Reminds me of a date with an Asian X, to a Chinese restaurant. We get seated, waitress comes by with chopsticks for my date, knife and fork for me. I shrugged, but my X went and got chopsticks from the waiting station for me cause she was pissed off at the blatant racism. I admit if the races were swapped, it’d likely get branded something like a ‘micro-aggression’ of racism I guess? idk.

But there are quite a few places where white folks get that sorta thing, its almost always quite benign.

Yep. I’ve middle aged coworkers who are saying quite emphatically that they can’t imagine retiring in tech – they know they’ll need to move to another industry well before retirement, in part because of AI reducing the need for certain skillsets. They also know they’re too old to be considered a ‘good hire’ due to ageism in tech. Most seem to have made plans to try and move on to something relatively low skill for the last part of their working lives. I know one of their plans is to do a food truck.

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?

Put effort into finding someone as a romantic / life long partner while you’re young. Be critical and aggressive in the search (ie. don’t just “be open and let things happen if they happen!”).

Most of the systems and life goals of society are tied to having two people or more in the family unit. Ideally aim for a partner that has similar economic outcomes as yourself, or at least positive ones overall, and who’s personality is tolerable / you can see yourselves staying friends indefinitely. If you’re a reclusive sort, find someone else who also values their space but is still willing to comingle finances/lives. Doing this young is important as there are more options and it’ll generally be easier to find people that ‘fit’ with your lifestyle. Finding someone close to you in age also helps to keep your life-events (such as whether to have kids, when to retire, etc) better aligned.

Everything from paying off mortgage debt, to income tax breaks, to even just having a secondary “fail safe” income stream from your partner, are really significant. Heck, with the right partner you even cut down the costs of things like Groceries (can buy in bulk = savings), chore-times, etc.

The younger you get that leverage, the better the results later on. Consider something like the time crunch many adults feel, between work, chores, sleeping, etc. If you have a solid partner, you can do something like alternate chores and workouts, so that you both maintain better overall health as you age. Eg. one partner does a workout while the other buys groceries/cooks, then the first partner does the cleanup and some light cleaning around the house while the other hits the gym. Having that sort of balance in your 20s / early 30s, will give you a better chance of maintaining your health into your 40s and 50s. There’re good reasons why single people die younger.

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.

Fairly sure this was predicted months ago, with the triggering event being the recent elections that were swept by the dems. The prediction was basically that if it looked like they were going to lose control of any of the houses, there’d be a ton of people trying to put distance between themselves and the govt as there’s a higher likelihood they’ll get prosecuted for crimes. So the early resignations, and attempts to “apologize” are mostly just about trying to avoid accountability for their actions – rats fleeing a sinking ship.

For me personally, yeah, it wouldn’t work. As others noted, it needs to be reciprocal attraction for sex to really feel good / get you that endorphin hit. Based on the number of replies noting it, it seems fair to say that men’s needs aren’t just a matter having an orgasm.

Prolly better off looking for an asexual guy to partner with.

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

I dunno, I can’t get quite as outraged over indirect deaths caused by essentially pulling back on charity to foreigners. It’s about one step off from accusing western nations of being responsible for all the deaths in North Korea, just cause the west didn’t directly intervene.

The general population of the USA is not that concerned with foreigners / international politics and issues. If the politics of the states is meant to reflect the will of the people, them opting to refocus their funding / efforts to domestic areas isn’t that surprising or off brand.

Yes, other people, especially the prior beneficiaries of that charity, will view it as ‘wrong’. But they’re hardly an unbiased stakeholder. Like yes, this likely diminishes the USA’s soft power globally… but the states doesn’t really care about that anymore anyhow. Having a ‘land’ buffer zone between them and other geopolitical powers was beneficial in yester-years war dynamic. Now it may be much less important for them to maintain – especially if the rest of those countries are so neutered that they can’t realistically defend their own sovereignty, be it militarily, culturally, or otherwise.

Oh, yeah, our housing situation is an absolute gong show. I’m “hopeful” that our current govs push for a kind of modular/prefab evolution will help, but it’s really not clear how that’ll pan out, or when – and most of their “major projects” that they’re pushing for, are still about building infrastructure for corporations to extract resources to foreign partners, not so much about building up Canada itself, so there’s good reason to be skeptical of it all. Like even the Small Nuclear reactors they’re promoting, are made by US companies and are reliant on US fuel sources, which is absurd.

But this is basically a thread responding to a commenter’s take on how immigration should be entirely dependant on job acquisition – get a job in Canada? Boom, you’re Canadian. Get a job in the US? Boom, you’re American. The point of my previous comment isn’t so much to highlight/critique “Canadian” or “Chinese” policies on housing and income tax, but rather to point out that there are differences that make the commenter’s take unfeasible in my view. I’m just familiar with the Canadian/Chinese variance as it’s been an issue that Canada’s failed to address adequately for years.

Issues with Chinese immigrants are well known and documented, literally with immigrant families openly exposing their own community’s rampant fraud methods to our supreme courts, because “that’s just how its done in Canada!”.

Paying a little bit of sales tax on modest purchases, is not sufficient to sustain social support programs. Taxes are paid in various ways, and yes, there’s a minimal contribution made by the non-earning people staying in Canada, but it’s not enough to offset the costs of providing social support services to the extended family.

I don’t think I mentioned the pension program specifically, that’s on you. When I 'm mentioning old age social supports, there’s more than just ‘old age pensions’ in Canada (heck, there’s CPP and OAS, so two direct payments in terms of ‘pensions’ even) – the universal healthcare system is another example. The cost of that system increases significantly for the older demographic, as people become more reliant on pills/medications. There’s a reason a bunch of seniors from the states, in the past at least, would buy prescription meds in Canada, for example – and that’s tied to us having a government funded approach to providing those medications (the US medi-tourists are basically leeching off us). The basic premise of the system is that, generally, working age adults who have less reliance on the healthcare system, fund it via taxes, with the expectation that it’ll be there when they need it (generally when they’re older).

We do have a problem with frauds and abuse, but the system can tolerate some fraud and abuse. If the ops approach were adopted, we’d have rampant fraud and abuse. The system can’t tolerate rampant fraud and abuse. I don’t think this sort of statement requires me to go into absurd detail to justify/demonstrate, frankly, and I’m not going to bother further.

For years I used to do Soylent for a bunch of meals per week. I stopped when there was a postal strike / delivery issues for it in Canada, and with the US’s recent trends I haven’t really tried to renew subscriptions to it on “fuck you for saying 51st state” grounds, but it was a pretty good product.

The powder option is about $60 for 35 meals, about $2 per meal. Broadly provides about 1/4 daily nutrition per meal, 1/4 daily calories per meal (they assume 4 meals per day if I remember right). It’s also delivered to your door, so no fussing/time spent with grocery shopping. And practically no dishes/cleanup or prep time.

It’s not too ‘fun’, in that all meals basically taste the same. But it’s simple, consistent, scientifically nutritionally balanced.

Canadians who move abroad for a long time lose their insurance, but it’s not tied explicitly to the fact that they don’t pay a sales tax. They also tend not to report their income / pay income taxes to Canada if working outside of Canada (unlike in the states, where they expect taxes to be paid from every citizen no matter where they are in the world).

People who move to Canada, can currently get insurance coverage as part of immigrating to the country, which generally means staying in and working in Canada for an extended period as a PR to start. During that time they’re paying income taxes and sales taxes etc.

The ops comment implies that it should be like a light switch that is tied to your employment. There’s a reason there’s a process to immigration flows.

Or china has a property tax/income tax problem.

The variance is why the approach the op commenter hints at doesn’t make sense.