Former Staff
Jan 30, 2015
Forum Promotion
If you could change one thing about society, what would it be and why?

I'd change big business owning the essentials that the earth provides, food, water and land and the fact if you try take what mother earth gives you'll have your freedom taken away instantly as its apparently a crime.

We are clever enough to do our jobs, but not to question why we do it? We are left with no time to live the life we worked, after retirement it is here we are left to die. We are nothing more than Ants, peasents that power the Elite, the Elite that are hidden behind big brands. Money isn't what drives them. Its us.

Modern day slavery in my opinion
  • Like
Reactions: Jason76


New Arrival
Dec 29, 2018
I would change the view for power and creating wars, to rush for power and money will make us dissapear in the end.


Mar 17, 2010
I wouldn't bother with trying to change the economic situation mostly because any change I could envision would likely have drastic rippling effects that I wouldn't be able to foresee. Like if I limited individuals from having more than a certain dollar amount then what'd happen would be people would divide their wealth up more or move large chunks of it out of country or set up more small shell companies to hold it. Alternatively it could stifle creativity and risk taking because maybe an entrepreneur may not want to risk time/energy/money on an idea if they can only really gain so much from it. Limit the benefit but not the risk...

I have 3 ideas for possible changes to society though... Though they all share the same theme of holding people accountable for their actions.

1- Politicians make legally binding contracts
So right now a politician makes promises of what they do in order to get elected. They'll often make sweeping promises and promise the world in order to get power. But once they get power they almost never fulfill half of what they promised. So I'd make it so that any politician that makes a promise during a campaign becomes a legally binding contract between themselves and the people. If they fail to live up to their end of the bargain then they have to either repay a percentage the money earned during their time as leader proportional to the promises they failed to keep or they get charged with fraud. (They promised X, knowing they couldn't deliver X and so they deliberately led people along in order to gain.)

I think this would restore some faith in the elected officials since if they know that lying or promising more than they could deliver would result in action then they'd make fewer promises, stick to important issues/changes only and they'd really want to be careful what they promised.

2- News outlets can be punished for lies.
Right now the main stream media is hilariously bad at telling the truth. They are so inept that it's no wonder people don't trust or believe them anymore and in many cases people are turning to youtubers to get the news. For example in 2018 the CBC published something like 29 articles in regards to firearms that had a clear bias and/or were factually incorrect. Granted this is only one news outlet and one subject... But it's a prime example of how bad the issue is. Most others are no better and they have no reason to be. They really aren't held accountable to anyone or anything. They don't get fired or anything. If they make a mistake in an article maybe they have to print an update or clarification... But it's kind of rare those happen, let alone are visible. So any damage done by a faulty premise/article is already done and is hard to reverse.

November 13, 2018 - Wendy Cukier, unopposed

October 25, 2018 - Heidi Rathjen, unopposed

September 20, 2018 - Response show specifically against Tracey Wilson's interview

March 20, 2018 - Wendy Cukier, unopposed

March 26, 2018 - Unopposed including finding a gun owner who will agree

March 21, 2018 - Heidi Rathjen, unopposed

April 4, 2018 - Ryan Slingerland, pro-gun, unopposed

July 23, 2018 - Wendy Cukier, unopposed

August 29, 2018 - Jooyoung Lee, unopposed

August 21, 2018 - Pro gun control, unopposed

June 19th, 2018 - Wendy Cukier, unopposed

July 12, 2018 - Wendy Cukier, unopposed

April 10, 2018 - Wayne Easter, making the case for gun control, no opposed view

July 5, 2018 - Long article with 1500 words total, 91 words from the opposing side

Jan 21, 2018 - 1732 words total, 109 words opposing

You can hear a knowledgeable person pick apart Wendy Cuiker in one interview here. (The interview happened in 2017 so a bit outside the scope of the above bias, but a good listen just to hear how things are.)

3- Outrage culture gets told to shut up.
At present there is a big incentive for people to get outraged over every little thing. If you listened to the "progressives" everything you say/do is essentially a nonstop assault against minorities. Even if you are a minority yourself you're an uncle tom or gender traitor if you don't lockstep with them. But you look at the people leading these charges of racism/sexism/etc... and they're rarely actually good people looking for positive change. They are using these claims to get rich or for personal gain. Consider Shaun King who claimed he is black, didn't know who his father was and used it to gain money from speaking tours. Rachael Dolezea is another one who did much the same thing. Anita Sarkeesian used claims to trolls attacking her to get away with nearly 160k. Zoe Quinn again, centre of a controversy over proper behaviour and tried to play the victim to gain fame/money.
There's a reason that anti-fa is considered a terrorist organization by the US government. It's because they are masquerading as fighting for freedom when they are actually using tactics that actual facists would use with the end result being a fascist regime. (Sorry, but if you take a bike lock to someone's head because they have a view that doesn't line up with yours, who is the fascist there?)

So what to do? Hold these people accountable for these claims. If they turn out to be lies (which they are in 99% of cases) then they get punished for it. If you want to claim how society is racist or sexist then you have to provide actual proof.

Any tactics they like to use (silence opposition) almost should be turned against them because they've had a history of not telling the truth and making things up. So why should they be given a time and place to cry foul when they are deceitful people? This would go hand in hand with holding the media accountable. Because if the media gives time/space for these people to whine and make up lies then the media could possibly be held accountable for not fact checking and accurately reporting.