ninthant @ ninthant @lemmy.ca

http://ninthant.com/ [](http://ninthant.com/)

---

Read more

Posts

2

Comments

199

Joined

4 mo. ago

The argument I resonate the most from you here is that our allies might appreciate having our F-35s in place to act as a deterrent to further Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

I still don’t love the idea, but I’m coming around to the idea that your perspective overall on taking current deliveries and cancelling the rest is quite reasonable and may actually be the best option.

Thanks again for answering my questions. It’s a nontrivial amount of time to spent helping some internet rando. Cheers!

Sorry. I wasn’t clear in my earlier comment.

I meant that the US administration would react poorly to a provocation like targeting Tesla specifically and lash out in ways that cause further harm.

So while I would personally choose to start a public pissing contest because I’m mad as hell— Carney’s more mature approach will cause less pain in the short term.

The good news is that Canadians are rejecting Teslas with or without any tariffs. Which is maybe even a bigger FU to Musk because he can’t even blame a government for his failures. I drive a South Korean EV and it’s a fantastic vehicle, and as you said some of the European ones are quite good too.

A really big part of me wishes we would do this but a smaller part of me thinks that the approach of Carney to less provocatively disentangle our economies while minimizing harm to our workers and industries is actually for the best

Are there going to be any CPC candidates at all by April 28?

Everyone makes jokes like it’s funny but it bears repeating in a serious tone.

Trump either is a Russian asset, or has been successfully manipulated by Russian assets for many years. Whichever one it is doesn’t even matter that much because their level of control is so significant.

No, he’s not just “Trump being Trump“ or some coincidence, it’s a specific pattern with a plethora of supporting evidence. This news is an extra grain of sand stacked on mountain. All by itself, the unexplainable appointment of Russian agent Tulsi Gabbard to head of US intelligence should be proof enough.

The rest of the world needs to take this seriously even if the American voters don’t. The evidence demands that countries should stop intelligence cooperation, and should move with haste to remove American equipment from areas of critical infrastructure and national security. Amongst other things.

That’s a big problem and nontrivial to accomplish but we can’t deal with it by laughing and being smug about how dumb Americans are.

I appreciate your thoughtful reasoning, like you said even if we come to different conclusions.

You’ve helped provide some context to a position I’ve disagreed with, and that feels much better in my mind than just stumbling at “why” with no real answer.

One point of clarification I’d like to get a handle on. What in your perspective are these jets useful for in the context of Canadian defence?

You hinted at a partial answer to my question with the mention of arctic patrols and supporting allies, but if you have time to elaborate on some practical scenarios I’d appreciate your perspective on that

I hope Canada can change this.

One challenge has been that many of our best-educated people have left for the US, which has blunted some of the economic trickle-down effects that should accompany publicly-funded research. So we incur the costs but yet not reap the benefits, which dulls public enthusiasm for supporting this.

It’s entirely plausible to me that this system has been upended and think we should reevaluate these choices to consider expanding funding for science not directly tied to industry and short-term benefits. But I don’t think it’ll be as easy as snapping our fingers

By far the biggest threat is coming from the very country that is supplying and would be required to maintain the F-35s.

What good would these jets do? What threats could we expect to mitigate with them? They wouldn’t deter the US, China, Russia if they decided to attack us.

So with respect, I’m feeling like your answer is reflective of a mindset that reflects a world order that doesn’t exist anymore.

But I’m also open to consideration that I might be wrong. I’m not asking the questions about what good they would accomplish in a rhetorical way, I’ll listen to feedback from you about the usefulness they might deliver for us.

Who are the other 4, I mean seriously?

They are openly bragging about how they will deliver crippled planes in case they decide to attack them later.

This should be 100% of Canadians. I can only hope a large chunk of the 38% are just completely ignorant about current events

For sure I get that.

In my view at least part of why these were put in is that it’s easy for bad actors to use anti-Israel speech as a veneer over their actual underlying antisemitism.

But especially as the government of Israel amplifies its own status as a bad actor, it’s becoming increasingly important to be able to speak openly about this. So I’m on board with the idea you’re presenting, but also just saying we need to be cautious about how this could be used to cause widespread harm.

Yeah likely would need to create a special system of refugee status or similar. Maybe around the concept of escaping “woke-ism”?

That’s the perfect meme, because I do feel guilty about how this fucks over my friends and family in the US. But as they don’t seem motivated to fix their own country, I feel like this may be a good way to at least help some people

Interestingly, neither Carney’s nor Poilievre’s perspectives acknowledge that higher program spending and larger headcounts has not led to significant improvement in public service delivery, as shown by a recent analysis by Jennifer Robson, one of our co-authors.

I disagree with this take. My interpretation of Carney’s plan is that it’s squarely aimed at improving productivity of the public sector. This speaks directly to this point — we need our public sector to be focused on delivering results. The main cost is headcount so the cost-efficiency without layoffs that is Carney’s plan will require improvements to delivery.

So it’s far from a done deal and I largely agree with the author about this being the important thing to work on. I just also think that what is being described is already the plan.

I’ll beat this drum again: I would fully support a program where we exchange equal numbers of MAGA loyalists in Canada for trained doctors, engineers, and tradespeople looking to escape fascism.

The Americans have already shown interest in this with their idea of importing white South Africans. Is this an impossible idea?

This is unambiguously correct, but it’s a dangerous line to tread as many bad actors will seize on any opportunity to push antisemitism.

So we both need to ensure that people can freely express political opposition to the actions of the country and government of Israel, but still ensure that these bad actors who are just looking for any opportunity to spread antisemitism don’t have room to breathe.

Requires a deft hand.

I’m going to honest and say that I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Either you misunderstood what I’m saying, or i misunderstood you and still don’t understand; or both.

A proper accounting of the emissions generated in Canada is what’s important. Averaging our emissions down because of all our vast expanses of empty land is disingenuous at best and false propaganda at worst.

For industrial uses an ideal accounting would be look at who consumes the byproducts of those products. If we ship oil to the US we could allocate those emissions to the US and if China or India has emissions to serve our demand then we could be allocated this to us.

A consumption-based accounting in combination with the current per-capita accounting would give a decently accurate representation of where and why the emissions are occurring. Per-sq-km emissions have zero place in any reasonable discussion.

It matters when it’s the people and their activities causing the emissions. A bunch of unused land doesn't make the pollution that the people actually do where they live any less bad.

This is a truly bad take, it comes across as the most desperate attempt to minimize a problem that instead we deserve to look at head on

I don’t think most people are trying to reduce emissions to improve the view of their region from space.

Most people are focusing on, you know, the carbon emissions which are heating the planet, and the downstream effects from the changes that incurs?

Emission levels per capita is absolutely a better metric than “the view from space”. It’s perhaps a bit misleading— should the emissions from China that go to making disposable shit for europe and North America be attributed to their production or our consumption? (Obviously China should own the fraction for their own domestic consumption regardless)

But yeah, the emissions per capita is a good metric even if my country doesn’t look good in it. Because even if you’re fooling yourself with this view from space nonsense you’re not fooling anyone else

Canada will be mainly looking for skilled workers in the coming years. Being trained in healthcare or trades or engineering might give you a leg up, but it can’t be guaranteed

But overall Canada is reducing our overall immigration levels due to our previous government allowing many more immigrants than homes to house them.

Why do you feel pollution per km is an appropriate metric?