Maybe? That’s a level of policy scope discussion that I don’t have enough context to have a relevant opinion.

Then you should ask […] what lives they have lived to be opposed to the removal of the program instead of ignorantly using subjective evidence to justify the programs removal.

I don’t need to ask because this one I can infer by myself 🤷🏽 there’s an assumption that these programs are in fact bringing significant results in “preventing addiction, gang violence, and sex crimes against children” when in truth, the evidence for these benefits is also subjective evidence ignorantly waved around.

If you’re able to connect the dots, the question I’m asking is exactly that. What kind of lives leads someone to believe on these alleged benefits. The other kind of life, the life that leads someone to not blindly believe that polices on schools is a good thing, I already know, I lived it myself.

Yes I also read the article

Bizarre. So most of the dispute was over police presence inside schools. I don’t know what kind of life these parents who want police inside schools lived as kids, but almost all of my friends who had any sort of interaction with this kind of program say they got more trauma than any kind of meaningful assistance.

This is how you get kids to grow up thinking that addiction is a moral failure. How about we bring a priest into the mix too?

Fucking hell, I’m not excited for the the surprise front row seat for 21st century imperialism

Eh, I can’t help but be a little bit hopeful, but remember that whenever the Liberals pick their new leader, “Fuck Trudeau” will be updated into “This person is just Trudeau again but worse”. It’s just that this is not very effective until the actual person is chosen.

But as always, what we need to do doesn’t change. Get out and vote. Convince reasonable people to vote.

Very true, important correction!

Therapy has always been legalized, but the folks who need help the most will often not dare ask for it

Yes… of course

And yet, it’s not enough

I know people should know better but there should be a rule (or a bot that enforces this) about adding [SATIRE] before these kinds of posts

Lower your expectations. Best you can probably do by yourself is to get them to not vote by showing them that the conservatives suck.

Doing a 180 and going for the NDP is unrealistic unless you’re talking about a childhood friend or someone who owes you their life.

I would hope an economist would focus on the right incentives for the market to drive demand.

Herein lies an issue: the fact that he’s an economist doesn’t mean that he’s in for the economics of the greater good. And the fact that he himself has a few strong beliefs on what the economic solutions should be, doesn’t mean he’ll actually make them happen.

If I was a CBC editor, I would tone it down, yes. If that’s what you meant, then I agree that we don’t have to platform every little media bait he tweets. But here’s Lemmy, there’s no editorial.

Because he is taking the helm of the most dangerous country of the West

? Yes Switzerland and a few others have high gun ownership, but how does that help the thesis?

oh man, you two agree that the RCMP are assholes, why die on this hill

if the police don’t have guns, who can safely respond to gun crime?

Police, with non-lethal weapons. Though I agree this is a very unbalanced scenario, so of course the police should have some gun availability until gun crime becomes very rare.

If you do that, your government will never respect you

What does this even mean? Are countries with high gun ownership examples of societies high in “respect”? Like Japan, South Korea… no wait

angry at the idea of not drinking and catching the bus… lol damn these useless city people, subsidizing fuel for everyone