this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
271 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

9541 readers
902 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

I don’t buy into this whole narrative. There’s a 2023 study that shows very little change in men’s political views over the past four generations. It’s women, especially white women, who have swung hard to the left, and Gen Z women are twice as likely to call themselves “liberal” as Boomer women. Young women cited the following reasons:

“The #MeToo movement was a defining cultural moment for many young women, informing their views about the treatment of women in society. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was another formative event for many young women, who remained uniquely opposed to him throughout his presidency. Finally, the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that established a right to abortion, was a uniquely salient issue for young women, who identified it as their most crucial concern in the months following.”

The caveat is that this is an American study. But if we extrapolate to Canada, it’s women who are driving the gender gap between the LPC and CPC. Men are just as conservative as they’ve always been. The only difference between now and 1965 is that they’re all shouting about it on social media, whereas back then, they just bitched about it in bars.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Look, the only reason people start getting conservative, is when needs and wants start getting harder to acquire. Want to change that? then have affordable living make a come back. There's a reason why a decade ago people were more liberal, because shit was more affordable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

This is correct, but I'd just like to add, it's because conservatives always provide simple answers, to complex issues because they don't actually care about fixing anything.

Housing too expensive? It's the immigrants!

Food too expensive? It's the liberal regulations!

Taxes too high? We'll lower them!

Every issue, they provide a simple, yet absolute bullshit fix for, but it's easy to understand and for a simple mind, simple solutions are the answer.

Liberals have failed to make progress on these issues because in part there's corruption, ineptitude, but for the most part because the solutions required are complex and take a long time to fix. And no-one has the courage to say this shit is fucked and we need a fix that addresses all of the facets of the problem.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I've lived in a small rural prairie riding all my life. It's been not conservative one term in the last 40-50 years. The people who complain the most about Canada being broken are the ones who have owned their houses since the 90's and worked the same jobs for pretty much as long and have the health care system all their long lives and starting to collect cpp even while continuing to work, as long as it doesn't put them too much into the next tax bracket. They can't really explain how Canada is broken for them, beyond talking points. They can't really explain what they think Conservatives will do to fix the things they don't really know are wrong. They just vote conservative because liberal bad. The fuck Carney signs came out the day after he was confirmed as Liberal party leader. There was no time to formulate a hate for him, it was immediately implemented mindlessly

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sounds to me what you're saying is "people start getting conservative when they don't actually understand any economics at all"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

How long have the Liberals been in power? And did they do anything about the current cost of living crisis? They've had every opportunity to fix this situation but they haven't. There's a reason why a Conservative win was predicted before trump went off his meds.

DO I think Conservatives would do better in power? Hell no, but they were at least saying "hey, we'll fix this so you can live on your current wages again."

The fact that they were American Republican Lite didn't matter.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So because they're willing to say anything to get elected they're a better option? What have the conservatives actually done in the last 30 years to help working class Canadians? Are we supposed to suddenly trust them now that they realize they have to have actual policies instead of just 'hate this one guy'? Are we meant to ignore decades of Polivere's voting record?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The younger folks were, according to this post.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yes, but the question is why. Is it based on logic based reasons or due to the misinformation campaign? Because they think the current Conservatives will actually do anything to make substantial changes to address these issues or because idiots like Rogan and Mcleary tell them to hate the other side? Is it because they're not getting enough or just because someone else is getting something?

It's not like anybody is going to start building thousands of $500000+ houses and selling them at cost to the middle class. The only thing the feds would do to address housing would be to build low cost housing again. I can imagine how that would go over with the crowd we're talking about

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean they did a fuck of a lot more than Harper!! Do you REMEMBER what life was like under Harper?? PP isn't a clone of Trump. He's a protégé of HARPER, a controlling, paranoid little facsimile. All this shit with oppressive narcissistic control of the press is exactly how Harper behaved.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a reason why a Conservative win was predicted before trump went off his meds.

What

How long have the Liberals been in power? And did they do anything about the current cost of living crisis?

Man you are going off

Yes, people are shit ass at understanding economics. Neither liberalism nor conservatives are great at balancing budget. But conservatives sute as shit are a whole lot worse at it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yes, The Conservatives in polling were looking at a possible majority acording to then current polls. But once trump showed his ass and the Liberals didn't back down, the Liberals polling numbers went way up. It probably also helped that Justin ~~was forced~~ decided to stand down as the Party leader.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The problem is that something is missing and it's being filled by angry reactionaries and right wing grifters who prey on the particular insecurities of young men, specifically insecurities around masculine values.

What's missing is a foundational framework for understanding the male experience as distinct yet coequal to feminist theory. A framework that seeks to promote a balanced, respectful dialogue by articulating unique structures, values, and challenges faced by men, in order to offer a lens through which male identity, struggle, and transformation can be understood on their own terms, while upholding - acknowledging - the progress and insights of feminism.

These men feel like they don't have purpose or identity. They need a framework, but unfortunately efforts to define and build such a framework are often hijacked by extremists that just hate women and minorities. Like we see now.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Do we really need to make the framework different for male and female humans? Why not use one for humans and teach tolerance to difference in general? I don't think many of the issues we face will be solved if we keep two different frameworks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Chinese culture has the concept of 'eating bitterness' and it is universal. It's about being able to take the suffering, loss, pain, humiliation, and all the other bitter stuff that life can throw at you, enduring it, and building character, strength, and resilience out of it. It's a virtue. It's a universally admired trait.

North American culture is not great at eating bitterness. The culture here is more about eating sweet, or living the good life, and when people have to eat bitterness, especially those expecting to eat sweet, it is viewed as shameful and castigating rather than normal, and it easily turns a person towards grievance and a sense of injustice that makes them bitter inside instead of resilient and optimistic.

This is why I think men in North America, especially white men, have turned to characters like Jordan Peterson, or in worse cases, Andrew Tate. Jordan Peterson at least tries to help these men develop a sense of responsibility and strength that can be constructive and meaning- making. Guys like Tate, on the other hand, exploit their grievance to make them socially nihilistic. One is obviously much better than the other, but neither is a substitute for having a common social value place upon eating bitterness.

The "manosphere" gives aggrieved, frustrated, disappointed, and angry men stories to help them process their emotions, but they still rely upon self-centered and egotistical tropes like the hero's journey or misogynistic worldviews. These don't address the deeper and more universal reality that none of us (male or female) are heroes from Marvel movies, that deep, painfully-bitter experience is part of the common human journey, and that eating that bitterness with humility and without expectation of any award for being special, is a virtue that helps you develop character.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not from NA and I don't think that's specific to NA, I saw this in people from Western Europe, Northern Africa and Japan. Also whatever positive aspect of traditional culture there may be, everything seems to get crushed by the social media bulldozer consumeing hours a day from childhood.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The framework that is built from the oppression of women, and the challenges that arise from that, does not represent the lived experiences, challenges, or values of men. All too often it diminishes these. To move forward in a spirit of mutual understanding requires a recognition of what matters to men; i.e., what provides purpose and value.

I feel that you may be misunderstanding me. This is exactly about tolerance and acceptance - including acceptance that men and women have different lived experiences that are founded on different fundamental principles of what is important and what provides purpose. Is it really so difficult to accept that men might find purpose or value that differs from women? I don't believe there is harm in acknowledging that, and respecting a healthy understanding of that difference.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I don't deny that the current experience of life is different because of gender/sex. So I am rather talking about the target, a society without sexism.

Is it really so difficult to accept that men might find purpose or value that differs from women?

Yes, I am indeed questioning this point. Is this difference in the essence of the gender or is it a social construct?

For me, it's actually not hard to imagine that men and women could share the same distribution of purposes and values, if the environment in which they grew up supported it. The diversity would be based on the uniqueness of individuals with little to no influence from the gender.

I find it very oppressing to have the specific framework you mention associated to you because of your gender. What about transgender people or people who don't associate with a traditional gender?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

AFAB here and I agree 100% - the issue is that by elevating that which used to acceptably be oppressed, the primary oppressor feels that they have lost station and position as they see society as a ladder - if you aren't at the top someone else is above you. That kind of thinking makes this even more difficult to solve.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

AFAB = a female at birth AMAB = a male at birth

The More You Know

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

For the longest time, when I would see "AMAB" in someone's profile anywhere online, I thought that it stood for "All Men Are Bastards."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Agreed, masculists, especially the young ones, are mostly socially anxious and socially scared people who find shelter from their anxiety by oppressing another group. The solution is probably to work on this social anxiety from childhood.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

A lot of comments in here have real "I'd beat my kids" vibes, and that's kind of shocking and scary.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Social democracy let everyone down (by being neither social or democratic, thanks to politicians thinking about their rich friends) and now people are surprised that a generation started to believe that an authoritarian leader would be better.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

How did social democracy let everyone down?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Because right wing voters continued to exist to let it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Are you kidding? All crown corporations are getting privatized, they're intentionally destroying social services in order to justify giving more space to the private sector, they only built housing long enough to comfortably house boomers and X and then they gave up...

No it's not social democracy at this point, it was still sold as being it way longer than it actually was though and that's how people became sour to it. If you convince people that social democracy is them not being able to afford to live, they'll get hooked to the first alternative they find.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The reason I asked is because I feel that you are blaming social democracy and I think you are painting with too broad a brush. Capital should serve the state, the people, not the other way around. Social democracy is in part about strong regulations on capital. We need to stand by that and support it. Throwing it away cedes power to capital.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not blaming social democracy, I'm describing how people feel because they've kept being told that's what they were getting even when they weren't until they started to believe that social democracy was the problem to begin with.

We won't get social democracy with the choices offered to us either so what then?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

gestures broadly

load more comments
view more: next ›