Am I being stupid or does the article not state what the meeting was about?
It was a bunch of conservatives. Use your imagination.
Weekly grindr meetup?
I mean, maybe my bar has been lowered to subterranean levels- but at least her local rep said she should have been allowed to stay and offered a private meeting so she could be heard.
RCMP said it was the event organizer, local guy said it was RCMP but it looks obvious to me this was Pollievre’s team that was acting shitty. True to form for that jackass.
I feel like there’s a serious problem barely hinted at by the article: That a “town hall” meeting was considered a private event. That doesn’t make sense to me. Why would it be private? If it is private, why would the police be on hand to work security?
This is Canada. So while the below excerpt may make it seem mild and OK by US standards, this is the type of thing that led to where the US is today.
Cowichan-Malahat-Langford MP Jeff Kibble, who hosted the town hall, said he wasn’t aware of the women being asked to leave at the time, and was “saddened” to hear about it. He said he’s been in contact with Koons and the other two women and agreed to meet with them for a coffee sometime this week to offer them the opportunity to discuss their concerns and points of view, and answer any questions they had hoped to ask at the town hall. Kibble said they are welcome to wear any T-shirt they want at the meeting.
He said he’s been in contact with Koons and the other two women and agreed to meet with them for a coffee sometime this week to offer them the opportunity to discuss their concerns and points of view, and answer any questions they had hoped to ask at the town hall.
A nice little tea party where everyone can ignore her and whatever she has to say won’t be heard by conservative voters.
The “snowflake”, “facts over feelings”, and “anti-cancel culture” people don’t actually stand behind their beliefs?
Ugh, it’s honestly hard to pretend to be surprised anymore. Can we just change every headline about conservatives to say, “Giant pieces of shit are still shitty”?
Well from the conservative perspective, it does
They’d no longer have the “right” to discriminate at random
They’d no longer have the “right” to force their religion down everyone’s throat
They’d no longer have a the “right” to behave like a complete dick
I mean, they stand to lose a lot, y’know
This is it right here.
Though of course they don’t think this way.
Conservatives want to oppress. They believe everyone is equal until it interferes with their desire to oppress others. They would rather suffer themselves then lose the ability to be openly racist.
Conservatives want to oppress
I don’t think it’s that simple. I don’t think that most conservatives want to do that, per se, they don’t have the desire to oppress others.
But as far as I can remember from a YouTube series from some years ago, the conservative world view is a very hierarchical one in which everyone has their place. So to conserve the “natural order” some people (especially that pesky lower class, or the homeless, or those LGBT+ people, or women… Take your pick) need to be kept in check.
Oppression is a means to do that. It’s a tool, and it’s useful to get people in line, and to restore that kind of order gives a feeling of superiority and satisfaction in a “everything is back in its place” kind of way.
So yes, if that’s their mindset, I also agree that they truly believe that they’re having their rights taken away, i. e. their right to preserve the hierarchy.
Needless hierarchy is just an excuse to oppress.
I believe the series you are references is The Alt-Right Playbook series by Innuendo Studios. Fantastic series that i recommend everyone watch
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
She had presumably forgotten that conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Conservatives: “actually it is pie and there’s none for you”
