Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Furniture]

But if someone’s calling for or implying judicial punishment from said “bribery” or “treason,” (especially when folks on the socials talk about “we know what happens to traitors”) the bar needs to maybe be higher than “you KNOW what I mean by x.”

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

 

[brihard]

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

Fair, I’ll try to be more mindful of that in future.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

With that said- when words used match those of specific, serious criminal offences, it’s a reasonable place to go. I want to make it clear I’m never turning to legal definitions to try to stifle discussions or anything like that. I’m just a cop; when discussion of wrongs uses terms that fit that specific paradigm, that’s just where my mind goes. In future I’ll try to ask up front if people are using terms to suggest crimes or not. Though I may not simply give a pass on uses of terms that implicitly point to crime if it’s clearly not there. Maybe I can save some time on analyses though.

 

[HavokFour]

Another good measure.

Federal government plans to ban crypto ATMs to stop scammers from defrauding Canadians​

 

[Czech_pivo]

I agree, which is why I made the same distinction in my post.

The tendency to jump immediately to legal definitions, when the person using the language isn't explicitly calling for legal actions, stifles discussion and results in pointless derailing of topics. This current derailing is a perfect example.

The LPC clearly are bribing/attempting to bribe people to cross the floor, it's not illegal, but it is unethical in the eyes of some posters. Trying to turn the discussion into a cut-rate episode of Suits or Matlock serves no purpose but to protect a favoured side, or try to make people duck out of the conversation.

Try using the word ‘enticing’ instead of bribing.

Enticing is the art of persuasion or attraction.

Bribing is the inducing of improper behaviour or breech of trust.