wampus @ wampus @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

143

Joined

4 mo. ago

Silly question, but can someone explain how things like OAS and other 'age' defined benefits fit with the Charter's protection against discrimination due to age? Likewise tax benefits given to married folks, as the charter supposedly protects against discrimination there?

I mean, it's listed as a protected characteristic just like race. So wouldn't something like saying "Let's give old retired people a bunch of money" be similar in terms of violated charter rights, as saying "Let's give white people a bunch of money"? ie.... wrong and against supposedly 'protected' charter rights? Even how CPP tiers the amounts you get depending on if you take it at 60, 65, or 70 seems like it'd run counter to charter rights... ?

*just an edit to clarify protection against discrimination based on marital status is seemingly in the human rights act, not charter, but still a protected area...

Yeah, it all seems really wobbly. Like one of their notes related to using public lands for building initiatives, though it wasn't clear if that just means .... like selling off the parks in Vancouver to developers, or government-subsidized planned neighbourhoods around smaller towns to try and spread our population out (praying that jobs would somehow follow), or what.

I admit, if I could find a way to move to a more remote location, that still had necessities like medical services, and I'd get a functional, easy to maintain, eco friendly / eco resilient type of detached property, I'd be interested.... the costs on that sort of thing are really quite high though. And shaving like $50k off the top of that cost isn't really gonna do much to help with affordability, when you're talking about housing costing millions.

Well, the liberal plan is already including a chunk of red tape removal -- the criticism is more about having a large public institution overtly shifting market trends, especially as the intention appears to have it be both lender, and builder. They're right to note that there's potential conflicts, and that govt programs typically aren't about 'efficiency' in terms of service delivery.

My napkin math is terrible, and the different amounts noted for different programs is a bit unclear to me in terms of what amounts the govt intends to invest directly by building housing vs how much its just going to try and subsidize builders.

Canada's already got a Trump-negotiated trade agreement. CUSMA / Nafta v2. So we know how reliable a Trump trade agreement is.

The Ontario auto sector folks are milking this a ton, and our Govt seems to not be registering what they're explicitly saying -- and are eating it up. The govt is busy putting tariffs on the viable EVs of today because the Auto industry floated a piece of total vapourware, that they openly admit even in this article is not a prototype for production, but rather a "platform" to show off the sub-component manufacturers and what they can do.

You can't put any weight in the $35k 2029 type claims, as there's no intention to make this car from any manufacturer / business / the project leads. They aren't even trying to sell the whole car, but just the individual bits that go into it, in business to business interactions -- not business to consumer. If there were an actual business case that showed you could mass produce these cars in Canada at a profit, it'd get picked up and done. But it's not.

This project being used to get our govt to block things like BYD, is looking more and more like how Musk used a vapour project like Hyperloop to derail high speed mass transit options in the USA, which would've competed with Tesla for eco friendly transport options. Using the Arrow, the niche auto manufacturer companies in Ontario, who are all intimately tied to US company interests, is able to block non-US companies from competing fairly in Canada's market.

Albertans should use the lowered threshold to get referendums to get a referendum on exiling Danielle Smith.

When the Nazi's came to power in Germany, they had less support amongst the public than the republicans do today.

If you think it fair to hold all of Nazi germany accountable for the atrocities that went on, there's no reason to pretend America is some "special" exception. Germans take responsibility for their past, with things like banning AFD -- even if a German can legit say "It wasn't me gassing those jews", they still recognise they were responsible for what occurred as a result of their inaction and apathy. In the US, like 30% of them didn't even bother to show up and vote. Apathy is no excuse, and not worthy of absolution. They literally elected a felon and a rapist.

Regardless, I still stick by the reduction in visits and the on going boycotts aren't about making them "realise our value" or whatever. It's a visceral recoil experienced on an aggregate scale, to the vitriolic bile being spewed by the people they elected, targeted quite literally at all of us here in Canada. If someone vomits on you constantly, you move the fuck away -- and it isn't about "wanting to make them miss you". It's about the vomit.

I agree with a chunk of this, but your note about 'reminding them at large of our value' is off. Most people I talk to here in Canada look at the issues in the states as basically untenable in terms of stability / trade / geopolitical unity. Supporting Russia, attacking their allies/threatening to militarily annex peaceful democratic areas like greenland, putting up BS reasons for trade tariffs (fent). The USA is a schizo trade partner at best, where for 4 years with the dems it may be 'normal', but when it flips repub its suddenly xenophobic dictator land, with less stability in its agreements than a third world military dictatorship -- at least those deals tend to last until the next coup, whereas Trumps agreements change based on his dementia; his administration has become comfortable with making up totally fake numbers even, which can change based on how they want to present the fake narrative about why they're doing whatever stupid crap they're doing. And there's no assurance it'll go back to a 'stable' dem setup for four years next time around -- the way it's trending, the dems will be locked up, with all their funding methods declared unamerican by EO, similar to the shakedown of the law firms that's happened recently as reported by 60 minutes.

If you live next to a family in a mansion, and they suddenly start flying a Nazi flag, beating/deporting their own maintenance staff (sometimes their own family too, by mistake), and screaming about how they're gonna take your house, you don't pull back on visiting as a way to 'remind them' of your value. You pull back because WTF, no. And if you can't move, and they were your main contact locally, you start lookin for other friends / buying guns and protection. Again, not to remind them of your value, but because fuck no.

As a non US person seeing this clip, all I can think is.... this isn't a surprise at all, the tariff stuff is basically blatant violation of existing trade agreements, being done based on Trumps whims without real justification. Him doing the same 'locally' is just more of the same.

heh, your edits are kinda hilarious when you note that the position you've 'agreed' with has just ~15 upvotes, while the two noting its a 'dangerous by default' thing each have like 50 or 100 upvotes. Men gave you their perspective, and you choose to ignore it. Most guys agree on what that sort of behaviour typically is -- and even if it is the left over covid habit, that's still a "this person is wearing a mask and likely wants to stay distant from others, I should walk in the mud because they'll think I'm a threat if I get too close".... is still in the ball park of walkin in the mud cause he wants to show he's not a threat.

A large number of men have internalised all the negativity expressed in the media about our gender over the last few decades. Lots of the ones who've resisted / refused to do so, have gone the extreme right / alpha male BS route, trying to aggressively push back against it in a rather sad way. I reckon its partially because progressive / left leaning approaches don't typically allow for any dissenting voices on things like gender, and are heavily influenced by feminist ideology: masculine sexuality and traits are the enemy. Caucasian males in specific, is one demographic that's always pretty safe to dunk on in pretty well any scenario.

I'd phrase it a bit differently though, I think, in that its more risk avoidance than threat internalization -- even if one follows the other. Like I know guys who get anxiety if they're asked to work a shift with just one other coworker (female) on site - I've had the same concerns personally. It's not because we think we'll slip up and accidentally assault the woman or something. It's that we're worried we'll say something / do something that the woman will take offense to, there'll be no witnesses to support our side, and the standard of today is "believe the victim (if its not a male victim)". Avoiding being in that situation/getting anxiety over it, isn't an internalization of being a threat, so much as it's wanting to avoid the potential risk of something that's shown in many media circles constantly.

Nodding hello and saying good morning / afternoon is something I reserve typically for older men, usually white or asian. Any other demographic tends to net a negative response more often than naught. Like imagine if every other person you said "hello" to quickened their pace to get away from you or shot you nasty looks -- you'd prolly stop doin it too. I've even had X's who said they thought that behaviour was an attempt to 'pick them up', which I definitely don't want to mis-convey. I still say it back if someone says it to me, but I can't initiate without it re-enforcing a negative male stereotype. That pleasantry was killed off like a decade or more ago, in part because the onus to maintain it shifted away from men.... and women didn't really want to take the step to keep it goin. I mean, you didn't exactly say "g'mornin" to the mud walker guy to let him know it's all good, did you? ;p

Western alienation has been around for decades and decades.

It's difficult to consider something a threat, when it's become the status quo.

While I think they should decouple from Microsoft / US tech giants, I don't think there's a realistic hope in hell of it happening. This is why they have that 'easily or affordably' caveat in the announcement. They say they'll leave it to govt agencies to figure out if its easy / affordable to do.

So somewhere like BC's Financial Services Authority (the gov agency that oversees provincial credit unions, realtors, insurance companies), which stuck all of their stuff into Microsoft's Cloud, and retains a skeleton crew in terms of IT support staff (part of their public RFP for sticking things in the cloud, was admitting that fact).... will simply say it's too difficult and/or costly to decouple from their perspective. And they'll leave all that government regulatory stuff exposed to the US and the risk of services being cut off summarily as part of trade deterioration / extortion. It's grimly entertaining to acknowledge that our own government regulators are so dependant on the USA's services, that they can't function without them: it lends credence to the crap Trump says, frankly. He could practically 'turn off' our financial regulators by forcing Microsoft to deny service.

I'm pretty confident the government isn't "that" serious about any of this stuff. I've written to both my provincial and federal reps asking specifically about whether Microsoft / Tech-giant type subscriptions would be on the cutting board, and none of them want to commit to anything. They'll openly rip up any Elon contract though, because those are in fashion / a more obvious supporter of the stuff goin on down south -- and its a lot simpler to 'not build' something, than it is to alter existing stuff.

They have direct access/experience with Liberals making promises for election campaigns, and then doing whatever they want once in power. They have direct experience with a Liberal government causing housing prices to skyrocket at rates previously unseen -- the Liberals have literally presided over a period of Canada's history that utterly destroyed the dreams of many younger folks. They also have access to historical information highlighting how much easier it was for older generations, older generations who have voted consistently to 'pull the ladder up' from the next generation. And, most importantly I think, most people aren't fussed with researching years and years of history before voting.

And the disparity on fronts like housing has grown to a point where lots of younger people are basically saying "We'd rather watch it all burn, so you old people feel the same hopelessness as us". And again, I can't fault them for it.

It's not so much about "pro pierre", as it is "pro change". Carney hopefully will do things 'differently', but doing stuff like axing carbon taxes and removing environmental reviews from projects, isn't exactly a "hopeful future" for younger people who are watching things like Jasper and Lytton burn to the ground due to climate change. Carney is essentially an 'older' generation of Conservative, who was parachuted into the Liberal leadership because they feel like the Cons move right gives them an opportunity to move 'right' to garner more of the disenfranchised conservative voters, while the fear of a hard-right wing movement will keep their left-leaning supporters in line. It's a gamble that'll likely pay off, but it's not one that carries a whole lot of 'hope' given the circumstances. There's a reason more 'active' forms of left wing principles, like what you see AOC and Bernie touring on, have more appeal to the younger demo.

Fairly sure the younger cohort is deciding largely based on the past performance of the existing government. Justin's Liberals have been in power since 2015 -- for many 18-28 year olds, the Liberal government is the only party they've known / seen. And in that time, have things improved on the housing front?

Or did the government start off campaigning on it as an issue, but then when the issue spiked due to other Liberal policies (mass influx of immigrants post COVID), did they attempt to claim it wasn't a federal government responsibility? And they then flip flopped on that again, and re-assigned the guy they had in charge of the mass, chaotic influx of immigrants to be in charge of figuring out housing (Miller). A decade of promising advances on that file, and a decade of it getting exponentially worse. And it is exponentially worse, you just have to google charts on housing prices / historical trends to see it, there've been tons of articles in the news over the years screaming about it to the ears of deaf politicians. The party swapping leaders last second isn't going to erase that history, one that was supported by the party at large.

For example, the CMHC has a chart of averages/medians for the vancouver region here: https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/Table?TableId=1.10.1&GeographyId=2410&GeographyTypeId=3&DisplayAs=Table&GeograghyName=Vancouver . From 1990 to 2000, the median went from 280k to 360k -- about 30% over 10 years, roughly 3% per year. Even back then it was considered a good move to buy/invest in housing due to the appreciation in value beating inflation targets. From 2015 to 2022 (the end of the tables data), it went from 1.09m to 2.06m -- about 89% in 8 years, roughly 11% per year. And that includes years where the COVID immigration disruption "briefly" flattened the increase -- it was up to 2m in 2018, dropped to 1.6m in 2020, and then shot back up once the flood gates were re-opened. Wages, to the surprise of absolutely no one, can't keep up with that sort of increase: it's completely unhinged. From a younger person's perspective, that's what the Liberals did.

That cohort is also young enough that things like Childcare will only apply to a small % of the group. Likewise, likely, for dental coverage -- many young people in Uni will get extended coverage from any parental work-coverage, and young people who work will have that potential coverage directly. Dental costs are also less 'present' and ubiquitous than housing costs -- you gotta pay rent monthly, but you don't need an annual root canal. Government Dental is a perk more for retired seniors, disabled/long-term unemployed people and middle-aged people who don't have coverage through work -- even the CBC ran stories focusing on the senior demographic for that one (the person highlighted, iirc, was a ~75 year old who'd worked in America most of her life, who is currently still working to pay for her dentures). Hell, even when I was in uni, at least one of my friends, who had coverage, didn't bother going to the dentist for years cause she just wasn't fussed. Even as a middle aged person, I'm personally not that fussed with anything the liberals / ndp promise the senior cohort -- many millenials are jaded enough at this point, that promises for boomers are viewed as things that will disappear by the time we get old enough to qualify, if we get old enough to qualify given how healthcare/GP access has also deteriorated: I fully expect to die younger than my parents. I can understand why an even younger generation wouldn't be in favour of putting in social supports for boomers -- at this point it isn't the boomers who are having to pay the taxes, its the boomers voting explicitly to give themselves perks at the expense of younger generations.

I think Pierre / the cons are a terrible choice, personally. But I can fully understand why the younger folks would be swayed by the idea of change, even if its just smashing things apart like we're seeing in the States. The last decade has been bleak, and there's no tangible reason to think that the promises of the party in charge during that decade are worth anything going forward.

Progressive feet and hand numbness.... sounds like untreated diabetes to me, based on symptoms I remember when my dad first got it. Definitely get checked / a docs input. Untreated, you can literally lose toes/limbs. I'd even consider starting to eat a diabetic diet while I waited for an appt, to see if it improved the situation.

As for the sex stuff, as an older guy, I reckon the bigger part is to find a partner you want to live with outside of the sexy-time stuff as a priority in general. Everyone ages and their bodies change, physical stuff is important but its not enough to maintain a longer term meaningful relationship, in my experience at least -- and ultimately, the time spent boning is a tiny fraction of the time you'd be spending with the other person in the long run. To add to that, I've had relationships in the past where we didn't do much of the direct penetration stuff, but I still found it really.... rewarding? titilating? gratifying? .... just making her eyes roll back / bite me as she climaxed and then collapsed exhausted. The endorphin release from intimacy isn't just about getting your rocks off, in some ways the feeling of knowing you can drive your partner nuts is better -- to me, that's what makes me feel 'virile', more so than simply fucking/orgasming myself. Biggest issues there was just making sure she understood I didnt feel a need to orgasm myself everytime we were together, so long as I rung her bell thoroughly.

What tone do you think the Bloc has when dealing with the rest of Canada, exactly? Which is more significant, some guy online having a bit of a tone -- or a political party that's getting a ton of votes in Quebec who is condescending / not willing to work with the rest of the country? I think on this one, me voicing frustrations online is the lesser of the two faults.

And I'm not saying take the money and shut up. I'm saying give us back the money because the system is unfairly penalizing western Canada and benefiting Quebec/Eastern Canada, and has been doing so for literally decades. I'm also saying, essentially, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". The Bloc happily bites that hand and attempts to disrupt / destabilize the nation. They are a separatist movement at their core. All the negativity people have for Danielle Smith's antics are warranted in my view -- and that goes 10x for the Bloc and Quebec. Smith may be 'threatening' referendums on unity, the Bloc's actually gone further in the past, and it still overtly prioritizes "Quebec" over the country/national unity. A vote for the Bloc is as shameful as a vote for any other group looking to destroy Canada.

And it's an online post. Not an attempt to build a nation. I see nothing wrong with expressing frustrations with the Blocs/Quebec's entitled BS, especially when it's thrown in our faces as part of an election campaign. Hell, there were already people in this thread who had no idea equalization payments were a thing, had no idea why Western Canadians are often pissed off at Ottawa/Quebec. Hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, unnoticed. At the very least, it helps to educate other people about the 'reasons' for Western Alienation, even if it simultaneously proves/justifies it a bit by highlighting how little the rest of Canada thinks about the Western half.

Yep. "Oh it's so shameful to take all this money, we need to tell the West to get fucked some more! It's their fault that we need to take all this money!! We'll just keep taking it for a few more decades, while also making more demands and getting preferential treatment. Oh, no, how insulting for us, we just keep taking more and more of that money! We don't need this money for all the social programs that Quebec boasts about to others, even though without the money we'd run deficits!"

I get that the regular folks in Quebec are generally 'normal'. That's one reason the lopsided crap on the political level is so infuriating for us westerners. I mean, I gotta wait 3 f'ing weeks to see my family GP out here in Vancouver. I sure hope you all took my tax money to get equally stellar treatment back east.

Not knowledgeable enough? Look up equalization payments then. Quebec gets the majority of equalization payments, and has gotten such for literally decades, because they're considered a "have not" province. Like last year (2024) they got around $13 billion (52% of the total amount handed out) -- from Western Canada, as the region that is historically termed "have" provinces (every province except BC, Alberta and Sask got money, those western provinces just 'lost' billions to support the rest of Canada). That money is no strings attached, which allows Quebec to do stuff like offer additional social supports, and then the people of Quebec get to look down their noses at the West, and say crap like "Why aren't your education options cheaper? Peasants!". Maybe they would be, if we could keep our tax revenue, rather than being forced to support Quebec.

Even more insulting, those payments are a result of the Constitution. If Quebec doesn't want to sign, fine, don't give them the Western province's money. Or how bout those Bloc folks take a principled stance and just hand the money back to the West. They don't agree with the constitution, but seem perfectly content to reap the benefits from it. They're good with Canada so long as they can sponge.

This isn't a new issue from the Western provinces. It's been ongoing for decades. Even as recently as 2018, with Kenney and Moe in Alberta and Sask, when the formula was last renewed at the fed level, there were releases about how pissed the west was with it -- the feds renewed it without consulting the provinces, and without any changes to address the issues the west has with it. I'm guessing you're from back east, which makes it entirely fitting that you're completely ignorant of the issues on this side of the country.

As for the resentment long term, imagine a bunch of kids at a party. One kid loses a game and throws a tantrum and refuses to play with the others any more. The other kids bend over backward to try and get that kid to calm the fuck down. The kid refuses, even after everyone's tried bribing him / treating him better than every other kid there. He keeps disrupting things and being a pain in the arse. He takes other kids toys and plays with them, while mocking those kids. Who would want that kid back at the next party. Continuing to spoil them, just re-enforces their negative behaviour. Sure, there may be "reasons" to be a spoiled little shit, but at some point Quebec ought to grow up and look outside their own border. Resentment cuts both ways, and based on the realities of 'today', Quebec's got a lot less to complain about than western provinces.

Like I listened to some of that debate yesterday. The gall of that Bloc guy being all "Carney hasn't called me to consult on what's best for Quebec, he can't be trusted" is just lunacy. And that's the sort of narcissitic self-centered dipshit that Quebec supports. Like if the fed was to consult anyone about Quebec's provincial interests, it would be a meeting with the premiers, which is what happened. If some minority leader in the house, who refuses to treat national issues as national issues, wants to throw a hissy fit about how the people dealing with a crisis aren't directly consulting with them in their self-aggrandized role.... that leader should be tossed the hell out. Asking a national party, during a national crisis, with national support, to come bend the knee for some minority party with (quite literally) an anti-national agenda, is beyond 'not helping'. And saying that stuff, and broadcasting it to the whole country, should be embarrassing for the people he represents. But people in Quebec are likely to be all "he stands up for us!", similar to how dumbass Ford was able to get back in just by draping himself in a f'ing flag to distract people from the damage his govt does on the whole.

Sure, though that's part of the problem that the States is whining about. US taxes paid for the service, which lots of other nations/foreign companies used.

Things like Libraries require taxes to operate. You'd likely be annoyed if you were struggling, and then found out your gov was using your taxes to pay for a bunch of foreign countries to have libraries. And then you find out that those foreigners are able to use those libraries to make good money, which they don't use to support their libraries, cause the States is already covering it. So you're paying taxes, and struggling to do so, so that EU companies can reap profits and live comfy.

And yes, charge a fee. That's basically what I've said, no? That there's a value add, and that there are 'professionals'/companies using it who aren't paying for that value add. So something like a fee for frequent pulls against the vuln feeds, to replace whatever funding the US gov was giving, would make sense to me. though I suppose this has now been kicked down the road till next year.

Canada's a young enough country that there were still a bunch of bitter Quebecois who remembered losing against the British, and they had such giant rods up their arses that they decided to take it out on the rest of Canada by not signing a piece of paper, and having a militant separatist group go bombing English speaking people (and then whining about martial law when the govt took action to stop it). And to try and appease the pampered province, Ontario continues to compete in National "French Language" debates where each politician spends a TON of time trying to convince Quebec they'd give the best sloppy bj with tons of financial perks as lube. Financial lube that they take from Provinces in the West, who they ignore. Quebec then tells them all to get fucked and votes for the Bloc anyhow. And while telling everyone to get f'd, they still get more benefits than any other province. They're a spoiled child in this sense.

I wonder why there's often talk of Western alienation, hand in hand, with Quebec separatist movements. Like the last time the Bloc had a 'real' referendum, there were movements in BC/Alberta half-jokingly asking if we could vote them out.

Like here's an Idea, we're having a french language debate -- that's totally fine and Canadian. But that shouldn't require it to be a whole debate focused almost entirely on Quebec and Quebecs local issues. The Bloc guy, despite his attestations, is not some king representing "Quebec": they deserve to have a broader conversation, and Canada ought to treat the language's reach as "National", not "Just this one niche pocket". Ask questions about how the politicians will help British Columbia during that French language debate. Ask another about Alberta. How will Canadians voting for the Bloc, benefit people back West? Make that Bloc guy stand there for 10-15 minutes explaining to voters that a vote for him, is a vote to tell every other Canadian to get fucked, because he has no real plan or care for Canada as a country. And then when he's in power, treat ridings that go bloc like they treat most minority party ridings out west -- shift funding to the provinces that actually support the federation. Or at the very least, let them keep their tax revenue, instead of sending it to Quebec as "equalization payments".

The current format of those debates is divisive, and elevates the bloc more than it deserves.