The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[savevp]

Originally Posted by gentlepuppies

Lol honesty, you "confederate statue, what next" people sound like the same curmudgeons railing against gay marriage and the "slippery slope" to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵/🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵...

It's because in ten years, they'll villify anyone who drove a non-electric car, and in twenty years they'll villify anyone who didn't power their homes with renewable energy. Perhaps in thirty years anyone who typed the word black without capitalisation will be punished. And then one day anyone who was in the upper class and didn't willingly donate half their income to lower themselves in the name of equity. Those people will be purged from history because of their evil ways.

It's the constantly changing goalposts and utter disregard for historical context that frustrates people who watch mobs pull statues down, remove programming, or generally censor anything that doesn't conform to this moment's idea of virtue. Remember how a few years ago the line to say was "I don't see colour?" Now, of course, that's an unashamedly racist thing to say. Should we condemn those who "didn't see colour" back when that meant giving all people equal opportunity, regardless of race?

It shouldn't be so controversial to acknowledge the standards today are different, and hopefully better, than the past. But in the future, what we say and do today will also be judged, and it will be just as unfair to desecrate the markers of this time if they don't conform to the standards of 2120.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Let's not kid ourselves, if it were 1988 then most of the people on this forum would be all "yeah, sure apartheid is bad, but those uMkhonto we Sizwe thugs are just going too far".

The statue brigade will always be out in force, ready to defend statues they had never heard of before.

There's two possible ways to interpret your point here...

First possibility, that you think the faction that promotes censorship and erasure typically prevails in such contests. I would disagree greatly - I think history shows the exact opposite.

The second and more interesting possibility is that you think the "young" faction (the opinion that is generally the one embraced by the young) typically prevails, in time. This is historically mostly true, I'd say, but I'm still sure counter-examples abound. For example, didn't the young Sixty-Eighters have some dead serious demands that in the end, went absolutely nowhere (and then they grew into "Law & Order" Boomers)?

[lio45]

In my view, the side that wants to sterilize everything (turn us into Disneyland/Singapore, as wave46 put it) is getting pretty close to the idea that was behind residential schools - "cultural genocide" to eliminate all our unacceptable old symbols and traditions in order to turn us into a different, sanitized society.

To some, that's supposed to be the correct side of history. Go figure.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Ça a l’air de la Révolution Française de mon avis...

(Yes, I wrote that in French on purpose.)

"à mon avis". Or "selon moi" works as well.

(I wouldn't bother if your French weren't very impressive - so don't take it the wrong way, it's the opposite: I consider that helping you improve isn't a waste of a tiny bit of my time )

Also, minor point, but ça + a turns into ç'a. I wasn't sure if it was mandatory nowadays though, and it seems, it's not:

http://www.academie-francaise.fr/ca-ete-pour-ca-ete

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by savevp

It's because in ten years, they'll villify anyone who drove a non-electric car, and in twenty years they'll villify anyone who didn't power their homes with renewable energy. Perhaps in thirty years anyone who typed the word black without capitalisation will be punished. And then one day anyone who was in the upper class and didn't willingly donate half their income to lower themselves in the name of equity. Those people will be purged from history because of their evil ways.

It's the constantly changing goalposts and utter disregard for historical context that frustrates people who watch mobs pull statues down, remove programming, or generally censor anything that doesn't conform to this moment's idea of virtue. Remember how a few years ago the line to say was "I don't see colour?" Now, of course, that's an unashamedly racist thing to say. Should we condemn those who "didn't see colour" back when that meant giving all people equal opportunity, regardless of race?

It shouldn't be so controversial to acknowledge the standards today are different, and hopefully better, than the past. But in the future, what we say and do today will also be judged, and it will be just as unfair to desecrate the markers of this time if they don't conform to the standards of 2120.

I hear a mental and emotional fragility, an inability to adapt and change with the times. Well life will keep on changing and you will need to adapt. You won’t agree with everything. You will find your place. Hopefully your sense of self is big enough to admit when you were wrong. The future is not linear. What you foresee from current events will have many twists and turns. But trying to stop the flow, the progress, is not the answer. The past is being overthrown and rightfully so. This is nothing new, actually. It is how we grow. It is life, itself.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Oh the horror of having to learn a new word/label for a group of people!

I think the resistance is mostly due to how sanctimonious, hypocritical and unreasonable the SJWs tend to be about these things. They've unilaterally decided to lay down the law, requiring absolute compliance without question on pain of having careers and reputations ruined.

I actually rather admire the fearless and probably unwise gumption to consider their demands, find them wanting, and essentially tell them to "🞵🞵🞵🞵 off."

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I've come to the conclusion that the biggest snowflakes are not SJWs. The biggest snowflakes are people that complain about SJWs. Boo hoo hoo!

Clearly that's not true. If you want a ratio for "both sides" of this, I think it's probably about 85:15 in favour of the SJWs for throwing hissy fits at "wrong" pronouns and that kind of thing.

[MolsonExport]

Maybe I just encounter more anti-SJWs than SJWs, or that the former ones that I encounter are more strident than the latter.

And getting bent out of shape when people use "wrong pronouns" is also extremely silly.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Maybe I just encounter more anti-SJWs than SJWs, or that the former ones that I encounter are more strident than the latter.

This has been my experience on both accounts.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Maybe I just encounter more anti-SJWs than SJWs, or that the former ones that I encounter are more strident than the latter.

Where do you encounter either in real life? Though I suppose I'm sheltered, being in Stratford, because I've only ever had passing conversations about political matters here.

The social media onslaughts and career/reputation-torching are the preeminent domain of the SJWs. I imagine there must be some small towns in the southern US where racist/alt-right types make life difficult for left-of-centre people, but on the whole your life and livelihood aren't at risk when you're on the left side of the aisle these days.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Where do you encounter either in real life? Though I suppose I'm sheltered, being in Stratford, because I've only ever had passing conversations about political matters here.

The social media onslaughts and career/reputation-torching are the preeminent domain of the SJWs. I imagine there must be some small towns in the southern US where racist/alt-right types make life difficult for left-of-centre people, but on the whole your life and livelihood aren't at risk when you're on the left side of the aisle these days.

A lot of this is just online extremism. Someone ranting on Twitter is not representative of how much of this plays out in life.

Each response to these issues is still individual. The SJW mobs that people imagine are largely exaggerated fictions. A trans friend might be concerned with your use of pronouns but isn’t going to be a jerk about it if they know that you care and want to support them, for example. Alternately, a religious aunt loves you and really doesn’t care that you’re gay, but still goes to a church that on paper says you’re not aligned with God. The lived reality is much less contentious. The danger is when you believe the online version over getting to know people in real life. That being said, a small percentage of people are still going to be 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and that’s never going to go away.

[kwoldtimer]

So, there's apparently a petition circulating to rename Montreal's Lionel-Groulx metro station to honour Oscar Peterson. Colour me sceptical ....

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

So, there's apparently a petition circulating to rename Montreal's Lionel-Groulx metro station to honour Oscar Peterson. Colour me sceptical ....

Shaping up to be a holy struggle between francophone nationalism and Black Lives Matter.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

A lot of this is just online extremism. Someone ranting on Twitter is not representative of how much of this plays out in life.

....

I think this is true, social media is a culprit. On a related issue, I've spent some time socially with a virus denier; we just approached it in a "you are entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine" sort of way, we discussed the issues but did not dwell on them. I found it not very different from a "you're Catholic but I'm Protestant" situation.

These days, CBC, which I like, is the biggest SJW soapbox in the country by far, the outrage is there but is mostly normalized in a calm and collected manner. Alternate opinions need not apply.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Architype

Alternate opinions need not apply.

In which case CBC is abdicating it's responsibility of being a neutral broadcaster.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In which case CBC is abdicating it's responsibility of being a neutral broadcaster.

The old neutral is different from the new neutral.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Architype

The old neutral is different from the new neutral.

Neutral is neutral. It means not taking sides in a debate, and just reporting the facts. The new neutral seems to be a media sponsored mechanism to change somebodies deeply held opinions. This seems coercive and does not bring to mind "neutrality"

Of course, media has been doing this for generations, with Fox News being the modern incarnation of such a policy from the right. Private media sources have often been biased.

I would have expected something better from a state broadcaster though (no propaganda please, this is not wartime).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Shaping up to be a holy struggle between francophone nationalism and Black Lives Matter.

“Holy” - good one! More likely a battle that’s over before it has started.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Shaping up to be a holy struggle between francophone nationalism and Black Lives Matter.

What was Oscar Peterson's view of trans people? I'm afraid it's going to be a no go.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Neutral is neutral. It means not taking sides in a debate, and just reporting the facts. The new neutral seems to be a media sponsored mechanism to change somebodies deeply held opinions. This seems coercive and does not bring to mind "neutrality"

"Just reporting the fact"... it sounds so simple. But then, which facts are important enough to be reported? And which facts are true enough to be reported? And how much time to spend reporting this fact (at the expense of that fact)?

And, of course, even if CBC could simply "report the facts" without any editorialization whatsoever) , would anyone watch it? It seems unlikely (considering the current media landscape)? Anyone prepared to increase CBC's funding in order to offset the lost advertising revenue?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I actually rather admire the fearless and probably unwise gumption to consider their demands, find them wanting, and essentially tell them to "🞵🞵🞵🞵 off."

There's no bravery required if neither paycheck nor friends are at risk.

As Acajack pointed out earlier, I don't work for the CBC; I'm free to say what I actually think.