patatas @ patatas @sh.itjust.works

previous lemmy acct: @smallpatatas@lemm.ee

---

Read more

Posts

11

Comments

106

Joined

1 mo. ago

Look, I'm just explaining the position as I understand it. I'll also note that there are a great many advocates for a one-state, equal-rights solution that most certainly do know what they're talking about.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here but a one-state solution is not necessarily a question of "which ethnic group controls the state". The anti-apartheid, anti-genocide advocates for a one-state solution generally argue for full rights for all citizens and a secular administration, if I'm not mistaken.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/frustration-gaza-alarm-drove-macron-go-it-alone-palestine-recognition-2025-07-26/

I think the issue people are having is that this tweet from the PM does not appear to represent any kind of change in policy.

In fact just yesterday, Reuters reported that Canada and the UK were asked by Macron to join France in recognising Palestinian statehood but refused: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/frustration-gaza-alarm-drove-macron-go-it-alone-palestine-recognition-2025-07-26/

You know exactly what you're doing. Go away. Genocide denial not welcome here.

The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination.

Go deny genocide and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights somewhere else.

Al Jazeera is reporting that Macron asked the UK and Canada to join France in recognising Palestinian statehood but neither were willing.

Obviously I very much hope that we do, but I agree, the above tweet does not indicate that we're about to do so.

https://aje.io/f4w0aa?update=3858483

Edit: found the original Reuters report https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/frustration-gaza-alarm-drove-macron-go-it-alone-palestine-recognition-2025-07-26/

Saw another post of an article (from Middle East Eye Monitor) with a conflicting report claiming that Canada will be recognising Palestinian statehood, however the PM's tweet that the report is based on doesn't seem (to me at least) to mark any policy shift by the Canadian government.

I hope they do, but it's not real until it happens. Keep calling your MP, keep being loud

Didn't even know that alternative apps were possible until I saw this post, thank you!

Spouse and I got an Echelon bike in 2020 and the worst thing about it was that you can't use it without internet connectivity. Thankfully we hadn't done any app/firmware upgrades for a while, and now we don't have to worry about that at all :)

That is fantastic to hear! Thanks.

Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.

I agree! The correct number is 21 billion, not trillion. Don't worry, you were only off by a factor of 1000!

$21B is about 1/8th of what Carney is proposing to spend annually on defence.

Absolutely doable.

Appreciate the update, thanks

You're right, we should nationalise their operations instead

Perhaps cities, provinces, and/or the federal government could buy up those properties instead of corporate landlords. Then they could charge geared-to-income rent instead of whatever the market will bear.

Amazing the things that one can come up with when one stops thinking only in terms of housing as a commodity

@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn't just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.

That constitutes deliberate misinformation.

If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of "civility" for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.

@otter@lemmy.ca if it is "uncivil" to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?

and yet I'm getting comments removed for calling out people for disinfo who are deliberately muddying the waters around these cuts. Shameful moderation

This was great, although I definitely already agreed with much of what was said!

My main takeaway is that neither 'degrowth' nor 'communism' are sufficient on their own to address planetary crisis in a just way.

A large obstacle to change is described quite well, I think, by Quinn Slobodian in various recent podcast interviews (This Machine Kills, The Dig, and others) where he talks about how workers in different sectors are pitted against each other in order to maintain the capitalist/growth status quo.

So, personally I feel like the only viable route to a degrowth communist or 'ecommunist' society is a concerted effort among union leaders and membership to take a vigorously internationalist approach.

If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:

I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.

That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.

Uh huh, and here's what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:

Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.

“Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.

You're not arguing I'm good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you're willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.