this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
74 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

11533 readers
505 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.

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


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, until you solve affluenza, they are already getting better care at their leisure while those who have less resources and support are already languishing. This is always going to be the case. If you can convince people to actually fund and support the necessary care measures and support networks, I'm all for it.

I try to avoid isms, they are not good for you.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I realize that we might be talking entirely different languages here. For one, I do not at all hold the belief that social constructions have eternal qualities to them. Secondly, affluenza is a second order phenomenon to private wealth. Maybe third order phenomenon, as economic behaviour precedes it, standing in the middle between affluenza and private wealth. To me that's putting the horse before the cart a bit which doesn't compute.