Results 1 to 70 of 70

Thread: Fake News in Alberta Politics

  1. #1

    Default Fake News in Alberta Politics

    Curious what your thoughts are on the rapid increase in fake news and general deceit on social media. Is this new to Alberta politics? If it is, are folks just more gullible, or is social media lending false authenticity that is consumed by stupid people? If it isn't, has social media altered the delivery? Are Canadian news outlets doing a better job than our southern neighbours to avoid it? What about fake news and rage generators like Rebel?

    Here's the latest. Accusing the NDP of planting anti-gay activists in the crowd as if it's fact, to rile up idiots. Which is all rather absurd considering if you go look at the feeds from when the rally was actually happening and you can see all the anti-gay support from Rebel and conservative followers. Groups like Rebel have no problem saying one thing, and then saying the exact opposite in the next sentence, and pretending like the first thing never happened.

    Considering fake news about a pizza joint keeping child sex slaves in basement tunnels for pedophiles and backed by Hillary resulted in a man shooting up the place with a fully automatic weapon, I think there needs to be a larger dialogue about the consequences of fake news and what the fake media outlets are attempting to achieve by producing it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    I'm trying hard to figure out if "fake news" is just another word for "unsubstantiated rumours", which have been an aspect of politics since time immemorial, or if there really has been a substantial development in the way dubious information is circulated.

    As for Levant's allegations, it's not uncommon for politicians and activists to claim that some seemingly embarrassing comrades are in reality provocateurs. So that's probably not really connection to any post-Donald trend toward fake news.

  3. #3

    Default

    Do you see a difference now in how people are reacting to it? Do you feel it's just a minority of idiots that believe it, or pretend to go along with the game?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Do you see a difference now in how people are reacting to it? Do you feel it's just a minority of idiots that believe it, or pretend to go along with the game?
    Hard to say. I'm not really "on the ground", so to speak, when it comes to western-world politics.

    I will say that Trump didn't even win a majority of the vote, so it seems unlikely to me that most Americans believe that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a pizza restaurant. Probably a lot of Republican don't believe that either, but just go along quietly with the nutbars because they're glad the Democrats are gone, and are happy to support anything that keeps them out.

    I know a few people in Canada who are always latching onto any rumour that portrays the politicians they hate in a bad light, regardless of how credible the story may or may not be. It's possible that, with the adent of social media, the fantasies are being spread to a wider audience in a much shorter amount or time, whereas in the past you had to wait a while to get it via word-of-mouth.

  5. #5

    Default

    My personal fear is that the fake news and the rise of provocateurs using social media makes it easier for unstable, desperate, or mentally ill folks to get caught up and do crazy things. Do the sources then take any responsibility for that? Of course not. They seemingly encourage it as it somehow legitimizes their accusations that the world is falling apart under the leadership of others, though ironically they tend to not only offer no solution, but believe that cutting those people off to fend for themselves is in society's best interest.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  6. #6
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    An interview from a fake news writer about the US Election, take from it what you will...:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8bef3ee66e8e

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    My personal fear is that the fake news and the rise of provocateurs using social media makes it easier for unstable, desperate, or mentally ill folks to get caught up and do crazy things. Do the sources then take any responsibility for that? Of course not. They seemingly encourage it as it somehow legitimizes their accusations that the world is falling apart under the leadership of others, though ironically they tend to not only offer no solution, but believe that cutting those people off to fend for themselves is in society's best interest.
    I don't see this as anything new. Propaganda, marketing, spin, word smithing, bias, incomplete information, etc have all been common throughout my life. In recent times just look at the misinformation that has been spread by traditional media regarding middle eastern wars and terrorist attacks (as in naming names - of wrongly identified people). Then there's CNN's seemingly monthly "War on ___{whatever}___ " approach to hyping up news. CNN only lost its former credibility as a result.

    Traditional text media frequently used subtle spin through emotive language or words with positive or negative connotations. It also often presented factual data with selective and subjective interpretations of the data. So if anything, any flood of "fake news" will cause people to be less guilible and trusting of any news.

    Eg. I used to receive emails with fake news but someone in the distribution group always fact checked the stories to snopes and then embarrassed the sender for being so guilible. I receive far fewer such emails today.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2016 at 01:09 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    An interview from a fake news writer about the US Election, take from it what you will...:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8bef3ee66e8e
    He possibly actually thinks people are dumber. I doubt that. People start with their beliefs and selectively read to support their beliefs. There's nothing new there. Fake news was just more ammo in their battle to get what they wanted. The numbers voting democrat va republican didn't change all that much. It was all just preaching to the converted. The few swing voters are the ones to focus on.


    From that article:
    Excerpt:


    Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2016 at 01:22 PM.

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    My personal fear is that the fake news and the rise of provocateurs using social media makes it easier for unstable, desperate, or mentally ill folks to get caught up and do crazy things. Do the sources then take any responsibility for that? Of course not. They seemingly encourage it as it somehow legitimizes their accusations that the world is falling apart under the leadership of others, though ironically they tend to not only offer no solution, but believe that cutting those people off to fend for themselves is in society's best interest.
    I don't see this as anything new. Propaganda, marketing, spin, word smithing, bias, incomplete information, etc have all been common throughout my life. In recent times just look at the misinformation that has been spread by traditional media regarding middle eastern wars and terrorist attacks (as in naming names - of wrongly identified people). Then there's CNN's seemingly monthly "War on ___{whatever}___ " approach to hyping up news. CNN only lost its former credibility as a result.

    Traditional text media frequently used subtle spin through emotive language or words with positive or negative connotations. It also often presented factual data with selective and subjective interpretations of the data. So if anything, any flood of "fake news" will cause people to be less guilible and trusting of any news.

    Eg. I used to receive emails with fake news but someone in the distribution group always fact checked the stories to snopes and then embarrassed the sender for being so guilible. I receive far fewer such emails today.

    Geraldo's 1988 documentary on Satanism

    Never mind some redneck waving a gun at a pizzeria, the late-80s Satanism stuff was believed by social-workers, psychologists, cops, prosecutors, and judges, and led to dozens if not hundreds of people being dubiously jailed in the US, the UK, and Canada.

    And anybody remember Nancy Reagan's War On Drugs? That was hardly an exercise in fact-based advertising.

  10. #10

    Default

    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?

  11. #11
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    ^ When it's factual false information that is spread as the truth, instead of simply being satire or something? For example in the article I posted, trumps campaign manager reposted a fake story about a protester being paid $3500. How is that ok? It is not censorship to stop the spread of lies.

    There is a line between "real" and "fake". Some things actually happened and some actually didn't. Stopping the spread of misinformation isn't some infringement on freedom of speech.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?
    I haven't heard any government official even mention the fake news issue. Everything I've heard and read about it has come out of various media and individuals.

    You may have fallen for some fake news saying government has any covert or overt position on it.

    Maybe some ratings systems are needed but then again many people fail to read critically. Facts and opinions regularly get mixed together and ratings would have to ask readers to separate a news item's facts from the article's opinions and not mix the two.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2016 at 03:40 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?
    I haven't heard any government official even mention the fake news issue. Everything I've heard and read about it has come out of various media and individuals.

    You may have fallen for some fake news saying government has any covert or overt position on it.

    Maybe some ratings systems are needed but then again many people fail to read critically. Facts and opinions regularly get mixed together and ratings would have to ask readers to separate a news item's facts from the article's opinions and not mix the two.
    Bolding mine. This is actually the problem. Garbage gets spread on Facebook as fact, and, for some unknown reason, it seems a majority of people (in the US anyway) are actually getting their news from Facebook. So it gets spread and believed as true. You see it all the time here from some right wing types. Completely baseless garbage. They're struggling with the same crap from the left over in Toronto with those fairiekin xe gender-fluid idiots trying to make it illegal to not inherently know they identify as a non-binary attack chopper. Those of us with critical thinking skills and a healthy level of skepticism are getting squeezed from both sides.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  14. #14
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?
    This is post-truth. There are in fact things that happen, and things that do not happen.

    We as a society will eventually have to deal with the fake news issue. I just don't know how it will be done.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?
    I haven't heard any government official even mention the fake news issue. Everything I've heard and read about it has come out of various media and individuals.

    You may have fallen for some fake news saying government has any covert or overt position on it.

    Maybe some ratings systems are needed but then again many people fail to read critically. Facts and opinions regularly get mixed together and ratings would have to ask readers to separate a news item's facts from the article's opinions and not mix the two.
    Bolding mine. This is actually the problem. Garbage gets spread on Facebook as fact, and, for some unknown reason, it seems a majority of people (in the US anyway) are actually getting their news from Facebook. So it gets spread and believed as true. You see it all the time here from some right wing types. Completely baseless garbage. They're struggling with the same crap from the left over in Toronto with those fairiekin xe gender-fluid idiots trying to make it illegal to not inherently know they identify as a non-binary attack chopper. Those of us with critical thinking skills and a healthy level of skepticism are getting squeezed from both sides.
    Define: right wing types please

  16. #16

    Default

    I see shares from my rig worker and tradespeople friends that support Kenney/Wildrose and some of the crap is so completely fake but the comments show it's being eaten up like it's gospel. I don't actually believe that it's a majority of the right that believe it, but it's disheartening either way.

    Don't fret, I have left wing friends that post equally ridiculous garbage from the other side of the spectrum, but it's a tiny fraction compared to what I see coming from the right side of the spectrum, which I find concerning.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  17. #17

    Default

    Classic Groupthink
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.


    Janis prescribed three antecedent conditions to groupthink.

    1. High group cohesiveness
      • deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression

    2. Structural faults:
      • insulation of the group
      • lack of impartial leadership
      • lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
      • homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology

    3. Situational context:
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Classic Groupthink
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.


    Janis prescribed three antecedent conditions to groupthink.

    1. High group cohesiveness
      • deindividuation: group cohesiveness becomes more important than individual freedom of expression

    2. Structural faults:
      • insulation of the group
      • lack of impartial leadership
      • lack of norms requiring methodological procedures
      • homogeneity of members' social backgrounds and ideology

    3. Situational context:
    Interesting, but I'd like to see some
    "Classic" examples along with the "classic" definition. The examples given in the article are basically only substantiated by one, the one labelling the event as groupthink.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2016 at 05:14 PM.

  19. #19

    Default

    Unfortunately, there's numerous examples of the serious harm susceptible people cause when other damaged or under-developed minds create rumours and spread falsities.

    Who would have thought that the use of cheese and pizza in relation to a pizzeria would be seen as suspicious.

    Pizzagate: Gunman fires in restaurant at centre of conspiracy

    "Conspiracy theorists said the pizzeria was the base of a child sex ring run by ex-US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her aide, John Podesta ...


    Users of 4chan and another message board Reddit had claimed that words in the emails, such as cheese, hot dog, and pizza, were code for young children and sex acts."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38205885


    We've seen our share of sons of police chiefs and mayors evidencing unusual and sometimes criminal behavior. ...

    (I wonder how the article author can judge anger in a tweet.)

    The son of incoming Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who serves as Flynn’s chief of staff, went on an extended Twitter rant last night in which he seemed to suggest that a showdown yesterday in a DC restaurant, in which a far-right-inspired gunman held police at bay for nearly an hour, was a hoax.

    In an angry series of Tweets, that included retweeting leaders of the racist, white supremacist “Alt Right” movement, Michael G. Flynn ripped into the media — CNN’s Jake Tapper in particular — claiming that the Comet gunman was an actor, and that the media is soft on pedophilia.

    Flynn also suggested that the fake conspiracy theory that motivated the gunman, that Hillary Clinton and top aides were involved in a pedophile ring based in the Comet restaurant and pizza parlor in DC, was true until proven wrong.

    http://americablog.com/2016/12/gen-f...nman-hoax.html
    BTW the story apparent says the abuse took place in the basement, but the pizzeria doesn't have a basement.



    A story from a couple years ago. One of many examples of insanity:


    Innocent man burned to death by vigilante neighbours who mistook him for paedophile

    -Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, took pictures of youths vandalising his flower baskets
    -A court heard he planned to give the images to police as evidence
    -But a neighbour saw him with a camera and reported him as a paedophile
    -Police arrested Mr Ebrahimi but let him go when they realised the mistake
    -But two days after his release he was attacked by vigilante neighbours
    -Lee James has pleaded guilty to murder after beating Mr Ebrahimi unconscious before dragging him into the street and setting him on fire
    -Stephen Norley pleaded guilty to assisting an offender
    -Both will be sentenced at Bristol Crown Court next month


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aedophile.html
    Last edited by KC; 06-12-2016 at 08:22 AM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Fake news has been around for years. What about all the proper gander during various wars. Opposite sides dropping pamphlets etc about their opponents positions, ideology, killing power. Wasn't there a big scare over the radio in the 1940's about aliens landing. Apparently so convincing people were running out into the streets in a panic. Then the conspiracy theories that abound year after year even most of them have been solved and resolved. There are still people out there that think JFK got shot by a trained chimpanzee and aliens are alive and well living in Roswell.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Wasn't there a big scare over the radio in the 1940's about aliens landing. Apparently so convincing people were running out into the streets in a panic.
    Actually, it was the scare itself that was the fake news there.

    Mass panic and hysteria swept the United States on the eve of Halloween in 1938, when an all-too-realistic radio dramatisation of The War of the Worlds sent untold thousands of people into the streets or heading for the hills.

    The radio show was so terrifying in its accounts of invading Martians wielding deadly heat-rays that it is remembered like no other radio programme.

    Or, more accurately, it is misremembered like no other radio programme.
    But, either way, yeah, people having a false impression of what took place.

    BBC

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    I'm trying hard to figure out if "fake news" is just another word for "unsubstantiated rumours", which have been an aspect of politics since time immemorial, or if there really has been a substantial development in the way dubious information is circulated.

    As for Levant's allegations, it's not uncommon for politicians and activists to claim that some seemingly embarrassing comrades are in reality provocateurs. So that's probably not really connection to any post-Donald trend toward fake news.
    Yes, in this case Levant is probably just trying to deflect criticism from himself as the organizer of a protest that went off the rails. It's more like excuse making or rationalization than fake news. He also sometimes claims to be a journalist when it suits his purposes, but he seems mainly to be a right wing political provocateur. Often what he does seems to blow up in his face, so I suppose this is no surprise.

    I am not sure what can or should be done about fake news. There are some people who believe whatever they read on their Facebook feed, so I would say first stop being so gullible people and second, Facebook (and others) need to do a little more work in verifying things before letting them be put them out. There have always been rumours, exagerations and mis-statements in public affairs - part of the media's job is to verify things before putting them out, but with so many different sources of content on the internet and some of which don't seem to care much about verifying things, it's becoming more of an issue now.

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Dave wrote:

    I am not sure what can or should be done about fake news. There are some people who believe whatever they read on their Facebook feed, so I would say first stop being so gullible people and second, Facebook (and others) need to do a little more work in verifying things before letting them be put them out. There have always been rumours, exagerations and mis-statements in public affairs - part of the media's job is to verify things before putting them out, but with so many different sources of content on the internet and some of which don't seem to care much about verifying things, it's becoming more of an issue now.
    Yeah, I think ultimately, it's up to indiviudals and private groups to filter the fake stuff out. It would be almost impossible to fashion a law against fake news(apart from what we already have against libel etc) that wouldn't also end up ensnaring legitimate speculation about government and public figures. There's no way you could prosecute everyone who ever said "Our rally was infiltrated by provocateurs!!" without creating a massive repressive apparatus.
    Last edited by overoceans; 06-12-2016 at 11:19 AM.

  24. #24

    Default

    Round about the 1.47 point on this video of the carbon tax rally there is some guy holding a "don't let gay activists in schools" sign. Not sure why he is at a carbon tax protest. Maybe he has had that sign for the last 20 years and decided to take it out for a spin. Doubt he was there to stir up the troops. I'm surprised there were no 'Save the City Centre Airport' signs. Day late and a dollar short.
    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1009004
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Round about the 1.47 point on this video of the carbon tax rally there is some guy holding a "don't let gay activists in schools" sign. Not sure why he is at a carbon tax protest. Maybe he has had that sign for the last 20 years and decided to take it out for a spin. Doubt he was there to stir up the troops. I'm surprised there were no 'Save the City Centre Airport' signs. Day late and a dollar short.
    http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1009004
    I'm no expert at organizing political protests, but it seems to me the organizers should at least try to focus on the issue at hand. Maybe Ezra should have a PS in his e-mail, "everyone - this weeks protest will be about the carbon tax, please leave your signs from the previous protest at home."

  26. #26

    Default

    Ezra just wanted a rabble to rouse, the Carbon Tax was just a title to put on the announcement. They're very inclusive dontcha know... every b*tch helps!
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    "Fake news" is the new excuse that governments are using in order to justify their censoring of dissenting or opposing views.

    Every media outlet is pushing an agenda of some sort. Who gets to determine what's "real" and what's "fake"?
    I haven't heard any government official even mention the fake news issue.

    Obama started it (conveniently) right after Trump won the election:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcb8XcV9XIo

  28. #28

    Default

    Here is an example of fake news from 2 years ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_R-hdrW0AAboSB.png

    The polls showing Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide (or the Newsweek magazine with Hillary on the cover saying "Madam President") was also fake news.

    The fake news media (CNN) that secretly gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton ahead of the debates certainly aren't honest or truthful.


    As I asked earlier, who gets to determine what news gets censored for being "fake" or not?

  29. #29
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Here is an example of fake news from 2 years ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_R-hdrW0AAboSB.png

    The polls showing Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide (or the Newsweek magazine with Hillary on the cover saying "Madam President") was also fake news.

    The fake news media (CNN) that secretly gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton ahead of the debates certainly aren't honest or truthful.


    As I asked earlier, who gets to determine what news gets censored for being "fake" or not?
    'News' is the reporting of things that are happening or have happened. The articles you reference above are talking about things in the future (when they were published) and as such are not news. Merely predictions, opinions, etc. Economists and psychics make their living doing this.

  30. #30

    Default

    if that doesn't count as news, then why is that all published and reported as fact by the news?

  31. #31

    Default

    The only news is that someone made a prediction of an event, not the event itself. The predictions are the facts.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    The only news is that someone made a prediction of an event, not the event itself. The predictions are the facts.
    Yes. The incorrect election predictions are like a doctor telling a patient with cancer that the prognosis is six months, but then the patient is still alive a year later.

    Fake news would be like a doctor telling a patient that he has cancer, when the patient does not in fact have cancer.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Fake news has been around for years. What about all the proper gander during various wars. Opposite sides dropping pamphlets etc about their opponents positions, ideology, killing power. Wasn't there a big scare over the radio in the 1940's about aliens landing. Apparently so convincing people were running out into the streets in a panic. Then the conspiracy theories that abound year after year even most of them have been solved and resolved. There are still people out there that think JFK got shot by a trained chimpanzee and aliens are alive and well living in Roswell.
    You just wait. Trump is going to reveal the truth about Roswell by marching those aliens out into public. But rest assured that he won't let them fly his plane since they couldn't even fly their saucer over the flattest state around without crashing it. As for their looks though, Trump won't have much good to say.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    The only news is that someone made a prediction of an event, not the event itself. The predictions are the facts.
    Yes. The incorrect election predictions are like a doctor telling a patient with cancer that the prognosis is six months, but then the patient is still alive a year later.

    Fake news would be like a doctor telling a patient that he has cancer, when the patient does not in fact have cancer.
    These days having an "expert" or "experts" make a prediction is almost like a jinx or a curse - it's like tempting fate to prove them wrong. I suppose something has to keep them humble, although I am not sure if it really does have that effect. However prediction is really just a fancy word for expectation or guess, so perhaps we also shouldn't take them as seriously as we do sometimes.

    I also don't think predictions are news in the same way stories about what has already happened are.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Here is an example of fake news from 2 years ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_R-hdrW0AAboSB.png

    The polls showing Hillary Clinton would win the election in a landslide (or the Newsweek magazine with Hillary on the cover saying "Madam President") was also fake news.

    The fake news media (CNN) that secretly gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton ahead of the debates certainly aren't honest or truthful.


    As I asked earlier, who gets to determine what news gets censored for being "fake" or not?
    Who gets to determine...?

    Comedians should have the final say.



    In the ultimate irony, there are now rumours Donald Trump was born in Pakistan

    Last month, one Pakistani television network reported that Donald Trump is actually Dawood Ibrahim Khan, born in Pakistan.

    According to Neo News, an Urdu-language outlet, Trump was born in the Waziristan region in 1954, to a Muslim family.

    Apparently, after his parents were killed in a car accident, he was adopted by an American family.




    https://www.indy100.com/article/dona...-irony-7418606


    Bizarre birther theory suggests Donald Trump was born in PAKISTAN before he was adopted and taken to America when his parents died in a car accident
    Pakistani news report suggested Trump was born as Dawood Ibrahim Khan
    Claimed he was taken to London by army captain before being adopted
    Photograph shown on report depicts blond boy wearing khaki clothing


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ocial-facebook
    Last edited by KC; 06-12-2016 at 05:16 PM.

  36. #36

    Default

    It's USA news, but here are 10 major stories that turned out to be fake news:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-out-be-fake/

  37. #37

    Default

    Donald Trump this morning called CNN "fake news" today on Twitter:

    "Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!"
    Good for him for calling out their tabloid garbage - major news media outlets need to be held to the standard of reporting facts, or else continue their slow descent into irrelevancy.

  38. #38

    Default

    Today at noon on Quirks and Quarks

    "Today, more than ever, we are bombarded with information. And how do our brains deal with the constant assault? How do we know what's real and what's fake?

    It turns out our brains are still "wired" to deal with the world as it was 10,000 years ago. And back then, crucial information came in slowly and was relatively straightforward. "The water from that well isn't safe" or "our rival tribe are good hunters." Our ancestors survival depended on holding on to these simple truths. "

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/head-...news-1.3897788



    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks
    How do they know crucial information came in slowly 10,000 years ago? I'd assumed that it came in fast and furious with fangs and claws, or as some mysterious disease, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 17-12-2016 at 07:51 AM.

  39. #39

    Default

    Article:

    Lies spread faster than the truth
    Abstract:
    “There is worldwide concern over false news and the possibility that it can influence political, economic, and social well-being. To understand how false news spreads, Vosoughi et al. used a data set of rumor cascades on Twitter from 2006 to 2017. About 126,000 rumors were spread by ∼3 million people. False news reached more people than the truth; the top 1% of false news cascades diffused to between 1000 and 100,000 people, whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1000 people. Falsehood also diffused faster than the truth. The degree of novelty and the emotional reactions of recipients may be responsible for the differences observed.”

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146

  40. #40

    Default

    Maybe it hit Alberta politics too. Hence the NDP win.


    Russian troll factory also went after Canadian targets including oil, Justin Trudeau

    By Alexander Panetta The Canadian Press, March 18, 2018 1:19 pm

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4090153/r...ustin-trudeau/

  41. #41

    Default

    All of its fake buddy ! Look who owns and controls our media and if journalists had any integrity they wouldnt be making excuses about advertising revenue etc in an era when they can reach the masses with out . Worst is the politicians ! You really believe Notely when she sais the Fort Mac fire reports arn't out ( might hurt their feelings ) . Or Ombumer tells you the NSA isnt reading ever text ,pic , e mail on every citizen ? ....or Harper the great economist couldnt see the 2008 crash . Pffff. Pull your head out of the sand and join the resistance ! Drain the swamp ! Embrace bitcoin !

  42. #42

    Default

    Embrace bitcoin! Why?

  43. #43
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Decentralizer View Post
    Look who owns and controls our media and if journalists had any integrity they wouldnt be making excuses about advertising revenue etc in an era when they can reach the masses with out .
    Huh?

    Then who pays? Nothing is free. Look at the recent Facebook debacle...if you are suggesting social media is the saviour of truth, justice, fairness, journalism, good spelling, grammar, punctuation, and typing skills...sheesh...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  44. #44

    Default

    I see banned users under new usernames...

  45. #45

    Default

    FOG
    ”fact-deficient, obfuscating generalities”


    These days this probably applies more to political speech than business speech

    Why we Praise Meaningless Jargon

    “The CEO who misleads others in public may eventually mislead himself in private.”
    — Warren Buffett

    ***

    Is there a link between candor and execution? L. J. Rittenhouse thinks so.

    Rittenhouse is the author of Investing Between the Lines: How to Make Smarter Decisions By Decoding CEO Communications, a book that Warren Buffett recommended in his 2012 Shareholder Letter. He writes:

    ...”

    It doesn't speak to candor and it doesn't speak to the fact that the people in charge know what's going on. Reading between the lines you can spot trouble and a void of leadership. Perhaps they are hiding something malicious through obfuscation and meaningless jargon, or, perhaps they are hiding their own incompetence. Either way, it's a red flag.

    Rittenhouse coined an acronym for the absence of candor: “FOG.” It stands for “fact-deficient, obfuscating generalities.”


    The Emperor’s New Clothes

    When we read something full of jargon and clichés we end up thinking that we're the problem — we think that we're just not smart enough to understand it and we ignore our judgment and common sense.

    we fear our vulnerability in relation to leaders whom we must trust? To imagine that they would injure us to advance their self-interest is disturbing, even frightening. Instead, we choose to doubt ourselves.
    After reading Investing Between the Lines: How to Make Smarter Decisions By Decoding CEO Communications Buffett commented, “Rittenhouse is still on the side of the angels.””


    https://www.fs.blog/2013/04/the-emperor-has-no-clothes/
    Bolding mine


    Laura Rittenhouse: A Modern Day Orwell on the FOG of Words - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5xxAF4aHig


    Leadership SEP 17, 2015
    A Lesson in Brand Candor - What Trump Needs To Learn From Pixar
    By Laura Rittenhouse , CONTRIBUTOR

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurari.../#1d8825455767

    .
    Last edited by KC; 14-05-2018 at 06:33 AM.

  46. #46

    Default

    Missed this when the thread was created:


    Kevin Libin: Beware of fake news reporting that Liberals are better than Tories on pipelines | Financial Post
    December 7, 2016

    “Since announcing last week their government’s approval of two pipeline upgrades — a Trans Mountain expansion and a refurbishment of Line 3 — the federal Liberals have given themselves credit for succeeding with pipelines where the oilsands-championing previous Tory government never could. “Yesterday’s announcement demonstrated that in one year we were able to do what 10 years of the previous government was unable to do,” Trudeau gloated in the House.

    Well, politicians have always peddled fake news, but usually real news journalists knew better than to take it at face value. But there was Max Fawcett, former editor of Alberta Oil magazine, tweeting “Dear conservatives: It was Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley that got a pipeline to tidewater. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.” ”...


    “Alberta’s NDP amped up the fakery, with Environment Minister Shannon Phillips spreading a tweet from a Liberal activist: “So in the end, it took 2 progressive govs working together on climate change to get pipelines approved, and do what Con(servative) govs could not.” Added Phillips “Nicely summed up.” The meme had so worked so brilliantly that even one of the National Post’s canniest columnists observed Trudeau got “a job done that Captain Oil Sands (Stephen Harper) couldn’t?” How “frustrating” for the Tories.

    More likely their frustration derives from watching such recent history so badly vandalized. So far, the Liberals have merely approved two pipeline upgrades. Under the Harper Conservative government, two entirely new oil pipelines were approved and actually built: The non-XL version of Keystone, from Alberta to Nebraska, approved in 2006, completed in 2010; and The Alberta Clipper, to Wisconsin, approved in 2008 and active in 2010. ”


    http://financial-post.com/opinion/ke...s-on-pipelines

    http://business.financialpost.com/op...s-on-pipelines
    Last edited by KC; 17-05-2018 at 07:03 PM.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Missed this when the thread was created:


    Kevin Libin: Beware of fake news reporting that Liberals are better than Tories on pipelines | Financial Post
    December 7, 2016

    “Alberta’s NDP amped up the fakery, with Environment Minister Shannon Phillips spreading a tweet from a Liberal activist: “So in the end, it took 2 progressive govs working together on climate change to get pipelines approved, and do what Con(servative) govs could not.” Added Phillips “Nicely summed up.” The meme had so worked so brilliantly that even one of the National Post’s canniest columnists observed Trudeau got “a job done that Captain Oil Sands (Stephen Harper) couldn’t?” How “frustrating” for the Tories.

    More likely their frustration derives from watching such recent history so badly vandalized. So far, the Liberals have merely approved two pipeline upgrades. Under the Harper Conservative government, two entirely new oil pipelines were approved and actually built: The non-XL version of Keystone, from Alberta to Nebraska, approved in 2006, completed in 2010; and The Alberta Clipper, to Wisconsin, approved in 2008 and active in 2010. ”

    http://financial-post.com/opinion/ke...s-on-pipelines
    Well the Conservatives had three terms in government to do it, although it seems like they didn't make any further progress on it after they got their majority government in 2011 it was, I think. Of course, both of those pipelines were to the US and none to tidewater in Canada over the approximately 10 years they were in power, so you shouldn't be surprised if people don't take Scheer or Kenneys' criticism of the Liberals and their comments that they would somehow magically do so much better on this, very seriously.

  48. #48

    Default

    Yes, always be suspicious of quotations chopped mid sentence or just one sentence.

    Here’s some context:


    The context:

    Debates (Hansard) No. 118 - November 30, 2016 (42-1) - House of Commons of Canada
    “Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement demonstrated that in one year we were able to do what 10 years of the previous government was unable to do.
    We were elected on the solemn commitment to both grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time, and that is exactly what we have done. By doing this, by demonstrating that we have listened to Canadians, that we understand their concerns about jobs and about the future but also about protecting the environment for generations to come, we acted in a way that was consistent with what Canadians have been asking for.”



    http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVie...ng-118/hansard




    Last edited by KC; 17-05-2018 at 07:00 PM.

  49. #49

    Default

    “In every chain... increasingly more negative, and biased toward panic and fear”


    Bad news becomes hysteria in crowds, new research shows -- ScienceDaily

    “Led by Professor Thomas Hills in Warwick's Department of Psychology, the study finds that even drawing the public's attention to unbiased, neutral facts does not mitigate this contagion of panic.

    This is the first research ever to investigate the impact of dread on the social amplification of threat, and to examine the re-exposure of balanced information on the social diffusion of messages.”

    ...
    “The original neutral information had virtually no effect on reducing people's increasingly negative outlook.” ...



    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0607101010.htm


    Whike kids say the darndest things, adults conjure up the darndest things.
    Last edited by KC; 11-06-2018 at 10:29 PM.

  50. #50

    Default

    This is news, or even interesting? It's been know for centuries or millennia.

    That effect is exactly why government should be run by technocrats, with the rabble having only minimal input.

    The model of liberal democracy, in other words, which all fascist populist movements (they are all fascist) try to dismantle.

  51. #51

    Default

    Just a heads up:

    Postmedia urged to review board member’s ethics after ex-Trump lawyer confirms payment to silence model | National Observer

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...nfirms-payment

  52. #52

    Default

    Real news is too often derived from assumptions, rumors, twitter trends or just plain BS spouted by some group's unfounded statements.

    Watching or reading the news often has me rolling my eyes so much I'm giving myself a headache. "Sources say", or "According to facebook/twitter" is not how you should start a story if you want to be taken seriously. My favorite is when a sentence starts with "Apparently....", yeah that usually means "this is made up and has no backing".

    I also love when someone says they're making some change because "Albertans demanded..." or "Canadians want...". Who exactly? Where was this poll? What was the percentage who was for it? Or right, made up. I can probably find more than one crazy Albertan who wants a 50% PST, which then means I can also claim that "Albertans want a 50% PST", because more than one Albertan does. Depending on the poll, 80-95% were against changing the national anthem, yet the government did it anyways claiming "Canadians want this change". Apparently not!

    Don't get me started on the whole #metoo and any other social justice trend that ruined people's lives and cost them their jobs and reputations because of unfounded Twitter accusations retweeted thousands of times that somehow made it on the news. Companies immediately fired people over this before there were any kind of formal accusation, investigation, or trial. They also lost their friends and family and will be forever blacklisted. All because of rumors on social media based on someone's post. It's irresponsible for any news media outlet to even report such things and put it in the news. Many accused were found not guilty, but you don't hear about that, and it's too late anyways. Reputation ruined forever.

  53. #53

    Default

    You're right, the national anthem should never be changed. It should only be sung with the original French lyrics.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're right, the national anthem should never be changed. It should only be sung with the original French lyrics.
    Childish remark. Adding another language is not the same as changing something that's been this way since 1939. We have 2 official languages if you weren't aware.

  55. #55

    Default

    They lyrics were changed when they were translated. They were quite different.

    And the anthem was changed when it was officially named the national anthem in 1980, adding "God keep our land".

    Original French version

    Under the eye of God, near the giant river,
    The Canadian grows hoping.
    He was born of a proud race,
    Blessed was his birthplace.
    Heaven has noted his career
    In this new world.
    Always guided by its light,
    He will keep the honour of his flag,
    He will keep the honour of his flag.


    From his patron, the precursor of the true God,
    He wears the halo of fire on his brow.
    Enemy of tyranny
    But full of loyalty,
    He wants to keep in harmony,
    His proud freedom;
    And by the effort of his genius,
    Set on our ground the truth,
    Set on our ground the truth.


    Sacred love of the throne and the altar,
    Fill our hearts with your immortal breath!
    Among the foreign races,
    Our guide is the law:
    Let us know how to be a people of brothers,
    Under the yoke of faith.
    And repeat, like our fathers,
    The battle cry: "For Christ and King!"
    The battle cry: "For Christ and King!"


    In 1970 the Queen in Right of Canada purchased the right to the lyrics and music of "O Canada" from Gordon V. Thompson Music for $1.[19] The song finally became the official national anthem in 1980 with the passage of the National Anthem Act.[17][14] The act replaced two of the repetitions of the phrase "We stand on guard" in the English lyrics, as had been proposed by the Senate Special Joint Committee. This change was controversial with traditionalists and, for several years afterwards, it was not uncommon to hear people still singing the old lyrics at public events. In contrast, the French lyrics are unchanged from the original version.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Canada
    Yeah, it's almost exactly the same! as it is now!
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 27-08-2018 at 03:10 PM.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    They lyrics were changed when they were translated. They were quite different.

    And the anthem was changed when it was officially named the national anthem in 1980, adding "God keep our land".

    Original French version

    Under the eye of God, near the giant river,
    The Canadian grows hoping.
    He was born of a proud race,
    Blessed was his birthplace.
    Heaven has noted his career
    In this new world.
    Always guided by its light,
    He will keep the honour of his flag,
    He will keep the honour of his flag.


    From his patron, the precursor of the true God,
    He wears the halo of fire on his brow.
    Enemy of tyranny
    But full of loyalty,
    He wants to keep in harmony,
    His proud freedom;
    And by the effort of his genius,
    Set on our ground the truth,
    Set on our ground the truth.


    Sacred love of the throne and the altar,
    Fill our hearts with your immortal breath!
    Among the foreign races,
    Our guide is the law:
    Let us know how to be a people of brothers,
    Under the yoke of faith.
    And repeat, like our fathers,
    The battle cry: "For Christ and King!"
    The battle cry: "For Christ and King!"


    In 1970 the Queen in Right of Canada purchased the right to the lyrics and music of "O Canada" from Gordon V. Thompson Music for $1.[19] The song finally became the official national anthem in 1980 with the passage of the National Anthem Act.[17][14] The act replaced two of the repetitions of the phrase "We stand on guard" in the English lyrics, as had been proposed by the Senate Special Joint Committee. This change was controversial with traditionalists and, for several years afterwards, it was not uncommon to hear people still singing the old lyrics at public events. In contrast, the French lyrics are unchanged from the original version.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Canada
    Yeah, it's almost exactly the same! as it is now!
    That's where you're also incorrect. The lyrics were never translated. I speak both languages and grew up singing the French version in school every day. English lyrics were written, added, not translated.

    What you quoted are the additional 3 verses which are no longer used, you didn't quote the first verse which is what is still used today.

    The English version also has additional verses that we don't sing


    O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
    Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
    How dear to us thy broad domain,
    From East to Western sea.
    Thou land of hope for all who toil!
    Thou True North, strong and free!

    Chorus
    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
    May stalwart sons, and gentle maidens rise,
    To keep thee steadfast through the years
    From East to Western sea.
    Our own beloved native land!
    Our True North, strong and free!

    Chorus

    Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
    Hold our Dominion within thy loving care;
    Help us to find, O God, in thee
    A lasting, rich reward,
    As waiting for the better Day,
    We ever stand on guard.

    Chorus
    The French version hasn't changed since it was written in 1880, and the English version hasn't been changed since 1926. The English version became the unofficial national anthem in 1939 when the King stood at attention during its performance in Ottawa. Before this, it was still competing with other unofficials "God Save the Queen" and "The Maple Leaf Forever". O Canada only became official when the National Anthem Act received royal assent in 1980 as all acts must.

    That doesn't change the fact that there was no need to change it in 2018, and the vast majority of Canada did not want the change. But the government didn't care and lied about how "Canadians want" the change. What, the 5-20% according to polls? No. All BS.
    Last edited by alkeli; 27-08-2018 at 03:31 PM.

  57. #57

    Default

    I don't recall a large number of people saying "We must add God to O Canada".

    Maybe we should do away with Parliament and simply have everyone vote, majority rules. Od course, women wouldn't be allowed to vote because they weren't allowed to in 1867.

  58. #58

    Default

    "God keep our land" was not added, it was moved in 1967 when the other competing anthems all had mention of God, and the anthem became one verse.

    The Chorus between the 4 verses is

    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    When only the first verse was being sung, like the French version, 2 lines were removed and replaced with "From far and wide" and "God keep our land glorious and free!" from the later verses.

    Nothing was added.

    This change was also before it became the official anthem in 1980. And from that date, it should not be changed. Or else why don't we change our Flag while we're at it...
    Last edited by alkeli; 28-08-2018 at 11:57 AM.

  59. #59

    Default

    Yeah, our flag should be this one

















    Instead of this one which was forced on the country when nobody was asking for it.



    History of the National Flag of Canada

    https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...a-history.html



  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're right, the national anthem should never be changed. It should only be sung with the original French lyrics.
    Childish remark. Adding another language is not the same as changing something that's been this way since 1939. We have 2 official languages if you weren't aware.
    What's so special about 1939 that things can not be changed after that? Actually, I think we didn't have two official languages then - that change happened after too.

  61. #61

    Default

    In 1939, Asians weren't allowed to vote. First Nations people didn't get the vote until 1960.

    Or, as alkali would call them, the good old days.

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're right, the national anthem should never be changed. It should only be sung with the original French lyrics.
    Childish remark. Adding another language is not the same as changing something that's been this way since 1939. We have 2 official languages if you weren't aware.
    What's so special about 1939 that things can not be changed after that? Actually, I think we didn't have two official languages then - that change happened after too.
    It just takes time to reflect some more ‘real world’ changes in official symbolism, pomp and ceremony, etc.

    Just ten years before that (in 1929), women weren’t “persons” according to Canada’s own Supreme Court and in 1939 I don’t think they could yet vote in Quebec even though more than a century before they could vote in Quebec (Lower Canada).

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    "God keep our land" was not added, it was moved in 1967 when the other competing anthems all had mention of God, and the anthem became one verse.

    The Chorus between the 4 verses is

    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
    When only the first verse was being sung, like the French version, 2 lines were removed and replaced with "From far and wide" and "God keep our land glorious and free!" from the later verses.

    Nothing was added.

    This change was also before it became the official anthem in 1980. And from that date, it should not be changed. Or else why don't we change our Flag while we're at it...
    1
    Canada had bill of rights in 1960. I believe it was later altered.

    Canada is officially a monarchy. That may change someday too.

  64. #64

    Default

    Everyone is going way off topic and completely missing the point about the government making changes that the majority is opposed to, yet claiming that this is what everyone wants and is asking for.

    Canadians are too damn scared of the government to hold legit protests. You ever see the European countries where thousands flood the streets outside their government establishments in protest? That's why they have it so much better. The government reacts to this. The people demand or oppose, and the government agrees.

    In Canada, everyone's too scared to get in trouble. In Canada, we get lost benefits, increased taxes and tuitions, and we just sit here sulking and go "oh well" and carry on. MAYBE go online and anonymously post on a comment section, forum, or tweet, which accomplishes nothing. Meanwhile the government is making statements about how the recent way they screwed Canadians was what Canadians wanted, and it's now benefitting all Canadians....

  65. #65

    Default

    Time to take away the vote for women and minorities. To do away with environmental regulations. I don't recall large numbers of people asking for the Charter either so it's gone.

    Just put everything to a nation wide vote and do away with our system of representation. You need half the population of the country +1 to pass any legislation.

    There, solved it.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Time to take away the vote for women and minorities. To do away with environmental regulations. I don't recall large numbers of people asking for the Charter either so it's gone.

    Just put everything to a nation wide vote and do away with our system of representation. You need half the population of the country +1 to pass any legislation.

    There, solved it.
    If you think all those things you mentioned are as important as changing a word in the national anthem to please a vast minority, then your priorities are beyond skewed and there's no point acknowledging your posts from here on out.

  67. #67

    Default

    No, I think that they're MORE important than changing a single word in the national anthem, especially since the words to O Canada have been changed many times beforehand.

  68. #68

    Default

    Yeah. Anthem words. Not a big deal to me. In fact I think the change is just fine.

    As for not protesting out of fear of our government. Not a chance. Can’t think of anyone I know that would not protest something out of that fear.

  69. #69

    Default



    Ahh, much better. Can't continue without common-sense...


    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Yeah. Anthem words. Not a big deal to me. In fact I think the change is just fine.

    As for not protesting out of fear of our government. Not a chance. Can’t think of anyone I know that would not protest something out of that fear.
    Right, so why couldn't the Anthem words be changed based on a national poll? All the polls done showed that most Canadians were opposed to it, but they did it anyways CLAIMING that this is what Canadians want

    THS LIE in BOLD UNDERLINE is the whole point, the anthem change is just one example so stop getting hung up on it!

    It's the LIE that's the issue. Clear?

  70. #70

    Default

    Badge of honour, especially since he won't see this.

    If it's such a big LIE, where's the protests? Where's the people marching in the streets? Perhaps, most people are just fine with the change and a small but vocal minority simply got their knickers in a twist because the lyrics were made a teensy bit more inclusive? Nah, couldn't be that. Must be that people are terrified to speak out for fear of being arrested by the anthem police.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •