Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

man these videos are irritating. GUYS the government doesnt give a damn if the new immigrants assimilate.... THEY ARE AFTER THE immigrants CHILDREN! the ones that will be born here and go through the Canadian brainwash system. The birth rate is at 1.4 it needs to be at 2.1 thats why they NEED indians, INDIANS have MASSIVE FAMILIES thats exactly what the government is after., AND whites saying they are a minority? THEY make up 70% of canada Indians make up 7% THE hell you imbeciles talking about minority LMAO.

This video says exactly what I've been saying for years. I've lived in Brampton my whole life and im 40 now so I'll tell you its changed and changed for the worse. My car has been broken into atleast 20 times in 5 years and 3 months ago a older Indian man broke into our house and was wearing my sister's clothes sleeping in her bed. He went through all our stuff and even ate food out of the fridge. So violating and frustrating living in Brampton lately. I'm so ashamed to say im from Brampton and even indian people in other towns have made fun of me for living in Brampton and telling me how bad the driving is. Lol thanks buddy. 😢

ahhh man welcome to my city. depends on Indians but generally we get the good once i cant hate on then too much. their clan mentality i dont exact like and them changing our culture is a idk maybe little less would be good. but overall good people.

Pierre Poilievre’s Immigration Hypocrisy: A Study in Convenient Principles Disguised as Conviction Pierre Poilievre has never met a border he did not want to fortify, a refugee claim he did not want to scrutinize, or an irregular crossing he did not want to turn into a national morality play. For years, he has warned Canadians that the country is being overrun by “illegal border crossers,” “queue jumping asylum seekers,” and “abusers of the system.” He delivers these warnings with the solemnity of a man announcing a biblical plague, not a handful of exhausted families walking across a ditch in Quebec. In Poilievre’s political universe, Roxham Road is not a rural footpath. It is a symbol of national decline. It is chaos incarnate. It is the place where the rule of law goes to die. It is, in short, the perfect stage upon which he can perform his favorite role: the lone defender of order in a world gone soft. At least, that is the story he tells the public. The private story, as publicly reported, is considerably less heroic. The Public Record That Refuses to Behave: According to reporting from The Breach and the National Observer, someone described as the uncle of Poilievre’s spouse has an immigration history that reads like a greatest hits compilation of everything Poilievre claims to oppose. The reporting outlines that he entered Canada and made a refugee claim. That claim was refused. A deportation order was issued. He later re-entered Canada through Roxham Road. He then filed a humanitarian and compassionate application. Poilievre’s spouse reportedly helped prepare that application. This is not fringe gossip. This is what journalists documented through correspondence, interviews, and immigration records. In other words, the exact pathway Poilievre condemns as “abuse of the system” is the same pathway publicly reported to have been used by someone connected to him. And suddenly, the man who treats Roxham Road like a national security breach becomes quieter than a library at midnight. The slogans stop. The outrage evaporates. The border, once a sacred line, becomes a flexible suggestion. The Rhetoric: A Symphony of Outrage: Poilievre’s immigration rhetoric is a carefully orchestrated performance. He warns that irregular border crossings undermine the rule of law. He insists humanitarian and compassionate applications are loopholes. He claims the system is being gamed. He declares that Canada must “take back control.” He delivers these lines with the moral certainty of a man who believes compassion is a gateway drug. In his speeches, asylum seekers are not people. They are symbols. They are props. They are the raw material from which he fashions his political identity. He is the sheriff. They are the threat. The border is the battleground. And Canada is the damsel in distress. It is a compelling narrative. It is also a narrative that collapses the moment it becomes personally inconvenient. The Reality: A Study in Elastic Principles: When someone connected to Poilievre uses the very same system he condemns, the rules change with breathtaking speed. Irregular border crossings are no longer a crisis. They are a misunderstanding. A technicality. A regrettable but understandable choice. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer loopholes. They are legitimate pathways. Necessary tools. Evidence of a compassionate system. The border is no longer a sacred line. It is a suggestion. A guideline. A flexible concept open to interpretation. It is a remarkable transformation, like watching a man insist that jaywalking is a crime against humanity until his friend does it, at which point it becomes a misunderstood act of civic expression. The Political Convenience of Shifting Standards: Poilievre’s political identity is built on the idea that he alone will restore order. He alone will enforce the rules. He alone will protect Canada from the chaos of irregular migration. But the moment the rules become inconvenient, they are no longer rules. They are preferences. They are vibes. They are whatever he needs them to be in the moment. This is not a minor contradiction. It is a fundamental collapse of the moral architecture he has built his political brand upon. If irregular crossings are a crisis, then they are a crisis for everyone. If humanitarian applications are loopholes, then they are loopholes for everyone. If the system is broken, then it is broken for everyone. But Poilievre’s version of justice is not universal. It is conditional. It is situational. It is deeply, profoundly personal. The Broader Pattern: Institutions Are Sacred Until They Are Not: This is not the first time Poilievre’s principles have proven to be more flexible than advertised. He has attacked the Supreme Court of Canada when its rulings do not align with his political needs. He has accused the justice system of being too lenient when it suits him and too harsh when it does not. He has framed himself as the defender of institutions while undermining them whenever they become inconvenient. It is a pattern. It is a habit. It is a worldview. And it reveals something essential about his politics. For Poilievre, institutions are not pillars of democracy. They are tools. They are props. They are instruments to be used when helpful and discarded when not. The Satirical Truth: A Philosophy in One Sentence: Pierre Poilievre’s immigration philosophy can now be summarized with clinical precision: Canada must crack down on irregular border crossings, except for the ones that are fine. And he will decide which ones are fine. It is a stance that bends so far backward it could qualify for a gymnastics medal. It is a stance that reveals more about political convenience than national security. It is a stance that exposes the gap between what Poilievre says and what Poilievre does. And it is a stance that makes one thing abundantly clear. Polievre's Hypocrisy

One thing that always surprises me is that a lot of immigrants actually don't like mass immigration. I worked with a polish lady who complained more than anyone about the amount of polish people. I've met a lot of Turkish people and a few of them weren't best pleased with the amount of turkish people, and in this video an Indian man says there's too much of it too. Its not an uncommon sentiment among immigrants that they specifically came here for a change in culture, only for it to follow them here. Specifically surrounding politics, a lot of them leave because of the politics where they were, only to find its just as much of a problem here because so many bring those problems over with them rather than leaving them behind. Just to clarify though while I think immigration is obviously a big problem in its current state, I'm not at all against the idea of immigration in general. I care more about where people are going than where they're from. Its just very odd when you hear a strong accented polish lady walk passed complaining and swearing about all the polish people. I guess it does make sense though, if i imagine desperately wanting to leave home for Australia, it would obviously be disappointing to arrive after packing up my life savings to find out all of the people and all of the things were exactly the same as back home. Pretty sad when you think about it.

‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn’t a Canadian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag… And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.’ Wilfrid Laurier 1907

Whilst I do like your content, overall, there's a certain, i don't know, to some of your more recent stuff. After the young man who said he'd rather live in Punjab for the rest of his life said that, you go on to show us a video of a not so good looking area of Puniab, is it? What exactly is that about?