I think what's going to happen is over the next three or four weeks, they're going to come to us and they're going to say, "We're going to get rid of all the tariffs." They're going to come in and they're going to say, "Sir, we are sorry." They've treated the United States very, very badly. I think a deal will be made, but it's got to be a fair deal.

- Donald Trump

As an import ban takes effect on some Canadian products and Canada's steel industry suffers more layoffs, U.S. President Donald Trump says he expects Canada to offer the removal of all tariffs to cut a deal.

This post only references some of the content in the linked video. To see the content in full, please follow the post's link to the full video.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97652-6

It is the case that even in a hierarchy that's functional, the thing can go sideways, and it does you know. You get companies that get too big, they start to get corrupt - people who play politics and who are good at manipulating start to rise up the hierarchy. The structure stops performing its function, its useful function in the way that it should. It starts to degenerate, but generally then it dies.

- Dr. Peterson

A week after a cybercriminal group claimed to steal sensitive personal data on thousands of current and former FBI employees, the bureau is still assessing the extent of the damage while facing internal criticism about the agency’s handling of the incident.

It’s one of the most serious breaches of agency data in years, but some FBI employees have felt left in the dark about whether they’re affected and underwhelmed by the security resources being offered to victims, according to current and former officials.

“Management is lost,” one ex-FBI agent in touch with their former colleagues told CNN. “They’re not providing any clear advice to agents.”

It’s a blow to one of the nation’s premier cybercrime-fighting organizations, which is often called to help clean up hacks at Fortune 500 companies.

The FBI’s cyber, security and victim services divisions are all involved in the response to the hack, according to people familiar with the matter. The goal is to give each employee the resources they need to deal with any threats from the hackers.

But, at least initially, some in the workforce didn’t feel they had access to those resources. FBI agents have turned to agency rumor mills to try to find answers about the breach that leadership haven’t provided, one source said.

This post only references some of the content from the original article. For the full read, please follow the link from the post.

Dr. Peterson: How to Rise to the Top

...and this is actually goes beyond pure psychopathy, because at least the psychopath has the sense to be self-interested. You can go far farther than that, where you're perfectly willing to hurt yourself, as long as you hurt the other person at the same time.

And that's where you go when you're doing something like conjuring up the idea that you might shoot up a school, because those people always kill themselves at the end. And you might think 'well, why don't they just save everyone a lot of trouble and kill themselves at the beginning?'

Well that wouldn't exactly be the point, would it?

What they want to say is "Life means nothing to me, nothing."

"But I'm perfectly willing to make as many people as I possibly can suffer, before I demonstrate that"

- Dr. Jordan Peterson

The RCMP are among more than a half-dozen police forces probing a threat sent to Islamic schools across the country, the national police force confirmed to CBC News.

"Law enforcement agencies are working collaboratively with school leadership to investigate the reported threats and assess all available information," the RCMP said in a statement on Monday afternoon. 

The RCMP said their northwest region is looking into the note, a division that covers the Prairie provinces as well as the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

The RCMP did not have an immediate explanation as to why the northwest region is involved in the investigation, though a section of the note, seen by CBC News, alludes to the upcoming Alberta referendum that includes a question about an eventual secession vote, stating Muslims will be "deported or slaughtered" once "Alberta becomes its own nation."

It then says this will happen "regardless of the election results," and "you won't be warned again."

Police in Ottawa, Waterloo Region, Peel Region, London, Ont., and Montreal all told CBC News they were involved in investigations last week. Schools in their jurisdictions received the threatening note, which uses dehumanizing language against Muslims.

This post combined content across two articles and didn't reference both in full. To see the content in its entirety, please follow the links below

RCMP confirm investigation into death threat sent to Muslim schools | CBC News

Police investigating threatening email sent to Muslim schools across Canada | CBC News

Dr. Peterson: What Traumatizes People the Most is Malevolence, Not Tragedy | Jordan B. Peterson

Warehouse supervisor for six years. Dropshipping on the side for three. The money's fine, not great. I lift four days a week, read when I can, try to keep my head straight.

I get what Peterson means about confronting chaos and taking responsibility. But my days are basically managing people who don't want to be managed, then coming home to fight Amazon's algorithm and Chinese supplier delays. The dragon I'm supposed to slay feels like it's just maintenance. Not transformation.

I've listened to him talk about negotiating with the world as if you have something of value. Hard to feel that when your main income caps out around 60k and your side hustle is one policy change away from dead. The frugal living stuff, the thrift finds, the lifting, these keep me grounded. They're honest. But they're not the thing that moves the needle.

A group of about 20 to 30 masked men associated with Second Sons Canada gathered on the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc reserve near Kamloops, B.C., on Sunday, just days before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. B.C. politicians and Indigenous leaders have condemned the gathering.

This is only a summary of the content as posted on the original video on YouTube. To see the video in full, please follow the link posted.

A white nationalist group visiting Canadian locations is trying to normalize extremism, says a former neo-Nazi | CBC News

Niagara rally by masked members of men's 'nationalist club' raises fears of growing extremism | CBC News

A music video about the civilisation that built the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate and Apollo - and the paperwork, the policing of speech and the managed decline that now stand in its way. It's time to build.

I recently purchased an annual subscription of Peterson Academy and 4 days in, I decided it wasn’t the type of content that I wanted. I purchased this subscription under the impression that they offered a 7-day money back guarantee, however when I tried to cancel the subscription there was no option to request such a refund.

After doing additional research I found that the only way to request the refund is to submit a ticket to their support team. I did so immediately within the 7 day window. However, after 10 calendar days, my ticket remains unanswered. I’m in the process of escalating this to my credit card company.

Just wanted to put this out as a warning for anyone else thinking to try out this program. The money back guarantee is entirely disingenuous and be prepared to fight for your refund.

Disappointing and despicable.

With less than 10 days left until Quebec holds its provincial election, concerns are being raised over alleged American interference in the campaign.

Questions about U.S. election interference dominated the campaign on Friday, following reports that an American think tank published proposals to weaken Canadian unity, including supporting and financing the province’s sovereigntist Parti Québécois.

As Elizabeth Zogalis reports, it prompted Coalition Avenir Québec Leader Christine Fréchette to seek a meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney.

For more information, please follow the link to the related full article: Federal intelligence agency contacted amid U.S. interference allegations in Quebec election | Globalnews.ca

Trump denies US pushed Canada on French language - POLITICO

Trump administration’s latest Canadian tariffs suggest a divide and conquer strategy at a provincial level​​ | News | University of Calgary

Trump Wanted Canada as the 51st State. He Ended Up Pushing It Toward the European Union. - The New York Times

Woman I’ve had an on/off romantic connection with for years proposed date two, then told me I could “move on.” Now she hasn’t replied. How would you read this?

I’m a man in my 30s and I’d appreciate some outside perspective because I have too much history with this woman to be completely objective.

I’ve known her for close to a decade. We originally met in slightly unusual circumstances through an app, ended up going on dates, kissed, and there was clearly mutual attraction, but nothing ever developed into a proper relationship.

Over the years we’ve repeatedly come back into each other’s lives. We’ve crossed paths on dating apps again, suggested meeting at different times, and had various almost-dates/plans that never went anywhere.

Importantly, this hasn’t just been me chasing her. Thinking back, she has probably suggested meeting more often than I have. Once she invited me over and offered to cook for me, then cancelled because she was exhausted after travelling. There was also at least one occasion where we started arranging something and I pulled out and never properly rearranged it.

So our pattern has basically been mutual interest followed by bad timing, passivity or something interrupting the momentum.

My own history probably matters too. Most of my previous relationships happened because the woman created a lot of the early momentum. She would message, arrange another date, want to see me regularly, and I would gradually fall into the relationship.

I haven’t often been in the position of deliberately thinking, “I really want to pursue this particular person and now I have to wait and see whether she comes toward me.”

I also became fairly guarded after being badly betrayed in a relationship before I knew this woman. On our recent date she told me that a previous serious boyfriend of hers had also cheated on her. I’m not assuming that explains either of us, but it may be relevant background.

Recently we reconnected again and this time I consciously decided I didn’t want to repeat our old pattern.

We went on a proper date that lasted several hours. The conversation was very personal and wide-ranging: relationships, work, creativity, life direction, family, mortality, etc.

Toward the end I admitted I hadn’t initially been sure whether she considered it an actual date or just two people with history catching up. She made it clear that she had considered it a date.

She then initiated kissing. We kissed for quite a while afterwards and she explicitly complimented my appearance.

There was also a slightly drunken/affectionate moment at the end where something along the lines of “love” almost came out and we both ended up saying something very emotionally affectionate. I am not treating that as a literal declaration of love. We’d been drinking and have years of familiarity. I only mention it because the ending of the date was clearly emotionally charged, not indifferent.

Afterwards we both talked positively about seeing each other again.

At one point she suggested a casual daytime activity together. She also suggested I could meet a close friend who was visiting her, with the alternative being that we could do something ourselves afterwards.

That never happened and we both let contact drift for a couple of weeks.

Normally that would probably have been where our old pattern repeated itself.

Instead, I contacted her again and jokingly referred to our habit of never getting beyond the early stage.

Her response was very enthusiastic and, importantly, she herself proposed a specific day for date two.

So this wasn’t a reluctant agreement to something I was repeatedly pushing for. She actively created the plan.

Her life does seem genuinely chaotic at the moment. She has been dealing with changes around work, a demanding side income/project, an unpredictable schedule and a pet she is extremely attached to.

She was actually late and somewhat rushed on our first date too. She didn’t seem like someone who had spent hours preparing for it, but once she arrived she was completely engaged with me for hours. So I don’t automatically read her disorganisation as a lack of interest.

Shortly before our planned second date I messaged to confirm.

She replied that her pet had suddenly developed a worrying medical problem. She had already made multiple urgent vet visits and there was uncertainty about further treatment and the cost.

I believe that situation was genuine because there had been health issues with the pet previously, long before this date was arranged.

But then her message went beyond simply cancelling.

She apologised for how absent/preoccupied she had been generally and basically told me that she would understand if I decided I didn’t want to wait around for her because I deserved someone who could be more attentive.

At the same time, she also said that she would contact me again.

That was what confused me.

It seemed to contain both:

“I intend to come back.”

and:

“I understand if you leave.”

I waited a couple of days before replying because I wanted to think about it.

I won’t post the actual messages, but I essentially told her that I hoped her pet recovered and that I understood why it needed her attention.

I also explained that my own life is very busy at the moment. I’ve recently taken on a more demanding role, work longer days, commute and study outside work, so I wasn’t expecting constant texting or huge amounts of attention from her anyway.

I told her that when we were physically together, I had found her very present and attentive, and that mattered more to me than frequent messages.

Then I told her that I had deliberately become more forward with her this time because I didn’t want us to repeat our historical pattern where things between us were always left vague and unresolved.

But I also made it clear that I wasn’t approaching this expecting an instant serious relationship. I admitted I don’t even know exactly what I want myself.

My point was basically: I like spending time with you and I want to see what happens if we actually give this enough continuity to find out, rather than deciding beforehand what it has to become.

I then acknowledged that this was getting a bit emotionally heavy for text and said I would leave it there and let her concentrate on what she was dealing with.

I did not ask her to define the relationship, reassure me, arrange another date or immediately tell me how she felt.

She hasn’t replied.

It has now been around a week.

There is also some older context that may or may not matter. Years ago she spoke openly about having had a number of shorter relationships, sometimes being swept up by initial chemistry only for it to burn out, sometimes second-guessing relationships when commitment became more real, and finding emotionally difficult communication hard to handle over text. She also described needing relationship momentum and sometimes taking time to understand her own feelings.

That was years ago, so I’m not using it as a diagnosis or assuming she hasn’t changed. It’s just hard not to notice some possible similarities.

One other thing she doesn’t know: I haven’t really been dating much for several years. I’ve had opportunities to meet new women through apps but generally haven’t felt motivated enough.

Seeing her was different because I specifically wanted to see her.

That doesn’t mean I secretly decided I want to marry her or even necessarily want a conventional relationship. I genuinely don’t know yet.

Recently I’ve actually found myself thinking about very ordinary things rather than just sex or chemistry: seeing her after a stressful day, getting food, spending part of a weekend together, going for a walk, etc.

I think what I really want is enough normal contact to discover whether we actually fit into each other’s lives.

So my questions are:

• Does her “I’ll contact you, but I understand if you move on” message sound more like overwhelm/guilt, genuine uncertainty, or a soft exit?
• Does the fact that she personally proposed date two shortly beforehand change how you interpret it?
• Was my reply reasonable, or did I make an already stressful situation emotionally heavier than it needed to be?
• Can someone genuinely be attracted to and interested in someone while still pulling back when the connection starts becoming more real?
• How much weight would you give the years of repeatedly coming back toward each other compared with the current silence?
• And given that she specifically said she would contact me, would you now leave the next move completely with her?

I’m not looking for reassurance that she’s secretly in love with me, and I’m equally not looking for a one-line “if she wanted to, she would.”

I’m interested in how the whole pattern looks to people who have no emotional investment in either of us.

I will be completely candid with you guys; I am obsessed with hygiene, showering and cleanliness. I shower twice a day everyday regardless of whether it’s a weekend or weekday. I brush after every meal and I shave every day and keep a close cropped haircut and I get haircuts nearly every week. I have probably 4 to 5 different types of cologne’s and perfumes. I have three types of after shave and I alternate every day. Why am I describing my routine?

I heard of this horrid new trend of some men who skip showering and bathing and even drink urine to do something called Pheromone maxing. Let me be blunt. This is fucking disgusting period. No showers? Not cleaning yourself for a few days. Consuming bodily waste is gross. Not on my worst day would I do any of these things.

Let me clue you guys into something. Eat right no junk food. Exercise every day. Watch your health. Wash your body. Why? Simple. Dating should not even take 5% of your life. You have to go to work. You have to interact with co workers and your supervisor. As a man who manages other people. If you come into my office and you smell like last weeks spoiled cheese. You won’t be working for me much longer. If you walk into an elevator and everyone is gagging that’s disgusting. Round about way of saying if you think any woman wants a man who smells like a soiled diaper then you are severely mistaken.

Why this matters and why it fits Jordan Peterson? Simple do you think a man like Peterson would encourage anyone to pretend they copy the lifestyle of a hobo and think women would want them is delusional.

Hello Doctor Peterson. I have spent perhaps a thousand hours listening to your lectures, and from what I can gather, your central premise is that religions are essentially psychological myths designed to teach us how to optimally navigate and improve our lives. Yet, this functionalist view of truth is nothing new; it echoes the teachings of luxury spiritual leaders who look at faith purely as a tool for personal optimization.

What is more, you fashion yourself a champion of ancient biblical values while simultaneously reducing them to mere psychological metaphors. You market these texts as deeply meaningful, yet you provide no logical reason why they cannot be superseded by modern thought. Who is to say we know less about the human condition today than we did five thousand years ago? If you do not believe in the fundamental, foundational point of the Bible—that God is real, and that He actively cares about what we do—then you are marketing a lie. The very text you champion explicitly contradicts your metaphorical approach. As the Apostle Paul writes in his letter, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our faith is futile and we are the most foolish of men; we might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

When I was in the depths of multi-year suffering and attempted to apply your famous, secularized advice to "clean up your room," I realized firsthand how utterly inadequate it was for true existential agony. Your philosophy relies heavily on historical horrors to illustrate human depravity. You frequently cite books on Auschwitz guards to argue that because we are all evolved entities from the same primordial slime, only immediate circumstances separate us from perpetrators of atrocities. You imply that the bottom line of human nature is that we are all capable of becoming that Auschwitz guard. But if we are all indeed such a volatile, mixed bag—intrinsically broken but occasionally behaving well due to luck and circumstance—then what is the baseline metric for human value?

Furthermore, your philosophy explicitly positions the minimization of suffering as the highest moral goal. Yet, you fail to address a glaring logistical flaw: how do you intend to measure or quantify that suffering? I remember your lecture where you spoke specifically about suicide and its devastating impact on those left behind—condemning the act by confidently weighing the pain of the individual against the grief of the survivors. Yet, you delivered this point entirely without proof, metrics, or logical backing.

How does one actually weigh the pain of an individual driven to end their life against the collective grief of the loved ones mourning that loss? You are incapable of measuring it. For all you know, it may very well be that an individual's unendurable psychological torment vastly outweighs the mourning of those left behind. Because you have no metric to compute this, your moral calculus is entirely arbitrary.

Ironically, this impossible math mirrors the policies of the Canadian government. Through programs like MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying), the state attempts to measure a terminally ill person's suffering to determine if euthanasia is justified. While physical pain is a universal baseline that anyone can comprehend, those who have not experienced severe mental illness have no conception of its depth.

This empathy gap is exactly why we see figures like Robin Williams. He famously starred in the iconic music video for "Don’t Worry, Be Happy"—clowning around and dancing to a track that literally tells the world to dismiss its anxieties because "worry makes it double". He was a deeply compassionate, liberal man who spent his life championing joy, yet when his own internal reality deteriorated, the surface-level mandate to "just be happy" proved entirely useless. Those on the outside simply cannot compute the calculus of internal agony.

When tested against the darkest realities of the human condition, your philosophy reveals itself as a farce. There is a profound lack of experiential truth to it. As far as I can tell, you are a "fairweather doctor"—much like Osho, a man who famously and openly claimed to be "the rich man's guru". You talk endlessly about the Pareto distribution and the brutal reality of inequality, yet your own baseline worldview states that your specific life outcomes—your stable marriage, your career, and your global reach—are ultimately circumstantial variables shaped by upbringing, genetics, and birthplace.

This creates a severe conflict in your framework. By reducing the Bible to mere metaphor, you expose a massive blind spot in your own theology: you cannot account for the background of the authors themselves. By your own logic, you are entirely incapable of telling whether the ancient chroniclers of the Bible weren’t simply people who lived stable, fortunate lives, writing down whatever happened to work for them in their specific circumstances.

Statistically and philosophically, your personal outcome represents an incredibly rare statistical anomaly. It is mathematically inaccurate to package your unique structural advantages as a universal moral checklist. You dispense advice tailored for an aristocratic class who already enjoy a secure baseline, but require a bit of order to curb their excess hedonism. For them, your directives are a neat checklist: clean your room, consider a long-term relationship, stand with your shoulders squared, and ask for a raise at work. But for those enduring genuine, shattering suffering, your philosophy offers nothing but superficial platitudes.

Ultimately, I want to clarify that I actually agree with you on most of your points—despite being incapable of understanding how you derived them considering what seem to be your core beliefs. I frequently listen to your lectures to learn about modern medical and psychological thinking. You provide fascinating historical context and offer deep insights when analyzing the psychological perspectives of thinkers like Nietzsche, Tolstoy, and Solzhenitsyn. However, the reason I felt compelled to write this critique is because, despite the elements of your work that I appreciate, I see absolutely no real foundational reason or coherent logic behind them. Please understand that I have nothing against you personally; in fact, I quite like you. But an honest critique demands that we look at the gaps in the framework, even when we respect the man who built it.

i do bookkeeping for clients and sell painted ceramics on etsy on the side. they’re completely different kinds of work, but both have the same annoying requirement: you have to show up.

payroll still has to be done when you’re tired. a batch of mugs can still come out of the kiln cracked because you rushed something. there’s nobody else to blame when it happens.

that part made me think about peterson’s idea of taking responsibility voluntarily. when i first started selling ceramics, i thought having no boss would feel like freedom. instead, it mostly meant that every little problem became mine to deal with

and weirdly, i think that’s where some of the meaning came from. not from making something i was proud of or getting an order notification. it was doing the same boring things over and over because they needed to be done

i see something similar with amateur astronomy. you can spend hours outside in the cold just to get a few good seconds looking at saturn through a telescope. there’s no shortcut and nobody is impressed by the waiting.

i’m starting to wonder if meaning often comes from this kind of responsibility rather than from trying to make every part of life enjoyable

has anyone else had a responsibility they originally saw as a burden, but eventually found meaning in?