even if that was why, those values can only be promoted through social media algorithms and other media production because a substantial number of Canadians are already bigoted, and therefore feel comfortable with said influence. Transphobia and homophobia can be promoted that way because they are already legible to Canadians.

The US and Canada are not two separate planets, they're cooperative settler-colonial states with a shared interest in maintaining heteronormative hierarchies the same as racialized, gendered, and class hierarchies. It isn't a coincidence that many white supremacist leaders in the US are Canadian, or that the Canadian state invests a substantial amount of money into "heritage" subsidies to produce media which portrays Canada as anything other than a brutally genocidal, extractive enterprise. When people talk about racism in the US, they don't consider Canadian influences despite their effects.

It's true that Canada is subordinated politically and culturally to the US, and honestly, it would be accurate to describe it as a part of the US empire for many reasons. So, it isn't necessarily untrue to say that the US influences political or cultural developments within Canada, but it is distortive to suggest that this is why Canadians subscribe to preexisting settler-colonial values. Why not mention the UK then? They're as foreign to Canadians as the US is. J.K. Rowling alone is largely responsible for the rise in trans genocide rhetoric in the past decade even if just by merit of the wealth transferred by her into the hands of bigots globally; the UK government has readily integrated that rhetoric into policy.

The US dedicates wealth to promoting these values the same way every imperialistic state does, including Canada, because they need them to exist. Yes, it effects how rhetoric is applied and by whom, but it works on Canadians because the Canadian state already socializes its citizens to subscribe to these values.

For the fascism? Then why did white supremacy exist here before the US even had that influence?

Yes, I chose to do that because both comments worked to minimize Canadian bigotry, and state facilitation and investment in the continuation of that bigotry (which you also just did). So, I wanted to make sure it was clear that Canada will always do this anyway, whether as a result of English imperialism, USAmerican imperialism, and ultimately, its own imperialism.

These movements are also not people who are "tricked," and you sound like maybe you have some unadressed internalized values by perceiving it as a trick at all. In this system, people who are privileged have a material interest in maintaining and strengthening their access to that privilege. Bigots are not incorrect when they say this system is for them, because it is, and they are moving to strengthen their claim to that because they correctly understand that the Canadian state will protect them before it does any queer, racialized, disabled, colonized, or any other politically disruptive groups of people. Why? Because this is fundamentally still a fucking white supremacist settler state. This article emphasizes the growth of trans genocide politics; how many fucking trans people are in positions of power within this system, how many indigenous and First Nations people are? And how many cishet white people are?

These movements haven't grown because gpaw was tricked by Facebook, we are seeing the inevitable result of decades of liberal appropriation of social justice values and disarmament of their respectively challenging politics. Queer politics used to be about abolishing heteronormativity not coexisting with it, and for good reason. Decolonialism aims to deconstruct the very system of power we are all subject to and its respective social constructs, that is an existential threat to Canada as it exists, and bigotry is not. Any amount of "progressive" policy surrounding marginalized groups is in reality contingent on its benefit to the continuation of this system. As the limitations of liberal capitalism becomes undeniable, it will fall back onto its most foundational and hierarchal means of social control, which is white patriarchy. You fucking think this fascist moment has coincidentally emerged along the visible decline of North American hegemony and worsening climate change? It's incompetence alone that keeps this ideology alive while others are so strategically and effectively disabled?

No, you and every other person in this country has been raised to understand the world within settler-colonial sensibilities; "primed" in the context you apply it alienates this socialization from the material reality of this way of life. Every white person understands that whiteness gets them something, every cishet person knows that they are "normal," every liberal knows that cooperating with the state will afford them better treatment than challenging it, and they don't have to challenge it when there's less privileged people it will target first. These movements grow because they are honest expressions of what this system is, and they're gaining power within it because this system benefits from their existence more than it does from erasing them.

If you can't accept this basic concept about the country you are in, I do not think you are equipped to talk about it in any serious way.