No motive has been given, although police have said they are “confident” it was not an act of terrorism.
I wonder what makes them confident of that. It certainly resembles a terrorist attack.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
No motive has been given, although police have said they are “confident” it was not an act of terrorism.
I wonder what makes them confident of that. It certainly resembles a terrorist attack.
What are you talking about, the victims weren't white?
/s
Dude might have been drunk. If it isn't intentional, it's usually a case of too drunk or too old.
Or plain old mental illness
I know it's a slim chance and I'm going out on a limb here, but something tells me the driver was a white conservative.
I prefer to call them "Poilievre voters"
No motive has been given, although police have said they are “confident” it was not an act of terrorism.
Let me guess? The suspect is white! I jest, but at this point it's probably likely the driver is a radicalized "conservative" than any other group.
No. East Asian looking male with a history of mental illness.
Most likely the political component of this tragedy is how the Socreds closed regional mental health institutions in the late 20th C, and subsequent governments just swept the whole thing under the rug while homelessness spread through the province and mentally disturbed and unsupported people lashed out in random ways.
Now you have dorks and bootlickers like Mayor Sims turning a health system failure into an opportunity for cruelty and repression. Punishment will be the talking point. They will roll with that, watch.
Cars are a terrorist threat! We should remove them from our streets.
Only a good guy with a car can stop a bad guy with a car though. Also if everyone in a crowd had a car, stuff like this wouldn't be possible.
/s for the people in the back
Conservatives are a terrorist threat
FTFY
Actually, I agree. Put them underground, in a tunnel, where people aren't walking.
Walking > Bikes > Trains > Buses > fuck cars.
Don't put them in the city at all, even in a tunnel. If you're going into the city, park and take transit. (Edit: my complaint here is personal; Boston had an interstate running through it, which they buried, and then put a four-to-six-lane road on top of it where there was supposed to be green space.)
Yeah, I know some people can't do that because they're working and need tools, e.g. plumbers, but if we get all the casual drivers on transit it's good enough.
Fuck in cars.
FTFY
"car plows"
So we only call it a murder or a terrorist attack if guns are involved?
We are brainwashed and numb to car violence. Super sad that nothing is done to stop this from happening.
Cars need to go. Away forever.
Cars need to go, streets need to pedestrianize, and bollards need to go up to make sure cars stay the hell out.
To your point, imagine if this were a mass-shooting and the title were: "Nine people killed after gun shoots into crowd at Vancouver Filipino Festival". "Nine people killed after knife stabs into crowd at Vancouver Filipino Festival." It's so fucking passive as to be sickening. It reminds me of the "Man dies in officer-involved shooting" trope we see in US media because extrajudicial murder by the police is so routine and heavily whitewashed.
The AP gives it the same treatment. The only equivalent I could think of is "Nine people killed after bomb explodes into crowd", and you know why that might be written that way? Because it's not immediately obvious who placed the bomb. This mass-murdering psychopath is in custody; we can say "Nine people killed after man drives into crowd at Vancouver Filipino festival."
Edit: the death toll is now eleven, not nine.
"gun-involved incident"
While I agree that it skews the narrative, it's likely that media at early stages of the story use passive language like that to leave open the possibility of various causes, such as mechanical malfunction or even an algorithmic failure.
There are a lot of areas that were designed based on cars. Where I live would be difficult for most of the residents without cars or something similar. The population density is too low to make most public transportation practical.
Good news, in those places a driver going off the road isn't going to hit a crowd of people.
I completely agree. If you look at the comment I was responding to, though, you'll see they appear to be advocating a complete prohibition, "Cars need to go. Away forever." I'm just saying there are places where that's not practical.
That's because they specifically designed those areas to be car specific to serve the needs of the Nazi Ford corporation. "Population density" is a poor argument.
Just look up pictures of America 100 years ago. Trains. Streetcars. Trams. Buses.
Not fucking highways and urban sprawl.
By all means, live in your little suburb with your car. We just want the cities to be safe from the violence they bring.
Maybe it's time to revisit our car-centric lifestyle.
Your not wrong but this isn't why.
It is in the sense that vehicle traffic shouldn't be next to pedestrian areas, eliminating the opportunity for such an event to happen in the first place. At a minimum, there should be strong bollards, because mechanical failures can and do happen.
ITT: hillbilly gun-clutchers who don't realize cars are only working when you don't hit something, and guns are only working when you do hit something.
ITT: people who don't realize that none of us are supporting guns. We're drawing a comparison between the same ridiculous-ass logic that right-wingers apply to guns to try to stall and misdirect from concrete regulation and the exact same rhetoric people in this thread are making in defense of car culture and lack of regulation and safeguards around cars. Strict gun regulation is good; strict car regulation is good. Strict gun regulation would deter many mass-shootings in the US. Strict car regulation (including even basic considerations for pedestrian safety at the slight expense of cars) would deter car-ramming attacks.
"Why are you talking about ~~guns~~ cars at a time like this? I can't believe you're using this tragic ~~mass-shooting~~ mass-ramming to soapbox about ~~gun~~ car regulation. This isn't the time to talk about how we let ~~guns~~ cars be so dangerous and how the direct result was this ~~shooting~~ ramming. The real cause of this was a mental health crisis. Society needs ~~guns~~ cars to ~~protect ourselves~~ get around. What do you mean, 'Do I ever bring up this mental health crisis outside of ~~mass-shootings~~ mass-rammings?' Uhh..."
This is absolutely terrible.