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.
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.
We shouldn’t but here we are.
What else can we do?
By the way, news companies are also run by maniacs.
But it’s paradoxical. You need population increase to support increasing costs, yet increasing population creates a strain on the finite resources of the planet.
I acknowledge you said this ignoring the capitalism issues, but if you didn’t ignore it then it wouldn’t really be an issue. We have the wealth to handle this if we had the political courage to force an equitable society.
Believe it or not, Canada was once a population much lower than 40 million people and we managed just fine. The idea that populations cannot contract is a harmful concept because it forces acceptance of the paradox that we can infinitely grow in a finite world. And this always relies on the use of technology to overcome this. So, instead of reducing the population to the point where automobiles wouldn’t need to be electric, we increase the population and try and find green solutions.
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.
Given we need foreign workers to shore up the shortfall we’re expecting to see
No we don’t. You’re buying the capitalist dogma that says infinite growth at any cost. Canada could shrink to 8 million people, like Austria. There would be no problem with that whatsoever.
Thanks for contributing nothing intelligent
Immigrants are at least partly to blame for the pressures. I mean, it’s impossible they’re NOT impacting the cost of housing. If you add 400,000 people to a country and do not add 400,000 units of new housing that year, you’re in a deficit. It’s Grade 1 math.
But what is genuinely to blame is a cogent political strategy to house Canadians. We can’t just leave it to the private sector to maximize profits. We can’t expect homeowners to make secondary suites. We can’t do nothing.
Cutting immigration is a sure-fire way to prevent over-demand for a scarce resource. It may sound right-wing but that’s the way it goes.
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.
it’s just pathetic that in 2023 we still consider AC to be a luxury when heating is mandatory. All humans require climate control for both extreme heat and cold. AC isn’t and shouldn’t be a luxury.
I.e. you see your home as an investment from which you expect to see a positive return, but now you are afraid that it may lose some of that value.
No, I don’t see it as an investment. The way the system works sees it as an investment. We’ve created a system whereby housing is overvalued because it’s meant to have inflationary payoffs.
My parents didn’t see our home as an investment. They just bought homes at random that were close to where they worked and seemed good for kids.
There’s no option for me to buy a place that isn’t an investment because that’s the very nature of the market.
Send death threats, get locked up. Seems to make sense.