Drivebyhaiku
So... You're leaving then and going cold turkey?
There's a lot of baggage with the term "woke" as it's levelled here. In North America presently it is the brush that is used to tar anyone who is not white, "conventionally attractive", skinny, cis, heterosexual or a narrow range of subtypes pandering to those audiences as a means to blanket criticize and apply pressure to remove them unilaterally from public. It's such a politicized term used for years by an outright supremacist movement and levied as a dogwhistle in outright genocidal political spheres that it has no nuance. If you want to convey nuance it doesn't work as a term.
Your views do not appear to strictly align with the movements who use "Woke Propaganda Cringe" as a tool of linguistically signaling this cluster of held beliefs in a space. It's a bit like if you walked into a space where gangs are active and started throwing up specific gang signs. Where you come from those signs might have nuance and usage that is lighthearted and non serious or specific but in spaces where those gangs are active and enacting violence those signs are strict affiliation markers with implied buy in to violence and little allowance for misinterpretation.
If your intention is to not be deliberately incendiary towards the targets of the American far right when dealing with the people in North America it's probably best to drop the usage of "woke".
You are living during the time of masculine emancipation my friend. Men are allowed to be cute af these days and more and more women are catching on that this is a good thing. Some of the guys I know who register this way have found a lot of success dating in the non-binary scene where gender expectations are more generally negotiable. Non-binary circles are encircled with exterior connections of cis communities who have a more dynamic understanding of gender so if you are in a market to find likeminded souls that's where I would look.
And also... Cute is sexy. It's not everyone's vibe but there's definitely a desire out there for true gentlemen emphasis on the gentle. Most of the cis ones I know are married to ride or die partners whom exude an aura of sweetness out to 20ft.
It's not Canada or Denmark which will suffer the most from-it, but US themselves
I get what you are saying but at the same time as a Canadian that comes across as more American-centric myopia.
We are a small country in terms of people with only nominally more people than the state of California spread out over a landmass 1.6% larger than the US. Our energy infrastructure doesn't fully connect through our own country and due to American strong arming a lot of our manufacturing industry is not super robust. It's the Goose next to the Eagle. We're tough enough to defend ourselves and make it hurt to attack us but we aren't getting anything out of this fight. For us it's a fight for our lives not a fight we can profit off of. Whatever wounds we take in this fight will soften us up for the regular problems we fight. The forest fires that have become exponentially worse through climate change that have erased entire cities off our map. The healthcare crisis of a mass of retiring boomers needing more care in a system that has constantly under fire from Americanizing rhetoric that has caused disinvestment from an ethically better system. The protectionist rhetoric that comes with conflict which will erode the systems of government and create legal precedent for more autocratic means of operation that will need to be later undone. The pausing of reconciliation efforts with indigenous nations. This conflict, even as it is now, will cause real trackable losses of life and livelihood some of which will not come back.
Our existence and future as a sovereign nation is threatened but nope "The US will be the real victims of this"? Bloody fucking tonedeaf mate.
Yes, let’s make Washington state a Canadian providence.
Totally cool making WA a Province but leave providence out of it. Canadian politics are aggressively secular and we would prefer any divinities keep their noses out of our maple-y business.
Uhhh... They have kind of absurd political power. The Vatican is essentially the decision making body of something a close to an international political business with a history of teaming up with governments to support initiatives.
Like look at the genocidal regime of residential schools in Canada. While they were a government initiative 2/3 of them were run directly by the Catholic church.
Political power doesn't always mean strictly "interfaces directly with official government" either. Politics is the web of citizen buy in to how the world should be run. The Catholic Church is incredibly influential on citizens many of whom take the directives of the church and translate it into agency in a multitude of ways. It's not a perfect control but it's certainly used to shape the political landscape the world over.
The bar to being an anti-christ is pretty damn low. There's also no limit to how many exist all one needs is to deny the divinity of Christ. It's just that easy!
There some conflation with the "Man of Sin/Lawlessness" though who is supposed to be a "fierce King" who appears at the end of times and “will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed."
Admittedly the Liberals are not my party of choice but there still is validity for voting for the lesser of two bad options. Until we can address the first past the post system we are beholden to voting more against than for a given regime by reaching a sort of mutual concensus with our neighbours before we hit the polls. That representive voting system needs to happen elsewise we're stuck playing this dumb game.
But it's hard to compare even this party I am not terribly enthusiastic to to the Democrats when there's at least mediocre commitments to a number of decent causes toward reconciliation, reasonable commitment to the Kyoto climate accord targets, stated support of LGBTQIA+ causes and at least a lukewarm support of Palistine mostly expressed through refugee programs and a spineless condemnation of the atrocities and a recognition of two state authorities in the region. There's also a much more robust court culture and a wider swath of people in the party who at least demonstrate a desire for a properly pluralistic, secular society.
It's more useful to veiw the parties based on how they talk within their own parties because it's not a presidential situation. There's less unilateral moves to be made as a PM without party support is a lame horse. While I wish we would see wider endorsement of the NDP it's not traditionally a popular party in the field and there's way more swing between Libs and Conservatives.
The Liberals are trying their best to find a tasty middle ground for the "fiscal Conservative voter" to bite because strategy reasons. They put forward a candidate who is Albertan, Catholic, an outsider to politics with a lot of financial sector ties who pulls quotes from the era of the Quiet revolution and balancing government budgets for the discerning blue voter while the more leftist ones can chew on his ringing of alarm bells of wealth inequality, climate change and the lack of application of morals in the markets. He's been largely silent on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues which while always a little unsettling the previous admin left on a very openly queer friendly stance so while again, not ideal, all that currently is needed at present is just not undoing what's been done and supporting the stuff already in progress.
Is he everything we've dreamed? Not really. But it shows they are trying to build out a solid concensus candidate that a broad range of people can stomach.
Why are you trying to conflate Canadian Liberals and the Democrats? They aren't remotely the same party, the systems of government don't look anything alike and they aren't in cahoots.
And the Canadian Conservatives are fronting a guy who has stated his support of American style "Right to Work" legislation and other Americanizing government initiatives who went into politics immediately from going to school for international affairs against a guy who has spent years as Governor of two National Central Banks and created a number of international contacts across the Commonwealth in the international financial sector that can be leveraged and yet Conservatives are trying to paint themselves as "better for the economy". Pollievre has been utilizing anti gay anti queer dogwhistles in his rhetoric for the past ever as well. Fuck Right to Work bullshit and fuck anybody who wants to roll back civil protections. There's not a lot of places in the world as safe as Canada for queer people to exist so it's not like there's much better places to escape once the fortress falls.
While I don't doubt your stance comes from a history of trauma, policing any kind of identity in this way causes real trauma to others. It causes a pervasive sense of isolation that is antithetical to feeling supported and secure and puts a check on a person's ability to participate in their culture. Your lack of comfort does not mend leveling the playing field of stripping away the comfort of others if it is being expressed peacefully.
Bans also very become a very fuzzy line. Most holidays are based off of religious festivals that are widely participated in by the secular and non-secular alike. Once someone starts making exceptions because a wide number of people like a specific one you start creating an artificial canon where minority cultures are oppressed while a narrative of "dominant culture" is allowed giving certain religious traditions cultural supremacy. For example people inside the Church have been trying to get rid of the multitude of pagan festivals that were rebranded as Christmas for eons. They ended up just rubber stamping it because taking away something beloved doesn't go well. In a modern context you could try and rebrand Christmas to a non-religious holiday... But good luck. It's layers of Christian over Pagan imagery and traditions fused into a gastalt religious melange. Any governing body that has tried to get rid of it before has spectacularly failed and leaving it be would quickly become a symbol to people who come from places with different dominant partially seclarized religious traditions that they remain cultural outsiders who don't have the nessisary concensus to participate in public. It would translate directly into supremacy narratives.
It's healthier for a society by far not to police the range of peaceful human expression and connection. People deserve to see themselves represented and connect with each other without needing to act like undercover spies in hostile territory.