I tried to send a comment to CBC radio on its one-sided interviewing, but I could not find the place to comment. This is what I almost posted to Facebook, but then I thought "Why ruin more people's days?"
--CBC radio is usually my preferred listening choice, but even I am beginning to resent the tax payer money spent on it. During my kitchen clean-up this morning, during 15 min. in several interviews over Valentine's day morning, it was a verbal diarrhea of expressions such as: "disempowering speech that reinforces the status quo" (on matters of love), (she repeated that twice in two minutes), on the people who don't understand the "new narrative", "moving towards new social structures", learning what "love was, and what it can be in the future", "it is time to stop recycling the same script of what love is", "relationships configurations that were considered radical in the past" need defending against put-downs, We must work against "amatonormativity". -- Guess what: married couples have another label now; we are amatonormativitists. -- The person interviewed holds a research philosophy position at the University of British Columbia and promotes a polyamorous lifestyle. Loyalty is a damaging concept to her, as it may lead some individuals to remain in abusive relationships. Uhum. And how many people in polyamorous relationships are in abusive situations? Where will women experience more safety?--in a situation of loyalty, or in a situation not expecting loyalty? And what is the normal consequence of being amorous? And what is the better situation to raise children in? (Loyal or not loyal?)
I note that in the pictures on Google images on "polyamory", there are no children.
Don Richardson floats on The Stream
3 hours ago