Rentlar @ Rentlar @lemmy.ca

Hello thanks for visiting my profile.

---

Read more

Posts

63

Comments

4,452

Joined

2 yr. ago

"Just show up with guns and the police will crawl away on their bellies and you'll win" is as painfully naive as the "Just show up with flowers and the police will put down their riot gear and greet you with hugs and songs".

Thank you, this needs to be said and highlighted. Whether violence or non-violence should be threatened depends on the context, there's no one-size-fits-all method or easy way to success.

Friday's protests would have been more or less ordinary compared to the many other stories across the country, of communities coming together denouncing raids and demanding release of immigrants detained for various reasons.

What made this one special is that Trump raised the stakes when he decided to call the National Guard against it. The newsworthy headlines were:

• The arrest of SEIU leader David Huerta
• The burnt Waymos
• Journalists shot by the PD
• Newsom and Trump's exchanges

Whereas the grafitti and individual confrontations within the crowd didn't get much attention, so those sorts of actions didn't serve a purpose besides turning attitudes negatively. Chances the people doing that were provocateurs or people that wanted chaos more than to support the cause of immigrants or resistance of fascism.

Thought experiment: if protestors were more violent in LA this weekend such that a couple cops had died, would that have been any better?

I don't like cops but I say no, it would have been much worse. Media got so sad over those poor autonomous cars, that a dead cop would have been the only headline coming out of that, resulting in more of a crackdown from the city and more of a copaganda stance from the mayor and Governor. Trump would bring tanks and stuff down Alameda, we're all worse off. Showing up but staying peaceful is a call on Trump's bluff.

Well Trump or Fox's take on the result doesn't matter to me because Trump's going to lie and spin things no matter what happens...

• Protests stay about the same or increase in intensity: Bringing in the Guard was the right call, look at how this is getting out of control!
• Protests get less intense: Bringing in the Guard fixed the problem!

The narrative to counter that is that the Guard didn't actually do anything except inflame tensions.

I guess my question is "Since when?"

Yes there was an annoying influx of election politics last year. Then there was another since January, Trump getting into power and saying dumb (but apparently newsworthy) shit almost every single day without fail.

So yes, a lot more crazy stuff is happening than before, and it certainly isn't healthy. However, I don't consider it the fault of people posting/cross-posting on Lemmy, I blame the chaos-stirring narcissistic arsonist who leads what formerly was the leader of the free world.

Yes, you should filter it to a level that you can tolerate in a good mental state. Each person is different. Don't let yourself be overwhelmed, but be aware enough to hold onto the thread of knowing what you can or cannot do about it.

This exactly. We all knew Carney was a red Tory and we voted to avoid Maple MAGA. Doesn't mean we get to sit back and relax and presume everything will be hunky-dory.

Oil money pays for full time lobbyists to be in and around Carney's ear. If we don't speak up, those will be the only voices he will be hearing.

The general description: brown

Right? It's the cops with the guns and the gas canisters, not the protestors.

And the protests are well into the thousands, yet only a few dozen arrests, and no reports of serious police injuries or death (if anything like that had happened, news everywhere would have been plastered wall-to-wall with that story). On the other hand, plenty of reports of protestors and media being harmed by police weapons. That is less violence and injury than after a major sports game.

The Trump White House wouldn't disagree with that...

Finally the NYT is starting to publish something that discusses labour and class solidarity, over the usual corporate interests.

All it took was a union leader being unfairly detained under a fascist usurpation of power.

New set of knife, new set of knife, new set of knife...

You could extend the n, like fightinnnnnng, extending the closed mouth sound.

Are we talking about Outlook or "New Outlook"? Everyone that I've heard that switch to new Outlook has had nothing but pain that you can't "do the thing" you used to any more. Like "Meeting with All".

Just give yourself plenty of time (arrive 3 hours before departure or earlier). Review your flight number and look at the screens every half hour to reassure yourself you're at the correct gate.

https://theonion.com/democrats-huddle-to-decide-how-best-to-let-massive-republican-fuck-up-slip-through-fingers/

Mr. Doctorow has expressed before he doesn't mind enshittification being used casually as it helps proliferate it. But strictly speaking by his original definition, there are three stages:

• Offer something extremely good to your customers, to expand reach even at a loss.
• Once enough of the market is captured, offer something very good or unique to your business clients, at the expense of customers.
• Once enough of business is captured, extract value from the platform at the expense of business clients and customers in favour of shareholders and owners.

Now, yes, this type of thing has long been common, in terms of oligarchic, monopolistic capitalism, cartels, mafia, colonial market exploitation, etc. But the original context of the word, to clarify, has to do with the kind of changes enabled by technology (twiddling), where digital firms can A/B test, degrade the experience in minor increments or for algorithmically based sectors, pretending certain failures are accidental glitches, so that it is hard to notice and the justice system can't keep up. With traditional rackets, a court with enough of an anti-trust mindset can effectively identify the affected class, identify and effectively deal with the scheme. The modern "enshittification" is much more elusive, and we're only beginning to think about how to tackle this form of subtle yet widespread manipulation enabled by digital technology.

Thanks Senator Joni Hearse.

Would you like to pay us and have ads?

• Google

I suppose yes there are a sizable portion of First Nations Métis and Inuit that want nothing to do with the Canadian government.

But I do think there are legitimate pathways to partnership with willing communities, that can involve a mix of Eurocentric and Indigenous culture and technology. It would be in First Nations communities' interest to seize upon this moment as much, if not more than your average Canadian. I think Canadians have brought in a government on the premise of being constructive and collaborative with Indigenous partners as part of speeding up projects, but that predicates on the government holding up their end of the bargain for accountability, due involvement and both the prosperity and burden being shared.

As an example: Look at Air North. The Vuntut Gwitchin people around Old Crow, Yukon had brought their community together to invest in Air North, allowing them the purchase of passenger jets enabling access for southern Canadians to the North, better access for Northerners (Indigenous and not) easier access to urban centres and its goods and services, and easier access for Northern Indigenous comunities that have no permanent roads or no roads at all into them. And not the least, as 49% shareholder the Vuntut people get a big chunk of the profit. That's a win, win, win, no?

I'm a bit comme ci, comme ça on this opinion. Why are we unable to re-define nationalism to incorporate the rightful Indigenous roots of the people that were here before settlers took that land?

Must we still divide ourselves between those lines and labels of Indigenous vs. not, instead of letting the label Canadian be inclusive of all groups who call the northern part of Turtle Island home?

North Americans writ large have largely forgotten the idea of solidarity, so international solidarity is not just like a light we can flick on. We have to learn care for each other again, starting locally, then building out into neighbourhoods, towns, cities, regions, provinces, countries, then the world.

The drive to make Canada in our image is a great unifying force, but IMO, we must focus our efforts towards bending that force towards goals of equality, equity and caring for the disadvantaged among us, reconciliation with the land's roots, accomplish big things hand-in-hand for the betterment of us all. The momentum is building and all we have to do is nudge this in the right direction and avoid the grips of entrenched interests.

The alternative suggested, to reject, diminish or shut down this unifying force altogether will just make us more divided, nihilist, apathetic, discouraged, and weak.

I mean in a sense we got the Canadian version of Harris-mini in place of Trump-mini, a Bill Clinton, or in our terms a Paul Martin type. We avoided the mistake our neighbours made, thanks to a glimpse of the consequences.

That said, I am still confident that with enough attention paid to resistance movements, Carney's Liberals will be able to turn it around. Liberals aren't always conservative or progressive, all the time. There's ebb and flow, give and take.

So I'm not saying "relax, everything's fine" but it's not "the sky is falling" panic situation either. Targeted action, supporting progressive bills and protesting regressive bills is what we as Canadians to do to deliver the federal government we asked for.