Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.
Good point. I mean, look at the Australian referendum on giving Indigenous people a voice in that country.
If human rights were based on majority rule we’d still have slavery.
We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.
Surely there are objective examples that require no attribution though. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is a good example.
As well, I don’t think there’s any argument that the Hamas attack on Israel could be anything other than a terrorist attack (without attribution) because they targeted civilians with the specific intent to kidnap. It wasn’t a country invading another country, or a case of a resistance force pushing out an occupier. Had Hamas attacked only military targets only the hard liners would call it a terrorist attack. But what Hamas committed was terrorist atrocities.
On the flip side, one could argue that Israel’s retaliations are state-sanctioned reprisals that ostensibly act as a means of terror to the Palestinian population. However, since Israel as a nation is condoning the military action I don’t think it could strictly be said it’s terrorism.
I think the bizarre thing is that unions are negotiating 3% wage increases and it’s like… that’s below inflation.
It’s a shame the pole won’t be in Scotland where it could serve as an education piece both about colonialism and Indigenous culture in British Columbia, but I do understand the desire from the Nisga’a to bring back something they feel belongs to their Nation.
High cost of living, unsustainable gas prices, runaway climate change, housing crisis, stagnant wages.
I’m sure the right wingers will be the perfect solution to these problems.
Milk used to come in glass bottles
I don’t want more glass (deposit and all) unless they go back to milkmen delivering it and taking away the empties. And even then, that wouldn’t work because of the delivery costs.
I have so much glass I have to take to the recycling depot and it’s not worth your time and gasoline to do it.
I agree it’s not the supermarkets’ fault but it’s an industry problem. Why is everything wrapped in plastic? Even bananas and cucumbers and things that don’t need plastic?
One thing we could do is have refillable containers and just reuse them! Why are bulk aisles just a thing for nuts and grains? Why can’t we come and fill up milk or shampoo or other things in our refillables?
Anyway, the bigger story is that there are too many humans. We don’t have a plastics problem, we have a human overpopulation problem.
You could still put an obstruction in the middle to prevent t-bone collisions while keeping the bike and pedestrian spaces.
Colonel Nicholson: Yes, Clipton. I understand, truly. But don’t you see it’s a matter of principle? If we give in now, there will be no end to it. No!
Major Clipton: Sir, we’re lost in the jungle, a thousand miles from anywhere. We’re under the heel of a man who will stop at nothing to get his way. Principle? No one will know or care what happens to us! Give in, sir! Please!
I guess she thought she’d win like Nicholson.
Only the capitalists care
I’m not sure what a solution is but I do think that we should encourage people to not have children, stop handing out the baby bonus, and reduce immigration. I feel these moves can provide a (non-genocidal) way to relieving the pressures of human overpopulation. For example, Japan is doing great work in reducing their population, a trend that will reduce the strain of housing and services in that country.
No, I don’t think depopulating the Earth is a fascist concept. I think murdering specific groups of people is fascist. I’m just talking about the unsustainability of the human plague.
All I know is that despite all evidence that our world is increasingly turning into an inferno, that humans are still pro-human and will continue to want more humans. I guess we’re just going to have to reap the predictable consequences of our obsession with overpopulating ourselves.
Sorry to hear that you went through that.
In a perfect world I could have had an amicable divorce from my ex and everybody could have stayed in touch and been happy.
Instead I had a “Michael Bay” divorce where everything went really explosive and badly. It’s sad because I see a lot of example – such as our own prime minister – who have a great divorce where everybody is respectful and mature and life goes happily on.
I’ve tried to explain to my dad how screwed up it is that he maintains a relationship with my ex despite my zero contact with my kids but he doesn’t care. Actually, he went to my exes wedding with her new husband last month, which involved him flying to my city. He didn’t visit me, which is really the extra cherry on the shit sundae.
In “theory” or “legally” I have 50-50 custody. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to enforce visitation with older children. My kids were 15 and 9 when we split. Immediately, the courts said enforcement on the 15-year-old was impossible. I spent a few years battling enforcement on the 9-year-old but she soon also became unenforceable. At a certain point you can’t win if the kids also don’t want to see you or make your visit a nightmare by passively resisting.
I was in the middle of one of these court battles when my daughter became anorexic and told the medical staff she didn’t want me to visit her in hospital. She was about 13 and that was the last I saw her.
Legally, I am a 50-50 parent but in reality the only thing I’m entitled to do is pay their mother $1,000 a month.
Oh I’m fine with him seeing his grandkids but he has no empathy for my situation, considering it a dispute between myself and my ex. He even shares details from his trips to see them, as though that wouldn’t hurt me to hear about it. His lack of empathy is the problem.
My mother, on the other hand, criticized my ex for the situation and was “cut off.” So, despite the fact I’m sad that my mother can’t see her grandkids because she, unlike my dad, did take sides, I feel like she had the empathy to stick up for her son and point out it the situation isn’t right.
I will also mention my brother was “cut off” because of his close associations with me.
Interesting perspective. It would be really mind-blowing to see the other side of the gender, even though I have no interest in being trans.
One thing I will add to this article is that men are also viewed as little more than bank machines after divorce. People always have the utmost sympathy for any mother who is separated from her children, even if only for a few days. Movie plots can revolve around mothers finding their lost children and being reunited. But for men? We’re only the providers, the ones who pay the child support.
I lost my kids (not legally, just boring old classic parental alienation) six years ago following the divorce. Nobody cares, because I’m just a man. Not even my own father cares. He happily continues to see his grandkids because he doesn’t want to “take sides.” None of my cousins or other parts of my family care either. So long as I’m paying my “support.” And I can’t complain about it on social media because I’m a man. I’m a stoic. Boys don’t cry, remember?
The lack of emotional support for men mentioned in the article is another thing that really exacerbates divorces and leads to suicides. I do feel like if I were the type of person to contemplate suicide (I’m not), I would have definitely done it when my ex took my kids from me. And there would have been no male friends to pull me back from the edge. Those friendships are, to quote the author, superficial to a large degree, or even the ones that aren’t are men who are now focused heavily on their own families and wives.
I mean, it’s also true all the other stuff about the male privilege and feeling safe and the good things that come with being a man. But it’s nice to see the perspective of how we lack emotional support and we’re expected to grit our teeth and “walk it off.”
Sorry, you misunderstand slightly.
I don’t mean investors in the sense of speculative parasitic humans who are devaluing life by overvaluing housing.
I mean, people like me who have worked from the age of 15-49 and now own a very modest sized apartment that is grotesquely overpriced and has quite literally enslaved me to mortgage payments for years to come.
If we devalue my apartment, why did I spend decades of sweat and toil to purchase it? Then it feels like I was playing the stock market.
And this isn’t the same argument as the “why should people get free school when I had to pay student loans” since one doesn’t affect the other. In this situation, if the value of homes come down too significantly, it’s literally devaluing my work.
I didn’t create the horrible dystopian system we live in but I do unfortunately have to abide by its rules. And now that I have a tiny piece (on paper but owned by the bank) I am hoping (like most Canadians) to take that piece and cash out to retire on in 10-15 years time.
What I’d really like to see is some kind of national housing strategy that guaranteed people basic housing regardless of their income (even if it’s “zero”). That housing wouldn’t impact the market but it could slow down the unhealthy growth of the valuation of housing.
If we could totally slow housing valuation growth to the normal 2% inflation, while also creating affordable housing for lower income/no income earners, then the system could adjust and that could be a true win win.
Homes will never again be affordable because the system is completely broken (and not broken in the Millhouse expression, but rather in a normal definition). We made housing a commodity rather than a necessity of life and it ended with predictable results.
Now we have the unpleasant decision of diluting the investment of millions of Canadians or continuing to allow millions of Canadians to never own a home.
Send death threats, get locked up. Seems to make sense.