Yeah, China’s bad for this sort of thing.

Then again, the US is explicitly saying they’re going to meddle in EU politics to break up that union, they provide bombs to genocide civilians in the middle east / prop up a government there, they’re essentially trying to scavenge Ukraine while preventing Ukraine from using weapons against Russia, they’re trying to annex Canada via economic warfare and applying tariffs to the same under false pretenses of Fent/drugs, they’re overtly saying they’ll take greenland one way or another (more hostile intentions overtly directed at historic allies) and they’re blowing up fishing boats in Venezuela while calling for a regime change and stealing oil tankers. And that’s not even an exhaustive list of the international shit that the US has done this year alone

So idk. I know there’s nothin sayin they can’t both be shitty imperialist cunts. And yeah, China’s bad for trying to extend their censorship. But in the grand scheme of things I can’t really get all that angry about it given what we’ve seen from the self proclaimed “leaders of the free world” that most democracies still look to as a bellwether / guide and for military and technology dependence.

The orange man likely shouldn’t have been broadcasting out that he’d sell sub-standard equipment to allies, because “maybe they won’t be our allies for long” then.

I know, if America wants to convince the rest of the western world that its arms are top notch, they should provide gear to Ukraine and allow Ukraine to use it without restriction – seeing those arms actually defeat the Russian arms, would be a convincing case that US arms are high quality. Cause right now, that conflict isn’t exactly a winning endorsement of being a US Ally, or buying US kit.

Instead, all we see is the states vulture-circling its client while handicapping their ability to defend themselves with seemingly sub standard weaponry. We see countries like India shifting to Russian arms deals, likely in part because of this sort of thing. Why buy American, if American arms are not allowed to be used against an aggressor nation? Why buy American, if owning those weapons means that Russia can still steamroll you due to America siding with Russia and salivating over your resources?

So, human rights stuff aside, how/why the fuck do we need a genderised solitaire?

I don’t see anything wrong with that second note, translating the position into one about race instead of gender.

Equity-type programs often get started based off of aggregate differences in statistical data based on demographic slices, with good intentions. But I’ve yet to see any cases where they build in a process for removing equity support programs once a ‘goal’ is reached / more parity is visible in the data.

So as an example from Canada, equity employment programs were introduced in the mid/late 1980s to address the imbalance between men and women in the workforce. You can see how this played out in the public workforce data. In 1990, shortly after the leg came in, it was at about 54% men, 46% women. By 2000, it had flipped in favour of women, at 48% men, 52% women. By 2010, 45% men, 55% women – a greater imbalance than in the 1990s, the imbalance which had triggered supports to get put in place for women. That roughly 10% gap persisted through to 2020 at least. No legislation has been introduced to remove preferential hiring for women in the public sector, no legislation has come in to promote hiring men due to the shift in the gender imbalance.

On a racial basis, the same pattern can be seen in our post secondary education grants, bursaries and scholarships. Funding for these sorts of initiatives in Canada allows for them to screen for specific equity groups – what some term visible minorities. The roots of that being based on reasonable equity goals – ie. there’s a statistical gap in education levels for a minority group, so they allow people to target funding to minority groups. However, while these policies have been enforced, white men have become one of the least educated groups in Canada, with about 24% of white men attaining a degree, compared to 40% of asian guys (with the highest rate of attainment amongst chinese/korean guys, at ~60%). White men are still not considered an equity group, and so cannot have funding specifically targeted to them to try and address this equity issue. And we haven’t ‘removed’ the ‘disadvantaged’ minority groups from receiving systemic advantage, even though they are out performing the supposedly privileged majority group. The system quite literally has race-based controls working against white men, with a justification of correcting an imbalance that not only doesn’t exist in the data, but where the data shows white men as significantly worse off. The system is basically designed to kick them when they’re down.

I can highlight that education item a bit more using a personal example. A coworker of mine has a kid going to BCIT, one of our western province’s “leading” tech-type schools. They’re Canadian citizens, recent immigrants from eastern Europe, not wealthy by any stretch. They tried to get financial assistance for the kid through the school, but the advisor bluntly told him there were no grants/bursaries etc that he could apply for, since the kid was a white guy – all the available funding was targeted to different racial sub groups. He would have more charitable funding options available from the system we’ve setup here, had he been a third generation millionaire visible minority.

Dedicating time and effort to focus on a special category of murder and implementing harsher punishments for perpetrators based on the demographic membership of the victim, feels counter to the equitable application of justice for a country at large.

Intentionally murdering a woman because she’s a woman, is in my view little different from murdering a person for any of the other reasons that get lumped together under things like ‘first degree’ and ‘second degree’ murders. This legislation change isn’t about making murder illegal – it’s always been illegal. It’s about making the punishment more significant if the victim is a woman and the prosecution can prove the murderer had any anti-woman comments/viewpoints.

There are examples of women killing men because they’re men – there are a few famous, and more less-famous, cases where escorts, for example, kill their johns because they’re easy targets. There are examples of minority groups killing majority groups because of clearly racist/hateful motives, that get excused because of the demographics of the perp and the victim. The legislation change noted, basically says killing people is bad, but killing women is somehow worse – ie. that the genders aren’t equally treated, and women are worth more / require more protection. To apply harsher punishments unevenly based on demographics is not what I’d consider a fair and impartial system – it’s one that’s been engineered to preference the protected group’s interests over the interests of the broader whole.

Besides, men get killed 2-5x more frequently than women in many western countries – why are we trying to protect the gender that has far better overall results? This is sorta a gender equivalent to giving tax breaks to the rich – they already have it better than others, why give them even more privilege? Add more supports to the demographic that has terrible stats in this area.

Removed by mod

Feminism has a place, but it is explicitly about promoting women’s interests – something which if allowed to continue unchecked, leads to significant disadvantages for men. It leads to the sorts of toxic masculinity backlashes that you see in the states, especially because moderates who question women’s privilege in advanced western economies start to support more extreme anti-woman positions, because there’s a perception that left wing feminist leaning ideologies work against their interests. And they’re right.

An egalitarian approach is better, once you’ve gotten to near parity. Most western countries have been at near parity for generations at this point.

Your note about disproportionate targets is misleading and inaccurate. Femicide is specifically about murders as far as I know. In the vast majority of countries, men are victims of murder more often than women (in Italy, men are victims about twice as often). They have higher rates of being assaulted/maimed at pretty much every age category in most western countries.

What you’re likely trying to gloss, is the oft repeated “victim of domestic violence” stats, which is a niche area of violence that gets used by feminist movements to ignore the arguably greater violence that men face on the regular. This sub-division is even more biased, given that men generally don’t report spousal abuse / are less likely to get injured to the point that they get hospitalized by it. Even after the victims of ‘violence’ includes pretty well all categories, in many western countries the ‘results’ are roughly even between genders – Canada for example is at about 48% of all violent offences being committed against men, and 52% against women. But again, not all those crimes are really equal – men are over represented in fatal / serious violent assaults causing injury far more often than women. They both experience violence at the same ‘general’ frequency, but men are more likely to be left maimed/dead.

Murder’s murder, in the eyes of many. It’s strange to provide additional protections for just one demographic, especially when that demographic is far less frequently the victim of murder.

Clinton ought to just put this rumour to bed, and tweet out: “I did not have sexual relations with that Man”

Nah, this isn’t a great point at all… even at face value really.

Put slightly differently, if we’re assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.

The current liberal government is far more conservative leaning than the previous one. They’re pushing very authoritarian bills, and effectively going along with much of the US’s ‘stuff’, while attempting to spin a pro-Canada message for public support – like the gov and our media lauding the push to diversify our energy supply by building small nuclear reactors… but glossing over that they require US-provided fuel to run (so we’re literally increasing reliance on US stuff, while the US is busy using that dependence to attack us economically). On the authoritarian bills, there’s stuff like making it so that law enforcement doesn’t need a warrant to get customer information from private companies, and making display of certain symbols/flags a crime. The folks I know who follow this stuff, basically agree that it’s all a bit tepid at the moment, but that it’s still better than it would’ve been under our ‘official’ conservative party, as those guys wanted to straight up do a DOGE-north (and likely still do).

I’d frame it as Canada is still moving along with the Tech-bro agenda from the US at present, though we’re less in to the Christian Nationalist / overtly racist stuff. For example, the coming budget is expected to have items related to OpenBanking/Digital Currencies, which are ideas primarily pushed by tech kleptocrats (there’re obvious reasons they fumble to name specific, quantifiable benefits of those systems for consumers – and it’s because the benefit is pretty much all for big tech).

The party that had a more progressive slant last time around, the NDP, got trounced – deservedly, as they hadn’t really put out anything to persuade voters, and essentially told people to vote liberal if it meant defeating the cons. Our green party, who were even more progressive in policies (and often had big, interesting policy ideas), committed suicide years ago due to their adherence to their party-negative approach to DEI – they literally elected a black lesbian jewish pro-palestinian lawyer lady as their leader, and she destroyed what little support the party had. Eg. she spent all the campaign finances trying to win a liberal-stronghold riding for herself in Toronto; she demanded full control of all social media accounts for the party, which she was given, but then she proceeded to go to news agencies and comment about how the party wasn’t publicly supporting her on social media… the media she controlled… because the party was racist. That sort of thing.

So, as to what they’re thinking, I don’t think they view the US as a potential threat to the same extent as the public. And I don’t think they’re progressive in the old sense of the world, but they’re still progressive relative to our southern neighbours. But I mean, that’s a really low bar at the moment.

Well, it means that profits earned by the Trump supporting business, will support Trump’s agenda, which includes annexing / doing harm to Canada. As it’s a US corp, it also likely means many of the high paying corporate backend jobs go south, removing high income earners from the tax pool. It’s amazing to me that the gov is whining at Canadians about productivity, and grandstanding with ‘elbows up’ rhetoric, but they greenlight sending jobs to the states.

And if it’s taking a more active role in supporting Trump, given that its such a large market slice, they could manipulate prices to gouge Canadians / do harm to Canada in a more direct fashion.

So Trump’d seen the ad three days prior to his supposed late night melt down. And he’s again making large, market disruptive comments on a Friday, which will likely get toned down by Monday/Tuesday.

This just smells like more market manipulation on behalf of wealthy backers that want to fleece people further.

Yeah, it’s not just that number of people who’d be insurgents, it’s that Canada’s a bit more advanced tech-wise than the Taliban, and the US’s defense infrastructure has predominantly NOT been engineered for decades to repel any sort of land invasions. We also look, and outside of those crazy newfies, we sound like most generic Americans, making identifying potential threats that much more difficult.

As a foreigner/westerner, I don’t get why Iran would do this at this point. There are western powers in that region that don’t comply with international treaties related to Nuclear weapons/capabilities. Israel being the obvious one, where “no ones totally sure” how many nukes or what capabilities they have. The west also seems to use the IAEA to help it find good targets/sort out logistics for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, be they civilian/compliant with international norms or not.

They’ve been screwed fairly regularly when trying to comply / align with the IAEA and various political agreements on development. I don’t see why they don’t just go strengthen ties with Russia, NK and China, and say “screw you” to the traditional USA-oriented international rules. Not even the USA bothers to follow those rules anymore.

True, and Israel’s hunt for german nazi’s in foreign jurisdictions sets some precedent in handling that sort of thing.

I know about ancient greece, and as I’ve said I don’t care personally what people do / who they love. Don’t assume just because I consider homosexual behaviour to be abnormal, that I’m somehow opposed to it / think it inherently “wrong” or anything. I also don’t have a personal issue with it in movies, particularly more adult themed movies – though I do think it’s massively over-represented at this point, as almost every movie/show I see has heavy lgbtq+ themes wedged in haphazardly, often to the detriment of the plot.

Younger generations claiming to be lgbtq+, or being on the gender spectrum, doesn’t really impact my view, I admit. First, it’s still a minority, which makes it abnormal. Grouping all abnormal types together also inflates the perspective of how common it is for any one subset. Young people are also more inclined to be affected by perceptions of benefits / “going along with what’s approved in media”. Even the stats on that site generally support this, noting that the breakdown between men/women is hugely lopsided amongst Gen Z, and with the bulk of the change seemingly being women identifying as bisexual. That fits quite a bit with how its presented in media – so I’d still question whether it’s kids being ‘genuine’ in their experiences/feelings, or if it’s media pushing certain messages and kids reacting to those messages. Media can clearly influence peoples world views / perspectives, at times in ways that aren’t authentic – we’re all keen to recognise as such when we talk about the negative impact of fox news – so it’d seem strange to pretend like it can’t have a similar reality-distorting effect in this area, given the level of over-representation of lgbtq+ themes. Particularly bi-sexual women, as media likes to treat women as sex objects desired by “everyone”, and wedge in some lesbian sex scenes to boot. Almost every series/movie has lgbtq+ stuff in it these days, which is one reason Snoop is uncomfortable taking kids to movies – it’s gotten pretty rare to see a same-race healthy relationship straight couple in media.

To approach it from a slightly different angle: it’s like trying to find non-emo edgelord male characters in anime (which, in its space, feeds the indoctrination of alpha male sorts) – or the negative male stereo-types pushed by people like Tate. If we accept/recognise that certain media representations can “make” young people more extreme in that sort of space, then I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say that media can “make” young people more gender fluid on the flip side. Part of being young, is lacking critical objectivity.

Also, in terms of the polling and benefits, hell, I personally identify as “other” on all government polls, because “other” gets preferential treatment/hiring options, while “male” gets rejection letters. That isn’t an authentic response, but it’s a necessary response to get past certain hiring criteria – I’ve literally had rejection letters stating “you’re not part of an equity group” in the past, when I answered male (in Canada, literally the reason the federal government rejected my application). Workplaces have no business blocking people from employment due to their preference, even when it comes to us CIS folks.

As for seeing things in public – a kid could see a horrific car accident by chance, corpses everywhere. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to show a 6 year old graphic death scenes. Or to use a less extreme example, and a fairly common one, they could walk in on their parents fucking – it still wouldn’t be appropriate for a movie for kids to have a bunch of sex scenes. Content involving adult stuff should have an adult rating, even if “some” kids may encounter those things earlier in life by happenstance.

Me personally? I wouldn’t care either way. I’ve seen a woman on the street fingering the ass of a muslim dude before, and just sorta walked by. But I don’t have kids. I imagine if I had kids, I’d be opposed to public ass-blasting.

A parent that I work with has had awkward conversations with his kids, after they came to Canada and saw guys kissing / making out in public. I can appreciate that such PDAs can prompt similar ‘awkward’ conversations, but also that they’re much less ‘common’ than encountering them as part of a big budget movie – and encountering them in public is often an easier way for parents to broach the subject. Kids noticing that stuff is unavoidable as they mature, but having it forced to the front by media / schools is questionable, and I can appreciate the parents’ concerns on that front.

It’s an abnormal relationship type with a dom and a sub. Just like homosexual relationships are abnormal relationships with non standard partners involved. One is just more abnormal than the other. Both raise questions about sex, as was the point with Snoops clip – his kid explicitly asked about sex stuff, because he encountered the abnormal couple on screen. Snoop wasn’t comfortable discussing that with his grandkid in a movie theatre, and felt put out. That’s a valid response, no matter how many lgbtq+ people scream in nonsensical rage.

You may not like the point, but it doesn’t make it invalid. Just like you may not like hetero people’s reaction to homosexual content in kids media, but that doesn’t make their reactions “wrong”.

If you put a bunch of hard core BDSM content into a movie for kids, it’d be considered inappropriate. Even if the BDSM community argued we have ‘no problem’ exposing kids to other kinds of relationships. It’d prompt similar uncomfortable questions for adults, and I reckon could lead to negative interactions that could damage the parent/child relationship.

No matter how you spin it, lgbtq+ gender stuff is abnormal, and applies to a relatively small minority of people in the overall population. Forcing those conversations onto hetero couples is inappropriate. Children of lgbtq+ couples may/can have those conversations earlier, as their households will likely encounter the questions regardless – just like a family of hard core BDSM practitioners would need to explain to their kids why mommy and daddy have a dungeon in the basement. That doesn’t mean every kid, and every family, should go through the same crap. Especially if, as a non-member of that community, your response will almost definitely be “wrong” according to that community.