True, and Israel's hunt for german nazi's in foreign jurisdictions sets some precedent in handling that sort of thing.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 321
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 321
- Joined
- 12 mo. ago
Aaaahahahahaah, yeah, ok man, I'll believe it when I see it.
These days its more likely that Trump will apologize to Putin, and offer to provide him with more sophisticated Drones that can better avoid NATO defenses -- and that the Americans will strongly oppose any actual military action against their new ally. Has the EU not grasped all the crap he's been doing ??
Eh. I read it as BC not getting much funding for infrastructure from the feds, coupled with copious issues with development and treaties. BC's population is overly concentrated in the GVRD, with almost half the provinces people living there. Part of the reason being the lack of infrastructure / job opportunities in other regions.
Act like fascists, get treated like fascists.
The EV rollback isn't that surprising, especially with the 'spin' on increasing Canada's competitiveness. All the car manufacturing companies in Ontario are US owned, and they want to maintain market rule-parity with the US so that they're more 'competitive' in the US market. It's a move to appease the USA, even as the govt tries to pitch itself as moving away from US reliance.
The buy Canada stuff is a sham -- we've had a full year of our politicians making that sort of noise, while shrugging their shoulders and buying in to US monopolies/control. Ontario tears up a Starlink contract ("oooh! Go Doug!"), and like the same week we hear that Rogers is parterning with Starlink, thus providing a nice Canadian face for anyone that wants to buy the US company's service. Our govt is totally in Microsoft's cloud, and completely incapable of moving away from it, and have increased their reliance since all the trade stuff started falling apart.
Idk, not a very optimistic announcement overall from my pov.
To me it seems naive to think that the disparity between the people of Gaza, and the people of Israel, is not dissimilar to the wealth inequality of the poor, and the rich. People seem to gloss over how modern western democracies generally got going -- through violent revolutions with lots of dead rich people. And those movements were often seeded by essentially the middle class military, who the rich had paid to outfit with the intent that they'd carry out the upper class's orders. People like Cromwell didn't exactly wake up one day, and just happen to trip across a bunch of Cannons to point at the British royalty. Until there'd been that blunder from the nobility giving the military too much autonomy, coupled with the advent of Canons, the ability for regular peasants to rise up against the nobility and their goon squads was pretty fuckin limited. For such a revolutionary figure to emerge from a poor, downtrodden and financially bereft area such as Gaza, would just be highly improbable.
Like China hired gangs of thugs with bats to beat the shit out of Democratic advocates during the crack down in Hong Kong, and has taken out bounties on people living abroad who advocate too vocally for human rights in the region. You can't realistically look at what went on there, in my view, and say that the people didn't try really hard to maintain their civil liberties -- but were beaten down quite explicitly by force and the sheer scale of resources available to the CCP. Yes, if there was some mass uprising all across the country they could spontaneously change their systems of governance -- but that's practically unheard of in real world countries of note in modern times. Taking a more realistic view of the situation doesn't make it any better, in that things will most likely continue to suck for most people, but it at least sets more reasonable expectations.
Right, by that reasoning the people of Gaza are willingly allowing themselves to be genocided. They should just rise up and declare a democracy in the region.
Oh, wait, the real world doesn't work like that.
Your phrasing of "allowing" implies that these guys are in power through some sort of legitimate electoral process. They're both dictators, who claimed power through force and intimidation. There's no "let" about it, nor any "say" in the situation from people at large.
Just because dictators demand to be called by western elected official terminology in translations to english media, doesn't make them same animal. It's propaganda meant to normalize their rule.
Like the USA under the current administration / trends? Do allies attempt to annex allies via economic warfare and separatist influence campaigns? And if the states can 'flip' from ally to adversary, why not others?
The current global situation means that self-reliance for critical sectors is of paramount importance -- trade and globalism is fine for non-critical things, and for general collaboration on broader initiatives such as global warming/climate change (for countries that agree on it). Ferries, as civilian infrastructure, are not individually critical - if they fail for some reason, it's "bad", but it isn't military failure levels of bad. Today we may think of Germany as an ally, for example, but the AFD and far right have significant support there, and it's entirely plausible that within the span of the sub contract Germany will trend more like the USA is today. It's also plausible, although still relatively unlikely, that China could expand its borders and push for SK to be absorbed by NK as part of a regional conflict wherein the USA doesn't bother to support its traditional allies / values.
Additionally, I have far more confidence in Canada's ability to take on civilian ferries, and their maintenance in the face of global uncertainties, than I do in Canada's ability to maintain foreign made military vessels with far more complex systems. Ergo such specialties should be built up and maintained in country, by purchasing assets from internal companies.
I don't think that's the intention amongst any of the people I know who are avoiding US products currently, which is quite a few. We're a relatively tiny population size / economy to the United States, and pretending like we'd have the ability to make the states "suffer" with our actions is pretty silly.
Reasons I've heard tend to vary. Some just don't want to support a foreign country that is acting hostile towards us. Many who are looking at the digital side, are increasingly avoiding US tech because it's ignoring Canada laws and imposing US requirements / ideological crap on us -- the AI tools MS uses to probe peoples OneDrive accounts, for example, banning people based on US government trends. This is similar to some others, who want to remove US products because the US is just unreliable and not suited for anything you rely on anymore, as the availability of anything could be impacted by Trump's whims. The US isn't a stable, reasonable or rational trading partner at this point - as demonstrated by how tariffs are broadcast / set. There's even now a non-zero chance that the US may actually attack other western countries, which previously would be unthinkable -- the foreign influence campaigns in Greenland, and the likely influence campaigns in places like Alberta, as well as the Trump administrations indication of potentially attacking "cartels" in Mexico without Mexican involvement, are easy measures there, as is Trump's own comments about selling sub-standard military assets to allies because "Maybe they won't be our allies forever". Heck, half the USA cheered Musk goose-stepping around and doing Nazi salutes earlier this year, though it feels like a decade ago with all the crap coming out of the states currently.
So long and short, it's more about our own safety and security, than it is about 'hurting' the United States. And for most, it's not something that will go away if you all manage to elect a 'sane' democrat or republican next time around. The merit and temper of your government/country's sorta been exposed, and it'll take decades of 'sane' foreign policy to recover.
Well, that latest mass shooting in the media was done by a trans person, yea? And Trump's busy deploying National Guard units to most blue states in an authoritarian/fascist push....
So I imagine, that the left may have a chance of getting gun control on the agenda this time. Though it may not look like how they want it to. It'd be gun control to deny lgbtq+ and blue voters guns.
They're in the minority on lemmy, sure.
Our government throws a hissy fit over BC buying civilian ferries from a Chinese shipyard. But they put control of our military assets into the hands of foreign powers all the time.
What the hell.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Canada's privacy commissioners, and privacy legislation, is an absolute joke. They still focus on things like "data residency" instead of "data sovereignty". In part because all our government agencies have already put all our government shit into US cloud services.
Like BC's Financial Regulators, the BC FSA, is totally in Microsoft's cloud. And they require all Financial Institutions to upload tons of customer sensitive data into that cloud -- if you have a loan in Canada, the USA can access it, through our own regulators. They also OK industry to do the same, because they can't say "that's not allowed!" while being totally US Tech's bitch. So organisation's like Canada's Credit Unions placed all their payment processing into Microsoft's cloud. So if you bank with a small local CU anywhere in the country, it's highly likely that all your payment transactions are accessible to US interests. Likewise for our health records, all in US cloud products.
Canada's government likes to claim it's sovereign, but it literally can't run/function without a subscription to a US company. And if the states were to cut that off, our gov would have significant issues.
It's accurate to describe it as abnormal -- something that's less common deviates from what is normal, is abnormal. There's often a connection to abnormal things being 'worrying', and lgbtq+ stuff falls into that category for many as well -- case in point, Snoop. Few parents 'wish' their kids to be lgbtq+, it worries them, even if many will (hopefully) love their kids regardless. I reckon lemmy has a significant number of lgbtq+ people on it, which presents echo chamber bias. I still think it's important to voice dissenting opinions / views, even if it triggers a bunch of people -- so long as it's done in a generally neutral fashion. My communication skills feel ok to me, though some groan that I write longer posts. Sure, I often have people post ad hominem type insults / personal attacks against things I post, but I rarely respond back attacking the personality/character of those folks (admittedly, I've been more lax lately).
Sorta like how there are seemingly a lot of FN people in many of the Canadian subs. Most/many of the articles that get posted there are primarily about FN topics, with FN bias. While I know my views on FN issues are not "in line" with the FN narrative, I still think it's important to highlight things in a mostly neutral manner, so that there's a diversity of opinions presented to the broader community. Without more diverse opinions displayed, it gives the wrong impression to readers of the general public opinion about various topics -- I doubt I really need to go on about the risks of echo chambers on social media.
I know about ancient greece, and as I've said I don't care personally what people do / who they love. Don't assume just because I consider homosexual behaviour to be abnormal, that I'm somehow opposed to it / think it inherently "wrong" or anything. I also don't have a personal issue with it in movies, particularly more adult themed movies -- though I do think it's massively over-represented at this point, as almost every movie/show I see has heavy lgbtq+ themes wedged in haphazardly, often to the detriment of the plot.
Younger generations claiming to be lgbtq+, or being on the gender spectrum, doesn't really impact my view, I admit. First, it's still a minority, which makes it abnormal. Grouping all abnormal types together also inflates the perspective of how common it is for any one subset. Young people are also more inclined to be affected by perceptions of benefits / "going along with what's approved in media". Even the stats on that site generally support this, noting that the breakdown between men/women is hugely lopsided amongst Gen Z, and with the bulk of the change seemingly being women identifying as bisexual. That fits quite a bit with how its presented in media -- so I'd still question whether it's kids being 'genuine' in their experiences/feelings, or if it's media pushing certain messages and kids reacting to those messages. Media can clearly influence peoples world views / perspectives, at times in ways that aren't authentic -- we're all keen to recognise as such when we talk about the negative impact of fox news -- so it'd seem strange to pretend like it can't have a similar reality-distorting effect in this area, given the level of over-representation of lgbtq+ themes. Particularly bi-sexual women, as media likes to treat women as sex objects desired by "everyone", and wedge in some lesbian sex scenes to boot. Almost every series/movie has lgbtq+ stuff in it these days, which is one reason Snoop is uncomfortable taking kids to movies -- it's gotten pretty rare to see a same-race healthy relationship straight couple in media.
To approach it from a slightly different angle: it's like trying to find non-emo edgelord male characters in anime (which, in its space, feeds the indoctrination of alpha male sorts) -- or the negative male stereo-types pushed by people like Tate. If we accept/recognise that certain media representations can "make" young people more extreme in that sort of space, then I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that media can "make" young people more gender fluid on the flip side. Part of being young, is lacking critical objectivity.
Also, in terms of the polling and benefits, hell, I personally identify as "other" on all government polls, because "other" gets preferential treatment/hiring options, while "male" gets rejection letters. That isn't an authentic response, but it's a necessary response to get past certain hiring criteria -- I've literally had rejection letters stating "you're not part of an equity group" in the past, when I answered male (in Canada, literally the reason the federal government rejected my application). Workplaces have no business blocking people from employment due to their preference, even when it comes to us CIS folks.
As for seeing things in public -- a kid could see a horrific car accident by chance, corpses everywhere. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to show a 6 year old graphic death scenes. Or to use a less extreme example, and a fairly common one, they could walk in on their parents fucking -- it still wouldn't be appropriate for a movie for kids to have a bunch of sex scenes. Content involving adult stuff should have an adult rating, even if "some" kids may encounter those things earlier in life by happenstance.
Me personally? I wouldn't care either way. I've seen a woman on the street fingering the ass of a muslim dude before, and just sorta walked by. But I don't have kids. I imagine if I had kids, I'd be opposed to public ass-blasting.
A parent that I work with has had awkward conversations with his kids, after they came to Canada and saw guys kissing / making out in public. I can appreciate that such PDAs can prompt similar 'awkward' conversations, but also that they're much less 'common' than encountering them as part of a big budget movie -- and encountering them in public is often an easier way for parents to broach the subject. Kids noticing that stuff is unavoidable as they mature, but having it forced to the front by media / schools is questionable, and I can appreciate the parents' concerns on that front.
Poor word choice perhaps, wasn't intending it to be taken as 'hard core' graphic sex bdsm, but more hardcore bdsm as in a couple clearly into that lifestyle - like a dad that wears a collar or whatnot. The latter would still be inappropriate as it would prompt questions difficult to answer for parents, and topics that are reasonably beyond a kids maturity level. It'd be fine in a pg-13, but not in a G.
It's an abnormal relationship type with a dom and a sub. Just like homosexual relationships are abnormal relationships with non standard partners involved. One is just more abnormal than the other. Both raise questions about sex, as was the point with Snoops clip -- his kid explicitly asked about sex stuff, because he encountered the abnormal couple on screen. Snoop wasn't comfortable discussing that with his grandkid in a movie theatre, and felt put out. That's a valid response, no matter how many lgbtq+ people scream in nonsensical rage.
You may not like the point, but it doesn't make it invalid. Just like you may not like hetero people's reaction to homosexual content in kids media, but that doesn't make their reactions "wrong".
As a foreigner/westerner, I don't get why Iran would do this at this point. There are western powers in that region that don't comply with international treaties related to Nuclear weapons/capabilities. Israel being the obvious one, where "no ones totally sure" how many nukes or what capabilities they have. The west also seems to use the IAEA to help it find good targets/sort out logistics for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, be they civilian/compliant with international norms or not.
They've been screwed fairly regularly when trying to comply / align with the IAEA and various political agreements on development. I don't see why they don't just go strengthen ties with Russia, NK and China, and say "screw you" to the traditional USA-oriented international rules. Not even the USA bothers to follow those rules anymore.