Arts & Life

Are you a poet and you didn’t even know it? Submit your work to managingeditor@thecord.ca.

Tired The time to lie

CHANTELLE COOLIDGE POETRY CONTRIBUTOR

I am tired.

I am tired of us seeing people on their surface

Skin deep is as deep as we’re willing to dive

Afraid if we see more what we’ve been taught our whole lives

Will no longer apply

Because we are taught to judge a person by appearance eir skin colour, their gender, what they can and cannot do

Is this all we’ll ever see? Or are we willing to see the truth?

We tend to assume our ignorance is bliss,

Unaware of all the opportunities we miss

Opportunities to grow, opportunities to know what we thought we’d never know

Because what if the people we throw aside,

Are the very people who could change our lives?

Yes, I am tired.

I am tired of seeing Christians who claim to speak for God,

Cast aside the ones He made because they claim they’re di erent, unworthy, unloved

Because I know what Christ would really say

I know He would want this hypocrisy to change

For us to open our eyes and be willing to see the light

Because like a candle, truth continues to icker, even during this dark night

A candle that can burn unity into our lives

Melting away all the cold heartless lies

Lies that come from those who step up on their pedestal of prejudice and try to put labels on people

People are people, that should be a fact simple and plain

Why do we want to create categories and separate?

Why do we want to twist the truth until all we see is disdain, heartache, pain? It’s as if we desire to discriminate

I am tired

Of looking at the world and seeing all of this hate

Arms crossed, chins raised, we built houses in which we stay

Unwilling to step out and see the light of day

Unwilling to take the hand of our neighbour and shake

We say we’re isolated now…

But hasn’t it always been this way?

Was it ever better in the old days?

You see,

I am tired

NICHOLAS BAYOU

POETRY CONTRIBUTOR

e time to lie is the time that I always dread.

Absolutely necessary, but blasphemous. e temptation of the dark side.

I always wanted to be a Jedi though. at is unfortunate.

e time to lie is one that is powerful.

Ruining relationships- laying waste to previously strong foundations.

Pulling out the roots that took absurdly long to get to where they are.

I did always hate gardening.

Saying whatever to downplay what is important.

e time to be truthful is one that is cherished.

A glimpse into the soul with only a few words.

Respect is earned and fought for.

It is always harder to tell the truth. ey say the right thing is always the most di cult thing to do.

e time to be truthful should be every time.

It isn’t though.

Liars lie to liars. Liars lie to anyone they want.

Open books are only open to readers that are in the mood.

I’m not in the mood, but that doesn’t mean I never will be.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Looking into the mystery behind Spotted at Laurier

AMICHAI ABRAHAM

ARTS EDITOR

e Spotted At Laurier Twitter account is perhaps the most in uential social media account associated with Wilfrid Laurier University. It’s the place where the voice of the students can and has been heard for nearly a decade. Everything from funny observations, disgruntled callouts, romantic pursuits, general inquires, and more are routinely featured on the account. It has consistently been the best place for students to have their voices heard. However, there has always been a mystery surrounding the account. Who is Spotted At Laurier? What are their intentions? How do they feel about the popularity their account has garnered? I reached out to Spotted At Laurier for an interview and while they declined a traditional interview, they were happy to answer questions in an email format. Here were the questions I asked, and the responses I received from Spotted At Laurier. the account started in the rst place?

SAL: @SpottedLaurier was initially created to allow students to simply connect and send a message to someone they saw on campus. It quickly grew and evolved to a place where students could have their voice heard by not only fellow students, but by sta and administration.

Q: Why do you choose to remain anonymous?

SAL: Anonymity is an important aspect of the account. When individuals send in a message to be posted, they expect that their submission will remain anonymous. We believe that not knowing who is on the receiving end of the message helps double-down on the sense of anonymity.

Q: Is there one person in charge of the account or is it run by a collective?

SAL: ere is a single owner of the account. We have had a number of partners since 2013 that have lent a hand here and there when needed, but it is primarily a solo-e ort.

Q: Is Spotted at Laurier passed down or has the same user been posting on it since 2013?

SAL: We have seen many other imposter accounts pop up over the years and have watched all of them fail quickly. Running an account like this isn’t for everyone, which is why we’ve never been able to pass it down and have continued to run it since 2013.

Q: Do you deny any requested tweets, if so why?

SAL: Yes, we do have to deny some requested tweets. Every tweet is reviewed to ensure it follows our internal guidelines. ese guidelines ensure that we aren’t personally identifying someone in a hurtful way, posting inappropriate or threatening content, or posting “lost and found” messages. We also receive a lot of questions from students, so we will try to answer them directly rather than posting them. We also receive a high volume of messages, so not everything can be posted. With the large number of messages we receive we try to avoid posting repetitive content.

Q: Over 25,000 followers, that is more than the estimated total student population currently attending Wilfrid Laurier. What do you attribute the success of your account too?

SAL: We have remained dedicated to running the account since it started in 2013, which has played a big role in maintaining its success. However, the success is mainly due to the Laurier community continuing to use and trust the account. If a student has a question they need answered, they know they can use Spotted and get a credible, accurate response from sta , administration, or another student. is engagement and trust helps keep the account running.

Q: Is there any kind of statement trying to be made with your account (social, political, etc.).

SAL: No, our goal is to provide a resource that our followers can depend on to stay connected with the Laurier community.

Q: Is there anything you’d like the Laurier population to know about you or consider?

SAL: We’d just like to thank everyone who has followed the account, sent in a message, or engaged with a Tweet. We are very proud to have seen the account grow over the past nine years and to see the impact it’s been able to have.

KASH PATEL/MULTIMEDIA DIRECTOR

Editorial

OPINION EDITOR SAMUEL DUFFY opinion@thecord.ca

EDITOR’S NOTE

Coping with catastrophizing

EMILY WAITSON EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Quite often – and by that I mean almost daily – my mind jumps to the worst possible conclusion of nearly every scenario and I dwell on any number of my various fears and perceived failures.

Get a phone call out of the blue? Obviously, it’s some sort of devastating news. Random ache or pain? Definitely a life-threatening illness. Receive feedback from a professor? Likely going to be all negative. You get the idea.

Some people may say that I’m dramatic, I would say I’m pragmatic. Realistically, I know my tendency to envision the worst outcome to life’s everyday situations is not healthy or reasonable. But there’s a little voice in the back of my mind always suggests my biggest fear: what if this time, in this one circumstance, I’m right?

Catastrophizing is a type of distorted thinking that often stems from anxiety and depression. Enter: me.

The problem I’ve run into is using the bad things that have happened in my life as a justifiable cause for my paranoia and anxiety. Falling down this rabbit hole of thinking has left me adamant that everything will end in disaster and disappointment. It’s almost like I need to think of the most tragic and disappointing outcome in order to prevent it from happening, and when it doesn’t, my mentally ill brain pats itself on the back for another job well done as if it just saved me from heartache.

As a result, this pattern of thinking eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m convinced my self-doubt is justified and I avoid stressful situations altogether. My fight or flight response unfortunately pushes me towards the latter. It’s not something I’m proud of, and it’s resulted in a lot of missed opportunities to supposedly protect myself from being let down, needlessly put through stress or hurt.

I recently applied for a job that I never would have taken a chance on before. The entire time I was drafting my application I couldn’t believe I was even trying. My cyclical thought process of “what if you invest all of this time and energy into something you don’t even succeed with?” was still very much present, but I started countering it with: “so what?”

To my complete shock, I was accepted into the next stage in the application process the day after I applied. And while I continue to silently obsess over whether or not I’ll be accepted any further, I have to keep telling myself that right now, that doesn’t matter. I got this far, and that counts for something. If nothing else, it’s proof to myself that I am capable, as long as I at least try. And it’s better to put your best foot forward, as corny as it sounds, and get a definitive answer, than to not try and never know what the outcome could have been.

This is not to say that I’m a completely rejuvenated person with a new outlook on life. I’m not a “That Girl” TikTok. If I get rejected from this job that I really want and have invested time into, I will be disappointed. But maybe this time I won’t use that as fuel for self-pity and proof as to why I shouldn’t have bothered wasting my time in the first place. Instead, I’ll take this as a chance to keep putting myself out there for the experiences that might be intimidating, but ultimately rewarding no matter what the outcome is.

THE CORD IS PUBLISHED BY WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY STUDENT PUBLICATIONS 205 REGINA ST. N., WATERLOO

WLUSP ADMINISTRATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CHAIR

Brittany Kovacs

VICE-CHAIR

Jacob Rice

DIRECTOR

Rosalind Horne

DIRECTOR Emily Crump

DIRECTOR

Arshy Mann

PRESIDENT

Brittany Kovacs president@wlusp.com

FINANCE MANAGER

Randy Moore randy@rcmbrooks. com

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Kurtis Rideout kurtis.rideout@wlusp. com

HR MANAGER

Aaron Waitson hr@wlusp.com EDITORIAL

Hey schoolboard, leave those kids alone

SAM DUFFY

OPINION EDITOR

A Tennessee school board has removed Maus, a graphic novel depicting the Holocaust, from its grade eight curriculum. The novel, which uses cats and mice to symbolize Nazis and Jews, was removed on the grounds that it contained profane language and an image of a nude mouse. Librarians, teachers, parents, and many in the Jewish community have challenged the school board, but they have stood by their decision. This has opened debates about whether there are grounds for removing material from school curriculums.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a new phenomenon, or one that is particularly rare in modernity. Debates over the availability of material in schools became news in the past year amidst conversations about teaching diversity, equity, and inclusion. Florida’s recent move to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory springs to mind.

This issue is important to me because I believe it is directly tied to our most fundamental mistake in modern discourse and political thought. We have become people who cannot entertain opposing views.

Many people today have made up their minds about the issues of the day. When presented with something in opposition to this view, no chances can be taken. The opposing idea must be purged from the mind with vigour, to uphold a sense of self, whether for you or for others. That is, people do not want anything to challenge the views they hold to such an extent that they don’t dare think critically about an issue, even if they have never considered any of the counterarguments to their ill-conceived perceptions.

The true mark of a wise person is the ability to consider an argument and allow it to ruminate in the mind without judgement or praise. To simply consider the circumstances that may have contributed to the argument, the conclusions, and how it would feel on a daily basis to believe in such an argument. If you can do that, you become more peaceful and understanding, but also engage in an intellectual tradition that has brought forth the greatest ideas of mankind.

So, to bring us back to banning books from schools or removing their curriculums. This is never acceptable. To deprive people of the opportunity to engage with ideas, even if you believe them to be dangerous, is not education. You must encourage people, and especially children and young adults, to read works by a variety of authors and make up their own minds. Don’t make it up for them and then build a curriculum around it. If you have to ban books on Critical Race Theory from schools, you’re not allowing for education, you’re engaging in indoctrination because the “correct” way of thinking has been decided by politicians. True education begins when the mind is furnished with thoughts one agrees with and disagrees with vehemently. Only from there can true wisdom be found.

And on Maus, it’s quite evident no critical thinking was at play in the Tennessee schoolboard’s decision. If what you take away from Maus are profane language and a nude mouse, you have pulled off the near-impossible task of missing the entire message of the book. You must allow students to engage with the material you find egregious because this allows them to engage with the broader idea of the novel Maus, which has served as a way to explain the Holocaust to young people through its symbolism, storytelling, and accessibility.

Hands off our books.

Opinion

OPINION EDITOR SAMUEL DUFFY opinion@thecord.ca

CONTRIBUTED IMAGE Pierre Poilievre is not the right choice for Conservative leader

CONOR COLUMB

OPINION COLUMNIST

If the Conservative Party’s leadership problem has shown us anything in the last few years, it is that the Party is a coalition of right-leaning political thinkers. Since Erin O’Toole was ousted as leader of the Conservative Party, there has been much speculation on who will be the new leader.

Pierre Poilievre has predictably put himself forward as a candidate for the Party leadership. He is known for being a passionate opponent of the government of the day, which has propelled him to the centre of conservative federal politics in Canada. He is a Western-Canadian blue tory with a strong social media presence and even stronger support among the fringe of the Party. Recently, he has come out in support of the “Freedom” convoy— calling these truckers “bright, joyful, and peaceful Canadians championing freedom over fear.”

Considering that Poilievre is politically poised, it must be asked: is he too controversial?

First, let us look to the Conservative Party itself to understand the political landscape. As Party leader, O’Toole had to deal with many problems and squabbles between factions. This is not unique to him— it is the Conservative Party, after all. His greatest problem though was that he failed to keep the peace within the Party. Not since Harper has any party leader been able to control these factions and maintain unity. Considering the divisions of the Party, it makes sense why a figure like Pierre Poilievre should emerge to the centre of conservative federal politics, but what was the straw that broke the camel’s back? COVID-19, of course.

It is important to understand the factions within the Party. The traditional division of the Conservative Party is between colours: Blue tories, who oppose government activity and generally concur that markets yield greater positive outcomes than government programs; and Red tories, who accept the role of government in society. Perhaps the biggest difference is their view on collectivity. Whereas the blue tory will emphasise the individual, the red tory will emphasise community.

The pandemic has led the government to do two notable things: one, spend at extreme rates without any known plans of servicing its debts; and two, to establish vaccination mandates across multiple sectors of society. One would think that government spending and mandates coupled together would unite the Conservative Party in its opposition to Prime Minister Trudeau, no? No. Instead, the Party’s fringe has mobilised its means to deviate. The fact that O’Toole was ousted in such haste indicates this, among other things.

By ousting O’Toole, the remainder of the Party’s support has lost leadership security. Who is a part of this remainder? It is the vast group of conservatives ranging from progressive conservatives and centrists to people who simply do not support Trudeau.

Poilievre would not comfort this group. One must also consider the politics of vaccines. Many conservatives support vaccines, or at the very least, do not wish to diverge their opposition to the government on the subject. He, however, is thrusting it right into the Party’s agenda. If he became the leader, he would thrust this to the centre of its platform.

By emphasising the issue of vaccine mandates, and going so far as to support these truckers in their hollow fight of “freedom,” the Party risks doing two things: one, minimising the very significant issue of the government’s overspending; and two, Party unity, which is in their best interest if they wish to be seen by Trudeau as a legitimate threat.

What would the Canadian public think? Of course, I must not fall prey to speculation, but it seems intuitive. Most Canadians who are centrist or centre-right will gravitate towards Prime Minister Trudeau. This would give him another election, should there be one— and if Poilievre were the Party’s leader.

What would be the best course of action for the Conservative Party? If the Conservative Party functions most effectively as a coalition, then it must opt for a leader who can maintain unity within the Party, and on political issues.

Pierre Poilievre would be a mistake for the Conservative Party because he is far too controversial, divisive, and thwarts the political issues that unite conservatives alike. As for the public, he would emulate a radicalism that would make them gravitate to Trudeau.

Poilievre might not be entirely to blame for the Party schism, but he will certainly expedite it.

How much control should governments have over cryptocurrency?

MATT MCKENNA

OPINION COLUMNIST

With the regulation of cryptocurrency, its foundational feature is kicked out from underneath.

I’ve been a casual follower of humanity’s recent cryptocurrency project. The idea of a safe and decentralized currency outside of the influence of government manipulation ignites feelings of freedom and liberation. Government inflicted inflation eats away at the purchasing power of interests and savings, which is one of the reasons for increased attention and investment in cryptocurrencies in recent years. One of the primary assets of cryptocurrency is its decentralized nature. Meaning, they are not controlled by a government. Cryptocurrency cannot be printed on mass at the whims of politicians. Cryptocurrencies are finite, which is a bulwark against inflation. This dream of a decentralized currency has been threatened recently as the RCMP has requested that various cryptocurrencies stop the flow of funds to Freedom convoy protestors. Some crypto advocates argue that governments or the facilitators of cryptocurrencies have no right to disrupt the free exchange of goods between consenting actors. Although decentralization, freedom, and anti-regulation are core tenants of the cryptocurrency movement, they may be its greatest weakness.

For cryptocurrencies to be taken seriously as a legitimate metric of exchange used by individuals, corporations, and financial institutions, regulation is thought to be a requirement. For a system to be widely implemented, there must be assurance of the system’s safety and legitimacy among users. Critics argue that regulating cryptocurrency defeats the purpose of its creation, however, it seems this a price crypto supporters have to pay for widespread implementation.

To signup for a platform to acquire cryptocurrencies in Ontario requires an address. Social Insurance Number, and proper identification for security and taxation purpose. The Canadian Government recognizes interest gained from cryptocurrency as taxable income. Also, the Ontario Securities Commission requires cryptocurrency platforms to adhere to its regulations to operate in Ontario. In 2021, Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency platforms, was banned from operating in Ontario after being unregistered by the OSC for failing to comply with regulations. Legislation surrounding cryptocurrency already exists and is growing. It doesn’t seem like an overreach for the RCMP to ask cryptocurrency companies to stop the flow of funds to protestors while the ability to create legislation has already been demonstrated.

If the RCMP can ask cryptocurrency companies to stop the flow of funds to social movements and protests, then what’s stopping the Canadian Government from passing further legislation surrounding the use of cryptocurrency? This opens to door to a more fundamental and devastating question for the cryptocurrency advocates. If the government can pass legislation surrounding cryptocurrency and can influence cryptocurrency companies, then what’s preventing the underlying value of cryptocurrency from being free from government influence? What’s preventing the existing infrastructure from being altered?

While on the other hand, some argue that cryptocurrency shouldn’t be regulated at all. One of the original intentions of cryptocurrency was to be free from government influence, and any legislation seems antithetical to this original goal. One can reasonably assume that governments and financial powers will not voluntarily surrender their economic control. In this case, it doesn’t matter whether cryptocurrencies should or should not be regulated. If they aren’t regulated, they won’t be allowed to succeed.

CONTRIBUTED IMAGE