Dearche

I'm not denying the need for them for women, or that it's greater, or that there are also issues with the existing shelters or anything. It's just that half the entire country's population is denied a form of emergency service just because it's less critical for them.

Look, I did a quick search, and found listings for womens' shelters that maxed out the listings I found in several different cities. More shelters than the service I used could show. But there are zero such services for men? Across the entire country? When 20% of reported cases are for men?

Look, I'm just trying to say that why isn't there at least one per province or something? Why isn't there a single half-baked part-time shelter anywhere in the entire country? It's a complete abandonment of an entire demographic compared simply being underfunded. It's like if there was zero funding going towards prostate cancer because breast cancer research was a higher priority.

It's the difference between trying your best with what little you got against not even trying at all because you have differing priorities. One is a sad story, the other is abandonment, and that's what I think is so terrible about it.

More affordable for high use, sure, but this article is speaking about for emergency use, which means that you'll almost never use it. Besides, the smallest version of Starlink still requires you to carry a laptop sized satellite antennae, compared to internet phone which is literally just a mobile phone the size of some of the early bar phones. One you can carry in your pocket at all times, the other useless unless if you're with your car at minimum along with any other devices needed to make it work.

Besides that, latency matters for shit in this case anyways.

The only use for Starlink that isn't serviced by more traditional means is high speed high bandwidth internet, but it doesn't make any sense why the province should give Adolf Musk any money to do so, let alone a tenth of a billion. People who want that service can pay for it themselves while the province can provide something more suited for lower level or emergency use that costs only a fraction the price and doesn't require signing with an overgrown child that manically laughs as he helps put his own country into the toilet.

But it's hard to argue that the driver isn't a participant considering that they'd be within touching distance and in no way blocked off from the conversation. Even without actually saying anything, the driver was a passive particapant, or at least it would be argued that way if it ever went to court.

Since only one side needs to give permission to record, and since that permission likely can be taken in the EULA, no matter how scummy it is, this most likely isn't illegal. It's like claiming that a a porch camera can't record a crime because the camera's owner wasn't a direct participant of the crime.

Starlink isn't the only satellite phones and internet available in Canada, not to mention all the alternatives you could get.

For example, how about cell towers? If the government paid for them, then no individual company can monopolize them, so anybody could get access to their use.

Not to mention that Spain's setting up their own satellite internet services as well Starlink style, so why pay the Trumpist when we can pay an actual ally that hasn't blatantly betrayed all their alliances and agreements?

I don't agree that's the point of DV shelters. The entire point of them is to be a way for victims to be separated from their abusers. It's entirely a short term solution to a long term problem, but it's a step that is needed to be able to have a long term solution, regardless of the gender of the victim. Not being separated from the abuser means that the victim is primed to further abuse, or be convinced that escape is impossible.

All the other services are available to both genders for sure, but that's because most of it isn't DV specific in the first place (putting aside divorce lawyers at least).

The issue I'm saying is that the first step is the most crucial and virtually a prerequisite towards a solution, yet there are zero facilities for men in the entire country? Maybe it's different now, but at least it wasn't in 2013, though I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know. But you would think that at a minimum, there should be at least one such facilities in every major city in the country, right? Even if can only handle two or three people at most, with a part-time assistant to help the victims.

There's a massive difference between being underfunded, and having zero resources, and that's what I think is the biggest problem. It's not about being poorly funded, or poorly serviced, but a complete absence that's the same as saying that this isn't an issue, despite police reports themselves saying that it certainly is.

Apparently in some parts of that state, prices have dropped by half already. The same is happening in Texas, and a few other states, though admittedly the trend had started last year. Hard to imagine how bad it is right now after Trump.

I'm not arguing against the idea that shelters should be gender specific, or that most shelters should cater to women. Statistically, 80% of all DV reports are made by women, though studies suggest that only 50% of DV cases the woman is the victim.

But even ignoring that, it's major problem that there are zero shelters for men in the entire country. 20% of all reported cases have no system in place to protect the victim of DV. That's insane. It's like a city having a boil water advisory, but bottled water not being available because all the shipments were diverted to another larger city.

No amount of equipment or expertize matters when there's no money to do work. Evergrand was billions in the hole and many of its employees hadn't been paid in months before going bankrupt. Not only that, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of condos that are unfinished due to the bankruptcy, and that means that tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are more than a million in the hole with nothing to show for it. Their entire life savings, along with their retirement plan is gone, along with thousands instantly out of work.

This is the sort of things that major recessions are built from, and has repeatedly in the west. Unless if you can pinpoint a specific reason why China is immune to such disruptions, it is only willful blindness that can explain China as not being in a recession because of it.

And as for the factories, they're not being built, they're being abandoned. For example, Foxconn city (forget its actual name) shut down and moved to India. A city of close to a million people disappeared and was abandoned because the only employer moved out of the country.

You're the one blindly following propaganda if you're ignoring such obvious signs of an economic downturn, because "the government said things were good", like how Trump's been saying that the "tariffs will make everything better".

Well, capitalism itself is an incentive structure. Profits over everything else, and all that.

But because capitalism fundamentally doesn't incentivizing making life better (in fact, it's so short sighted that it benefits more from misery than happiness), you need external forces to force incentives that align with benefiting humankind. To maximize happiness rather than misery is part of the role of government, as governments are beholden to its population, and its population is most incentivized to strive for happiness.

This is why things fall apart and become dystopic when governments stop fearing its population and instead fear the corporations that line the pockets of politicians.

Argue all those points. Each one hits a different group, so cater your message to the group you're talking to. Parents to the withdrawal of public school and daycare funding, climate change to young voters, the privatization of healthcare and how private healthcare is several times more expensive wherever public healthcare doesn't exist to older people and those with illnesses like diabetes, the fact that they hate non-standard heteros for LGBT.

The Cons only exist for hypercapitalists, so simply tell people the thing that they're worried about the most and how the Cons will actively hurt their greatest interest. They even hate resource workers, because despite Alberta being the richest province in the country, the people are some of the poorest because all the money gets taken away from the workers and put into the pockets of billionaires due to having some of the lowest tax rates in the country.

To be honest, it's all about incentives. If you shift regulations to make the most incentivized system to be based around the greatest amount of pleasant housing, they would do that. But they didn't in the early days, and now the strongest forces to prevent such regulations from being implemented are property owners that fear anything that'll devalue their property that they expect to double in value every ten years, many of whom are betting their entire retirement fund on that outcome.

If regions did something like, say, give a tax break for every housing unit built in every project, you'd get a city with nothing but 50 story studio apartments/condos. Not like this is good, but the theory itself is sound.

It was, but that was also, what, 20 years ago? Sentiment has changed massively and now the numbers are closer to 30%. The Bloc doesn't even talk about separation issues anymore because it tends to reduce support whenever they do. Though it is still part of their mandate last I heard.