The truth under Trump's administration is he has utterly failed and undocumented and illegal immigration has exploded under his leadership.

He's lied about building new walls, he's lied about forcing Mexico to do more, he's lied about how his administration mistreated them, but he's utterly failed to stem the tide, unlike Obama who at least kept it fairly flat around 50000 per month (and deported more than Trump) instead of tripling it to 150000 per month like it has under Trump.
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/u14651/FY19TD_May_SWB_Migration%20graphic.jpg

I'm upvoting for it through benefit of doubt, and despite my, I think are likely racist, fears about his training.

He neither looks mistreated nor terrified. I wish to see what sort of reward he got for it. Either a treat or even an ear scratch would make me feel better about it.

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

Good info there....thanks.

What I read there is he was ignorantly incredulous about a statistic because, not knowing any transgender people, he hasn't heard any complain about their mistreatment.
As an official who was giving a training seminar on how to professionally and respectfully deal with people who are different from you, her response was disastrous.
If they intend to continue having her lead these seminars, I hope they retrain her to be professional and respectful when dealing with people who are different from her, even if they are an ignoramus.

Yes. Profiting off of racism and racists of a specific race is also racist.

Some history, not how it works today. The guy in your link wasn't fired for saying something about whites he was fired for making political statements (that were intentionally misidentified as anti military, anti flag, anti America) at a work sponsored function, and not what happened to Kapernick either, he may be hired again next year and wasn't fired for a minor private joke about white people. I won't bother with lynching...please. Don't be a bobknight, dragging up red herrings and claiming they're blue fin tuna.

Funny, you bemoan the historical mistreatment of certain people while advocating mistreating others in the same or more harsh way, all based on race, and you probably think you aren't racist....in fact I would bet you feel you are fighting against racism....by sounding racist.
*facepalm

We don't stand for that kind of crap up here in Canada...

Jokes aside, we make exceptions to free speech and hate speech is something you CAN be prosecuted for. A teacher that was trying to teach holocaust denial was convicted for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada

My 2 cents, punching a nazi is more wrong because of the vigilante aspect of it than in an absolute moral sense. IMO the state should have laws about support for or membership with known criminal, terrorist or hate groups. Nazi's and KKK for starters, Westboro baptists and Saudi Wahabiism too depending on where society wants to draw the line. Morally though, I have no problems with declaring that debating merits of fascism and even mistreatment of Nazi germany historically is free speech and protected, but at the same time wearing a swastika on your arm or a pillow case on your head while marching in the streets to support your 'cause' should see you convicted and sentenced.

I'm not sure I could ever stop eating meat (primarily chicken), but I understand that there is serious mistreatment and mismanagement of farm animals. I think a greater adoption in North America of CAK (controlled atmosphere killing) via something like high concentrations of nitrogen gas would be a great improvement, especially if it could be extended to pigs and cows. The old stun bolt or electric immobilization (for poultry) and throat-cut method seems so barbaric and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't result in pain.

I'm trying to point out(and failing obviously lol): If we feel so bad for this poor dog, why do we turn a blind eye to farm animals that are mistreated and killed? They all feel pain and have emotional responses just the same.

We all like eating meat and butter, but is that worth the animals suffering and dying for it? (especially when there are some great alternatives. Nut butters, coconut butters, cashew spreads you name it, margarine at worst case) That's a decision for you to make. :-)

If a dog beater told you that "animals kill each other in nature all the time" would you accept that answer? Would that stop you from feeling bad for the dog?

When someone at the Yulin dog festival says "it's my tradition" or "I like the taste" do you accept that?

Then why do we make the same statements for cows? (don't worry, I remember yelling "lions tho" at vegans, so I'm not pointing fingers)

I just want to raise awareness about the horrors of animal agriculture and it's knock-on effects to the planet. And that we have a choice, and the power to change the world. We don't need to wait for governments or laws, we can make this change now, ourselves and there are no down sides, only wins.

It's just a matter of changing a few ingredients
https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

Are you implying that white people are shitty to everyone else because they are white? Or is it less about skin color and more about how a dominant culture/race treats and mistreats others?
No matter which group is currently dominant, power always corrupts.

@Jinx
I'm not sure you could call this cultural misappropriation, I'm pretty sure GITS is owned by a Japanese company and sold the movie rights to Hollywood. And the credits will still feature the name of GITS's creator, Masamune Shirow, a Japanese man. So white people are not taking credit for something they didn't create.

People say they want to see more cultural diversity but they start throwing fits whenever someone uses a cultural element in their work and they themselves are not from that culture.
I see a world where older cultures are gradually going to mix together and become newer ones, this to me, is inevitable; and I look forward to the day where we can simply enjoy good works without all the moral hand wringing.

As for the trailer itself, I think it looks better than what little I've seen before. Although I am not sure I like some of the turns they are taking in the story that this trailer seems to imply. The first of her kind? I seem to recall there were lots of people like her in the mangas and the anime.

Not that this guy doesn't have a valid complaint, but when it comes to freight companies and movers, you generally assume that your stuff is going to be dropped, fall, get thrown around, and just generally mistreated and pack it accordingly. It doesn't look like he did a terrible job, but not a particularly good job either. Maybe the company packed it. That's never a good idea. Surely they're bonded at least, right?

Also, though I'm sure it's not always practical, generally the irreplaceable fragile family heirlooms usually *don't* go on the moving truck.

Bovine milk from a happy cow that eats grass and lives in a field with good, appropriate medical care, like the one's we raised and the one's I visited last week, yum.

Your hyperbole is showing. You lower awareness with that kind of lie...that all animals are mistreated so all animal products are products of torture. It's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, and you just keep on spouting it. I'll keep on contradicting it. That's the deal.

Sorry, you missed the mark. I take lies, any lies, as an attack on humanity. You are lying. It's not because it's a personal or family attack, but that is the reason I have the personal knowledge to discredit you thoroughly. I actually hate the relative with the goat farm and would love to see her lose her shirt, but I admit she is an excellent animal caregiver...to the point where she often sleeps in the goat pen (outside in Texas Hill country) with them for their comfort and safety.
I have nothing to sell, I'm not invested in it at all beyond my home garden/subsistence farm. I buy my meats, but I buy good quality, properly cared for meat, not Burgerking, because I care about quality and animals. There are certainly abuses in farming, but they are the exception rather than the rule, contrary to your position. I have the extensive personal experience to say that comfortably.

EDIT: Buying LCD products is what causes the abuses you complain about. Quality products are not made as cheaply as possible, so do not have the issues you claim all animal products are tainted with. You know this.

For having such a thankless-job kind of job, ANY _intentional _ mistreatment justifiably deserves a reaction such as she gave. "go fuck yourselves", indeed.

there's kind of this weird rhetoric that i keep noticing that implies that "gays" and "islam" are the same category of thing and can be compared but can't be prioritized because they're somehow equal. they're not.

homosexuality is an inherent quality. there is nothing to critique or change other than our views of it.

islam, however, is just an idea and needs to be treated as such. it absolutely can be critiqued and changed and i would argue this is required.

the tricky part i see is the conflating of "islam" with "muslims" and using the ugliness of islam as justification for mistreatment and ostracizing of muslims. sometimes to the extent of treating them as sub human, most notably in refugee conversations. islam is gross, imo, and should be criticized (fervently) but muslims are still people and need to be treated as such, just as the gay community should. they both have the right to live and have the opportunity to live with some semblance of safety. people deserve compassion. ideas do not.

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

1. If not for taste, then you must be doing it because you've been mislead (like I was) to think it's a nutritional requirement. There is zero nutritional reason to eat animals for the majority of people on this planet. Perhaps habit is involved, but nothing that can't be broken if you want to. 99.9% of vegans were not vegan.


2. There is no gene in the human body which specifically makes you eat meat or drink milk. The chemical reaction that makes you crave certain foods is influenced by the foods you eat. In a hypothetical survival situation, eat all of the animals you need to, but we don't live in that situation.


3. I'm a middle-class person just like the majority of the westerners. I wasn't vegan for the first 30 years or so of my life. If I can do it, I know anyone can, they simply must want to. There is no financial, professional, geographical reason for everyone apart from those living in extreme conditions in western society to not become vegan. The reason why I say western society is because not only is western society the biggest cause of this (poor countries are already plant based, using very few animal products comparatively), but because westerners have the opportunity to do it easily.
The only difficult part is finding out correct information, because animal industry groups love to create clouds of doubt by funding misleading research and advertising. But the information is now out there on the internet.


4. It's a nice thought, but until those ideal conditions are reality, we must look at what action we can take now.


5. You don't need to grow your own food, farmers do that for you, and there will be plenty of land free'd up since 70% of all farm land is currently used to feed livestock.


6. There is protein (including the 9 essential amino acids) in almost every edible plant - vegetable, grain, rice, potato, nut and fruit. That simply eating enough to not be hungry means you eat enough protein. You don't need to eat the 3 gluten sources to meet your daily protein requirements. Even if everyone apart from those with celiac disease became vegan, the impact to the planet would be immense, because it's not a common thing. (I'm guessing you must get annoyed with the current trend of hipsters avoiding gluten, when they don't have celiacs or have not had an intestinal biopsy to confirm it).

7. I think it's fair to say that there is very little risk, when the alternative is eating a well documented carcinogen (meat, especially processed meat, see the World Health Organisation). Surely not giving yourself cancer is a good reason to avoid meat?

8. We can philosophize about minute details of sentience, or something like abortion, but really that is say like we shouldn't drive cars because we don't fully understand the laws of physics. We know enough about physics to improve our way life. It's the same about veganism, we know farm animals are mistreated, we know they feel pain and misery, and they have a will to live, so lets fix that first, and then we can philosophize about sentience.


9. It's not about the people that don't have a choice, it's about the people that do, and the majority of people do have a choice, that is the point.


10. Again there is protein in everything you eat - how do you think a chicken or cow get's it's protein? From plants!