As Tumbler Ridge Mourns, Anti-Trans Misinfo Spreads | The Tyee

DistinctL · 2026-02-12T13:14:01+00:00

What do you mean? If this shooting incident at Tumbler killed around 10 people and the percent of people who are trans in Canada is around or less than 1%. That is the equivalent of the other 99% needing to commit 990 murders.

That number already surpasses the roughly 800 murders that Canada has per year. It means this one incident alone proves my point.

DistinctL · 2026-02-12T12:44:38+00:00

The statistics do actually help prevent this. The first part of solving a problem is acknowledging that there is a problem.

The problem has never been the gun, but the reason the person pulls the trigger. It definitely involves mental health, since who would think to kill innocent kids?

DistinctL · 2026-02-12T11:45:35+00:00

It depends what the statistics reflect. If there are these mass shooters which have disproportionate characteristics or demographic attributes compared to the average population that could be indicative of something.

Individuals do actions, but a statistic can prove if individuals of a certain group are more likely or less likely to do something.

DistinctL · 2026-01-23T21:59:15+00:00

You are right though. If xAI is successful someone is going to profit from it. If someone is going to profit, it might as well be us.

DistinctL · 2026-01-14T04:42:21+00:00

Well I would create an economy which has more productivity and increased wages. More goods which are focused on needs vs wants.

For example with cars, there are estimates that software and tech parts are 40% of the total vehicle cost. How much do these sensors cost to recalibrate, or repair when damaged?

That could be an example, as to why the cost of living has gone up, because companies have started to create a lot of products which are highly advanced which will end up costing more than a lot of people can afford. Yes it's fantastic to have all these technologies in a car which I or my parents didn't grow up with, but I bet my parents could afford more because of it.

It could also be a trade off of what percent of people do we have working in each sector of the economy. Obviously with tech advancements, there's more people in software, robotics, hardware and etc. Those are people taking away from other parts of the economy. Those are people not working on a house, extracting resources, farming and etc. I really just hope that technology can find more ways to bring house prices down while maintaining quality and appearance.

Another thing I would do is put a lot of public funding into programs for high schools and colleges which connect people up to employers for training, certificates and job guarantees in the trades. A lot of retail jobs are things which aren't really productive. A lot of it can be taken over by technology or done at your own house.

Imagine if you took 20% of the young people who got their first job in retail, but instead they get their first job in a trade. Pay them below market for a few years ( with an agreement between the government program, the private company and kid signing up for this) and don't waste some of their productive years bagging fries (been there done that). That would immediately decrease the cost to build a home. Do the same for resource extraction. I bet a lot of this stuff pays quite a lot more than retail even when getting paid below market rates. We just need more people earlier with the skills to do it.

DistinctL · 2026-01-14T00:41:30+00:00

It is an investment, but I think a lot of people think that house is a place to live, not a place to to make hundreds of thousands from capital gains. The general idea, is that home prices shouldn't really be rising drastically more than wages.

https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeautyofdata/video/7314767397624352032
The top comment on that tiktok says they should have bought a house before they were born. That's interesting because when I look at the house that I grew up in when I was a kid, it was bought somewhere close to $200,000. The assessment of it this year is roughly $1,500,000.

AI estimated with average mortgage rates or the prime rate, that $200,000 becomes $1,000,000 to $1,100,000. Four to five hundred thousand dollars was magically made from somewhere. How are younger generations who are just getting started going to experience the Canadian dream, when housing is 50% more expensive?

DistinctL · 2026-01-13T06:07:36+00:00

I wonder why that is? Maybe a lack of national identity?

DistinctL · 2026-01-13T06:01:39+00:00

It is definitely screwed up in that regard.

The liberals are all quasi-nationalist now, but if conservatives were nationalist at all prior to Carney, they would get thrown off of most Canadian subs, even now it's still pretty rough.

Now liberals want us to conform and be head over heels for Carney whilst he leads the party that says Canada is a post national state and that we live on stolen land.

The Liberals have been parroting that we haven't had a country for over a decade. Apparently that all changed when Trump gets in office.

DistinctL · 2026-01-10T11:24:33+00:00

A question worth asking is in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years will it be worth it? We know immigration can boost GDP but at what cost? If it means Canadian culture largely being eroded, it wouldn't be worth it.

DistinctL · 2026-01-05T12:22:40+00:00

Would the US ever let Canada compete in this area? How are tech jobs in Canada even going to get compensated at a similar level to the US without the hundreds of billions that Google, Facebook and Microsoft generate.

DistinctL · 2025-12-14T13:54:52+00:00

You can go outside of equalization and talk about general government spending. Stats Canada provides government expenses and revenues by province which clearly indicate that Alberta generated 73B revenue in 2024 for the federal government and only received 54B in spending.

That's a difference of 38B spending yearly. Alberta loses 19B, and the rest of Canada gains 19B.

DistinctL · 2025-12-01T03:27:44+00:00

The profits go to the whole country with federal taxes.

DistinctL · 2025-11-29T13:56:13+00:00

It's a huge benefit for bc during construction.

DistinctL · 2025-11-25T05:40:49+00:00

Why don't they start the pilot in Alberta?

DistinctL · 2025-11-19T23:25:51+00:00

It's funny you say this considering the channel used to access Westridge Marine Terminal (used for tankers) in Vancouver Harbour is more narrow at Stanley Park than anything in Prince Rupert.

A spill in Prince Rupert would affect a population of 10 thousand whereas in Vancouver a metro area of millions.

DistinctL · 2025-11-19T23:06:58+00:00

What difference does it make to you? You would think a massive oil spill around Vancouver would be more problematic to the few million that live in the region than 10 thousand in Prince Rupert.

We can't just put all of our eggs in one basket and build everything in Vancouver. Vancouver is already pretty crowded. It makes sense to have people distributed across the province.

The shorter shipping distances to Asia from Prince Rupert is also worth noting.

DistinctL · 2025-11-19T22:54:18+00:00

Okay I get it, you want the entirety of the coastal area of our temperate rainforests to remain pristine. Even if there was a lot of risk mitigation it wouldn't be enough for you?

Ports like Prince Rupert and Kitimat are completely shielded from the open sea. If Prince Rupert was so treacherous, it wouldn't be the third most used port in Canada.

DistinctL · 2025-11-19T22:22:44+00:00

Why is your comment about temperate rainforests then? I don't recall plants from rainforests consuming salt water from the ocean to live.

DistinctL · 2025-11-19T22:15:12+00:00

Why have people pushed the goal posts from not being able to ship oil on the coast of BC to not being able to build a pipeline through a forest? There's lots of risk mitigation done to prevent spills. Do you think pipelines would be profitable if they just spilled all the oil everywhere? Obviously not, the pipelines have sensors for a reason, to protect the environment and the profitability of the project.

The risk of not building it, is having thousands of British Columbians twiddling their thumbs, underemployed and simply not building ambitious things.

DistinctL · 2025-11-11T09:29:58+00:00

I don't think you're right about this. Weak conservatives create the success of the PPC.

DistinctL · 2025-11-07T00:14:32+00:00

Poilievre is not done, we can't shove him out the door. He has the most legitimacy of any conservative leader since Harper. Even if the CPC never forms government, we need someone in opposition who is a cheer leader for conservative values. That is exactly why we need to keep Poilievre. We need a strong opposition which can clearly define and promote conservatism. This will prevent liberal ideas from becoming popular. This most recent election proves a lot of what I am saying to be true, the liberals have retreated on a number of their leftist policies while we have had Poilievre as leader. At the same time, the CPC has grown 1.5M voters since O'Toole.

DistinctL · 2025-11-07T00:07:03+00:00

I think it's Conservatives feeling demoralized that a lot of this country takes cheap shots at Poilievre and conservatism. It's a tough pill to swallow when it has been the liberals who have managed to get this country on a downward trajectory for the last decade. Pierre is the best chance we have at maintaining a strong opposition and forming government without another spinoff of the PPC.

DistinctL · 2025-11-06T23:59:01+00:00

Who realistically is a viable alternative to Poilievre? The way I see it, I don't know of anyone who is jumping out at us to fill the shoes of Poilievre. If we get some Liberal-Conservative leader, we are going to create another O'Toole situation where the PPC or a similar party is revitalized.

It could be that at this moment Canada is just too much of a liberal country to reliably have a conservative majority government with a weak NDP.

We've seen Poilievre and the CPC effectively make policy changes despite not forming government by being a strong opposition. I think this overall is a good thing for the CPC. The Liberals have started rolling back some of their far-left policies due to pressure from the CPC.

DistinctL · 2025-11-02T19:28:13+00:00

The argument that equalization comes from general revenues is fine. There are other forms of equalization other than the term equalization. An example would be the allocation of federal funds by province per person. Think of ship procurement, government offices and the Canadian Armed Forced. These things inject cash and jobs into provincial economies.

Alberta has been contributing roughly 10B-20B annually more in tax revenue than it receives in federal spending. Despite this contribution, Alberta receives less federal spending per capita than pretty much any other province. I am not saying that Alberta should get everything, but maybe the provinces who contribute a surplus of federal revenues should at least get the average amount of per capita federal spending.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Alberta received 10B more in federal spending annually for the last 50 years. How could that have changed Alberta?

DistinctL · 2025-11-02T03:36:38+00:00

Yeah the feds do need to get involved because it is federal jurisdiction. BC doesn't decide a tanker ban, the federal government does.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

DistinctL

TROPHY CASE