NathanielThomas @ NathanielThomas @lemmy.ca

Posts

1

Comments

33

Joined

2 yr. ago

Send death threats, get locked up. Seems to make sense.

Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.

Good point. I mean, look at the Australian referendum on giving Indigenous people a voice in that country.

If human rights were based on majority rule we'd still have slavery.

We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.

Surely there are objective examples that require no attribution though. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is a good example.

As well, I don't think there's any argument that the Hamas attack on Israel could be anything other than a terrorist attack (without attribution) because they targeted civilians with the specific intent to kidnap. It wasn't a country invading another country, or a case of a resistance force pushing out an occupier. Had Hamas attacked only military targets only the hard liners would call it a terrorist attack. But what Hamas committed was terrorist atrocities.

On the flip side, one could argue that Israel's retaliations are state-sanctioned reprisals that ostensibly act as a means of terror to the Palestinian population. However, since Israel as a nation is condoning the military action I don't think it could strictly be said it's terrorism.

I think the bizarre thing is that unions are negotiating 3% wage increases and it's like.... that's below inflation.

It's a shame the pole won't be in Scotland where it could serve as an education piece both about colonialism and Indigenous culture in British Columbia, but I do understand the desire from the Nisga'a to bring back something they feel belongs to their Nation.

High cost of living, unsustainable gas prices, runaway climate change, housing crisis, stagnant wages.

I'm sure the right wingers will be the perfect solution to these problems.

Milk used to come in glass bottles

I don't want more glass (deposit and all) unless they go back to milkmen delivering it and taking away the empties. And even then, that wouldn't work because of the delivery costs.

I have so much glass I have to take to the recycling depot and it's not worth your time and gasoline to do it.

I agree it's not the supermarkets' fault but it's an industry problem. Why is everything wrapped in plastic? Even bananas and cucumbers and things that don't need plastic?

One thing we could do is have refillable containers and just reuse them! Why are bulk aisles just a thing for nuts and grains? Why can't we come and fill up milk or shampoo or other things in our refillables?

Anyway, the bigger story is that there are too many humans. We don't have a plastics problem, we have a human overpopulation problem.

Colonel Nicholson: Yes, Clipton. I understand, truly. But don't you see it's a matter of principle? If we give in now, there will be no end to it. No!

Major Clipton: Sir, we're lost in the jungle, a thousand miles from anywhere. We're under the heel of a man who will stop at nothing to get his way. Principle? No one will know or care what happens to us! Give in, sir! Please!

I guess she thought she'd win like Nicholson.

Only the capitalists care

I'm not sure what a solution is but I do think that we should encourage people to not have children, stop handing out the baby bonus, and reduce immigration. I feel these moves can provide a (non-genocidal) way to relieving the pressures of human overpopulation. For example, Japan is doing great work in reducing their population, a trend that will reduce the strain of housing and services in that country.

We shouldn't but here we are.

What else can we do?

By the way, news companies are also run by maniacs.

No, I don't think depopulating the Earth is a fascist concept. I think murdering specific groups of people is fascist. I'm just talking about the unsustainability of the human plague.

All I know is that despite all evidence that our world is increasingly turning into an inferno, that humans are still pro-human and will continue to want more humans. I guess we're just going to have to reap the predictable consequences of our obsession with overpopulating ourselves.

I.e. you see your home as an investment from which you expect to see a positive return, but now you are afraid that it may lose some of that value.

No, I don't see it as an investment. The way the system works sees it as an investment. We've created a system whereby housing is overvalued because it's meant to have inflationary payoffs.

My parents didn't see our home as an investment. They just bought homes at random that were close to where they worked and seemed good for kids.

There's no option for me to buy a place that isn't an investment because that's the very nature of the market.

I never wanted my house to be a stock market investment. It's just that I want some consistency. Tell me what I'm getting into. Are we playing this game where we bid for overpriced housing as a supplemental retirement benefit? Or are we building a better future where the former doesn't matter? I just don't want to get fucked, that's all.

Sorry, you misunderstand slightly.

I don't mean investors in the sense of speculative parasitic humans who are devaluing life by overvaluing housing.

I mean, people like me who have worked from the age of 15-49 and now own a very modest sized apartment that is grotesquely overpriced and has quite literally enslaved me to mortgage payments for years to come.

If we devalue my apartment, why did I spend decades of sweat and toil to purchase it? Then it feels like I was playing the stock market.

And this isn't the same argument as the "why should people get free school when I had to pay student loans" since one doesn't affect the other. In this situation, if the value of homes come down too significantly, it's literally devaluing my work.

I didn't create the horrible dystopian system we live in but I do unfortunately have to abide by its rules. And now that I have a tiny piece (on paper but owned by the bank) I am hoping (like most Canadians) to take that piece and cash out to retire on in 10-15 years time.

What I'd really like to see is some kind of national housing strategy that guaranteed people basic housing regardless of their income (even if it's "zero"). That housing wouldn't impact the market but it could slow down the unhealthy growth of the valuation of housing.

If we could totally slow housing valuation growth to the normal 2% inflation, while also creating affordable housing for lower income/no income earners, then the system could adjust and that could be a true win win.

There will likely be a gen pop booster for all ages in the fall to coincide with the influenza campaign.

I got Disney free through some kind of shady Shaw deal I signed up for but the billisecond I see an ad it's gone.

Homes will never again be affordable because the system is completely broken (and not broken in the Millhouse expression, but rather in a normal definition). We made housing a commodity rather than a necessity of life and it ended with predictable results.

Now we have the unpleasant decision of diluting the investment of millions of Canadians or continuing to allow millions of Canadians to never own a home.