Drivebyhaiku

Admittedly the Liberals are not my party of choice but there still is validity for voting for the lesser of two bad options. Until we can address the first past the post system we are beholden to voting more against than for a given regime by reaching a sort of mutual concensus with our neighbours before we hit the polls. That representive voting system needs to happen elsewise we're stuck playing this dumb game.

But it's hard to compare even this party I am not terribly enthusiastic to to the Democrats when there's at least mediocre commitments to a number of decent causes toward reconciliation, reasonable commitment to the Kyoto climate accord targets, stated support of LGBTQIA+ causes and at least a lukewarm support of Palistine mostly expressed through refugee programs and a spineless condemnation of the atrocities and a recognition of two state authorities in the region. There's also a much more robust court culture and a wider swath of people in the party who at least demonstrate a desire for a properly pluralistic, secular society.

It's more useful to veiw the parties based on how they talk within their own parties because it's not a presidential situation. There's less unilateral moves to be made as a PM without party support is a lame horse. While I wish we would see wider endorsement of the NDP it's not traditionally a popular party in the field and there's way more swing between Libs and Conservatives.

The Liberals are trying their best to find a tasty middle ground for the "fiscal Conservative voter" to bite because strategy reasons. They put forward a candidate who is Albertan, Catholic, an outsider to politics with a lot of financial sector ties who pulls quotes from the era of the Quiet revolution and balancing government budgets for the discerning blue voter while the more leftist ones can chew on his ringing of alarm bells of wealth inequality, climate change and the lack of application of morals in the markets. He's been largely silent on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues which while always a little unsettling the previous admin left on a very openly queer friendly stance so while again, not ideal, all that currently is needed at present is just not undoing what's been done and supporting the stuff already in progress.

Is he everything we've dreamed? Not really. But it shows they are trying to build out a solid concensus candidate that a broad range of people can stomach.

Why are you trying to conflate Canadian Liberals and the Democrats? They aren't remotely the same party, the systems of government don't look anything alike and they aren't in cahoots.

And the Canadian Conservatives are fronting a guy who has stated his support of American style "Right to Work" legislation and other Americanizing government initiatives who went into politics immediately from going to school for international affairs against a guy who has spent years as Governor of two National Central Banks and created a number of international contacts across the Commonwealth in the international financial sector that can be leveraged and yet Conservatives are trying to paint themselves as "better for the economy". Pollievre has been utilizing anti gay anti queer dogwhistles in his rhetoric for the past ever as well. Fuck Right to Work bullshit and fuck anybody who wants to roll back civil protections. There's not a lot of places in the world as safe as Canada for queer people to exist so it's not like there's much better places to escape once the fortress falls.

I think they want to expunge groups because a monoculture is easier to control. If everyone fits into a couple of narrow boxes that all speak the same language, fulfill the same roles, have the same hard limits on expression and are all able-bodied, mentally tuned to function as desirable cogs in a machine you get an easily exploitable force. It's why they want all costs of maintenance and risk borne by the individual and more specifically the family unit which has the power to ostricize and disenfranchise on a micro scale. Pluralistic societies mean that the individual is supported by a culture of acceptance and those groups all run off of different rules which make demands of society. They want a society that makes very few demands but feels catered to thus earning higher levels of compliance.

While I don't doubt your stance comes from a history of trauma, policing any kind of identity in this way causes real trauma to others. It causes a pervasive sense of isolation that is antithetical to feeling supported and secure and puts a check on a person's ability to participate in their culture. Your lack of comfort does not mend leveling the playing field of stripping away the comfort of others if it is being expressed peacefully.

Bans also very become a very fuzzy line. Most holidays are based off of religious festivals that are widely participated in by the secular and non-secular alike. Once someone starts making exceptions because a wide number of people like a specific one you start creating an artificial canon where minority cultures are oppressed while a narrative of "dominant culture" is allowed giving certain religious traditions cultural supremacy. For example people inside the Church have been trying to get rid of the multitude of pagan festivals that were rebranded as Christmas for eons. They ended up just rubber stamping it because taking away something beloved doesn't go well. In a modern context you could try and rebrand Christmas to a non-religious holiday... But good luck. It's layers of Christian over Pagan imagery and traditions fused into a gastalt religious melange. Any governing body that has tried to get rid of it before has spectacularly failed and leaving it be would quickly become a symbol to people who come from places with different dominant partially seclarized religious traditions that they remain cultural outsiders who don't have the nessisary concensus to participate in public. It would translate directly into supremacy narratives.

It's healthier for a society by far not to police the range of peaceful human expression and connection. People deserve to see themselves represented and connect with each other without needing to act like undercover spies in hostile territory.

Nobody. Canadians are worried about a good old fascist... I mean fashioned war war.

I am less shocked and more resigned. Been tracking the progress of the Republican party over a decade now and watching them throw out euphemism after euphemism as they just aren't needed anymore. What the reaction of shock got us back then was "alarmist" since the Conservative playbook was so layered up in dogwhistles the average person thought it was tinfoil hat fodder.

The base was being groomed to accept this as an outcome and so they were slow boiled. It was that way for the Nazis too. Each terrible move wasn't quick it was the next horrible logical conclusion of their worldview of removing the "useless" aspects of humanity. They started first in government services and then with eugenics in mental health care while dismantling queer infrastructure in cities under the same eugenics line citing them as non-reproductive genetic dead ends. Then it turned to homelessness. Then as their policies created more "useless" classes of people in the form of minorities who could not legally work because of the laws they passed they turned to liquidation of those groups. Each step was followed by a pause to make the rhetoric more callus to build off the basic premise that as an able-bodied, regularly employed, sane, cishet, white, Christian / atheist that your resources were personally being stolen from you to feed the "undeserving".

How far back can you remember Republicans on their soap box about people being undeserving of assistance or support? About people being a waste of resources or campaigning to make those people easier to stigmatize? It shouldn't be surprising after over a decade that they've been dropping the mask.

They did a study and money can buy happiness but it caps out after the point it allows you chances to travel and take stress free time off. Being poor literally shortens people's lives through misery.

So what we have is a man whom money will make as happy as he will ever get and remains miserable plunging people into a deficit of security through his actions. He's infectiously miserable and someone needs to quarantine him.

Are you talking about the NATO shortfall? Because the Canadian government has a number of places where it is scrambling to find budget for a lot of things. Consider

• An expanded commitment to rehoming and financially supporting refugees from Ukraine. Processing and approving 962,612 submissions starting from 2022

• Reconciliation efforts with notoriously under served indigenous nations to improve dismal conditions of services support, locate and providing funding to document the Residential school genocide and providing better support to survivors.

• Reinvestment in one of the most challenging Public health care landscapes in the world due to the sheer landmass the government is constitutionally on the hook to cover.

• A history making sized population of people now reaching retirement age and requiring more drastic critical health interventions and social supports than ever before.

Static commitments like NATO spending are a bit like rent. If you are financially struggling through other financially challenging problems the landlord cannot often be convinced to give you a temporary forgiveness for extenuating circumstances. All of the above things are challenges that are either in service to international peace against the encroachment of Russia, the thing NATO was created to do, or they represent inflexible commitments the government has to serve the needs of it's people as written into it's own laws... But a NATO landlord has a contract with a number and the number doesn't change no matter what.

I know it's not the case because the studies basically are for a wider population set than just transgender people... But even if it weren't, even if it was to create a population of trans mice to use for experiments benefiting trans people; we need it.

People rag on about the possibilities of regret for the transitioned but it is so statistically rare that it really isn't a huge problem... but one of the actual risks of existing as a trans or intersex person is medicine in general doesn't test or teach for your population. Trans people are very often given entirely wrong doses of meds because of assumptions about how they should react to them. Rule of thumb is that the adage that for anyone on horomones "trans women are women, trans men are men" is basically the way to go. This is because if you treat an Assigned male at birth person on feminizing estrogen like you would a phenotyical cis man for purposes of dose chances are that you will give them too much. The drugs will linger in the paitents system just like drugs do for cis women and we already know that is a great way to cause unwanted damages to the paitents' organ function and for desired care outcomes to tank. There are also some meds and health conditions which do have unique presentations in populations with mixed sex characteristics and a more in depth understanding of the nature of sex and the body is how you get cool new things.

There is a largely empty hole in medicine where trans and intersex people are concerned and having an army of "transgender" mice to test against actually would be something of benefit. I know this is a generally unacceptable thing to point out to transphobes however because in a lot of ways they just want being trans to be riskier to force people away from considering being openly trans as a viable option.

These jabs are only vaguely in your direction. I have been aiming past you to people who are not shut down. You have decided to stay sidelined which I have said at multiple points, is fine. You do you. But what you keep doing is to try, quite transparently, to discredit the seriousness with which I am taking the situation by signaling to the people around me that inaction is noble. That what I am doing is shameful... That is my only problem with how you comport yourself because otherwise even those who are useless are fairly neutral.

But you aren't useless, you are taking this personally. You are throwing up your hands and crowing victim which is another silencing tactic well worn in circles that aim to keep the conversation going so the solve never comes. That isn't useless behavior , it is undermining tactics. This isn't about you. Get over yourself.

At this point this convo is so buried that the point has essentially passed so I will not continue. Goodbye.

Get used to there being a front line because as this gets worse these mediums of communication are going to get more action driven. You think it's overkill now but the more you get used to hearing other people calling for ACTUAL action the more you will see what it actually looks like and will know what you could be participating in. This is likely lost on you because at this point you are simply reacting to being checked.

Yesterday the US failed diplomatically at a fundemental level with allies who are key to policing the international waters and air between the USA and Russia. Don't be fooled. It is not just a trade war, it is a softening of US defenses as well. Priorities will be changing and depending they could change faster than you expect. If this follows the patterns of other historical conflicts we will all only learn how critical our time was at this stage in hindsight.

No APATHY is calling a call for further action moreso than the feather touch of resistance "being an edgelord" it's an attempt to shame someone into less vocal rhetoric so that people take what is happening less seriously. It's an attempt to shame people out of mobilizing.

You want to stay out of the frontline? Fine. Move to the rear and stay out of the way of the people who are showing up People who are taking classes in collective action or medic training, showing up to protests and getting arrested or helping their neighbours with minor acts of institutional sabotage. You don't get to shame on people taking this more seriously than you are.

We are so far beyond caring about toothless boycotts.