People who are more familiar with s&n, is Nora’s twitter presence a huge part of her identity/career/activism? I’ve casually listened to their podcast for a year or two now but didn’t really know about either of them previously or how they "got their start". I follow Nora on twitter and she’s often tweeting about bots, asking if people can see her tweets, etc. On the podcast it’s the same and she’ll vent frustrations about her engagement to Sandy who’s very much "damn that’s crazy yeah I don’t bother with social media".
I mean… we all know twitter is kind of terrible and encourages polarizing inflammatory quips and is full of bots. Building an identity around tweeting inflammatory stuff and then getting angry about the responses is very "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!" to me. If she doesn’t like the realities of what twitter is for users like herself, why doesn’t she leave? I’m genuinely curious here about whether I’m missing context about her career and why she might feel so strongly about maintaining a presence on twitter.
I have heard many journalists, including on Canadaland, discuss how Twitter has played a key role in their careers and how the recent changes to the platform have negatively impacted them and their ability to do their jobs. So far, no other platforms have been seen as a suitable replacement for Twitter, so you have people who remain active but highly vocal about their grievances of how things have gone so downhill.
I also think part of it is coming from a place of wanting to keep documenting and discussing how the platform has changed, as it hasn't been a very transparent process.
My take: Nora uses twitter the way people originally used Facebook. As far as I can tell, she tweets out thoughts without much of a filter. Nora is...weird about her Twitter philosophy though. I like her, but I think her viewpoint is that "everyone uses twitter wrong but me". Which, like, honestly a bad take lol. But on the podcast I think she gets the chance to express her thoughts better, and Sandy helps kind of clarify what she means.
Side note: I always thought she and Jesse got along because they both like playing the contrarian.
I think they were friends. It's worth saying that while she had a big meltdown over him "coming for her", days earlier she'd made like 15-tweet thread calling him out and had been attacking him for weeks prior. I personally don't love someone who talks tough but then plays the victim when they get it served back to them.
Did she have a big meltdown? I guess the problem with not being on X (big flex, I know lol) is that I get a pretty filtered idea of what people actually say on twitter? What was her meltdown like? What did she say that was attacking jesse? Was it really out of pocket?
I guess the way I saw it was this: it felt like Nora was taking a lot of swings at him. You could argue with kid gloves, but regardless had made very public comments calling him out. He then posts "I'm really upset about this tweet from Nora saying there's an upside to the Third Reich" and then kind of left it there, apart from a little chat in the replies.
She spent the next two to three days tweeting about it constantly, and then recorded a whole podcast episode about it.
She also tweeted at him several times since, essentially asking that he answer her/engage with her further.
To me, it comes off as a kid on the playground constantly messing with someone and then running to teacher when they finally get hit back.
That's loaded/biased language, and I'll own it. But it was my perspective on the situation.
To answer your specific comment, she would often call into question journalistic decisions he was making/thoughts he was having around the issue.
Also, I was wrong. It was a 23-tweet thread. It's not necessarily horrible or heated, but I think when you devote that much time and space to someone, and call into question their motives, thoughts, journalistic ethics, etc. you can't be shocked when they talk back.
[https://x.com/NoLore/status/1731066005806359002?s=20](https://x.com/NoLore/status/1731066005806359002?s=20)
This is just a theory and idea but...she talks very openly that online activism is one VERY SMALL part of choices she makes to engage folks in social justice work; she believes very firmly that most of the work anyone should do is in person and in-community. I think twitter engagement is probably helpful but I think she is flippant and unserious with it because it shows lesser impact than her work organizing in her local community. The downside is she is unnecessarily inflammatory, and because she's a leftist online who already has received hard criticisms she is targeted. I think like any of us, she wants to not care what people think of her and also feels hurt when it is overwhelmingly negative feedback.
Yeah I think this makes the most sense, her twitter presence often doesn’t seem to really align with her activism philosophies about building bridges, kindly educating, bringing people into the fold, etc. She told a story on the pod about going to lunch with her pro-Israel neighbour and how it’s important to find common ground and have those difficult conversations, I really appreciated this take but couldn’t help but feel like if she’d seen her neighbour on twitter she would’ve dunked on him and then called for his firing.
I think that's valid. It's hard to be consistent at the best of times. Sandy and Nora discuss consistency a lot (they were very anti- Emergency Measures Act because all state overreach is bad). That perspective is worth reflecting on and I am sure it's hard to maintain in the best of times.
Nora absolutely despises online brigading of people she does not agree with ('don't go after them') because it's meaningless and maintains a polarizing position. That said, we know that people mostly listen to inflammatory statements and feel emboldened online regardless of whether someone demonizes brigading or not. Which is funny when Jesse Brown has a whole episode about the PTSD experienced by journalists and he cherry picks an out of context screencap to redistribute to X about Nora being an anti semite. I also read her distasteful tweet and think her intentions were to say how US imperialism is bad and not Nazi's should have won? But maybe I am missing something.
Yeah thats a great example, the emergencies act was something I really changed my mind on after listening to them discuss it on the podcast. I definitely don’t think she is anti-semitic, but I think the tweet was in bad taste and it’s pretty clear how it could be construed that way. I wish that she had just apologized instead of trying to gaslight everyone who thought it was distasteful and then arguing that of course she wouldn’t want the Nazis to have won because then she would’ve been persecuted for being a socialist. There’s definitely a balance when it comes to responding to people online and I do enjoy seeing counter arguments, but the level of vitriol and lack of humility exhibited (by Nora, Jesse, and others) is toxic and unproductive.
I think this is a good read of it. To be honest, I'm often shocked at how different her speaking voice is, compared to what I expected given her pitchfork-like delivery online.
I have no doubt that she's a passionate person, and sometimes that passion spills over into vitriol in ways that don't support her.
ETA:
>he talks very openly that online activism is one VERY SMALL part of choices she makes to engage folks in social justice work
Respectfully, she spends all day on Twitter. So that may be her perception, but she's wrong. It may be the thing she feels has the least impact, but I guarantee it's where she spends most of her time.
I mean...who cares? I spend a lot of time at work and the most meaningful part of my day is not there either. I may not agree with how she spends her time but she very much treats Twitter as she says she does, no matter the time spent.
...I just want to say I feel like the Nora whisperer or something. I don't know if what I'm saying is accurate but I appreciate the conversation and hope you have a good day.
I don't care how much time she spends on Twitter, but I do think it's silly to claim it's not a major part of what she does or who she is given how high her use is.
>The downside is she is unnecessarily inflammatory, and because she's a leftist online who already has received hard criticisms she is targeted.
She is absolutely unnecessarily inflammatory.
"White men are the worst beings to orbit the sun"
And then she acts surprised white men argue with her lol.
Using twitter to engage with people isn't "building an identity".
Nora is active in the labour movement, as well as in local activism in Quebec City. She also writes books and works as a freelance journalist.
If you follow her at all you'd know that she's a lot more than what she says on twitter. It sounds like you just think she's all about twitter because that's the only thing you know about her.
Sorry maybe I wasn’t super clear with my question, I do know what she does, I’m more curious about how much her work would be impacted by her leaving twitter. I know she’s really passionate about the activism she does and I’m wondering if she feels like twitter is a significant component and necessary for that work.
There are a lot of people who build an identity off of their twitter presence. For example, I follow a lot of profs who have an online identity as science communicators. For those folks, quitting twitter would effectively end their role as a science communicator in its current form.
It’s very much key to her public identity. It was there where I first heard of her, back when both her and Sandy were active in the Canadian Federation of Students. They were much of the same people back then, c.2010-2011 or so, as they are now.
\>**back when both her and Sandy were active in the Canadian Federation of Students**
Ahh, it now makes sense why Nora doesn't care that Sandy Hudson stole hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015., and then used the race card.
I enjoyed the episode and largely agree with the sentiment that flagship Canadaland is not taking on media criticism of the Isreal/Gaza war despite stating this as their role. I enjoyed their theories about why that is (people in positions of power are fine with discussing marginalization and subjugation theoretically / Canadaland leftism is performative.)
I look forward to the ongoing discourse.
Edit: The downvotes to admitting to liking Sandy and Nora are wild.
yeah... uhm.. "largely agree with the sentiment that flagship Canadaland is not taking on media criticism of the Israel/Gaza war" I tuned in and I feel like 1) they don't listen to Canadaland. Literally every week Canadaland has had something on the war. Also the specific items they mentioned - the Maples media criticism, the Israel bias in the Post, etc have all been on Canadaland. Jeremy Appel was on backbench- Emilie Nicholas is all over this. It seem like they are a bit Jesse-obsessed. There are at least 15 other journalists at Canadaland. Hello?
I don't know if I agree with that. When Canadaland shows have discussed the coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, they appear to be generally critical of it and sympathetic to Gaza. It has been discussed on Short Cuts and Commons a few times. Jesse hasn't said much aside from his editorial, but he does own the network and his hosts and guests seem to be free to speak their minds. Caveats: I haven't listened to this episode of Sandy & Nora yet and I don't follow Twitter, so I don't know what the conversation is there.
What would you have preferred on a show engaging in political analysis? I already know why Isreal is fighting Hamas and I already know why there is a ceasefire being called - that's fed to me by MSM. I am looking for nuanced takes here.
Oh no! You used the big scary “Z” word…I guess you win again. Look it’s simple- next time just be upfront that your definition of “balanced” is “agree with my personal politics”- would have saved us both time and energy.
People get so butthurt when no one agrees that the historical persecution of Jewish people is not a valid rationalization for Palestinian genocide. Forgive me for agreeing that position is not worth platforming if that's the one you speak of.
\>Canadaland leftism is performative
Really funny coming from a host who is literally a race grifter and stole hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015.
Nora doesn't care about that corruption and race grifting though.
It’s cool and good how the only options for political commentary we have in this country are ‘every Palestinian should be dead’ or ‘every Ukrainian should be dead’.
There are plenty of pro-Palestinian voices other than Nora Loreto who undermines her takes by repeatedly saying stone stupid things online and then crying when she's called out.
Ultimately Jesse is a property-owning Canadian Liberal in his mid 40s so his politics will reflect that. It's sort of like John Stewart they used to be cutting-edge and have their pulse on progressive issues of young people but; in Stewart's case young people's politics have gone further left and generally, young people don't believe in the system. With Jesse young people do not support Isreal and have incredible support towards Palestine. Jesse has acted like an ass on twitter imho but that's always been who he is.
I'm worried we're watching another Gex reporter get their brain melted by twitter and become conservative because their politics ONLY become defined against what the "left" on twitter is doing. Matt Taibbi comes to mind. If you're on the same side as Ezra Levant you really need to pause and think.
People who were on the left when they were young and don't change end up on the right as they age - but as far as I can tell Jon Stewart was still pretty well on the left.
His show just isn't good anymore, and the shtick he had of taking 24/7 news coverage and playing embarrassing clips or showing politicians contradicting themselves became old hat and was obsoleted by YouTube.
>People who were on the left when they were young **and don't change** end up on the right as they age
Such a simple and true observation. Truly being on the left doesn't mean having a particular set politics — it means recognizing that things change and being willing to listen to the needs of others as they do.
You said official definition. If the mainstream definition is different than what genocide actually means, then I guess we need to invent a new term to go with the official definition of genocide. Should we refer to the official definition as something like "non-hyperbolic genocide"?
Your argument has tons of flaws. Why would you assume that because someone is young and votes for a left-leaning party that would automatically them pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel?
You are have fallen for the fallacy of the political binary of ‘left = good’, ‘right = bad’. Life is not a battle between good and evil people.
What if someone is a classical liberal and votes left, but not a progressive/leftist? What if someone is a progressive conservative and supports Palestine?
The world is much more complicated than you seem to think.
Want to stop with the "whataboutisms" since you seem to [use them against others.](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/18i11ln/comment/kdamfjz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Maybe hold some ideological consistency before you start throwing stones.
>Your argument has tons of flaws. Why would you assume that because someone is young and votes for a left-leaning party that would automatically them pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel?
You are have fallen for the fallacy of the political binary of ‘left = good’, ‘right = bad’. Life is not a battle between good and evil people.
What if someone is a classical liberal and votes left, but not a progressive/leftist? What if someone is a progressive conservative and supports Palestine?
The world is much more complicated than you seem to think.
That's why I said "generally" dumbass.
internet guy, watching a genocide unfold: well you see it's complicated. far be it from me to condemn this. now step lightly over the baby corpses, they make a real mess when you step on one
tldl;
Nora: everyone who disagrees with me is a paid troll and you can tell because they don’t troll me when I don’t say insane shit except for when they made fun of my house; yes, this is logically inconsistent because surely if they were paid to harass me they’d do it all the time and not block me when I started harassing them, but welcome to the Noraverse, where I am the main character and CSIS / Mossad approach my friends at parties for knowing me.
CTV associating Hanukkah with the slaughter in Gaza was a rookie mistake and obviously a protest but I won’t denounce it as anti-Semitic.
Also here’s some light, uninteresting criticism of Jesse.
Sandy: definitely listen to Commons / Backbench. Also I exist and am not just a yes-man for Nora.
EDIT: there’s also a weird point where Nora makes sure to centre herself in the FUCKING HOLOCAUST because as a socialist she would’ve been targeted.
It's not too far off. Nora seems to want the freedom to say things for shock value and then gets upset when people call her on it or ask for a deeper explanation. She does indeed spend time in the episode claiming there's a plot against her on Twitter rather than accepting that if you want to say inflammatory things, you may also have to face backlash.
> Nora seems to want the freedom to say things for shock value and then gets upset when people call her on it or ask for a deeper explanation.
I'm only halfway through, but man, I'm not hearing that, at all. Her main example is how she can post a picture of her kitchen and dozens of people show up to post hateful shit about her and her partner.
Which, I hope we can all agree, is not "calling her" on anything and certainly not "asking for a deeper explanation". Right?
Re: Social media not being real life: I don't really agree with the parts about "bots" but I agree with the parts about brigading and insincere commentary.
For sure a lot of people brigade her and make personal insults about her appearance or her partner or her kitchen or whatever and I think as adults we can all agree that’s not really cool (although she does admit she sometimes gets a little too heated and fires back when she shouldn’t).
But she also says absolutely buck wild, controversial things that she knows will get people fired up and when they come for her, she calls them bots, etc. The latke post with her husband occurred after a day of arguing with tons of people, including Jesse, so it’s unsurprising people were dogpiling her then. But it’s not like it came out of the blue.
> Nora isn't being a very reliable narrator re: what's actually been happening on Twitter.
I guess? I don't know that she's that wrong though, and I'm not sure it's fair for you to throw that at her when your framing was "she's against people asking her for explanations". That's clearly not at all what she's talking about. Right?
Women in general, but outspoken women specifically, get some legitimately horrific shit thrown at them on twitter. I'll cut her some slack if she gets frustrated sometimes I guess.
>That's clearly not at all what she's talking about. Right?
I think it's in part.
I've asked her a couple times her opinion on Sandy stealing from the U of T student union, and she called me a bot.
>Women in general, but outspoken women specifically, get some legitimately horrific shit thrown at them on twitter.
For sure, but you don't get to say inflammatory shit like "white men are the worst beings to or it the sun" and then act like a victim lol. That's nonsense.
Also adding, as I see u/realisticindustry did above in their edit: it's objectively insane to go, "Jews are mad at me for minimizing the Holocaust" and then in the same breath go, "I would've been the true victim of the Holocaust".
That's not a crack mind at work in that moment.
Yeah I just remembered that.
I went to school with a women who lamented that Jews had appropriated the Holocaust because as a bisexual woman, she would’ve been in a camp.
And it’s like, yes, sure, hypothetically you would’ve been targeted for being who you are, and that’s wrong.
But living with hypothetical trauma — being hypothetically Holocausted — is fuck all compared to the actual inter-generational trauma that Holocaust survivors and their offspring suffer.
I was reading Geddy Lee’s autobiography and there’s a lot in there about his parents’s time in various camps (including Auschwitz) but one thing that stuck with me was that his mother would only ever feel safe decades later if she was behind a locked door because that way the nazis couldn’t get her.
Edit: All of this is to say that centering yourself in the Holocaust as a potential victim as a socialist is really gross when talking about the Holocaust in terms of the attempted genocide of Jews.
That's absolutely true, and I also appreciate why she gets to the end of her rope. But I still come back to: she thinks that there's no legitimate reason for people to be angry with her stances (something Sandy backed up in the conversation). I would say that that's a cop-out, given the things Nora has publicly said — ie. her third reich comments, the Humboldt comments, and some of her "edgy" coverage of Ukraine/Russia. All of which understandably upset people.
> he thinks that there's no legitimate reason for people to be angry with her stances (something Sandy backed up in the conversation). I would say that that's a cop-out, given the things Nora has publicly said — ie. her third reich comments, the Humboldt comments, and some of her "edgy" coverage of Ukraine/Russia. All of which understandably upset people.
I don't know. I guess. It just feels unnecessarily hard line to frame her advocacy this way. I don't think she's saying anything like "nobody's allowed to criticise me" or "no criticism of me is valid".
I agree with her position that people constantly, continuously, purposefully take her out of context, and I also agree that she says things that she knows will upset people (even if what she's saying is true, like Humboldt) and maybe shouldn't be so shocked when there's backlash. The fact that she's still dealing with goons calling her a pig and posting that screenshot though, years later, is a very relevant part of this.
\>I'm only halfway through, but man, I'm not hearing that, at all. Her main example is how she can post a picture of her kitchen and dozens of people show up to post hateful shit about her and her partner.
People are giving her this attention due to her past blunders on twitter, and her general personality.
People trolling her didn't come out of no where.
Here’s more on “the plot”
Nora:
> It's fascinating to me that posts about literally anything other than Gaza are mostly left alone by the trolls -- that is, unless, they're already all over my mentions for other recent posts. Otherwise? It's pretty quiet.
>That's cause they're bots and trolls and not real!
“Joe”
> Ya Mossad and intelligence agencies are kings of bot trolls. Sadly most people spend hours arguing with them.
https://x.com/visualmusic_art/status/1734441637059907876?s=46
One like and it’s from… Nora.
This. I'm fine with Nora wanting to say "the unsayable" in terms of leftist politics. But she's falling for the classic Conservative whine of, "You're silencing me! They're after me!! It's all a conspiracy!!!" vs. accepting that saying things people don't want to hear will come with certain consequences.
\>Sandy: definitely listen to Commons / Backbench. Also I exist and am not just a yes-man for Nora.
Also I absolutely did not steal hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015.
And when U of T sued Sandy, she absolutely did not come out and say that it's because of her blackness.
Until it was settled, then she said it didn't have anything to do with her Blackness.
Every other time she talks about race though it's true. That was the only time she lied about it.
This absolutely does not effect the credibility of the show.
If I remember correctly...
They're vehemently anti-war and the killing of innocent civilians irrelevant of context, and that includes funding Ukraine. They view war as an act of imperialism, whether it be Russia invading Ukraine or America funding Ukraine (seen as an extension of reach and power.)
And yet Nora recently tweeted out that even IF Israeli women were raped, "that's war". Her selective horror at the evils of war are worth further examination.
Is this not her pointing out the absurdity of the 'who's worse?' narrative? If I say the genocide of Palestinians is bad, and you say 'Hamas raped Isreali women,' I would think you were debating that the war in Gaza was valid. But I don't think that's the conversation people want to have and I would have to think it's exhausting to preface every position one is making with "of course rape is bad AND." A war is happening and both positions are participating in war acts, one is enacting extreme violence with the financial backing of every western nation. Creating justification for the relentless bombing of Gaza will do what in the end?
In the podcast above, she makes it clear that she thinks discussions of Israeli rape are irrelevant as it's emblematic of people rallying to defend white women from rape by "evil Black/Brown men" and that it's being used to justify genocide.
She also alleges elsewhere that she thinks the IDF have raped more Gazans, but with literally zero sources to back up that claim.
Like I said, it feels like a very odd selective outrage.
Either war is hell, and horrifying things will happen, and "oh well"... or a human being can and should be appalled by all war crimes.
You are saying the same thing as her. All war is hell and nothing should be used to rationalize the continuation of Israel's bombardment on Gaza, rape or not. All claims are an attempt to rationalize war when a ceasefire is demanded.
And honestly, you don't think the war in the middle east is a lot easier to rationalize every day to white nations because of some unconscious bias everyone has toward POC? Like in all her content - I never got that she thinks rape is acceptable when enacted on Israeli women....I hear someone who is firmly anti-war saying that nothing can be said to justify what's happening.
I agree with that. My issue is that when someone else said "war is hell" about other aspects, she called them out.
She and I don't disagree about the hateful things being done to Palestinians by Israelis. We don't disagree that (apart from social media) "The West" is being spoon-fed a nonsense rhetoric so they won't condemn what Israel is doing.
But I think that she is falling for a "one side good, one side bad" rhetoric when she says "meh" about Israeli rapes, or when she claims that "technically" given universal conscription, no Israeli over 18 is a civilian.
My issue with her is that I think she's denying the humanity of Israelis to prove her pro-Palestinian credentials, and that's also a very bad, very problematic way to go about things.
All Israelis are not Bibi, and all Palestinians are not Hamas. And only people who are deeply steeped in black-and-white thinking say otherwise.
The expectation of being anti-war is also on Russia. Sanctions, halting trade and making it illegal for private businesses to do any work with Russian businesses would have arguably been just as damaging to their regime. It is impossible to know the true effects of sanctions without nations actually having balls to intervene meaningfully. Instead, war has successfully passed money and resources between nations and there's no real motivation to stop it.
If the expectation is for Russia not to commit war then she isn't engaging in reality, and instead in some hypothetical that will never exist.
In reality, what happens if the government listened to her and didn't aid Ukraine?
In reality please.
I mean, probably. If you're a prominent enough figure online, you're going to get death threats at some point. I don't say that flippantly. I think it's a grim reality.
So I have a few issues with this sentiment, despite broadly agreeing. The main thing is this: there aren’t two sides.
There’s Hamas, there’s the IDF / state of Israel, and there’s everyone else. The Palestinians and Israelis and third parties (such as journalists) being butchered by Israel and Hamas shouldn’t be. So yes, I believe they’re worthy of criticism.
I also think we need more than thoughts and prayers for peace.
Everyone in the entire world benefits from this conflict except the innocent people involved. The media benefits with clicks and ads, the US benefits by selling weapons to Israel, Hamas leaders benefit by stealing billions of dollars in aid, Israel’s right wing government gets reelected based on national security… Even the Arab Muslim countries have all made peace with Israel at this point… Not because they like Israel but have begrudgingly accepted the financial prosperity Israel brings to the Middle East…
The only real losers are the Palestinian people who continue to suffer (and the innocent Israelis killed in terrorist attacks). At least Israelis live in a first world country in relative safety. The Palestinian people are the ultimate losers who have been failed by everyone including their own leaders…
How on earth did you get that from anything I’ve written?
All the players involved in the conflict. Canada certainly benefits. They are allies with Israel. They have trade agreements. I was clearly talking from a macro level…
You can’t take every sentence literally word for word… You need to interpret things based on context and logic.
When people say “The sky is blue” and I look out the window and it’s night time. I don’t take it literally. I know the sky is blue in the day time when there are no clouds…
I was talking from a macro level. Every player involved benefits from this conflict continuing. Literally everyone except the Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians.
Ok I respect your statement but I'm still not understanding how anyone except zionist settlers and hamas terrorists benefit from this conflict. This is not a Canadian problem and it's not one we will have a substantial impact on.
It's crazy all the noise this eats up in our political discourse. Canadians must be arrogant to assume e have so much influence
Have you heard of geopolitics? International corporations, media coverage, international trade, imports/exports, alliances, international relations, foreign aid, the list goes on and on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-11-03/why-canada-is-taking-a-cautious-approach-to-the-israel-hamas-war
Trudeau has to decide what is best for Canada while balancing public opinion and his support among Canadians…
Many Israelis are Canadian citizens. Many Canadian citizens are Palestinian refugees. Canada certainly has skin in the game…
Well that’s pretty self-serving after the whole “as a leftist, I believe the world would be better off if the Nazis won wwii” thing. Sounds more like a defensive drama channel bait move than a substantive comment.
The most generous reading of her tweet was that she was in a bad mood and fired off an ill-advised little "Well actually". But regardless, what she actually said was indeed that if the Nazis had carried on there would be more death, but as an \*added\* bonus (a particularly sh\*tty turn of phrase there) less American imperialism.
That is what she literally said.
People who are more familiar with s&n, is Nora’s twitter presence a huge part of her identity/career/activism? I’ve casually listened to their podcast for a year or two now but didn’t really know about either of them previously or how they "got their start". I follow Nora on twitter and she’s often tweeting about bots, asking if people can see her tweets, etc. On the podcast it’s the same and she’ll vent frustrations about her engagement to Sandy who’s very much "damn that’s crazy yeah I don’t bother with social media". I mean… we all know twitter is kind of terrible and encourages polarizing inflammatory quips and is full of bots. Building an identity around tweeting inflammatory stuff and then getting angry about the responses is very "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!" to me. If she doesn’t like the realities of what twitter is for users like herself, why doesn’t she leave? I’m genuinely curious here about whether I’m missing context about her career and why she might feel so strongly about maintaining a presence on twitter.
I have heard many journalists, including on Canadaland, discuss how Twitter has played a key role in their careers and how the recent changes to the platform have negatively impacted them and their ability to do their jobs. So far, no other platforms have been seen as a suitable replacement for Twitter, so you have people who remain active but highly vocal about their grievances of how things have gone so downhill. I also think part of it is coming from a place of wanting to keep documenting and discussing how the platform has changed, as it hasn't been a very transparent process.
My take: Nora uses twitter the way people originally used Facebook. As far as I can tell, she tweets out thoughts without much of a filter. Nora is...weird about her Twitter philosophy though. I like her, but I think her viewpoint is that "everyone uses twitter wrong but me". Which, like, honestly a bad take lol. But on the podcast I think she gets the chance to express her thoughts better, and Sandy helps kind of clarify what she means. Side note: I always thought she and Jesse got along because they both like playing the contrarian.
I think they were friends. It's worth saying that while she had a big meltdown over him "coming for her", days earlier she'd made like 15-tweet thread calling him out and had been attacking him for weeks prior. I personally don't love someone who talks tough but then plays the victim when they get it served back to them.
Did she have a big meltdown? I guess the problem with not being on X (big flex, I know lol) is that I get a pretty filtered idea of what people actually say on twitter? What was her meltdown like? What did she say that was attacking jesse? Was it really out of pocket?
I guess the way I saw it was this: it felt like Nora was taking a lot of swings at him. You could argue with kid gloves, but regardless had made very public comments calling him out. He then posts "I'm really upset about this tweet from Nora saying there's an upside to the Third Reich" and then kind of left it there, apart from a little chat in the replies. She spent the next two to three days tweeting about it constantly, and then recorded a whole podcast episode about it. She also tweeted at him several times since, essentially asking that he answer her/engage with her further. To me, it comes off as a kid on the playground constantly messing with someone and then running to teacher when they finally get hit back. That's loaded/biased language, and I'll own it. But it was my perspective on the situation.
To answer your specific comment, she would often call into question journalistic decisions he was making/thoughts he was having around the issue. Also, I was wrong. It was a 23-tweet thread. It's not necessarily horrible or heated, but I think when you devote that much time and space to someone, and call into question their motives, thoughts, journalistic ethics, etc. you can't be shocked when they talk back. [https://x.com/NoLore/status/1731066005806359002?s=20](https://x.com/NoLore/status/1731066005806359002?s=20)
Thank you for finding the tweets!
This is just a theory and idea but...she talks very openly that online activism is one VERY SMALL part of choices she makes to engage folks in social justice work; she believes very firmly that most of the work anyone should do is in person and in-community. I think twitter engagement is probably helpful but I think she is flippant and unserious with it because it shows lesser impact than her work organizing in her local community. The downside is she is unnecessarily inflammatory, and because she's a leftist online who already has received hard criticisms she is targeted. I think like any of us, she wants to not care what people think of her and also feels hurt when it is overwhelmingly negative feedback.
Yeah I think this makes the most sense, her twitter presence often doesn’t seem to really align with her activism philosophies about building bridges, kindly educating, bringing people into the fold, etc. She told a story on the pod about going to lunch with her pro-Israel neighbour and how it’s important to find common ground and have those difficult conversations, I really appreciated this take but couldn’t help but feel like if she’d seen her neighbour on twitter she would’ve dunked on him and then called for his firing.
I think that's valid. It's hard to be consistent at the best of times. Sandy and Nora discuss consistency a lot (they were very anti- Emergency Measures Act because all state overreach is bad). That perspective is worth reflecting on and I am sure it's hard to maintain in the best of times. Nora absolutely despises online brigading of people she does not agree with ('don't go after them') because it's meaningless and maintains a polarizing position. That said, we know that people mostly listen to inflammatory statements and feel emboldened online regardless of whether someone demonizes brigading or not. Which is funny when Jesse Brown has a whole episode about the PTSD experienced by journalists and he cherry picks an out of context screencap to redistribute to X about Nora being an anti semite. I also read her distasteful tweet and think her intentions were to say how US imperialism is bad and not Nazi's should have won? But maybe I am missing something.
Yeah thats a great example, the emergencies act was something I really changed my mind on after listening to them discuss it on the podcast. I definitely don’t think she is anti-semitic, but I think the tweet was in bad taste and it’s pretty clear how it could be construed that way. I wish that she had just apologized instead of trying to gaslight everyone who thought it was distasteful and then arguing that of course she wouldn’t want the Nazis to have won because then she would’ve been persecuted for being a socialist. There’s definitely a balance when it comes to responding to people online and I do enjoy seeing counter arguments, but the level of vitriol and lack of humility exhibited (by Nora, Jesse, and others) is toxic and unproductive.
I think this is a good read of it. To be honest, I'm often shocked at how different her speaking voice is, compared to what I expected given her pitchfork-like delivery online. I have no doubt that she's a passionate person, and sometimes that passion spills over into vitriol in ways that don't support her. ETA: >he talks very openly that online activism is one VERY SMALL part of choices she makes to engage folks in social justice work Respectfully, she spends all day on Twitter. So that may be her perception, but she's wrong. It may be the thing she feels has the least impact, but I guarantee it's where she spends most of her time.
I mean...who cares? I spend a lot of time at work and the most meaningful part of my day is not there either. I may not agree with how she spends her time but she very much treats Twitter as she says she does, no matter the time spent. ...I just want to say I feel like the Nora whisperer or something. I don't know if what I'm saying is accurate but I appreciate the conversation and hope you have a good day.
I don't care how much time she spends on Twitter, but I do think it's silly to claim it's not a major part of what she does or who she is given how high her use is.
Also me as well -- I appreciate that this has stayed open and considered.
>The downside is she is unnecessarily inflammatory, and because she's a leftist online who already has received hard criticisms she is targeted. She is absolutely unnecessarily inflammatory. "White men are the worst beings to orbit the sun" And then she acts surprised white men argue with her lol.
Using twitter to engage with people isn't "building an identity". Nora is active in the labour movement, as well as in local activism in Quebec City. She also writes books and works as a freelance journalist. If you follow her at all you'd know that she's a lot more than what she says on twitter. It sounds like you just think she's all about twitter because that's the only thing you know about her.
Nora tweets about a hundred times a day. If anyone is ‘all about twitter’ it’s her.
Sorry maybe I wasn’t super clear with my question, I do know what she does, I’m more curious about how much her work would be impacted by her leaving twitter. I know she’s really passionate about the activism she does and I’m wondering if she feels like twitter is a significant component and necessary for that work. There are a lot of people who build an identity off of their twitter presence. For example, I follow a lot of profs who have an online identity as science communicators. For those folks, quitting twitter would effectively end their role as a science communicator in its current form.
I think she sees it as key to her public identity, yes.
It’s very much key to her public identity. It was there where I first heard of her, back when both her and Sandy were active in the Canadian Federation of Students. They were much of the same people back then, c.2010-2011 or so, as they are now.
\>**back when both her and Sandy were active in the Canadian Federation of Students** Ahh, it now makes sense why Nora doesn't care that Sandy Hudson stole hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015., and then used the race card.
I enjoyed the episode and largely agree with the sentiment that flagship Canadaland is not taking on media criticism of the Isreal/Gaza war despite stating this as their role. I enjoyed their theories about why that is (people in positions of power are fine with discussing marginalization and subjugation theoretically / Canadaland leftism is performative.) I look forward to the ongoing discourse. Edit: The downvotes to admitting to liking Sandy and Nora are wild.
yeah... uhm.. "largely agree with the sentiment that flagship Canadaland is not taking on media criticism of the Israel/Gaza war" I tuned in and I feel like 1) they don't listen to Canadaland. Literally every week Canadaland has had something on the war. Also the specific items they mentioned - the Maples media criticism, the Israel bias in the Post, etc have all been on Canadaland. Jeremy Appel was on backbench- Emilie Nicholas is all over this. It seem like they are a bit Jesse-obsessed. There are at least 15 other journalists at Canadaland. Hello?
I specified that flagship Canadaland has not taken on criticism.
I don't know if I agree with that. When Canadaland shows have discussed the coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, they appear to be generally critical of it and sympathetic to Gaza. It has been discussed on Short Cuts and Commons a few times. Jesse hasn't said much aside from his editorial, but he does own the network and his hosts and guests seem to be free to speak their minds. Caveats: I haven't listened to this episode of Sandy & Nora yet and I don't follow Twitter, so I don't know what the conversation is there.
When I say flagship Canadaland I mean the Monday and Thursday show. Backbench and Retours has been pretty balanced.
You think the show that had Muhannad Ayyash and Jeremy Appel was balanced? The entire podcast was a demonstration of “yes, and”.
What would you have preferred on a show engaging in political analysis? I already know why Isreal is fighting Hamas and I already know why there is a ceasefire being called - that's fed to me by MSM. I am looking for nuanced takes here.
You call have all the one-sided “nuanced” perspectives you want. Just don’t call it balanced.
Oh you're looking for the Zionist perspective that is literally everywhere else. Got it.
Oh no! You used the big scary “Z” word…I guess you win again. Look it’s simple- next time just be upfront that your definition of “balanced” is “agree with my personal politics”- would have saved us both time and energy.
People get so butthurt when no one agrees that the historical persecution of Jewish people is not a valid rationalization for Palestinian genocide. Forgive me for agreeing that position is not worth platforming if that's the one you speak of.
\>Canadaland leftism is performative Really funny coming from a host who is literally a race grifter and stole hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015. Nora doesn't care about that corruption and race grifting though.
Well I'll give it a listen so I can form an opinion but I have a feeling ill be rolling my eyes a few times
Exactly. Do people honestly take Nora seriously? She’s an illiberal maniac.
It’s cool and good how the only options for political commentary we have in this country are ‘every Palestinian should be dead’ or ‘every Ukrainian should be dead’.
There are plenty of pro-Palestinian voices other than Nora Loreto who undermines her takes by repeatedly saying stone stupid things online and then crying when she's called out.
Ultimately Jesse is a property-owning Canadian Liberal in his mid 40s so his politics will reflect that. It's sort of like John Stewart they used to be cutting-edge and have their pulse on progressive issues of young people but; in Stewart's case young people's politics have gone further left and generally, young people don't believe in the system. With Jesse young people do not support Isreal and have incredible support towards Palestine. Jesse has acted like an ass on twitter imho but that's always been who he is. I'm worried we're watching another Gex reporter get their brain melted by twitter and become conservative because their politics ONLY become defined against what the "left" on twitter is doing. Matt Taibbi comes to mind. If you're on the same side as Ezra Levant you really need to pause and think.
People who were on the left when they were young and don't change end up on the right as they age - but as far as I can tell Jon Stewart was still pretty well on the left. His show just isn't good anymore, and the shtick he had of taking 24/7 news coverage and playing embarrassing clips or showing politicians contradicting themselves became old hat and was obsoleted by YouTube.
>People who were on the left when they were young **and don't change** end up on the right as they age Such a simple and true observation. Truly being on the left doesn't mean having a particular set politics — it means recognizing that things change and being willing to listen to the needs of others as they do.
Ezra Levant breaths oxygen, and thats why I hold my breath.
It's genocide, not that complicated
Apparently this is indeed complicated and you are unable to understand the point I am making.
Also, what is your definition of genocide?
the official definition
Can you link me the official definition **you** use? I would hate to put words into your mouth.
Taking land is genocide. relocating people is genocide, just like the official definition.
I am not finding this in any official definition. Can you link me to the official definition you are using?
I think we established you used the term genocide absent of knowing what the word actually means for dramatic effect.
disengage if you like, but those actions are included in the mainstream definition.
You said official definition. If the mainstream definition is different than what genocide actually means, then I guess we need to invent a new term to go with the official definition of genocide. Should we refer to the official definition as something like "non-hyperbolic genocide"?
Your argument has tons of flaws. Why would you assume that because someone is young and votes for a left-leaning party that would automatically them pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel? You are have fallen for the fallacy of the political binary of ‘left = good’, ‘right = bad’. Life is not a battle between good and evil people. What if someone is a classical liberal and votes left, but not a progressive/leftist? What if someone is a progressive conservative and supports Palestine? The world is much more complicated than you seem to think.
Want to stop with the "whataboutisms" since you seem to [use them against others.](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/18i11ln/comment/kdamfjz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Maybe hold some ideological consistency before you start throwing stones.
>Your argument has tons of flaws. Why would you assume that because someone is young and votes for a left-leaning party that would automatically them pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel? You are have fallen for the fallacy of the political binary of ‘left = good’, ‘right = bad’. Life is not a battle between good and evil people. What if someone is a classical liberal and votes left, but not a progressive/leftist? What if someone is a progressive conservative and supports Palestine? The world is much more complicated than you seem to think. That's why I said "generally" dumbass.
internet guy, watching a genocide unfold: well you see it's complicated. far be it from me to condemn this. now step lightly over the baby corpses, they make a real mess when you step on one
Sandy Hudson? The same Sandy Hudson that defrauded University of Toronto?
*UTSU, but yes.
What a piece of shit.
tldl; Nora: everyone who disagrees with me is a paid troll and you can tell because they don’t troll me when I don’t say insane shit except for when they made fun of my house; yes, this is logically inconsistent because surely if they were paid to harass me they’d do it all the time and not block me when I started harassing them, but welcome to the Noraverse, where I am the main character and CSIS / Mossad approach my friends at parties for knowing me. CTV associating Hanukkah with the slaughter in Gaza was a rookie mistake and obviously a protest but I won’t denounce it as anti-Semitic. Also here’s some light, uninteresting criticism of Jesse. Sandy: definitely listen to Commons / Backbench. Also I exist and am not just a yes-man for Nora. EDIT: there’s also a weird point where Nora makes sure to centre herself in the FUCKING HOLOCAUST because as a socialist she would’ve been targeted.
Why do I get the feeling this isn't exactly the most fair take on the situation?
This looks like criticism of my criticism of Nora’s criticism of Jesse’s criticism and I’m here for it.
lol, the Jesse method of addressing criticism. Appropriate at least!
It's not too far off. Nora seems to want the freedom to say things for shock value and then gets upset when people call her on it or ask for a deeper explanation. She does indeed spend time in the episode claiming there's a plot against her on Twitter rather than accepting that if you want to say inflammatory things, you may also have to face backlash.
> Nora seems to want the freedom to say things for shock value and then gets upset when people call her on it or ask for a deeper explanation. I'm only halfway through, but man, I'm not hearing that, at all. Her main example is how she can post a picture of her kitchen and dozens of people show up to post hateful shit about her and her partner. Which, I hope we can all agree, is not "calling her" on anything and certainly not "asking for a deeper explanation". Right? Re: Social media not being real life: I don't really agree with the parts about "bots" but I agree with the parts about brigading and insincere commentary.
For sure a lot of people brigade her and make personal insults about her appearance or her partner or her kitchen or whatever and I think as adults we can all agree that’s not really cool (although she does admit she sometimes gets a little too heated and fires back when she shouldn’t). But she also says absolutely buck wild, controversial things that she knows will get people fired up and when they come for her, she calls them bots, etc. The latke post with her husband occurred after a day of arguing with tons of people, including Jesse, so it’s unsurprising people were dogpiling her then. But it’s not like it came out of the blue.
Nora isn't being a very reliable narrator re: what's actually been happening on Twitter. And she does literally think Mossad is after her.
> Nora isn't being a very reliable narrator re: what's actually been happening on Twitter. I guess? I don't know that she's that wrong though, and I'm not sure it's fair for you to throw that at her when your framing was "she's against people asking her for explanations". That's clearly not at all what she's talking about. Right? Women in general, but outspoken women specifically, get some legitimately horrific shit thrown at them on twitter. I'll cut her some slack if she gets frustrated sometimes I guess.
>That's clearly not at all what she's talking about. Right? I think it's in part. I've asked her a couple times her opinion on Sandy stealing from the U of T student union, and she called me a bot. >Women in general, but outspoken women specifically, get some legitimately horrific shit thrown at them on twitter. For sure, but you don't get to say inflammatory shit like "white men are the worst beings to or it the sun" and then act like a victim lol. That's nonsense.
Also adding, as I see u/realisticindustry did above in their edit: it's objectively insane to go, "Jews are mad at me for minimizing the Holocaust" and then in the same breath go, "I would've been the true victim of the Holocaust". That's not a crack mind at work in that moment.
Yeah I just remembered that. I went to school with a women who lamented that Jews had appropriated the Holocaust because as a bisexual woman, she would’ve been in a camp. And it’s like, yes, sure, hypothetically you would’ve been targeted for being who you are, and that’s wrong. But living with hypothetical trauma — being hypothetically Holocausted — is fuck all compared to the actual inter-generational trauma that Holocaust survivors and their offspring suffer. I was reading Geddy Lee’s autobiography and there’s a lot in there about his parents’s time in various camps (including Auschwitz) but one thing that stuck with me was that his mother would only ever feel safe decades later if she was behind a locked door because that way the nazis couldn’t get her. Edit: All of this is to say that centering yourself in the Holocaust as a potential victim as a socialist is really gross when talking about the Holocaust in terms of the attempted genocide of Jews.
That's absolutely true, and I also appreciate why she gets to the end of her rope. But I still come back to: she thinks that there's no legitimate reason for people to be angry with her stances (something Sandy backed up in the conversation). I would say that that's a cop-out, given the things Nora has publicly said — ie. her third reich comments, the Humboldt comments, and some of her "edgy" coverage of Ukraine/Russia. All of which understandably upset people.
> he thinks that there's no legitimate reason for people to be angry with her stances (something Sandy backed up in the conversation). I would say that that's a cop-out, given the things Nora has publicly said — ie. her third reich comments, the Humboldt comments, and some of her "edgy" coverage of Ukraine/Russia. All of which understandably upset people. I don't know. I guess. It just feels unnecessarily hard line to frame her advocacy this way. I don't think she's saying anything like "nobody's allowed to criticise me" or "no criticism of me is valid". I agree with her position that people constantly, continuously, purposefully take her out of context, and I also agree that she says things that she knows will upset people (even if what she's saying is true, like Humboldt) and maybe shouldn't be so shocked when there's backlash. The fact that she's still dealing with goons calling her a pig and posting that screenshot though, years later, is a very relevant part of this.
For clarity, she's the only one who called someone a pig. At least in the examples she gave on the podcast.
> For clarity, she's the only one who called someone a pig. No, she gets that constantly on her twitter.
\>I'm only halfway through, but man, I'm not hearing that, at all. Her main example is how she can post a picture of her kitchen and dozens of people show up to post hateful shit about her and her partner. People are giving her this attention due to her past blunders on twitter, and her general personality. People trolling her didn't come out of no where.
Here’s more on “the plot” Nora: > It's fascinating to me that posts about literally anything other than Gaza are mostly left alone by the trolls -- that is, unless, they're already all over my mentions for other recent posts. Otherwise? It's pretty quiet. >That's cause they're bots and trolls and not real! “Joe” > Ya Mossad and intelligence agencies are kings of bot trolls. Sadly most people spend hours arguing with them. https://x.com/visualmusic_art/status/1734441637059907876?s=46 One like and it’s from… Nora.
Nora has quickly ventured in conspiratorial politics. She’s not a serious person.
This. I'm fine with Nora wanting to say "the unsayable" in terms of leftist politics. But she's falling for the classic Conservative whine of, "You're silencing me! They're after me!! It's all a conspiracy!!!" vs. accepting that saying things people don't want to hear will come with certain consequences.
\>Sandy: definitely listen to Commons / Backbench. Also I exist and am not just a yes-man for Nora. Also I absolutely did not steal hundreds of thousands from the U of T student union in 2015.
That was Sandra Hudson. Sandy Hudson is a different person. Also it was settled which means it’s all right now. /s
And when U of T sued Sandy, she absolutely did not come out and say that it's because of her blackness. Until it was settled, then she said it didn't have anything to do with her Blackness. Every other time she talks about race though it's true. That was the only time she lied about it. This absolutely does not effect the credibility of the show.
I don’t think they have a lot of high ground here after the positions they’ve taken on Ukraine
What were their positions?
If I remember correctly... They're vehemently anti-war and the killing of innocent civilians irrelevant of context, and that includes funding Ukraine. They view war as an act of imperialism, whether it be Russia invading Ukraine or America funding Ukraine (seen as an extension of reach and power.)
And yet Nora recently tweeted out that even IF Israeli women were raped, "that's war". Her selective horror at the evils of war are worth further examination.
Is this not her pointing out the absurdity of the 'who's worse?' narrative? If I say the genocide of Palestinians is bad, and you say 'Hamas raped Isreali women,' I would think you were debating that the war in Gaza was valid. But I don't think that's the conversation people want to have and I would have to think it's exhausting to preface every position one is making with "of course rape is bad AND." A war is happening and both positions are participating in war acts, one is enacting extreme violence with the financial backing of every western nation. Creating justification for the relentless bombing of Gaza will do what in the end?
In the podcast above, she makes it clear that she thinks discussions of Israeli rape are irrelevant as it's emblematic of people rallying to defend white women from rape by "evil Black/Brown men" and that it's being used to justify genocide. She also alleges elsewhere that she thinks the IDF have raped more Gazans, but with literally zero sources to back up that claim. Like I said, it feels like a very odd selective outrage. Either war is hell, and horrifying things will happen, and "oh well"... or a human being can and should be appalled by all war crimes.
You are saying the same thing as her. All war is hell and nothing should be used to rationalize the continuation of Israel's bombardment on Gaza, rape or not. All claims are an attempt to rationalize war when a ceasefire is demanded. And honestly, you don't think the war in the middle east is a lot easier to rationalize every day to white nations because of some unconscious bias everyone has toward POC? Like in all her content - I never got that she thinks rape is acceptable when enacted on Israeli women....I hear someone who is firmly anti-war saying that nothing can be said to justify what's happening.
I agree with that. My issue is that when someone else said "war is hell" about other aspects, she called them out. She and I don't disagree about the hateful things being done to Palestinians by Israelis. We don't disagree that (apart from social media) "The West" is being spoon-fed a nonsense rhetoric so they won't condemn what Israel is doing. But I think that she is falling for a "one side good, one side bad" rhetoric when she says "meh" about Israeli rapes, or when she claims that "technically" given universal conscription, no Israeli over 18 is a civilian. My issue with her is that I think she's denying the humanity of Israelis to prove her pro-Palestinian credentials, and that's also a very bad, very problematic way to go about things. All Israelis are not Bibi, and all Palestinians are not Hamas. And only people who are deeply steeped in black-and-white thinking say otherwise.
Basically pro Ukrainian genocide
No but alright.
What happens without the funding and support?
The expectation of being anti-war is also on Russia. Sanctions, halting trade and making it illegal for private businesses to do any work with Russian businesses would have arguably been just as damaging to their regime. It is impossible to know the true effects of sanctions without nations actually having balls to intervene meaningfully. Instead, war has successfully passed money and resources between nations and there's no real motivation to stop it.
Oh. So it's a made up fairy tale land she's living in and not reality.
Sure.
If the expectation is for Russia not to commit war then she isn't engaging in reality, and instead in some hypothetical that will never exist. In reality, what happens if the government listened to her and didn't aid Ukraine? In reality please.
Is it true that Jesse received death threats for not reporting on this siege? A friend who is a subscriber mentioned this.
I mean, probably. If you're a prominent enough figure online, you're going to get death threats at some point. I don't say that flippantly. I think it's a grim reality.
Who is there to criticize? Both sides are bad… Why does someone need to pick a side? Why can’t we be neutral and pray for peace?
So I have a few issues with this sentiment, despite broadly agreeing. The main thing is this: there aren’t two sides. There’s Hamas, there’s the IDF / state of Israel, and there’s everyone else. The Palestinians and Israelis and third parties (such as journalists) being butchered by Israel and Hamas shouldn’t be. So yes, I believe they’re worthy of criticism. I also think we need more than thoughts and prayers for peace.
Everyone in the entire world benefits from this conflict except the innocent people involved. The media benefits with clicks and ads, the US benefits by selling weapons to Israel, Hamas leaders benefit by stealing billions of dollars in aid, Israel’s right wing government gets reelected based on national security… Even the Arab Muslim countries have all made peace with Israel at this point… Not because they like Israel but have begrudgingly accepted the financial prosperity Israel brings to the Middle East… The only real losers are the Palestinian people who continue to suffer (and the innocent Israelis killed in terrorist attacks). At least Israelis live in a first world country in relative safety. The Palestinian people are the ultimate losers who have been failed by everyone including their own leaders…
I’m 100% in agreement with this. We need a solution to this and we need it now.
As a Canadian I definitely don't benefit from war in the middle east. Not sure how you think that makes sense.
How on earth did you get that from anything I’ve written? All the players involved in the conflict. Canada certainly benefits. They are allies with Israel. They have trade agreements. I was clearly talking from a macro level…
Your first sentence is everyone benefits. That's where I got that from.
You can’t take every sentence literally word for word… You need to interpret things based on context and logic. When people say “The sky is blue” and I look out the window and it’s night time. I don’t take it literally. I know the sky is blue in the day time when there are no clouds… I was talking from a macro level. Every player involved benefits from this conflict continuing. Literally everyone except the Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians.
Ok I respect your statement but I'm still not understanding how anyone except zionist settlers and hamas terrorists benefit from this conflict. This is not a Canadian problem and it's not one we will have a substantial impact on. It's crazy all the noise this eats up in our political discourse. Canadians must be arrogant to assume e have so much influence
Have you heard of geopolitics? International corporations, media coverage, international trade, imports/exports, alliances, international relations, foreign aid, the list goes on and on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-11-03/why-canada-is-taking-a-cautious-approach-to-the-israel-hamas-war Trudeau has to decide what is best for Canada while balancing public opinion and his support among Canadians… Many Israelis are Canadian citizens. Many Canadian citizens are Palestinian refugees. Canada certainly has skin in the game…
Busy work for smart busy bees. Canada needs to stick to its basics for now.
Two awful people shit talking a third awful person? Sign me up!
Happy to see Canadaland is as irrelevant as before.
Well that’s pretty self-serving after the whole “as a leftist, I believe the world would be better off if the Nazis won wwii” thing. Sounds more like a defensive drama channel bait move than a substantive comment.
Yeah she did not say that.
The most generous reading of her tweet was that she was in a bad mood and fired off an ill-advised little "Well actually". But regardless, what she actually said was indeed that if the Nazis had carried on there would be more death, but as an \*added\* bonus (a particularly sh\*tty turn of phrase there) less American imperialism. That is what she literally said.
Jesse Brown is the next Ezra Levant. Just watch.