What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.
Not to disrespect your argument, but low key you're using some real reddit-style language yourself. You're kinda dodging making any points of substance and instead substituting in academic vocabulary to make it look like you have the upper hand. It's a bit cringe and NGL kinda looks like AI.
I think the analogy would not be to say genocide refers to only the holocaust, but rather that "holocaust" refers to only the holocaust. Which I agree with, on the grounds that I rarely see people use the term "holocaust" generically, and when they do I assume it's the same mistake as when people call all consoles "nintendos," or when people think all Roman emperors are "Caesars."
I don't really agree with your proscriptive, semantic argument regarding apartheid, as the word is frequently used in reference to other states with racial or ethnic tensions. In some of those instances it may be an exaggeration of course, but that doesn't invalidate its use more broadly.
That said, I don't agree that Canada is a literal apartheid state. Perhaps the argument is that reserves are a form of apartheid, but that's rather naïve -- reserves are (semi-)sovereign FN land, and first nations people have all the same legal rights as other citizens and then some, including the right to live off-reserve.
We have socialism in Canada. The theory is that we permit capitalism to do what it excels at -- optimise for efficiency -- while enforcing our values through taxpayer money. That's the theory at least. In practice, we don't have capitalism in check at all, and our socialism, while better than our neighbour's, is insufficient for many.
I'm only arguing that such a magic bullet is possible. Every objection this article raises seems like it is a straw man criticism -- they're imagining potential flaws in a zkp system of their own design. Take this one:
What ZKPs don’t do is mitigate verifier abuse or limit their requests, such as over-asking for information they don’t need
If the only info available is y/n "I am a minor," then this isn't possible.
or limiting the number of times they request your age over time.
well... we could just limit this! The user's browser needs to cooperate for this anyway, so the user would obviously need to consent to each of these.
Look, I agree that this shouldn't be necessary in the first place. And the EFF is right to raise the concern that ZKP has to be done right if it's going to be done at all. But I'm disappointed that this is resulting in misinformation about ZKPs.
For the record, it's possible to implement age verification with zero-knowledge proofs. IIRC, California has a proposal for this. It's a myth that surveillance and encryption are compatible, but it's also a myth that age verification necessitates a loss of privacy or anonymity.
Piggy is not a slur against women. It is a derogatory word for the police, for wealthy people, for gluttons, or for lechers. Just checked wiktionary so that's how I know.
I think it's pretty rare for recent immigrants (first gen, and second gen to a lesser extent) to end up homeless in canada, since they usually are well off financially or have family that can support them. Impoverished people don't travel internationally. Most non-white non-indigenous people here have been here for only a few decades. Chinese and HK immigrants go back further, but it tracks as there are a number of chinese homeless too.
(Other ethnic groups also immigrated in past centuries but not to huge populations.)
Unlike the US, Vancouver doesn't have a large black population, and the latinx population is not huge either (I mean think about it, we have like 1 good mexican restaurant.)
The CBC is correct though. The international push was primarily motivated by the Israeli response to oct 7 specifically. If things had continued as they were before oct 7, I doubt we'd see this kind of international push. Sure, there was activism, but it was not to the scale we've seen since oct 7.
What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.