Right? This isn’t team sports…the conservatives losing is good…but the liberals winning isn’t.

We have to pay attention to what’s actually going on…which has been a continuous slide to the right since…and this is going to enrage Liberals…but since Mulroney who was the last Prime Minister (as abysmal as he was for his trade deals and social policy etc) who actually cared about using taxation as a tool to pay for things: like it or not the GST was good for Canada (broadly speaking, I would have much preferred the existing mechanisms been used, rather than an overlay added that was a pretext for the removal of corporate and luxury taxes).

“Had little problem passing their policies”? That ridiculous. We had a snap election because he didn’t want to pass their policies…got dragged kicking and screaming into watered down versions…and eventually had his government prematurely removed because he wouldn’t.

Carney is not passionate about the environment. He literally passed a bill that allows the private sector to ignore environmental regulation so they could build a pipeline, and he cancelled most of Trdueau’s environmental policy.

You don’t seem to understand they Carney is occupying the space Pollieve used to occupy, which forced Pierre to have even more extreme policy, and forced the NDP into oblivion because they abandoned their voters and tried to occupy the old Liberal space.

Should be noted that his justification is a lunatic the CIA hired and then brought back from Afghanistan.

I didn’t think it was real.

But there it was…the network who some right wingers will say is a leftist cesspool…engaged in full-blown end-stage capitalism.

I mean…it still seems like satire. The article talking about how using your phone for 22 months puts strain on the network because it has to become backwards compatible…or how the repair market is unregulated (ie a black market) and therefore damages the economy.

The obvious irony here is that if society were equal towards genders…we could pass one-size fits-all-laws, because it wouldn’t matter.

As I said somewhere many replies ago…I wouldn’t spend my energy advocating to take care of a problem that figuratively doesn’t exist, but rather for a problem that does. If men are top of your mind, sexual violence against men is underreported and a huge issue…that, ironically/tragically is tied to this issue.

Laws have never been passed to address issues that don’t exist, and have always been passed as a deterrent to an existing problem. You can wish it were another way.

Take note that I never called you hysterical…that came from you.

Up until point I don’t really know what you’re arguing, is all. Apparently coverage for a problem that doesn’t exist.

I’ve said it a few times, but at minimum the law highlights an existing legal and social problem. Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal, and removes language specific to who it’s trying to protect.

Sure, advocate for that, then…I don’t see the value in arguing against a law that, at worst, does nothing legally and creates awareness…like this conversation. I’m sure neither of us knew as much about the issue before as we do, now.

I don’t agree that it doesn’t change anything: it serves two purposes. First, the law has unique statutes when assessing culpability…second it serves as a public awareness tool, a deterrent, when the crimes happen - and all laws are ultimately intended to be deterrents.

You’re just saying “murder is murder is murder”, and that’s simply not how any court functions.

Yes, it matters. Women are different from men as are the motivations to murder each gender…given that men and women don’t always have the same power or role in western society, for example.

I’m just repeating myself at this point: generalizing a law designed to protect women could make it pointless. It’s just word games, and we’re talking about a very serious issue.

It’s not an “improvement” to remove language from people at risk, and add language from people functionally not at risk. Then you’d have a case where the law is potentially pointless, since it duplicates an existing law.

In other words: being motivated to murder somebody because they’re a woman is different to being motivated because they’re a man. You can advocate for a law that protects men, if you’re actually interested in parity…but legislatures don’t tend to pass laws to protect something that figuratively doesn’t happen.

I mean…ya…but this “quote” doesn’t appear to me to be talking about the wealthy…but rather addressing the notion that poor people and the unemployed have no value if they don’t have employment/can’t find better employment.

Could be wrong.

Femicide is a type of murder. You seem to just be playing word games. Culpability is important for justice. Different types are murder are treated differently…it’s not a complicated concept.

I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue at the end. There are a lot of important “pillars” when you’re dealing with real world issues. You don’t just focus on one/your preferred pillar or attack the other pillars…you work together to build more and buttress what you have.

There’s nothing interesting to me in this comment. You seem more concerned with semantics and self-assurance than engaging with the issue.

I said what I mean and I have nothing more to add.

Are you the layer for this commenter? “I know you are but what am I” doesn’t interest me, as a rhetorical tactic. Speak for yourself.

Yes, the law is discriminatory. Men and women are different, and we should discriminate between them in terms of culpability for murder - when appropriate. In this instance it’s appropriate because there’s an outsized number of women being targeted for their gender.

No, removing gender from a law designed to address a gender issue would discriminate against the gender it’s trying to protect. I’m guessing you were trying to say does it discriminate against men: no, it doesn’t.

No, thank you. I’m not interested in some random chart with no sourcing.

The first word in PPP is “purchasing”. It should be self-evident.

My comment wasn’t intended to be zero sum. Both countries have elements of socialism and capitalism…but one certainly “leans” more in the capitalist direction.

Again, making the law non-gender specific would be trying to protect a category that functionally doesn’t exist…and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect. It would actually do what some opponents are incorrectly speculating this law does to existing murder laws.

Are you advocating that we protect men from gender-based physical violence? Is this important to you? Your argument appears to be semantic and performative…rooted in a so-called “men rights” argument. The logical argument wouldn’t be to remove a law that’s needed, but rather add a law that specifically protects men…because women and men aren’t the same and they require unique approaches.

My approach, the humanist approach, would be: yes this is forward movement, and we can look at other categories that are also at risk. For example, if you were concerned about the safety of men you wouldn’t spin your tires on something that figuratively doesn’t happen and advocate for, say, additional laws to protect men from sexual violence (a category that is often ignored and woefully under-reported).

I absolutely agree. In my mind this is an example where people could be “yes-and”ing the law: Yes, female victims absolutely need more nuanced protection, and male sexual assault victims need more nuanced protection (for example).

The reason you don’t see a lot of these folks arguing for a men’s equivalent…is they know that it’s functionally not a problem…which also undercuts their own argument.

I can imagine…I work in poverty outreach and with at risk youth…I hear some grotesque things from across the spectrum.

I’m a full Reddit refugee…a few months ago I got a 3 day auto ban for directly quoting Worf from Star Trek. Not going back, this time…the time I was away from it made me realize what an enshitified mess it has become.