1 line barely acknowledging the criticism, 4 lines defending the car whose feelings I can assume have been mortally wounded. The defensiveness around the car is ironic given how casually you threw out your needlessly negative hot-take.
Nah, you can’t hurt pure evil. It just sits there, awaiting its next victim.
I hate that beast, but it’s my beast to hate.
You can’t just talk shit about it from your comfy chair, or sitting on the toilet with no circulation to your feet, or whatever — that’s something you earn.
You earn it with mild first degree burns on your right leg and tinnitus like the rest of us.
If I seem abrasive and unnecessarily combative, it’s probably just the incessant itching of my leg and the trauma from driving that thing.
I was right there with you. I was very supportive of the improving app UI standards at the time but it started to feel like a contest of whose design has more visual complexity and nuance vs the real usability.
Windows Phone in particular was a huge breath of fresh air for me (rip) and Material Design a welcome evolution that I still feel strikes a decent balance.
Actually I think I'm wrong on both accounts, as my Samsung TV runs Tizen, not Android. I believe I was thinking about the old FireTV that I put on the C2 at first, as well as the DirecTV Stream device, which both run variations of Android.
The saddest thing about this dismal comment is that you likely judge others negatively based on shallow opinions like this. I sincerely hope you are not in any position of authority over anyone.
Their intent is all well and good but, from your description, it seems they are not capable of preventing this tool they've built for their own "fun" from being used from causing harassment and real life consequences for real people.
It sucks for the people using it in the way it was intended but I would hope that they would agree their "fun" stops being fun when it's actively harming people.
Legally, there's no requirement that you moderate a forum so that its contents can't facilitate the commission of a crime (outside of a few things like DMCA anti-circumvention). If this were the case, everyone would have to be extremely careful when discussing anything dangerous, and most people would be hesitant to participate in the discussion at all for fear of being exposed to liability.
In fact, even the person posting something like medical misinformation can't normally be sued.
The government invoked the emergencies act which gave them the ability to freeze bank accounts of people the suspected of supporting an ongoing illegal protest. This means that the due process changed from what it normally is to something that allowed the government to quickly de-escalate a protest that was anything but peaceful.
Due process was still followed even if we don't necessarily like what it was.
To be fair, no one is complaining that they protested illegally. The complaint is that the protesters actively targeted unrelated civilians and made life a living hell for them for weeks on end.
I don't think you would say that it would be ok for protesters to physically attack random civilians because "it's a protest and that's their protest strategy". There are obviously limits to the illegal behaviour generally allowed to protests.
Again, people aren't complaining that they protested illegally, they are complaining that the protesters are physically and verbally harassing them beyond every reasonable degree.
The quote you brought out does not say that an illegal protest is the basis for using emergency powers. It says that an illegal occupation is the basis.
We have had many many "illegal" protests where streets have been blocked temporarily and there were no calls to break out the emergency act.
I just want to address the comment about most protests involving discomfort to normal people. I live and work in the downtown core of Ottawa. I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear that the city is a focal point for protests and has had many of them, large and small, over the years. I completely agree that protests often include some measure of discomfort for random, unrelated citizens.
However, I can tell you that there has never been a protest even remotely close to the number of torments this protest inflicted upon the residents of the city. I personally know numerous people who were harassed verbally and physically while walking in the streets simply for wearing a mask. A downtown mall was forced to close for multiple weeks due to protesters refusing to follow masking rules. Think of the retail staff who lost out on multiple weeks of pay. There was an attempt to set fire to a residential building with the main lobby door being taped shut. Fireworks were being set off on city streets downtown. Extremely loud horns were being sounded throughout all hours of the day and night, including train and boat horns that could be heard throughout the downtown core. People were prevented from buying groceries within a reasonable distance due to the grocery store having to close; the workers having been harassed while working by protesters. Numerous small retail shops in the downtown were forced to close their doors due to protester harassment and reduced traffic as people largely felt unsafe in the downtown core. There was an instance of protesters harassing a homeless shelter into providing them food.
This was not discomfort. This was a complete prevention of the ability to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhood for a large swath of Ottawa residents who had nothing to do with the mandates. Many people were materially affected by this and had no way of escaping beyond leaving the city.
> "complete prevention of the ability to feel safe"
Kind of a hard thing to prove. I don't feel safe due to climate destruction. Can we invoke the Emergencies Act against the Canadian fossil fuel industry and the automotive parts manufacturers to make me feel better?
I really don't think it was that hard to prove. If you look up the injunction against the horns, it specifically cited the volume being well into what the law considered harassment. The fact that it was granted and extended shows that the judge felt the people of downtown as a whole were being harassed.
If you can get the majority of people to agree that they feel unsafe due to climate destruction and neither the municipal nor provincial governments respond accordingly, then, by all means, invoke the emergency act. I'd certainly be on board.
They protested against vaccination mandates and the store closure was due to government policy. To be honest, this sound very peaceful for a protest all in all.
Feeling unsafe is often invoked lately to restrict the rights of others. I don't believe this is sufficient in a larger context.
They released an MOU at the start of this that explicitly called for the resignation of the current government if they were not willing to immediately lift the Covid19 mandates. In the case of a refusal to lift the mandates, it demanded that a new government be formed of representatives from the Senate and, incredibly, representatives from the convoy.
Accepting your premise that it's being forced on us, how is this different from the many other laws we are "forced" to obey as a part of Canadian society?
