The "LOLCANADA" thread...again

No one on the right cares were in a recession since we know we have been in one for awile held up by fake housing market and immigration policies for almost a decade by your party. we welcome and expected it. I see it as a good wakeup call to Canadians. Your the one who brought it up....... PP is a politician its his job to paint a picture for his side to win an election. Not sure why your so obsessed with a guy doing his job . if the conservatives had power for 10 years and we hit a Recession some lib leader would make the same post. Thats the game.

The definition of Recession is so dumb if its the total value of the country and not the value per person. it should include when gdp per capita dropped not when total gdp starts dropping as you pointed out. when did that start declining like a decade ago? vs inflation of course

We all know that the singular use of they or them is common. But historically the singular meaning of the word has never included (for example) a person who identifies as non-binary. They or them has never been used for gender identity. So, while the singular use of they/them does tackle the grammar issue (as you note), it does not tackle the fact that we have assigned a new and additional meaning to they and them. Dictionaries have made abrupt changes to include the additional meaning of they and them , which would not be necessary if the existing singular definitions were already broad enough to cover it.

I think the leader of the opposition should try and make a substantive, compelling, persuasive case for why his vision explains the problems we face better than the governments. This isn't that. This is pretending Trump doesn't exist and trying to blame everything on his pet political issues. I don't think it's a good explanation for the countries woes and I think it is reasonable to point it out that the opposition leader isn't making a good explanation less people be persuaded by his rhetoric. I feel like we've maybe gotten a bit used to PP's style of relentless fake bashing with little substance behind it, but that isn't what I think an effective opposition should be doing.

Sure. GDP per capita INCREASED in Q1 2026. And it mostly increased over the last decade outside the pandemic. Basically, since Carney is now limiting immigration we have negative population growth so increasing GDP per capita despite flat GDP growth. Conversely, after hitting the gdp per capita peak in 2022 it declined in 2023-2025 due to high immigration numbers despite GPD growth. Neither metric is perfect, you sort of need both. Important to note that gdp per capita falling during periods of high immigration isn't meaning existing Canadians are necessarily worse off, it just means the denominator is growing particularly focused on lower income immigrants that bring down the average. It seems like you are trying to suggest everything is terrible because of slightly misstated GDP per capita numbers but that isn't really the story here.

Ok? I'm not really sure what we are arguing. This seems to be the most minimal change I can imagine, adopting existing widespread grammar and slightly expanding it for the new context. Certainly better than weird neopronouns imo. Words changing meaning all the time and nobody ever worries about it normally. Rightly or wrongly, this is by far the most common way that non-binary people choose at least as far as I've seen with my students. So I'm completely happy to get over any slight awkwardness the first couple times I have to say it to be inclusive here.

Non Binary may the dumbest of them all. I am not or a woman WTF. Reminds me when watching a Canada Women's World Cup Match and Canada had the first non binary player in the world cup my buddy asks what does that mean she used to be a he ? I had to tell him nope means it (proper pronoun) doesn't believe she is a man or woman . His reply that is just stupid. Had to tell him It hacked off her breasts as well

We concurred Mental Health Case but all the power it is an adult so as long as your not harming me go for it

There is something special about having a hissy fit that someone would like to go by "they" and then instead insisting on calling them "it". Throw in bad grammar, accusations of Mental Health Case (with weird capitalizations), and the obligatory "hacked off her breasts" and ya you followed to the template perfectly!

You got it professor and I'll believe in her right to call herself anything she wants and her right as an adult to mutilate herself just as I'll respect ye right of a Muslim and Christian to believe what they do but please do not force me to believe in your craziness

Hey you managed to make it all the way to the end without referring to a non-binary person as "it". Good job!

It's fascinating to me the distortions anti-trans culture warriors go. Who is forcing you to believe anything? The big ask was just to maybe politely calling someone the way they ask to be called. Please. That's it. You can obsess over "mutilation" all you want and believe whatever you want about it. Zero force. Just pure imagination.

We are the same page in the spirit of using pronouns that people wish to use. I fully support that. I was trying to address your point where you note... So I don't think of this as changing the meaning of a word that has a different established meaning..

I acknowledge this as a change of the meaning of the word (or adding a meaning that did not exist before), because that is what literally happened. You frame it as a slight expanding of the meaning for a new context. This wasn't a subtle semantic drift, but rather an abrupt sematic shift (of sorts). Linguists have found this all to be an interesting case, as words generally have meaning changes that occur very slowly over time. This was quick. Could be an interesting linguistics assignment. How does the inclusion of additional meanings of they/them compare to other word meaning changes over time. Compare and Contrast?

Anyway, nothing to debate between you and I. I just find the semantics side of this interesting. I found your comments on the application of they/them IRL instructive and focused on acceptance and inclusion, and you clearly have the right mindset for teaching.

I honestly don't think it is particularly rapid compared to any number of other words that have shifted meaning so quickly. Ask anyone in 2006 and 2026 what a "tablet" is or "cloud" or whatever means and it's completely different. Those are all tech words and tech changes super rapidly so we develop new words rapidly like say "slop" or "vibe coding" meaning AI stuff is like 2 years old. If you go to teenagers they make up new slang every ****ing year and then discard all those made up words the next year.

i think i made the same argument to reclaim the r word last year XD. Don't think you liked it very much. following that logic I dont see why a word can't go from accepted to unaccepted to acceptable as a swear again

I don't recall your exact argument. I would say in general that if the negatively affected group wants to take ownership of a word and make it their own (like black people with the n word) then that is fine. So if people with intellectual disabilities did something similar with the r word ok, but I don't think you or I should start using a slur targeting a particular group as just an acceptable every day word again just because.

people with serious intellectual disabilities can barely feel negatively affected by the word if were being honest. its those around them that get offended. kind of the original social justice warrior. but theres like 12+ worse words then the r word where its like. ok we can start using it again when not targeted at certain people. I do believe the meaning of words change alot. so much that it can work both ways

or we could just...not? There are a million ways to benignly say "that's stupid" that doesn't tie into historically used terms to describe people with intellectual disabilities, I'm not sure why you are itching for the r word to be socially acceptable again.

probably because it makes people mad

Damn the BC Conservatives make the worst pick for leader .
Why are people so stupid ?

As for the R word my sister taught special needs and asked me to stop using the word along time ago and I did .

Oh that is surprising. I thought you would love Findlay, her campaign focused on precisely the maple maga culture warrior anti-trans and indigenous stuff that you spout her. Like I agree she was among the worst of the bad options for BC Conservatives, I'm just surprised you agree!

I want the conservatives to win and Elliot was the best choice in my opinion . NO her campaign was not anti trans it was about protecting children but she was by the far the candidate the NDP wanted to win

You need to realize not having men in women's sports, prisons,or locker rooms and not wanting children that do not have the capability to make permanent life decisions is not anti trans its common sense

So you are basically saying she aligns very well with your culture warrior views, but since someone who espouses what you espouse is somewhat less likely to win than someone who focuses less on culture war BS and instead on the economy that you are sad your ideological partner won?

Every person with a serious intellectual disability is not somehow immune from feeling and/or understanding derogatory words. Just not saying the r word would be the easiest thing, and that is a course of inaction, which should be pretty easy for any functioning person.

well by definition they wouldn't easily be able to understand it unless explained to them. by the original definition of the word . i understand its not currently acceptable but it has gone through the life cycle of words that are now quite acceptable. like moron, idiot, cretin, and imbecile. no one will bat an eye to any of those words but they were not acceptable words at points

Presuming people with intellectual disabilities are uniformly unable to understand that some language is offensive is pretty offensive. There is a huge range of intellectual disabilities, and many have become advocates for their own rights for instance.

Well then be offended. I didn't say all of them but certainly some. I simply stated that a lot of them are not actually offended because they can't comprehend it and its people around them.

No, your post had no qualifiers like "some" or "a lot of them":

Not that I think it really matters if the parents and caregivers and loved ones of people with intellectual disabilities are the ones who appreciate the negative impacts as opposed to the people themselves - that seems like a sufficiently good reason to shy away from it as well.

There is this certain bent on the internet where it's seen as cool to not give a single **** if your language is offensive. It's quite divorced form day to day to life where presumably most of us try to be at least somewhat respectful of the feelings and emotions of the people around us.

"people with serious intellectual disabilities can barely feel negatively affected by the word if were being honest"

I mean its a pretty broad term obviously I didn't mean all of them but I always assumed the original definition was for the more serious cases.

Well ya we can say what we really feel on the internet without much drawback its great!. Anyone who gets offended here is voluntarily spending time on the 2+2 forum and not some random in real life who is actively avoiding controversial discussions. saying this to a random person minding their own business would be a silly mean thing to do. but if your irl and someone is actively seeking it I would do the same