Failure happens. Expensive failure too, just ask the folks who ran the Arianne program. What matters is what they will learn from it to avoid it happening in the future.

Oh look the climate change denier is putting scare quotes around carbon emissions.

Here is what mainstream Israeli press thinks of the term:

“Settler” is not a neutral descriptor. In English, the word entered common use in the early 17th century to describe people establishing permanent communities in sparsely inhabited areas. At first, the term evoked ideas of pioneering and self-reliance. But during and after the age of European colonialism, it grew heavier with meaning, often associated with conquest, displacement, and injustice.

In today’s activist and postcolonial discourse, “settler” frequently implies illegitimacy, occupation, and even violence. That shift in meaning has colored its modern use, especially in contested areas like the West Bank.

For Palestinians, the term “settler” is almost always pejorative. The settlements are seen as encroachments on land designated for a future Palestinian state, and the continuing expansion—especially under the current Israeli government—has been viewed as a major obstacle to any viable two-state solution.

So, no, those fuckers don’t consider “settler” to be anodyne.

Does the word “settler” have connotations of innocence in your culture?

I’m not even Catholic and I want to send this guy to the Inquisition for heresy

I frankly didn’t know he was from a political “dynasty” before it came up in this campaign. I knew Lewis from his documentary “The Take” and from the Leap Manifesto.

EDIT: if you want more substance: https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/11/06/Avi-Lewis-Interview/

Fun fact: ancient religious texts don’t have shit to say about modern medical practices.

Of Catan.

Apartheid state doing apartheid things.

According to Vlad Vexler, in Russian political/bureaucratic culture this is not to be understood as real analysis and more to be understood as functionaries pitching themselves as useful to Putin: https://youtu.be/ZJryUKULZ_E

The funniest part of this whataboutism is that you don’t realize that you’re putting Israel at the same level as some terrorist organization.

This user’s mod log shows bans from multiple communities as a bot account.

Or maybe I just think for myself, look at the facts as best as they can be determined,

Think for yourself, but base your thinking on actual science: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/ Anything less than that puts you in the same category as the antivaxxer lunatics. But you’ve already clearly said that “anthropogenic global warming is only half real”, so I don’t know what the point of continuing this discussion is.

don’t buy into the ‘doom and gloom’ propaganda that says we’re all going to be dead from climate change in the next few years.

That’s a gross misrepresentation of what the science says and what climate-science-driven policy is about. Read the IPCC summary for policymakers and argue with facts, not with strawman arguments.

REASONABLE and moderate policy is fine

Yea, that’s the problem. Your Overton Window is out of calibration because you’re not based on reality but on vibes. What you consider “reasonable” is in fact already an extremist fantasy, because, counter-intiutively, your “normal” is an extremist unsustainable status quo.

Everyone, before responding to this person, be advised that this is a climate change “skeptic” who shills for the Oil and Gas industry and spouts doomerist propaganda that any anti-emissions policy in Canada is pointless because we are “only” producing 1.5% of global emissions.

Yes, and those are streets where cars are the ones that have to slow the fuck down, and give priority to pedestrians, kids, and bicycles. Woonerfs. I.e., infrastructure.

More generally: the idea is that cities need to be restructured to make cycling and transit the preferred transit options with cars the “ok if you really must” option. Currently we are at the exact opposite polarity. Our infrastructure reflects this basic foundational choice. Idaho stops are still operating under that foundational choice. We need to rethink the foundation, therefore we need to rethink infrastructure. Then, instead of talking about giving new meaning to car centric signs, i.e., about making more space to humans in a car centered world, we would be talking about finding the right space for cars in a human centered world.

If that’s daft, then fine.

Ps. I’m not against the Idaho stop. If that’s what it takes to keep the cops from harassing cyclists and to keep some road rage at bay, that’s good. I’m against thinking it solves the problem.

The Dutch did it. The, Finns, the Danes did it. The Brits and the French are in the process of doing it.

And no, you don’t need over/under-passes everywhere, that’s silly.

Ugh your preachy MP sounds like an idiot, sad to hear that.

I don’t care about “everywhere”. I care about cities where most of the cycling happens.

This whole discussion is a distraction. The real solution is to have proper cycling infrastructure. You don’t need to reinterpret road signs if bikes have their own signs in their own protected lanes and protected crossings.

Give me cycling infrastructure of comparable quality to car infrastructure and we got a deal.