Overfishing is their ancestral right!

Or maybe we should just protect the salmon from all people.

What evidence do you need of the wealthy consuming more than the poor? All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you.

You know what, I'm sick of being told to take responsibility for a problem created by people thousands of times more wealthy and powerful than myself.

Why should people who can't even afford homes be paying carbon taxes while the wealthy fly around in private jets and build mega yachts?

Fuck this backwards ass thinking.

You know how corporations and the wealthy generate the majority of carbon emissions?

Well maybe they should also be paying the majority of carbon taxes.

9:07am and tell me to return 15 minutes after and I'd be pulling out my phone every 5 seconds and doing math.

Is it really so hard to add 15?

Not to mention they're worse at keeping time.

You know, like the whole point of a watch.

There was a time when those productive jobs paid as well or better than white collar jobs.

Not anymore. Not unless you own the business.

Carbon pricing is not intended to redistribute wealth.

Then what's the fucking point. Wealth distribution is core of all problems in society.

we also don't have evidence of this.

Wrong. You can literally do it with your own taxes. Go look up the corporate taxes for any public company (they're public so they publish those numbers), and figure out what percentage of that company's total wealth it is. Then compare that with how much tax you paid as a percentage of your total wealth.

You can even do it with billionaires because some of them, like musk, actually voluntarily share that info. Last year I paid over 20% of my total wealth in income tax alone, musk paid less 4%.

Aren't corporations exempt from the tax and allowed to buy carbon credits at a much lower price instead? And aren't entire industries exempt, like agriculture (the single largest generator of carbon emissions in Canada)?

And don't those rebates for the carbon tax stop at just $61k income for an individual? Thats barely enough to buy a 50 year old trailer in BC (and you don't own the land it's on) last I checked. Considering the cost of living I'm sure that "low income" cutoff is way too low.

All that amounts to middle class people who are barely making their mortgage payments paying more than corporate giants are.

When you measure tax contributions as a percentage of total wealth, corporations and ultra rich always pay less than everyone else.

Better to ruin the lives of a million people than to take the life of one?

You're going to have to provide some serious philosophy to back that up.

Why doesn't that letter saying anything about how the middle and lower classes are disproportionately affected by such taxes?

Let me guess, these "leading economists" are all filthy rich themselves.

That's some solid reframing, bro 👍

The catch is that the politicians who promise electoral reforms would have to be able to win in the current system. And why would they want to change a system is which they are winners?

Trudeau promised electoral reform in Canada, which some people foolishly believed. The federal Liberal Party has won under the first past the post system many times in the past. It makes no sense to expect them to suddenly give an advantage to the underdogs.

sees the whole world doing something

Look how the West has influenced the world!

I think this more of an indication that conservatism is not a strictly Western thing.

Did you eat it raw? Or like ...how did you notice it was warm? Usually eggs get pretty hot when they're cooked.

Good grief I sure hope whoever designed those knows what pi is

This works great for highly educated white collars!

Not for the other 70%+ of the workforce though.

That may be the case but it is not a rebuttal to my point.

Those things have had an influence on the perception of masculinity. And yes, TERFs have had an influence on the perception of feminism. And simply saying they don't count isn't an effective way of countering that influence.

He seems to be arguing against transparency and doesn't really provide any reasons other than the company wanting to keep their negotiation info secret, which would seem to give an advantage to the company.

He spends a lot of time repeating his point in various ways without actually providing any reasoning except one sentence mentioning the above.

I agree with him that unions need to make a better effort to seek input from the members, but I'm far from convinced on his main point.

Just because you don't think so doesn't mean those things haven't had influence on the cultural perception of it.

I understand the desire to separate yourself from those things as an individual. And I don't know what method will work, but simply telling people the "manosphere" just doesn't count isn't going to change anyone's minds.