wampus

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.

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.

Eh, it's a start I guess. But there's no where near enough information on that site to make it really useful from my perspective.

Telling me how the labels work is great and all, but if I'm looking for different product types it's really difficult to know if there even is a Canadian option available, somewhere.

Like if I want a new appliance -- Fridge, dishwasher, clothing washer/dryer, oven -- what brands have Canadian supply chains/production? If I'm going to a bank, which ones rely on US tech giants extensively, vs use Canadian supply chains? Which coffee shops are Canadian (I'm surprised ppl are still cool with Starbucks it seems)? Which chains are primarily owned by US interests -- or which chains are primarily Canadian? I mean, even The Bay was US owned -- despite being "Canadas" oldest company.

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.

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.