From the article:

The UCP’s plan focuses exclusively on addictions and offers nothing to address permanent supportive housing, treatment wait times and wraparound services…

I mean yeah… Without addressing housing issues, health appointment wait times and social services, people will not use less drugs. I 100% agree with that. But these have nothing to do with the way services for addictions are provided. What is a social worker supposed to do about your housing, if rent prices are through the roof? Notice how none of these articles have any experts taking about the services being provided or actual evidence of their effectiveness (or lack thereof). It’s politically-aligned representatives, talking shit about the other side, without any rational arguments. They don’t give a shit about addicts, lol. They give ea shit about arguing with the other side and “winning”.

“Recovery model” is not the issue. Politicians are the issue.

You can lock someone in a room until their withdrawal passes…

No. You can’t. That is not what “recovery model” or work with addictions in modern day Canada looks like. Nobody is getting locked anywhere, people die if you do that because you can’t just stop cold turkey alcohol or opiates. Literally die.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot of shit that needs to be fixed in mental health services, but ReCoVeRy MoDeL BaD is just a political slogan. So yeah. Maybe don’t take your mental health education from the guys that just want to stoke hate so they can get your vote.

Tell me more. (Not sarcastic)

Incredibly political article. Provides little information about the service provided and omits critical info. if you follow the links you’ll find that ROSC is a non profit funded entirely by the province. It also fails to mention what the new professionals are being trained on or why. It also fails to mention that there are dozens or organizations already operating under the harm reduction model.

All in all a shitty article to farm clics and political drama.

Hm… At some point a human will have to say “Yes, this response is correct.” to whatever the machine outputs. The output then takes the bias of that human. (This is unavoidable, I’m just pointing it out.) If this is really not an effort in ideological propaganda, a solution could be for the bot to provide arguments, rather han conclusions. Instead of telling me a source is “Left” or “Biased”, it could say: “I found this commentary/article/websites/video discussing this aource’s political leaning (or quality): Link 1 Link 2 Link 3”

Here you reduce bias by presenting information, instead of conclusions, and then letting the reader come to their own conclusions based on this information. This not only is better at education, but also helps readers develop their critical thinking.

Instead of… You know, being told what to think about what by a bot.

I find it annoying when people talk like this. It sounds like you forced the other person to be with you, or that you consider yourself so important that the other person would sacrifice their comfort for you.

This. The bot is effectively just propaganda for the author’s biases.

Yes. There’s also been a spike of political commentors that seem normal until you engage with them, then they fire back with emotionally-charged nonsense full of contradictions.

I thought Elon had suddenly turned in favor of Kamala. XD

Being a nerd. It’s in the picture.

Only insecticide

What job proposal? This is a platform or a scam, any way you look at it is in no way different from what already exists, just with 0 protection for the workers, and using monopoly money that might make your work worth 20% less every month.

So you don’t, is what you’re saying.

Lol. Cope.

Pretty trash points ngl. Written from privilege imo.

Makes video about the importance of pronouns. Refuses to read names or pronouns of the people that interact on the platform where they posted said video.

Hmmm…

You have to listen to garbage to find the gems.

How is simping them any different from calling them “basically Hitler from the past”? If you’re talking with your feelings, what you are saying is by definition not-objective, like with simps, but also with haters. I doubt you or OP are any more informed on history than the average Lemmy rando. By starting with the desired conclusion, rather than with arguments, the discussion is already beginning on subjective terms.

They are conflicting in some things but agree on many things…

If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess. To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.

If you think the one of many competing, historical narratives that you or your culture chose are “objective truth”, sure bro, that’s how politics works.

What do you mean “objectively studying history”, what is objective about History? What you’re studying is a narrative, that has been put together by experts, based of what remains from that past. There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess. Even written records are narratives told from the perspective and culture of the ancient writer.

This is to say that, the reason we don’t judge historical figures through a modern lens is that to do so is to ignore history. It doesn’t matter what your think about Alexander the Great, it matters what his contemporaries (both friends and enemies) had to say about him (objectively biased narratices). For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

I thought the facility was fake. XD