CanadaPlus @ CanadaPlus @futurology.today

A backup account for !CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org, and formerly /u/CanadaPlus1

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

429

Joined

2 yr. ago

You whippersnappers and not understanding the social credit party!! Why, in my day...

Sure, we're a conservative province in Canada, but in the US we'd still be to the left. We, overall, like having free healthcare and access to abortion. I swear the rest of Canada thinks we're illiterate sometimes. Bro, I saw what happened in Ontario, get off your high horse.

Alberta and America have both changed a lot in the past decades. The rural areas would probably still be (light?) red, but most of the population is in Calgary and Edmonton, and they're not going to go for no-joke Republicans that think the election was faked by a global cabal of pedophiles.

The Alberta NDP is a bit like the Liberals in other places, I'd say.

I'd argue that SoCred wasn't conservative. It was anti-capitalist, for one thing; although it wasn't really socialist either, but kind of it's own thing.

Agreed, but why not attach it to the side of town they're on, or at least give them a normal, full road like all the others if your going to bother the rail traffic?

I'm guessing it was a driveway originally, and crossed the tracks way back when that was no big deal, and became a public road later somehow. It's still cursed.

Really, that's it? Damn. I bet we'd be a blue state, though, so maybe that's a disincentive for that particular weird post-2016 thing.

Yep, and Trudeau has said something similar. He sees his role as protecting Canadian society for the effects of it, because he really can't do anything about what happens over there.

What does it take to admit a new state? Please tell me this couldn't happen, I don't want to be American.

but Hamas has the better media presence

They're officially declared a terrorist organisation in many places, and nobody argues with it (not unreasonably, but nobody's going after the settlers for the same). They might be pulling forward a bit right now, but historically the Israeli lobby has been no joke in the West.

I mean, democracy is an ideology too. If you want to see a place with no ideology, think of somewhere with openly corrupt mafia-like rule. I'd point the finger more at tribalism.

The one caveat is that the sides are not equal. The Israelis have the resources to set up a 2-state solution unilaterally if they wanted, while the Palestinians are in an active famine right now. They're just not willing to bear the economic and security costs of that, so the cycle continues.

There's other lesser fuckery in different breeds, like shepherds having back legs that are too short. If we had been given breeding privileges as a species, we'd have definitely lost them.

Look for dogs that look like dogs, if you have a choice.

Yeah, but we have like a billion years of "observation time" minimum, since there's every reason to think one of the alien species will be expansionistic. They're not here yet, blurry photos aside.

For now, anyway.

This one road in my town, that's only one lane somehow, and has it's own crossing across a busy railway line to reach a total of 3 houses.

So many people have no idea how finance works, but still comment. It's too bad, because there's things that do deserve criticism, but fly under the radar as a result.

The laws says (indirectly) that management must work towards profit. It doesn't specify long term or short term profit, though, and in many cases investors show up specifically for slow but steady returns. There's plenty wrong with capitalism, but it's not pure nonsense. If it was, it'd be really easy to get rid of.

I'm actually with you - building out our plural system would be a satisfying direction for English to go. Unfortunately, I don't see "at fewest" catching on. Maybe I'll try it out a few.

If you look at non-standard dialects of English, it seems like the most natural thing is for the aspect system to grow out as the language evolves further (and unfortunately lose some of it's symmetries).

It's a human universal, I think. Some people just value looking smart less than the slight effort to do better.

Maybe syntactically, but I feel like reading it that way is probably a violation of pragmatics. In other words, it's highly unlikely that's in the spirit of the question.

This is made even clearer if you read the text of OP, which specifies "other" (non-English) languages.

Interesting question! Mandatory note that natural languages by definition aren't designed, and are always evolving, so if enough native speakers do something it is correct.

There's a certain level of irony in correcting people's language while not reading the original question properly yourself.