Victor Villas @ villasv @lemmy.ca

mostly inactive, lemmy.ca is now too tainted with trolls from big instances

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

499

Joined

2 yr. ago

There is no reason to require trusting some random site with payment details, generating another set of account credentials, and installing some mystery app that wants way too many permissions just to visit a park.

But those are all details that pertain to a specific type of digital payment. Like I said in a different comment, sign me up for better digital payment options and increased privacy guarantees. Sticking to cash is not the only way to achieve this.

Right... that's about what I imagine someone fighting against cashless is like. You actually pay for gas in cash and you don't have a smartphone with Internet.

Kind of ironic that you're excited about EVs, though.

Ever had a moment where you needed to go buy groceries but couldn’t pay because the payment system is down nation wide?

Never. If it did happen, it's almost certain that I wouldn't have the cash on me to pay for it anyway 🤷‍♂️I'd rather not walk around with more than $100 in cash on me.

since a merchant can’t refuse legal tender

Where does that come from? AFAICT there's no law that requires businesses to accept cash as a form of payment. Not in Canada, at least.

Do you like the idea of all our payments for everything going through a private duopoly who takes a cut of every transaction?

I don't, so sign me up for the fight for better digital options. In fact I frequently advocate for a BoC-managed alternative to Interac. Even the US with its ridiculously contrived banking system is already working on it (FedNow).

But I don't see the need to wait for that, we can go cashless AND work on better digital options simultaneously.

One of the modern mysteries I can't quite get is people caring so much about paying stuff with cash. Are people out there paying for gas using cash as well? How many people have a car and don't have a credit card or smartphone? So many questions...

Yes, yes, kinda yes.

It's not that bleak. Inflation is a healthy sign if it's under control, so it deserves an actual "Yay!", as it also means interest rate cuts can proceed.

He has been in power in the last few years, just not as prime minister.

If Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, you would expect the death toll to be much higher.

Would I? I don't know if I would. It's a big percentage to accomplish in a single campaign, and if you think about the compounding effect of the war on the lives of the remaining 98% it's still a pretty strong result. For example the UN reported that Gaza now has the biggest cohort of child amputees in modern history. Crippling a generation economically with sanctions and literally with shrapnel is a very powerful genocide tool, and so is claiming land - expanding the largest West Bank land grab in 30 years.

you would expect the pace of civilian death to remain constant and not diminish over time.

Again, I don't think I would. Maybe we have different visions of what an effective genocide strategy looks like in the XXI century.

pushing back against it.

Pushing back against 20% and letting the 80% just flow, that's not really pushing back. And for this interview, 20% is probably too generous... he asked the questions but answers flew by unprovoked. The fact that such an extensive fact check needed to be published after the fact means that he as interviewer was not prepared to push back or he chose not to.

The interview goes like:

• JB) If you keep killing Palestinians, Jews in Canada will suffer, no?
• IM) We have to continue the war because Palestinians are terrorists.

JB choses to push back on "yes but your military is saying that it will stain Judaism" instead of "that's genocidal, if you don't stop escalating the only end is genocide". No challenge to the war itself, just the minor points whether Israel is being "unproductive" and inviting antisemitism.

So your criteria is a court conviction? I guess that's one way to answer, but I was more asking what's your criteria, meaning what's the criteria you'd personally use to think whether such court decision would be fair or not.

demonstrated the intent to destroy the Palestinian people

If that's what you mean as your answer, then I kinda agree. That's about what I would use to define genocide.

Canadaland seems to be going on a weird direction. All these stories of worker antagonism and so many journalists leaving in bad terms, most recently Ling and Pugliese left, Goldsbie on a sabbatical... meanwhile Jan Wong keeping the red scare alive, and then Brown amplifies all this bullshit.

It's a shame that the path to survival for indie media is most often to drift right and never stop going.

“40,000 dead civilians” doesn’t define a genocide.

What is the criteria then to tell if Israel is committing genocide to Palestinians?

The person you're arguing with is a Dark Lord of the Sith

No, I would prefer to see markets selling those at a loss so they don't make a profit and food isn't wasted. _{And hopefully that loss motivates them to plan for less consumption next year and/or reducing the amount they're willing to pay producers, decreasing the profitability of the meat production industry.}

But as I said before, there's no evidence yet that the food waste is increasing due to price increases. This is just speculation from people who wouldn't buy the thing because they fail to imagine that there are people who would.

Folks sometimes forget that actually selling the thing is a part of the greedy profit maximizing goal

I don't see a triple whammy, it's a nothing burger to me.

1. If it's a greedy markup on top of a product that I'm against, I don't care
2. Excessive animal farming... exists already regardless of price passed down to consumers
3. We don't any evidence these turkeys are going to waste at higher rates than before yet so this is just speculation

So personally I don't see any reason for me to be mad, though I empathize that folks who care about having turkey have their reasons.

Now that the day is past, today I saw in the news what each candidate was doing yesterday. What's the story behind Á'a:líya Warbus being a Conservative candidate in Chilliwack?

I'm not surprised to occasionally see LGBTQ+ folks joining hands with conservatives because there's one thing that usually threads the needle there: class warfare. I can also understand the poor working class that votes conservative: rugged individualism and "traditional values". But I still can't understand indigenous voters going conservative... Rustad is clearly an enemy!? 🤷‍♂️

I doubt it. But I hope you're right.

I signed it but I don't really get what's the goal here other than rectifying a minor semantic issue