I don't mainstream media portrays a honest view about it.

I don't believe you can find honest information on reddit or quora.


Because there's too much censorship.

Nobody can be trusted.

Anglos doin' Anglo stuff as usual. Maybe they'll learn this time that liberal does not mean left and neolibs are authoritarians? Nah, they'll get triggered instead.

@berdan please get out there, and check out whats actually going on.

Warzone needs uncensored info about Canada. Be the hero WZ needs, not the hero you want to be!

Leftists are a front for neolibs are a front for neocons

You laugh, cuz that's only thing left for you.

the circus is for the spectators not the performers

I have a homework for you warzoners.

Write me an essay about what Canadian situation reveals truth about Western world

And what is means for average pizza eating miserable citizen like you

I agree with you Berdan, also I have never had a vaccine in my life and I truly hope that makes some of you angry

''And what is means for average pizza eating miserable citizen like you ''
absolutely nothing

Personally, I truly wonder why people hope or find it important to anger someone else.
Why the need to anger others?
Additionally, why the assumption that everyone is (feeling) miserable?
Maybe it's just you who is?

The reality, as always, is much too complex for anyone to understand, and too many people involved from any side just want easy bite-sized answers to questions that are often irrelevant and hiding the true underlying concerns.

At the core of it all is the question: how much freedom do we want individuals to give up in return for being a safer society?

Obviously, every person will give a different answer to that question.
At the one hand, we cannot deport everyone who doesn't want to give up any freedom to a deported island where they can hunger games style murder and pillage at will. (Yes, that's what it entails. If you don't want to give up any freedom at all, nobody will protect you or care about you being murdered either.) On the other extreme, most people would not want to live in a society where the government decides every single thing in our lives, including where we live, what job we do, with whom we marry, talk, etc. (i.e. Gilead in The handmaid's tale)

And that brings us to the practical consequences of that conundrum. When a government that arguably has a mandate from its people (which can be a point of contention by itself, obviously) takes decisions for all its inhabitants, how far can and should it go in its decisions? Generally, decisions will always be supported by some and not by others.
Two extreme examples: If 60% of the people wanted to have the other 40% killed, should the government allow this? Or, if the government wants everyone to not kill each other (murder is penalised by law in most countries) despite 10% people very strongly wanting to have the right to kill an enemy, should the government still implement such a "murder ban"?

The real discussions are much more subtle than that, and it's always worth remembering that you are the only one with your opinion. Everyone else has a different opinion, some quite similar to yours, others may be completely opposite. A minority of people may be able to push or block legislation, and a majority may not be able to get their prefered legislation executed. At least in a democracy you get to choose who represents you (with all the caveats involved). There are enough countries where even expressing ideas about freedom and choice are illegal.

Does that mean that people cannot protest decisions of their government? The answer may be much harder than you think at first sight. In western countries, such protests are generally allowed by law and it is important that people are heard. Government shouldn't govern from their "ivory tower" and keep in touch with the people on the streets as they say. On the other hand, a vocal minority should not always be able to block legislation through protests (e.g. what if a bunch of assassins "protests" by randomly shooting people until there is a "murder ban"?) Because some of the current and past protests have already cost lives, for example through ambulances and doctors not being able to reach patients in time, there is generally a limit on what is and is not allowed. Is this reasonable? Should we allow people to die or not receive medical care because a minority wants to be heard? Should we allow this for a majority to be heard?

I'm not going to pretend to know the answers to these questions. I have my opinion, just like you have yours. And it's very hard, probably impossible, to take everyone's opinion into account and find an acceptable consensus. We may be frustrated and angry when we feel our opinion is not heard. We may find it hard to give up small amounts of freedom even if we know for sure it saves lives, and giving up large amounts of freedom, such as during lockdowns, will always be hard for everyone, no matter the return.
But in the meantime, it would be nice if people would not live their lives wanting others to be angry, and have an understanding that having a different opinion is not bad. Because no matter how hard it is, if you live your life wanting other to be angry, you will always be part of the problem and never be part of a solution.



There you go berdan, here's your essay, hope you enjoy it.

oh boi you really did it

haha nice

I can't believe my eyes xD


MathWolf, when I wrote about miserable people, it was more like banter, lad-talk.
I didn't really mean it.

It's my fault, because it was really misleading. You can interpret it both ways. I'm just usually not so serious with what I write

Edited 2/21/2022 12:27:27

Wow math wolf, I was scared if I read that I’d catch your autism but I read on anyway- what a load of waffle to say absolutely nothing, Berdan said he thinks the media is misrepresenting the trucker thing and you’re babbling about making people angry and writing some kind of special needs thesis about how everything is so unclear. Where did that come from? Shut your pie hole, put the thesaurus down- realise you aren’t as intelligent as you think you are and that you aren’t a visionary thinker, you’re someone who’s warzone level is much too high to have an opinion with any value about the outside world

Also do you smell? I imagine that you smell

Well, math wolf is all right. Whether you agree with him or not, there's no need to be rude
My post about miserable sounded pretensional, so he has a point.

Math Wolf I appreciate your effort you put into this.

I will complete reading your essay and review it, after I'm done with my day-to-day duties

I thought you liked mine and Cazzas trolling Berdan

Yeah, but Math Wolf will take offense. He doesn't think you're joking

He is more a strategic guy, I think and not into the shitposting thing

''Why the need to anger others?''
Not a need, its a desire and I desire to do so because its funny.

Think me and the madman are on the same page

The main problem is, the people that do things either isn't decently good on doing things, or that they don't listen to the people. They do things for more power, for earning the money, for brainwashing their opponents and the people into re-election and legitimify things.