I think it’s all muddled together. The capitalist economy, individuals emotional attachment to material things, having no sense of moral obligation towards the environment unless it’s self-centered (e.g. I like parks to go on walks, to take pictures there, therefore I like parks). We will never be able to convince the majority that we’re destroying our planet’s ecosystems in a futile quest for materialism, a quest that we were most of us conditioned to believe in from early childhood.

“No, we need those mines for our economy so that we don’t become a poorer nation!” All the while, we destroy what, I believe, is the most precious thing in this part of the world: ecosystems that have grown, evolved and survived for millennia. But because that has no value for the common person, who cares?

I will admit that I understand in part why some would want our economy to go at full speed extracting more resources, because they’ve been promised that it would bring jobs, security and material comforts. IMHO, that is just a naive mindset as we see the global economy being more and more centralized in the hands of a few owners. But who cares when you can buy a 40’’ screen for 500$ to watch Netflix all night, right?

Ah yes, investing, the thing that makes billionaires more powerful and that they control through investment firms. Good thinking!

Fighting what’s left of the workweek before I can celebrate with the Friday evening DND game.

Justin était bon pour faire des promesses (le scrutin proportionnel, de kessé?) et pour dépenser. J’en connais une couple de gars comme ça, super sympathiques et agréables, sauf quand vient le temps de réparer les pots cassés laissés derrière eux. Je préfère pas Carney. Ça ferait du bien si le NPD pouvait rentrer, même si je suis plutôt souverainiste. À date, Avi Lewis a l’air pas si mal.

Ça va être tellement abusé par le corps policier. C’est quoi la définition d’une insulte?

City councillor Carla Beauvais heavily criticized the administration for not providing clear definitions. She also questioned the lack of public consultations. “A threat can be proven. An offensive word is felt. And how a person feels can vary from one person to another. So where does the offence begin? Where does permissible anger end? The text doesn’t say,” said Beauvais.

She cited various decisions from the Quebec City municipal court in which judges could not agree on what constitutes an insult, raising concerns that the rule will cause a backlog at the courthouse.

Encore plus de raisons d’être stressé.e inutilement par la présence policière. C’était tellement l’enjeu qu’il fait réglér en priorité, tsé. Et le racisme systémique des agents de police? Aucune enquête du Bureau d’enquête indépendant qui a mené à des poursuites? La police qui attaque des journalistes lors des manifestations?

Je suis cynique, mais Soraya voulait le corps policier de son bord. Voilà, un peu de clientélisme et on passe au prochain dossier.

A homes first initiative with needs based assistance can work. in 2013 a study in Toronto was shown that the city spends on average 75K a year PER homeless individual. this included shelter costs, medical, and other resources. that’s 75K per person in YOUR tax dollars that went towards not solving anything. Providing housing + assistance would be massively cheaper in the long run.

We had a similar study done in Quebec : https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/chroniques/2026-07-16/etude-du-cirano/chaque-personne-itinerante-coute-77-600-par-annee.php

But often, that doesn’t work with the mentality that these people don’t “deserve” the help. So much for the “pragmatism” the same crowd argue for against the empathy and compassion that everyone deserves.