30
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
30 points (82.6% liked)
Canada
12005 readers
529 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- East Gwillimbury (ON)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Sarnia (ON)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
- Canada Grown Business
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- 2 North American 4 You (Shitposting & Memes, North America focus)
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- Eh Buddy Hoser (Shitposting & Memes, Canada focus)
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You did not understand his speech at all then.
The literal entire thesis of it was that we take the world as it is, not as we want it to be. The game isn't always set up to let you play nice and still achieve a good outcome.
Well, let's look at Carney's actions then.
He vocally supported the kidnapping of Maduro.
Then just days later he went and made some handshake investment deal with Qatar, a gulf dictatorship that used thousands of slaves to build its World Cup stadiums, and is the country holding onto the proceeds of Trump's sale of stolen Venezuelan oil.
Then Carney cheered the unprovoked US & Israeli attacks on Iran, walked back his support a little when he saw the public outrage, and is now trying to weasel-word his way into Canadian troops supporting the fascist US in a war of aggression.
Brookfield has billions of dollars invested in the gulf states like Qatar that Carney is suddenly calling our "partners", by the way
So Maduro was a good guy? Not a Dictator?
Qatar is bad, but Alberta is ok?
Canada would have been in Iran day 1 with Poilievre, if we weren't the 51st state already.
It's a turd sandwich or shit burrito situation, and it's also impossible to please everyone's moral center, because there is no right answer in the Gaza.
I count at least three false dichotomies in one comment, that's impressive!
Sure, it's 2026, everyone is an anti semite, Zionist, Fascist or tankie to the moral clerics on Reddit/lemmy.
It's important to remember that Liberal leaders are just harm reduction as we avoid the blue faux-ristocracy. Ideally we would have an orange government or even a strong orange crutch holding up a minority red if we want some progress on things that matter to Canadians.
This guy is here to weather the economic attack from America by strengthening ties with Europe, and build up military and infrastructure so we can survive when America cuts us off from theirs in some fit of juvenile pique.
Yes, all of those actions taken to strengthen Canada economically, and position us to be in a position of future economic power that will give us the ability to enact and shape fairer systems.
You're bitching and complaining about short term hedging his bets diplomatic moves. Naiively pursuing the most noble action at all time will not lead to a better world, it will lead to good people getting predictably out maneuvered by shitty ones.
What's interesting about this discussion is that all the "good" stuff Carney is supposedly aiming at is entirely hypothetical and rhetorical, and the bad stuff is very real.
40,000 jobs cut in the federal public sector by someone who promised to "cap, not cut" the public service.
Massive cuts to the CBC by someone who promised to increase their funding.
But we should keep trusting him?
I was told that Carney understood climate change and economics, and then he went and tripled down on the same fossil fuels that are causing the current global geopolitical and economic crisis. Oh, and greenwashing is legal again, which is the cherry on top of that shit sundae.
It's been over a year of cuts and deregulation benefitting massive corporations. How long are people prepared to cling to their religious-like faith in a man who has only ever been a friend to the Goldman Sachs/Brookfield class?
My fucking god. You expect him to snap his fingers, and have major nation building infrastructure projects complete and profitable within a year?
Short sighted bitching like this is why we can't have nice things. Get off the internet and go live your life.
No, I expect him to be doing the good things that his supporters keep claiming he will do, rather than doing the bad things he has been consistently doing. But thanks for attacking me personally rather than having any kind of honest discussion, I guess?
Oh wow, now you're sad for feeling attacked, totally how fascists feel.
Maybe we shouldn't go around calling everyone we slightly disagree with a fascist?
Buddy, people like you are the reason Canada is falling to fascism. Reap what you sow, keep significantly utilizing American services and appeasing American corporations, that goes for Brookfield as well, major conflict of interest. What products have made Canada unique and respected around the world? Oh right, nothing.
Oh wow, another leftist who is so naiive and righteous that they can't even get along with people who agree with them but choose a slightly different path.
You're such a credit to the cause with your quickness to label everyone and everything a fascist! Your attitude totally isn't why left wing groups always fall apart to infighting.
"We take the world as it is" makes for powerful rhetoric, but is meaningless. There are many stories of how the world is, and all stories of how the world is are a matter of framing the facts. Allow someone to tell you their framing is the one truth, and you've submitted to uncritically accepting their theory of action.
Lmfao. No.
That's fundamentally not how framing / lenses / perspectives work.
You don't forget a lens or way of examining a situation, just because you learn a new one.
You're misinterpreting my point. It's not just allowing them to say it, but accepting it as the one truth. That's what "the world as it is" rhetoric accomplishes.
But I'll still ask, do you believe the Carney government is taking the world as it truly is, or is it telling one debatable story, among many viable stories of how the world is, for the purpose of shaping discourse towards political ends?
You can't have it both ways.
If it's just one story among many, then the "we take the world as it is" as the whole thesis of his speech is obviously problematic. You've got to get into the weeds of what "the world as it is" actually means to Carney and why it's being framed that way, because it is a choice to frame it one way rather than another and choices reflect perceptions and priorities. All of that becomes highly debatable.
If someone buys into his framing of "how the world is" in some essentialist way, then they may as well be in a cult.
The world as it is, means that it's more nuanced and subtle then just "do good = good outcome", which is what you insist.
If your world view is just "every time you don't go HAM calling out every injustice then you're a bastard man", then literally every politician ever, both past and future, will seem like a bastard man to you.
Carney's literal entire epoint with "the world as it is", is calling out naiive leftists who think that the road to heaven is paved only with good acts and the road to hell isn't paved with good intentions.
That's it? That's your understanding of the "Carney Doctrine" as a foundation for Canada's foreign policy?
Wow...
That is pretty, pretty shallow.
Also, I'll point out that you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting my position again, which is not "do good = good outcome" lol
I don't even feel the need to comment on this further if you believe that's the entire point. I'll just let it stand that you believe it. Nothing really needs added beyond that, other than maybe to point out the humour in you referring to others as "naïve" while adopting a position that isn't actually even getting into the details of foreign policy we see in practice because it's so devoted to faith in the rhetoric of his speech.
Lmfao, you haven't made a single cogent point.
Go ahead and try to explain precisely how Carney is not living up to his Davos speech.
Just try. Be specific and don't boil things down to a black and white analogy. We'll wait.
Lol. You haven't even shown that you understand the content of his speech. In fact, you've shown more that you don't understand the content of his speech. If you did, you would have picked up on the specific elements of his speech that I referenced for criticism earlier, such as the criteria for "Living in Truth" instead of retreating into transactionalism.
Other people in this discussion have called Carney out on these failures too, including on Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar, and Iran, but you've stooped to insults or dismissal in response to them. I mean, we're in a thread discussing a whole article about concerns on it, but you're just burying your head in the sand of a poor understanding of a speech you don't seem to have even read properly.
So, maybe you should first provide some actual substantial responses to the points already raised elsewhere in the conversation. If you're going to ask someone to put in the work to rehash a whole bunch of arguments already provided that you've chosen just to ignore or dismiss, maybe you should first do the work of demonstrating that you even understand the substance of the doctrine. So far, you haven't. You're just defending the branding while ignoring the reality people like Axworthy have pointed out in the article and others are pointing out in the discussion.
You didn't need to type that many words to say "I'm in capable of articulating a specific argument".
Again, you're speaking in broad generalities to make a point that doesn't exist when you actually look att the specifics.
Name an action he has taken and the part of his speech that it's violating. It's not complicated. If the article can do it cogently and isn't misrepresenting him and misconstruing the situation, it should be even easier for you.
You aren't capable of responding with any substance to the many points already raised.
If you don’t want to be dismissed as a joke, show you have some substance behind your position by demonstrating an actual understanding of the doctrine and responding to what's already in the discussion.
I doubt you will, because you've already shown you haven't even done your homework on the topic. You'll keep rolling with vibes as your level of understanding.
Prove me wrong.
You want to knock out the main one the article focuses on?
Well how about the fact that that it's literally entirely about a single specific weasle worded statement about Iran that was initiated that means nothing and was obviously done to not have Trump turn on us again?
Literally everything Lloyd Axworthy is railing against is the naiive idealism that is not reflective of the real world.
You know what happened with the Iraq war? Crétien publicly announced in parliament that we wouldn't be joining without first telling the US privately and it created a diplomatic rift and caused trade issues with them.
You know what Crétien's statement did for Iraqis? Nothing.
You know what actually mattered for them? Keeping Canadian troops and resources out of the war.
Now let's compare it to Carney's situation. He's dealing with an even more vitriolic and preexisting trade war, with a president and cabinet who have literally repeatedly talkedd about trying to take us over, either explicitly or as a vassal state, and his choice is to also not actually support the war with resources, and instead issue a weasle worded statement that kind of sounds like it's supporting the US while also calling them out for violating international order.
And because of that the sky is falling?? Like Jesus fucking Christ this is what I was fucking talking about when I said that this is exactly the naiive dumbassery that just says you should always call out evil in every situation no matter what because that will always lead to good outcomes. The man literally can't issue a meaningless diplomatic statement unless it's worded exactly as you want it, yet you think you're giving him space to cook?
You're just confirming you don't understand the doctrine.
As a consequence, you don't understand the significance of the initial statement or subsequent ones and how they create incoherence in Canada's foreign policy.
Additionally, you also don't seem to be aware that on the day Chretien publicly spoke out against the Iraq war the government provided private assurance to the US of support, did provide indirect support with naval and air assets, and had a Canadian general serve in a command position in Iraq, or that Chretien had an acknowledged political strategy of cultivating an appearance of independence from the US to maintain public support that would enable him to be more useful to the US.
Who's naïve?
Criticize the actual specific point I made, or shut the fuck up.
You're really holding yourself to a high standard, huh?
Show you actually understand the doctrine. You still haven't.
I mean, you've shown you also don't understand Canada's foreign policy history, but that's a bit tangential, even if it's par for the course so far with you.
Do better.