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.

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.

As a Vancouverite, I doubt anyone really cares. These are councillors who routinely vote to protect their own rich person communities from densification / affordable housing projects, to the detriment of Vancouver as a whole, yet they still get re-elected time and again. They’re likely all corrupt, using their power for personal gain, but voters are too apathetic to kick their career-politician “my daddy was also a councillor, its a family nobility thing! We’re the ruling class!” asses out.

Like most of these people listed are on the absurd Metro Vancouver board, where they get massive top ups to their regular salaries, to under perform and fail to deliver projects like the waste treatment facility – no one’s holding them accountable for their massive fuckups on that front, so the belief that the board is accountable is trash. That whole board is just a bunch of city councillor types from around the lower mainland who were like “Hey, we can take more money!”. In normal business, if you gotta attend industry meetings or contribute to trade association initiatives, you don’t tell your boss you need a second salary – but these fuckers did, because they basically just voted to give themselves a bunch more money, and they weren’t stopped.

And no one seems to care.

So why would we care about them doing other corrupt stuff.

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”.

If you put a bunch of hard core BDSM content into a movie for kids, it’d be considered inappropriate. Even if the BDSM community argued we have ‘no problem’ exposing kids to other kinds of relationships. It’d prompt similar uncomfortable questions for adults, and I reckon could lead to negative interactions that could damage the parent/child relationship.

No matter how you spin it, lgbtq+ gender stuff is abnormal, and applies to a relatively small minority of people in the overall population. Forcing those conversations onto hetero couples is inappropriate. Children of lgbtq+ couples may/can have those conversations earlier, as their households will likely encounter the questions regardless – just like a family of hard core BDSM practitioners would need to explain to their kids why mommy and daddy have a dungeon in the basement. That doesn’t mean every kid, and every family, should go through the same crap. Especially if, as a non-member of that community, your response will almost definitely be “wrong” according to that community.

This thread seems so triggered.

He’s not expressing an uncommon opinion. Lots of parents/grandparents dislike overtly lgbtq+ content in kid-focused media, because it results in kids asking questions the adults aren’t prepared / comfortable answering. They’re basically just saying that discussing “adult” relationships is an “adult” topic, and shouldn’t be something coming about as a result of a little kid movie.

“should” mark a turning point in the war. But likely won’t.

For most people around the world, I think it’s been clear that what Israel’s doing in Gaza is inhumane for quite a while now. But directly challenging the Israeli government risks the ire of the United States. We’ve watched them sanction UN officials for calling out the situation in Gaza. We’ve seen them jack up tariffs on their closest allies at the mere hint of recognising palestine’s plight. There’s basically no political will to take action, and definitely not enough to take action on a timeline that’ll matter. I mean, most of the USA is shrugging as Trump continues down a path of fascism; I can’t imagine them shrugging at that, yet taking up the cause of people in Gaza.

No, it should still be called feminism. That’s what it is. It’s an ideology with a ton of different variants/branches, with the most ‘generic’ sort of definition, from dictionary.com, being the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Feminism has always been about this, hence the advocacy in favour of equity in areas where women are under-represented, but no advocacy for non-women in areas where women are ‘ahead’. Sorta like how left leaning sorts point to a theory of equity that values the equality of outcomes to justify things like DEI – but if anyone points out that the aggregate ‘outcome’ from our healthcare approach results in women living ~5 years longer than men on average, meaning an ‘equality of outcomes’ approach should preference men’s health care needs until that gap is closed, suddenly they’ll have excuses why their vision of equity exempts that particular case.

There’s no real reason to change the term feminism, it fits with what feminist ideals generally are and has a valid place as a general ideology. It’s especially pertinent in areas where women’s rights are massively under-represented / ignored.

Equality of all people is egalitarianism. It’s been around for longer than feminism, in general. Feminists are not egalitarian, as they aren’t about equality of all people, and instead only focus on a specific niche, and ultimately are ok if their niche is preferenced / comes out on top. Both ideologies can exist just fine. What needs to change is your perspective of what feminism is, as you seem to mistakenly think its about equality for everyone.

So, the way this article reads, is confusing to me. It sounds like what he’s basically saying is “We didn’t set out to threaten the legitimacy of private property that’s been built on our claimed territories, but the crown didn’t do what we want so we went to the courts and now as a side effect we’re threatening the legitimacy of private property”, coupled with a claim that it’s fear mongering to say that the ruling is threatening people’s private property, which it appears to do? Like saying your position is that the govt needs to recognise Aboriginal Title for that area for your group, is asking to have the right to exclusively use, occupy and possess that land – ie. the private owners get fucked. And it sounds like the gov position was likely that they couldn’t grant the Cowichan exclusive rights to the land, because it was used by multiple groups, including the Musqueam, who challenged the court case alongside the govt. So it sounds like the ‘exclusive use of the land prior to the crown asserting sovereignty over the area’ part of aboriginal title isn’t really met.

The guys position in the article, seems sorta like dropping a nuke on someone and then saying the intention wasn’t to kill people, but just to test the nuke. And that it’s fear mongering to say that the people dropping the nukes are trying to kill people, when they’re just testing out nukes. They didn’t “want” to threaten private property all over the province, they just want Aboriginal Title declared, which would have the side effect of eliminating non-aboriginal land titles/private properties all over the province: like your property going from a Freehold to a 99 year leasehold that reverts to FN at expiration. It’s not “their fault” that the government doesn’t do what they want.

Another annoying thing, is that like so many of these articles, we see a generic complaint for reconciliation and negotiation in good faith etc… but little description of what that actually means to the FN side. It’s like they intentionally go to specific sound bites and repeat it over and over just hoping for everyone to accept the statement without providing information / evidence in the news releases. Besides, the way the Aboriginal Title exclusivity requirements read, it almost sounds like any area where there are competing claims is… assuming you believe the oral traditions of each group equally… no group had ‘exclusive’ use of that land when Canada was formed, so no title should be granted. The courts bending over backwards with kiddy gloves, dumbing down the exclusivity requirement (and other requirements for similar title recognition) is part of what’s causing this issue. Have govt re-affirm the definitions to make it more definitive, and to reign in some of these ridiculous boundary lines (like the Tsawwassen claiming practically all of the lower mainland from delta all the way to Harrison, with a band pop of just like 500 people). Like the concept of “shared exclusivity” isn’t exclusivity – it’s like saying you’re monogamously dating 10 people: news flash, you ain’t monogamous if that’s the case.

I imagine for most, outside of a larger organised effort, the calculus is fairly simple. ICE agents are likely “itching” for someone to reach for a piece, for an excuse to shoot an “illegal”. And it’s not like law enforcement’s going to show up acting all reasonable to a scene with dead ICE agents too. Anyone shooting an ICE agent would get plastered all over FOX not as a defender of individual rights, but as a case in point for the propaganda machine.

Resisting is an almost certain death warrant. Not resisting you maintain ‘hope’ that reasonable minds will win out in the end / that you’ll only be locked up for a short time.

If you look back, there’s a reason I had said “alleged” race card in my earlier post – I hadn’t assumed you were FN, as there’s a lot of other races that take on that guise these days, but what you had implied and baited was the FN issue. By your own fucking admission.

Whatever color you are in real life, you’re a shit person that fails to understand that baiting and semantic stupidity isn’t really a way to argue a point at all. You saying “I baited a bunch of things with race stuff, and you took that bait and made comments about race stuff!” isn’t a fault on my side you dumb fuck. And anyone that construes what I said as ‘racist’ is also a dumbass – it isn’t racist to be pissed off with how there are so many FN issues / things getting brought in constantly, especially when you were implying/baiting that you were gonna do just that. It’s literally “Hey, this guy here, he read my post and understood what I was baiting, and responded to it cause he understood what I had been implying, but then I did a sneaky and revealed I was lying in my baiting! Isn’t that funny!” No, it isn’t you moron.

Like if you were a pre-op trans person, my guess is you’d be the sort to go to a biker bar and try to pick up straight bikers just to laugh haughtily as they kicked your ass once they found out your plumbing was wrong. You’d be giggling to yourself how witty and smart you were the whole time for having fooled those “supposed” men into being gay. You’d still be a moron.

“I intentionally baited a silly trap and you inferred the obvious thing that I had implied, and so the jokes on you! Hahah!”

Idiot. Gaslight away, doesn’t change how stupid this position is in regards to palestinian refugees and racism being pushed by the ops article.