this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
69 points (94.8% liked)

Canada

10678 readers
395 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
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 45 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Well, euthanizing 1/3 of the population would certainly help alleviate the housing crisis...

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"The cheapest thing in the long run would be to shoot all of us"- an old professor of mine

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Seven billion bullets are not cheap.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

But we'd never have to feed or house anyone again

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This CBC article claims that in 2023, in Alberta Canada, a box of 50 9mm rounds cost $13 retail. That's $0.26 a shot. Multiply that by 7 billion and you get $1.8 billion.

I assume Alberta Canada is not the cheapest place to buy 9mm rounds, and that if you were buying 7 billion rounds some kind of economy of scale would kick in, and that you could get a better price even just as wholesale rather than retail. Oh and that's Canadian Dollars. But that's still an upper bound.

$1.8 billion dollars is more than I have, but is not more than anyone has.

Toronto is Canada's largest city, and is the 4th largest city in North America. In 2025 they spent about 1.8 billion Canadian dollars of their budget on "Community and Social Services" alone. That's child services, fire, paramedic, parks and rec, shelters, that sort of stuff.

I'm not advocating for shooting every human on Earth, but for the cost of parks and shelters and ambulances for a single year in the 4th largest city in North America, we could make that happen.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

It's the federal government so we would somehow manage to pay about three times market price for them

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

We're running an experiment on this new product, Soylent Green... Interested in participating?

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even if we limit ourselves to homes within city limits (so we aren’t talking about backwoods cabins, here), Canada has about 6 empty homes for every homeless person.

The problem isn’t a lack of homes, the problem is an excess of “investors” looking for a labour-free income stream parasitized off of the backs of the working class.

[–] Arondeus@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've seen this stat of there being more empty houses than homeless people thrown around a few times with different numbers and no sources given. Do you have a source for those numbers?

[–] Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Homelesshub.ca puts homelessness in Canada at 235,000 as of 2024.

https://homelesshub.ca/collection/homelessness-101/how-many-people-homeless-canada/

OECD data via an article at Daily Hive puts empty homes in Canada as of 2021 at 1.34 million homes. Though that number is now thought to be much higher.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-over-1-3-million-vacant-homes

Basic math. 5 homes give or take a half or so per homeless person.

[–] Arondeus@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

Awesome. Thanks for the links and your effort.

[–] rarsamx@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's not being argumentative. That's being responsible before spreading it. I'm sure the person you replied to confirmed and has the credible sources handy. Right? right?

It would destroy a lot of other parts as well. I would have to bet a number of these people still work some sort of job even if part time, babysit for family members, still provide something to their community in a way. Sadly there are a lot of people who do believe measures to depopulate would be a good thing.

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

"If they are going to die, then better they should do it now to decrease the surplus population."

As per usual the anti maid crowd made up imaginary numbers for the "study"

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 days ago

Uggh. I was talking to a person who said MAID was forced on their family member. I was like WTF and explained they need consent, so they said their family member went in for an exploratory surgery and then the family all got called in because the docs said he had only hours left.

They show up and the person is not hooked up to machines or IV etc, and they asks why. The answer is because they are dying. Family freaks out and demands IV, and other remedies to get the person back to health.

I'm like OK, so all is good? Their reply was no the family member died 5 days later due to cancer.

SMH. So you put that person through an extra week of hell.

Also what was happening: that's not MAID anyway if a person just fades away from dying by refusing medical tratment, its not a dose to end your life.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am getting so sick of alt-right nutcases making up stories that they themselves would rather have a leading role in.

We all know most of the alt-right is just itching to unalive anyone not like them.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I too have lost all decorum in such exchanges and simply reply "Oh, well Ok then, liar" in those (fortunately rare) exchanges.

[–] underfreyja@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

This is literally a fake scenario based on a bunch of fake numbers that was circulated on twitter.

It's basically propaganda...

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yea it's not the best. but it's calling out lies so I figured it was worth sharing.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Because it refutes a bunch of lies? Is that why it's trash?

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago

I think it’s trash because it starts with the “story” being “someone said this outrageous thing on a podcast”. Then the “both sides” counter argument is from actual medical professionals and people who have a clue.

Typically, journalism frames an issue and then covers some counterpoints to give some nuance. This time, they (bewilderingly) accept conspiracy theory nonsense as their story (when it shouldn’t have been written in the first place), then the sanity comes in as though it’s a counter point.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

It has a low journalism factor. When one writes an article, it's important to deliver to the reader certain facts right away; who's involved, setting, etc.

This article starts with "a podcast" and then doesn't say which one. It then goes on for a while not giving the reader who isn't privy to the background any relevant context. So we're left having to re-read the whole thing twice just to parse what the fuck it's about.

Trash writing.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago

among vulnerable groups — defined as "individuals with severe mental health issues, the homeless, drug users, retired elderly, and Indigenous communities"

Who missed that 'Indigenous Communities' thing?

This is right out of the 'White Supremacist' agenda, and tops even Hitler's Germany.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I seriously think everything on Twitter is bots now.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

The bots are talking, but there are still credulous fools listening.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Such silliness. Who would pay for the ramp-up in mortuary facilities?

Considering that there have only been 13,287,523 total deaths in Canada since 1950, that is a huge step-up in demand.

Methinks they left out that bit about mass graves.

Or run the crematorium 24/7 until it melts or clogs.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 3 points 1 day ago

HALF THE DAMN COUNTRY? People will believe ANYTHING. God damn.

[–] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Speak for yourself..

[–] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 1 points 2 days ago
[–] Amuletta@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

One of my relatives worked for his provincial government health care department some years ago. He told me once that smokers gave the biggest contribution to the health care system because although they tended to be expensive in the last five years or so of their lives, they usually died young enough that they used less money than they put in.

So if they really wanted to save money, they would encourage us to take up smoking tobacco again.