When the Nazi’s came to power in Germany, they had less support amongst the public than the republicans do today.

If you think it fair to hold all of Nazi germany accountable for the atrocities that went on, there’s no reason to pretend America is some “special” exception. Germans take responsibility for their past, with things like banning AFD – even if a German can legit say “It wasn’t me gassing those jews”, they still recognise they were responsible for what occurred as a result of their inaction and apathy. In the US, like 30% of them didn’t even bother to show up and vote. Apathy is no excuse, and not worthy of absolution. They literally elected a felon and a rapist.

Regardless, I still stick by the reduction in visits and the on going boycotts aren’t about making them “realise our value” or whatever. It’s a visceral recoil experienced on an aggregate scale, to the vitriolic bile being spewed by the people they elected, targeted quite literally at all of us here in Canada. If someone vomits on you constantly, you move the fuck away – and it isn’t about “wanting to make them miss you”. It’s about the vomit.

I agree with a chunk of this, but your note about ‘reminding them at large of our value’ is off. Most people I talk to here in Canada look at the issues in the states as basically untenable in terms of stability / trade / geopolitical unity. Supporting Russia, attacking their allies/threatening to militarily annex peaceful democratic areas like greenland, putting up BS reasons for trade tariffs (fent). The USA is a schizo trade partner at best, where for 4 years with the dems it may be ‘normal’, but when it flips repub its suddenly xenophobic dictator land, with less stability in its agreements than a third world military dictatorship – at least those deals tend to last until the next coup, whereas Trumps agreements change based on his dementia; his administration has become comfortable with making up totally fake numbers even, which can change based on how they want to present the fake narrative about why they’re doing whatever stupid crap they’re doing. And there’s no assurance it’ll go back to a ‘stable’ dem setup for four years next time around – the way it’s trending, the dems will be locked up, with all their funding methods declared unamerican by EO, similar to the shakedown of the law firms that’s happened recently as reported by 60 minutes.

If you live next to a family in a mansion, and they suddenly start flying a Nazi flag, beating/deporting their own maintenance staff (sometimes their own family too, by mistake), and screaming about how they’re gonna take your house, you don’t pull back on visiting as a way to ‘remind them’ of your value. You pull back because WTF, no. And if you can’t move, and they were your main contact locally, you start lookin for other friends / buying guns and protection. Again, not to remind them of your value, but because fuck no.

heh, your edits are kinda hilarious when you note that the position you’ve ‘agreed’ with has just ~15 upvotes, while the two noting its a ‘dangerous by default’ thing each have like 50 or 100 upvotes. Men gave you their perspective, and you choose to ignore it. Most guys agree on what that sort of behaviour typically is – and even if it is the left over covid habit, that’s still a “this person is wearing a mask and likely wants to stay distant from others, I should walk in the mud because they’ll think I’m a threat if I get too close”… is still in the ball park of walkin in the mud cause he wants to show he’s not a threat.

A large number of men have internalised all the negativity expressed in the media about our gender over the last few decades. Lots of the ones who’ve resisted / refused to do so, have gone the extreme right / alpha male BS route, trying to aggressively push back against it in a rather sad way. I reckon its partially because progressive / left leaning approaches don’t typically allow for any dissenting voices on things like gender, and are heavily influenced by feminist ideology: masculine sexuality and traits are the enemy. Caucasian males in specific, is one demographic that’s always pretty safe to dunk on in pretty well any scenario.

I’d phrase it a bit differently though, I think, in that its more risk avoidance than threat internalization – even if one follows the other. Like I know guys who get anxiety if they’re asked to work a shift with just one other coworker (female) on site - I’ve had the same concerns personally. It’s not because we think we’ll slip up and accidentally assault the woman or something. It’s that we’re worried we’ll say something / do something that the woman will take offense to, there’ll be no witnesses to support our side, and the standard of today is “believe the victim (if its not a male victim)”. Avoiding being in that situation/getting anxiety over it, isn’t an internalization of being a threat, so much as it’s wanting to avoid the potential risk of something that’s shown in many media circles constantly.

Nodding hello and saying good morning / afternoon is something I reserve typically for older men, usually white or asian. Any other demographic tends to net a negative response more often than naught. Like imagine if every other person you said “hello” to quickened their pace to get away from you or shot you nasty looks – you’d prolly stop doin it too. I’ve even had X’s who said they thought that behaviour was an attempt to ‘pick them up’, which I definitely don’t want to mis-convey. I still say it back if someone says it to me, but I can’t initiate without it re-enforcing a negative male stereotype. That pleasantry was killed off like a decade or more ago, in part because the onus to maintain it shifted away from men… and women didn’t really want to take the step to keep it goin. I mean, you didn’t exactly say “g’mornin” to the mud walker guy to let him know it’s all good, did you? ;p

Progressive feet and hand numbness… sounds like untreated diabetes to me, based on symptoms I remember when my dad first got it. Definitely get checked / a docs input. Untreated, you can literally lose toes/limbs. I’d even consider starting to eat a diabetic diet while I waited for an appt, to see if it improved the situation.

As for the sex stuff, as an older guy, I reckon the bigger part is to find a partner you want to live with outside of the sexy-time stuff as a priority in general. Everyone ages and their bodies change, physical stuff is important but its not enough to maintain a longer term meaningful relationship, in my experience at least – and ultimately, the time spent boning is a tiny fraction of the time you’d be spending with the other person in the long run. To add to that, I’ve had relationships in the past where we didn’t do much of the direct penetration stuff, but I still found it really… rewarding? titilating? gratifying? … just making her eyes roll back / bite me as she climaxed and then collapsed exhausted. The endorphin release from intimacy isn’t just about getting your rocks off, in some ways the feeling of knowing you can drive your partner nuts is better – to me, that’s what makes me feel ‘virile’, more so than simply fucking/orgasming myself. Biggest issues there was just making sure she understood I didnt feel a need to orgasm myself everytime we were together, so long as I rung her bell thoroughly.

Sure, though that’s part of the problem that the States is whining about. US taxes paid for the service, which lots of other nations/foreign companies used.

Things like Libraries require taxes to operate. You’d likely be annoyed if you were struggling, and then found out your gov was using your taxes to pay for a bunch of foreign countries to have libraries. And then you find out that those foreigners are able to use those libraries to make good money, which they don’t use to support their libraries, cause the States is already covering it. So you’re paying taxes, and struggling to do so, so that EU companies can reap profits and live comfy.

And yes, charge a fee. That’s basically what I’ve said, no? That there’s a value add, and that there are ‘professionals’/companies using it who aren’t paying for that value add. So something like a fee for frequent pulls against the vuln feeds, to replace whatever funding the US gov was giving, would make sense to me. though I suppose this has now been kicked down the road till next year.

Yeah, but that’s sort of the point I was making… it was a data repository used by “thousands and thousands” of security professionals and organizations. So people who were generating revenue off of the service. I mean, they’re professionals, not hobbyists / home users.

I’m not an American, but in terms of everything running like a company/for profit, I’d say that its best if things are sustainable / able to self-maintain. If the US cutting funding means this program can’t survive, that’s an issue. If it has value to a larger community, the larger community should be able to fund its operation. There’s clearly a cost to maintaining the program, and there are clearly people who haven’t contributed to paying that cost.

In terms of going back to whatever, the foundation involved is likely to sort out alternative funding, though potentially with decreased functionality (it sounds like they had agreements to pay for secondary vulnerability report reviews, which will likely need to get scaled back). Maybe they’ll need to add in a fee for frequent feed pulls, or something similar. I wouldn’t say it’s completely toast or anythin just yet.

I’m honestly not totally sure what to think about this one, though I recognise that it’s a big shift/likely a negative overall result.

Reason I’m humming and hawing, is that there are lots of expensive cybersecurity type ‘things’ that rely on the CVE system, without explicitly paying in to that system / supporting it directly, from what I recall / have seen. Take someone like Tenable security, who sell vulnerability scanners that extensively use/integrate with the CVE/NVD databases… companies pay Tenable huge amounts of money for those products. Has Tenable been paying anything into the ‘shared’ public resource pool? How about all those ‘audit’ companies, who charge like 10-30k per audit for doing ‘vulnerability / penetration tests’.

IT Security has been an expensive/profitable area for a long time, while also relying on generally public/shared resources to facilitate a lot of the work. Maybe an ‘industry’ funded consortium is the more appropriate way to go.

Yeah, the drop in travel and drop in spending on American stuff is sharp – not sure the specific %, but it’s definitely up there. What’s interesting is that it’s a “spontaneous” reaction from many Canadians, not so much a result of leadership. Like, yes, Trudeau made a speech or two that were fairly clear on the sentiments, but people’d already been booing at hockey games / cancelling trips etc before that. Sorta like our armed forces reserve applications going bonkers / crashing the website frequently due to volume, without any specific reason.

But these things are still driven by what seems like mass paranoia / potentially media trends, to some extent - especially as there’s been few ‘real’ controls/measures implemented. Canadian media is heavily skewed/oriented towards the USA, so we’ve seen a fairly constant blast of negative Trump/American perspectives. Social media makes it really easy to fan those xenophobic flames – like you’d just need a small batch of bots/agents upvoting/downvoting posts to shift the herds perspective on sites like reddit, as, if they catch posts ‘early’, that’d essentially allow control of which comments are visible, allowing for control of the discussion. The anti-american stuff feels a lot like a social media trend in this respect – like people ‘spontaneously’ recording themselves dumping buckets of ice water on their heads, or taking photos of ‘planking’, or some random dance move, or stealing stuff from public washrooms, etc. Those sorts of things were basically coordinated through algorithms on social media, moreso than people rationally/objectively deciding to do them. It’s not like people across the country woke up one day and all thought “I know how to support ALS research, I’ll film myself dumping a bucket of water on my head!”. It was a nonsensical behaviour pattern spurred on by oligarch controlled algorithms, demonstrating the power of those algorithms to manipulate the masses.

I’m mostly familiar with the Canadian situation due to my locale.

What I’d say on this front, is that the government of Canada has generally taken preformative steps so far in regards to the issues in the USA. There’s a lot of chest thumping and pageantry. Our largest province, Ontario, recently re-elected a fairly hard right Conservative politician – one who is well known for doing things against the public interest (like selling off what little green/parkland exists around toronto, to his developer buddies)… he was re-elected because he draped himself in pro-Canada trappings. He’s the guy who made the “Canada is not for sale” hats more popular. Branding yourself as captain Canada works for elections currently – which is why, for example, its very likely we’ll see a Liberal party returned to power federally, even though until very recently they were looking at a significant routing (that, plus them changing to Carney, who is probably the most right-wing/conservative leader of the Liberal/“centrist” party in history).

When I say preformative, I mean things like… there have been no explicit calls from our government to businesses/industry to follow suit on untangling supply chains or shifting trade relationships explicitly – they’ve taken some steps to try and lay ground work for further diversification of international trade, but haven’t pushed any levers, outside of allowing market forces to do their thing. Our banking regulators, for example, happily remain within Microsoft’s cloud ecosystems – and they have seemingly no interest in the financial industry outsourcing all of their websites to foreign countries / the USA. Many of our levels of government have made overtures of “buy local” procurement policies, but when you ask for details they’re all just “planning/reviewing/considering”, without direct action on the table. It’s not what you’d expect, given the ‘rhetoric’ of it being an existential threat / crisis. Our politicians are full of sound and fury, but they aren’t bothered enough to take direct action at this point.

If you rely on concrete / verifiable data points from our government, trade and relations are deteriorating, but there’s no overt cautions/warnings/mandates to take action. Media posts that hype up the fear by changing words feed into the public paranoia, and ignore the relative calm seen in our government agencies.

I ain’t American. I’m from one of the countries most irked by America at present (Canada) – if you look at my @, I’m on a Canadian lemmy server.

But its still true that Russian propaganda is mostly about disrupting allied nations and fostering civil unrest / animosity between countries. They have literally stated that they seek to amplify things like race-oriented conflicts and stories, because it helps to destabilize western countries (so things like Tiktok, where any anti-black event is automatically on the front page, is part of that routine – compared to other nations, where it shows more benign things, such as “child prodigy plays piano”). Things like “BuyCanadian” campaigns are likely supported/partially funded by Russian interests – because it’s not just “avoid american products”, but “avoid all traditional allies” in tone. Sorta like how Russia didn’t need specific ‘agents’ in the US, but could instead fund “influencers” that were saying things that promoted Russian geopolitical goals.

Is there a reason to be concerned about what’s going on in the states? Yes. Doesn’t mean that we should hype up negativity beyond reason / create anti-american echo chambers.

Oh, wait, ok, let me go do up a massive post with a ton of cited sources and detailed research in order to support an online opinion about the general feeling I get when seeing these sorts of articles – specifically ones where the social media site (this lemmy OPs post) re-words the title of the article from “travel update” to “travel warning”, and aims to get people going on about how the USA is evil.

Or, no, I won’t bother. It’s an online opinion meant to draw some additional thought / criticism towards these sorts of posts, and the intentions behind them.

Yeah, it’s not too surprising that it’ll have slightly different contexts in different regions.

Yeah, so it definitely gives the vibe of social media over hyping / trying to drive further wedges into western relations and opinions. Which is basically a Russian goal / propaganda tactic…

As another poster commented, the actual article doesn’t call it a ‘warning’. So, this does look like social media/bubble hyping up the issue.

For starters, the question wasn’t, as far as I know, asking how the ideology / stance fairs in terms of implementation / reality. Like you can give a description of what a communist believes, without having to try and explain Communist Russia / China.

In terms of medicare/dental care, yes, there are soc lib fisc con people that do believe that. Likely not people in the USA, where everything skews right wing – their soc lib is more like “I have a black friend! I’m not racist!”. In more sane countries, there are a good number of people who fall into that ideological mindset, who do support public utilities/health initiatives – it’s pretty common here in Canada, based on people I’ve spoken with.

Like a soc lib fisc con person I know, has previously suggested that we ought to change how roads / cars are handled – arguing that cities shouldn’t have anywhere near as many cars, and that common “paved” roads should be essentially relegated to highways/freeways due to the cost and ecological impact. In their take, city budgets are often bloated by road repair costs due to the over-engineering of what’s required for regular residential activity. Using other road materials would dramatically increase sustainability – and even if it results in more ‘maintenance’ cost/road tolls for car users who still insist on using cars, that’s up to the consumer. I don’t know if they were talking nonsense, but that’s the sort of thing I sometimes hear people in the soc lib fisc con camp say.

Not sure – but it’s plausible that the media/bubbles are hyping up that sort of event, even if it’s an outlier. Like there are millions of visits to the US from Canada on a regular basis – one lady got put in a detention area, as a result of having wonky paper work on a longer term work visa (something most regular tourists/travellers don’t have to worry about).

As far as I know, travel advisories aren’t issued as a result of ‘cost to insurance companies’, but rather danger/risk to citizens travelling to those countries, imposed by governments. Travel insurance providers look at those, and determine risk/coverage based on that sort of information. So no explicit warning, implies there’s no significant risk, for most visitor types.

Advising something like “If you use X as a gender, make sure to carry additional paperwork/figure out additional rules”, isn’t something that’s going to cause a “generic” family to worry about going to Disney Land.

All these reports of travel warnings feel misleading to me.

A proper travel warning equates to insurance companies refusing to provide travel insurance, which directly impacts whether people would travel to the USA. None of the “warning” updates have gone to that level.

Updating travel guidance isn’t that big a deal.

So many people with such brutal takes on it – helps to quantify who the audience is on lemmy I guess.

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, to me at least, means that the person is in favour of equality in the sense of equality of treatment from the government, but is not in favour of additional big spending projects to try and have equality of opportunity. They’re pro-choice, but likely against the government funnelling money into providing abortions for women (so abortions available, but not gov subsidized). They’re pro-trans rights in terms of being fine with whoever doing whatever they want with their body/partners of choice, but against government paying for trans-specific gender affirming procedures and parades to highlight those groups. They’re in favour of things like universal medicare/dental care, because those programs are shown to be a net benefit fiscally and socially.

In general, they support socially progressive ideas, so long as they’re fiscally costed out and beneficial to the public purse. They’re against increased government spending / reach, preferring ‘small government’, with the social components placed more on individuals to fund directly.

So your college degree seems to have been poor quality, as your approach to discussing a topic is to just insult the other person to try and make your point. You’re also conflating your personal experience, from the sound of things, with the framing I was referencing in the article. Pointing out that the article is highlighting an extreme example of an outlier, who works in a field that most people find ‘more respectable’, is a valid criticism of the article’s bias. The article would read a lot differently if it was someone who’d gone to an ivy league school to get an arts degree, went into debt for $500k doing so, and now works as a Starbucks barista struggling to make payments. The way the article is structured is intended to cause people to get triggered and be all out-ragey, without properly engaging with the subject / thinking about what’s going on, the issues, and potential tweaks to make things work.

The article does include a reference to the ‘average’ debt level of ~40k, for people that took out student loans. But it doesn’t comment on how those “average” students debt servicing amounts are changing due to the changes in policy. It references via secondary links a more regular example, one where the person is just 2-3x more in debt than average – where a woman comments that her payments are going from $250 to $900.

One of the ‘horror’ stories we hear out of the American system, is that people will be paying these amounts for decades and decades, without chipping away at the principle. Not a surprise, if your payments are less than the monthly interest costs – and if she’s paying just $250 out of a payment that ‘should’ be $900 on a 10 year term, she isn’t covering the interest at all. If they’re allowed to take out loans from regular FIs, they could theoretically get that down to around $450-500 by extending the amortization out to 25 years and adding options for over payments if they want to get out of debt faster. You could get that even lower, if you have a guarantor (ex. Parent) or other security behind the loan to reduce the interest rate further – with that setup, you get a monthly payment of like… $250. A more practical middle ground. Yes, it’d potentially increase the payments, but it’d also remove the common complaint of not being able to get ahead on principle payments.

And again, that referenced example is one where someone’s gone into twice as much debt as the average person who uses that system. The average person, based on the numbers in the article, is looking at a payment of about $400 after the change, from the look of it. A difficult, yet far more manageable change than putting out there that people are suddenly seeing a 10x increase up to $5000, which is the ‘shock and outrage’ approach taken in the article.

I don’t think anyone from a more sane country is looking at the American system and thinking its ‘good’. In another response, I noted that here in Canada, from what I recall at least, we cap our tuition amounts for Canadian citizens / undergrads – so its far less common to hear of people going into massive debt to get degrees from local universities. Doing so aims to place the ‘pressure’ on Universities to figure out how to fund their operations. Many ended up relying on foreign student income, where tuition isn’t capped. Even with some restrictions, universities still have massive endowment funds, so they aren’t ‘hurting’ for money at the institutional level – for example the University of BC is sitting on about $3billion in its fund. Putting pressure on the Universities/institutions to give students a fair shake, is more practical in my view than saying the government should cover student loan debts / interest issues. I mean, if the Universities “fraudulently sold degrees that they claimed would get you 6 figures”, shouldn’t they be the ones holding the bag – not the government / regular tax payers?

You say you graduated HS 22 years ago. It may be time to act more like an adult, and treat other people/discussions with some decorum.

*just an edit to add in, that if you watch the clip of the lady with the 5k payment… she openly admits that, while complaining about the increase, they’re aiming to put in about $7k/month to get it all paid off in 5 years, while still having more left over for ‘prioritizing other investments too’. So, the article’s ‘outrage’ increase, is one where the person clearly got a really high paying job out of it, and isn’t exactly ‘hurting’. So they earn way more than enough to cover their debts – and are essentially 1%'rs who were getting subsidized by the government by thousands of dollars per month.

Thanks, appreciated.