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.

Very difficult, as most traded goods pass through US boundaries via train/truck.

More “regular” trade agreements between individual states is generally more likely going forward I imagine, but the sort of integrated supply chains that we’ve all benefited from in North America for like… decades and decades… is pretty well toast.

Eg. the US wants to build their own cars, in country. This means Canada and Mexico will likely also need to build their own cars, in country. Mexico has a bit more of an opportunity to build up integrated supply chains with countries in south america, though they tend to be a bit less stable – the proximity is a win. It’d be really cool to see if they did though – not sure what sorts of free trade agreements are around in the south, honestly.

Canada is busy trying to shore up agreements/trade with areas like asia and europe, as those are ‘sorta’ the same distance/calculus as shipping things via sea to mexico / south america.

It’d also be interesting if the waning of the US hegemony results in more western countries trading with traditionally ‘blockaded’ countries. Cuba has long been a Canadian vacation spot, but trade with Cuba has been limited due to US pressure. Given the current state of things, I don’t see why Canada wouldn’t increase trade there. And given the state of Cuba currently, it could be really beneficial for both country’s people.

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, 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.

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.

The article literally has a health professional admitting that the studies used to justify just giving it to women, and the practice of just providing it to women, were sexist / behind the times in terms of equity. There were studies showing it impacted male health, even back in 2007, that were ignored for purposes of policy / vaccine distribution. The gov basically said HPV = cervix (even though science said otherwise, outside of focused cervical cancer studies), and used that to justify only providing medical care to women. That’s gender based discrimination. Even the notion of ‘herd immunity’, based on just vaccinating women, completely ignored the case of gay men: the 2007 studies included information on penile/anal cancers, as well as mouth/neck cancers, resulting from HPV: they knew it impacted more than “just” cervical cancers/illnesses. Here’s one of them: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321770/ . That one, you can even see they explicitly highlight gay men as being a group that requires more data – as its a group that had been ignored.

Further, science/politicians “realising the mistake” and making corrections later, doesn’t change that it was gender discrimination. Crash test dummies were, for a long time, just based on male body types. Regulations / governments were ok with this. More recently, scientists realised women body shapes would behave differently in collisions, so they started including those in the mix. That doesn’t change the fact that the historic use of ‘just’ male body crash test dummies, is an example of gender based discrimination against women. There are tons of similar examples, where the male case was preferenced in studies, and legislation/regulations were built around those biased views. Science iteratively figuring out its own biases is part of the process, but it doesn’t absolve past wrongs - especially once those biases are used to justify the distribution of public funds to aid a specific niche group, at the expense of other groups.

If you want to absolve the sexist stuff in the HPV vaccine distribution, from my perspective you’re using the same sort of reasoning that would absolve a lot of the past wrongs perpetuated while ‘science’ figured out the racial/gender stuff, as well as governments preferencing male-cases by simply ignoring other views. And the same “well, it was done like that everywhere” comment would also still apply. I don’t see why you’d treat this case differently, unless you had some sort of inherent bias against thinking of men as potential victims of discrimination… Even as the scientific community turned their back on guys with dick cancer.

*Adding a note, because I don’t think I’m ‘reaching you’ with the comments about there literally being a health professional saying “It was an equity issue to deny this treatment to boys”: ie. “It’s not just ‘me’ (some rando online) saying this, but here’s a quote from a verifiable health professional supporting what I said”. I’ve provided my take on the subject, and I’ve provided a quote from a health professional supporting my position. You’re not providing anything to support your view point, you haven’t cited anything despite demanding that I cite sources. You’re not discussing this topic with an open mind, nor are you demanding any rigor / scrutiny in terms of your own viewpoints. Because of this, I’m going to stop bothering to respond to you at this point, if you post more. I have laid out a fairly straight forward position on gov vaccine patterns with HPV, and it syncs up with my memory of vaccines in grade school and being denied access to the Heb B vaccine (without paying). I’ve provided source material to support my position, citing both vaccine docs from the cdc, journalist articles from reputable news agencies (cbc), and studies from national health archives. You’ve contributed basically nothing, except insults and dismissive crap. Good luck out there.

The article literally has a Canadian medical professional stating that it was discriminatory against men. That the decision to provide it only to women was based on cost, and on relying on studies that ignored mens situations.

They literally changed it a decade later, acknowledging that it had been a discriminatory against men.

I don’t see what you’re arguing at this point. It’s literally documented in the history of how this vaccine has been provided to the public.

They literally detail it as a cost thing in some of the reference material i linked. Protecting men’s health wasn’t worth the cost in the eyes of the government. I’m pretty sure that’s not a gender-neutral medical opinion, but rather an ideological/political decision layered on top. They further clarify that the studies used to support women-only treatment, only looked at women’s HPV related issues – ie. “We looked at just cervix/ovarian cancers, and based on that we’re just providing this to girls”. Basing medical policy decisions on biased studies is not a neutral ‘board of doctors wanting the best for all patients regardless of gender’ type of move. Here’s a quote from that university prof that sums it up, from the linked CBC article (my emphasis added):

“Many of the studies that have been done that have looked at cost-effectiveness regarding HPV vaccination coverage for boys have not taken into account cancers related to anal, penile and oral cancers. Most of those studies have been conducted around cervical cancers.”

Sorta like how if the USA says they don’t want to support trans/womens rights initiatives, because it’s too costly, it’s viewed as anti-woman/ideologically motivated. Even if they have some doctors that say “Yes, given our budget, we can’t cover women’s health needs”, it’d still be discriminatory. And if they conducted studies that only looked at the ‘men’ situation, and issued policy excluding women as a result of those biased studies, you’d justifiably call the policy/process discriminatory.

I don’t see your point as an issue with anything I’ve stated.

Eh? O… k… here?

http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery/Documents/Guidelines and Forms/Guidelines and Manuals/Epid/CD Manual/Chapter 2 - Imms/HistoryImmunization.pdf

There’s your source for the HPV vaccine being available to girls in 2008, and only made available to boys in 2017 A doc straight from the BC CDC website.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hpv-vaccine-the-growing-campaign-for-including-boys-1.3127916

There’s a CBC article showing that there was a growing campaign to try and include boys in the HPV vaccine around 2015. They literally quote David Brennan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Work at UT, saying “I know our health ministry is committed to equity and I believe that we’re a little bit behind the times in terms of addressing this equitable health issue for boys and men”. So you literally had health care professionals calling out the gender-based discrimination that had lasted for about a decade. Some provinces started including boys as early as 2013 – others waited till later.

Providing you internet sources in regards to my specific case from the 90s is more difficult, because there was… barely… an internet at that time. It wasn’t common for schools to communicate via email, or for govt to post information online. I did have an explicit chat with my mom at the time, who was annoyed that I couldn’t get the shot because I was a boy – and we couldn’t afford to get it privately at the time, so I was not covered until much later in life. Apologies if I didn’t remember the specific vaccine from when I was a kid, but your response and open antagonism is unwarranted. Especially given that a quick google search, brought up those above links, and support my overall statements. I removed the specific example, as explaining the differences between vaccines / time lines, was going to be overly onerous, and would’ve muddled the rest of the items I’d listed – and as it was a later point that got added, it made sense to just clip it. It’s not some “cry victim” thing where I turn tail and run when you challenge my stance. As I’ve hopefully demonstrated by responding to your comment here.

It’s not just that. There’s another way to look at these groups…

Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women’s rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don’t advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it’s outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don’t totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public ‘reads’ it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It’s not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.

If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don’t end up with equality.

Semi fair, removed.

Based on Canada’s own posting, the HPV vaccine was made available to women in 2008. It was later made available to boys in 2017, based on what I referenced obliquely in terms of scientists going “Oh my, boys have higher rates!”. So it still fits.

The case from my childhood was more muddle, admittedly – a different vaccine (Hep B) – I admittedly don’t keep a close tab on these things. It does make more sense, as part of a regular health check screening to do with a foreign partner I had started dating, my doc recommended I get a Hep B vaccine prior to getting intimate. Elementary school, early 90s, fits with Canadas vaccine schedules and with the adult vaccine top up.

“Lived experience” counts for other groups, why would you think it shouldn’t count for us? Plus, surprisingly perhaps, I have a bunch of friends that I don’t work with, where we discuss this stuff. Part of growing up local (though most of my friends from hs are minority folks, technically). I’ve not lilypadded much, so four of my five bosses historically have been women – the majority of most management in those orgs, women.

While I wouldn’t question your lived experiences, my own, and that of people around me in real life who I generally trust more than a rando online, support my viewpoint. This also includes a few managers in the federal government, who are pissed off with the demographic hoops they need to jump through for hiring/promoting people. Like there’ll be suitable local candidates, but the gov forces them to appoint people from the other side of the country to meet the racial quota.

No woman in my age range that I’ve encountered in real life has stories of being denied employment due to their race/gender – unless they’ve immigrated from another country. Many men in my friend circles do. I’ve literally seen women government regulators say to industry “I can’t work with these people”, and excuse almost every male from a board of directors.

I don’t deny that women were treated poorly in generations past when it came to the labour force. My point is that for the current generation that’s coming up, it has been almost completely flipped. The gender imbalance in the federal public service, is now more lopsided in favour of women, than it was in favour of men in the 1980s when this sort of legislation first came in. We reached relative ‘parity’ around 2000 – two decades, a whole generation of people, and we’re still preferencing women as though they’re this poor downtrodden minority, and we just watched that imbalance get more and more out of whack. But there’s no talk of relaxing those pro-woman hiring policies amongst politicians, let alone enacting pro-male hiring campaigns to sort out the “new” imbalance/reality. Just an authoritarian, discussion killing mantra of “Canada is DEI!!”.

DEI and woke stuff is not inherently Canadian. Framing the current issues and political issues with the states, as being “Canada is woke and DEI! And the states hates us for it!” is not helping things.

Wait, before you do – feed that guys statement into an image generating AI. May as well get really really dirty before you get clean.

Eh, I see this guy around and hear his speeches now and then. I don’t really find his speaking points all that convincing, and some are not quite the ‘win’ that gets depicted.

Like saying we all support DEI is nice and all, but he acts like he doesn’t even know what it is or why there are a lot of guys (typically) who are pissed off about it. Like I’m an older millennial, who has memories of being explicitly denied employment with the government because I didn’t “Identify as an equity employment group” – which is defined as any non-male or non-caucasian person (so no cis white guys were allowed to get past round 1 of the application for the jobs I was applying for). I was also asked, and stupidly/naively agreed, to step aside for scholarships/bursaries so that women could win the awards and pad my highschools stats - something that meant I had to work all through university, while those awards went to 1%er women who were too busy vacationing in their summer homes to even bother going to the award ceremonies. Our government literally releases a report about hitting its DEI hiring and promotion quotas – it’s less about finding the best person for a position, and more about determining the minimum requirements, and then shortlisting people based on race. It’s not a meritocracy once implemented, even though its proponents like to claim as such. And from a white guys perspective, seeing a bunch of women and minorities in power, who block you from getting a job / benefits because there are… too many white guys who have privilege… ain’t gonna leave a positive perspective on the thing. Like imagine if everyone you interacted with was a white guy, and when you tried to work with them, they said “Nah man, too many women / minorities work here, go somewhere else” – that’d feel like blatant discrimination, but when the races are reversed its celebrated as DEI.

There’re very real, historical issues that some of us have with these programs and the way they’re implemented. Similar story for being ‘woke’, and how adherence to some ‘woke’ principles means denying science/evidence – Canada implementing legislation that makes it criminal to discuss non-scientific/subjective-based things, like blind adherence to a narrative about history, is an easy example. Rich old white guys pretending like its not an issue, aren’t speaking to the “young” (under 50) disenfranchised male voters who’ve been negatively impacted by it on a personal level. Charlie/the left acting like it’s “Support DEI or else you don’t support Canada!” is nonsense. Politicians / white guys like Charlie, who did well and avoided all the negative stuff about these sorts of programs, aren’t great spokespeople – let’s see some guys who have lived through the negatives of DEI up there supporting it, guys who’ve lost job opportunities / career paths due to its implementation and their gender/race, doubt you’ll find too many who’d cheer it on. Like bring out Erin Weir, the guy who Jagmeet Singh kicked outta the NDP due to an unfounded accusation of misconduct – when investigated, the most they found was that he raised his voice when talking about the carbon tax, and that he stood a bit too close in the elevator sometimes. Get him to explain how his getting kicked out for BS reasons is actually “good” and “Canadian”.

The liberals will likely win this round, but its more because of anti-american sentiment, than a sudden embracing of this sort of nonsense – sorta like ford riding a patriotic wave back into office, despite his policies / history. If the left/progressives don’t pay attention to these sorts of concerns, things’ll just fester. Asking men to vote against their interests didn’t work in the USA. Some areas in the states have realised this and are trying to do better – NBC just had a piece highlighting whitmer and moore attempting to build more programs to support young men. Let’s hope it doesn’t take similar circumstances for the Canadian left to do better.

In context of the Ops article, coming to a nation that’s one “thread” seems to be “We’re not THOSE guys”… when you’re quite literally one of “THOSE” guys… is clearly grounds for concern.

And at a national level, to me as a local, having that be our main unifying thread concerns me.

I’m not as optimistic about Carney, though I do think he’s the most practical choice in the running. I fully expect him to capitulate and sell out Canadians, and to take steps to appease the American administration – he’ll just do it with a sad face, compared to PP who’d do it with glee.