The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dreambrother808]

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"

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).

Neutral is a subjective idea. It always has and always will take a political stance, no matter how hard it tries to pretend otherwise. What we think of as neutral changes over time. No one’s putting someone from the KKK on to debate BLM for the sake of neutrality and reporting from all sides. Equally weighting both of those opinions actually says “these are equal” which in itself is quite the declaration. You may disagree with where the CBC determines the moral midpoint, but a midpoint must always be chosen. There is no apolitical midpoint.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

I found it not very different from a "you're Catholic but I'm Protestant" situation.

It shouldn't be, though.

There are two general types of disagreements: the ones about taste/opinion, and the ones about science/facts.

"You're Catholic and I'm Protestant" is in the same category as "you prefer your eggs with ketchup, I prefer mine without", not "I prefer my kids unautistic therefore unvaccinated, you don't" or "my opinion that Earth is flat is every bit as valid as yours that it's not, I have the right to my opinion".

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

"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?

CBC barely has any advertising revenue as it is. They had a whopping $90.9 million for the first six months of 2019. Why are we subsidizing them when just about no one watches the garbage they air? Better we reassign the $1.2 billion we give them to something more useful such as beefing up our cybersecurity to fend off CCP attacks on our critical systems and infrastructure.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Neutral is a subjective idea. It always has and always will take a political stance, no matter how hard it tries to pretend otherwise. What we think of as neutral changes over time. No one’s putting someone from the KKK on to debate BLM for the sake of neutrality and reporting from all sides. Equally weighting both of those opinions actually says “these are equal” which in itself is quite the declaration. You may disagree with where the CBC determines the moral midpoint, but a midpoint must always be chosen. There is no apolitical midpoint.

Neutrality is indeed subjective, and I agree with you that nobody would bring out the Grand Wizard of the KKK to debate the merits of BLM. That would be needless inflammatory and just make the whole situation much worse.

Nobody would question the basic premise that black lives matter, but there are potential debates about how to ameliorate the situation. For example, just what does it mean to defund the police. How would this affect public safety? What are the best ways to divert funding to other areas, such as using social workers for wellness checks rather than an armed constable. There has been lots of coverage about the outrage and street riots in the US, but next to no coverage about the consequences of all this mayhem, such as the innocent small business owners who have watched the sources of their livelihood either looted or burned to the ground. Black lives matter, but people are being badly hurt and traumatized by the protests. This is a story that is not being heard. This is not balanced reporting.

You get what I mean. Instead of mindlessly giving an uncontested platform to the radical organizers of these protests, the broadcasters should also seek out views from the people directly impacted by the protests, or could be hurt by hastily conceived policies that could be enacted to appease the protesters. These voices are not being heard. Instead, all we get is calls for a reckless stampede to fundamental change in society without considering unintended consequences.

And yes, I do believe black lives matter. Change is definitely necessary. It just needs to be carefully considered and not rushed.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

CBC barely has any advertising revenue as it is. They had a whopping $90.9 million for the first six months of 2019. Why are we subsidizing them when just about no one watches the garbage they air? Better we reassign the $1.2 billion we give them to something more useful such as beefing up our cybersecurity to fend off CCP attacks on our critical systems and infrastructure.

A lot of people, incl. me think that the CBC is important in defining our country/culture. How many countries don't have a national broadcaster? Is there a correlation between living standard, freedom of speech, level of democracy, and the presence of a national broadcaster? I think can predict the answer. I essentially am willing to go along with the SJW slant to a point, because I think the available alternative is more extreme, more dangerous, and typically devoid of reason and self examination. It's platform is still there, it's just not on the CBC.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

What the fuck are you on about now? No Chinese people are offended by New Years. They just celebrate again in late Jan/Feb with as much gusto as any other holiday. Jesus Christ take a chill pill. Yeah things change, you're probably lamenting the fact we can't use the words "Negro" and "Oriental" anymore.

Now that you have gotten the profanity out of your system, perhaps you would understand that I was being sarcastic.

Obviously 99.9% of Chinese Canadians celebrate New Years and always want to but it's the 0,1% we have to worry about. These professional drama queens that get so easily traumatised over absolutely anything are the one's that unfortunately get all the media attention due to their only qualifications for representing anyone is having an industrialise size mouth.

EVERYTHING offends somebody but that doesn't mean we toss our history and culture {both it's good and bad aspects} out the window to appease these intellectual midgets.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Architype

A lot of people, incl. me think that the CBC is important in defining our country/culture. How many countries don't have a national broadcaster? Is there a correlation between living standard, freedom of speech, level of democracy, and the presence of a national broadcaster? I think can predict the answer. I essentially am willing to go along with the SJW slant to a point, because I think the available alternative is more extreme, more dangerous, and typically devoid of reason and self examination. It's platform is still there, it's just not on the CBC.

CBC viewership numbers clearly show that a lot of people don't agree with you. I can't recall ever hearing anyone state that a national broadcaster is necessary to define a country and culture. That is something that happens in dictatorships.

What correlation is there between living standards, etc. and having a national broadcaster? Isn't the answer none whatsoever? North Korea has a national broadcaster. Are you lumping Canada in with them?

Your last point makes no sense to me. What alternative is more dangerous, etc.? What is it's platform? Having a number of independent platforms is the best solution. The problem with CBC and it's supporters is that they don't want their to be other platforms. It's why they tend to be so in favor of wanting to control the Internet in Canada. That's going to end up being the next battleground. The people who think they're in the majority or going to find out that they're not. The vast silent majority is going to make it very clear that they've had enough of being dictated to and will do whatever it takes to kill off CBC and their leech supporters.

[urbandreamer]

I passed a small BLM protest in Listowel on my way to Kincardine today: very amusing to see it has trickled down to small town Canada.

Oscar Peterson is buried next to my ancestors: he was an Anglican so that should settle his view on LGBT. Last weekend I was in another old cemetery near Lake Erie where rests a former slave's family who escaped from Virgina to Canada c.1850s.

Many of my Amercian ancestors were Confederates, some whom had statues around the South. While I wish I'd seen them, a missing statue doesn't mean I'll forget my ancestors' battles. Think of the Lost Cause as something similar to how the Quebecois view the Plains of Abraham: ancient but never forgotten history. (One of my Canadian ancestors fought at the PofA, on the winning side.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

I passed a small BLM protest in Listowel on my way to Kincardine today: very amusing to see it has trickled down to small town Canada.

Oscar Peterson is buried next to my ancestors: he was an Anglican so that should settle his view on LGBT. Last weekend I was in another old cemetery near Lake Erie where rests a former slave's family who escaped from Virgina to Canada c.1850s.

Many of my Amercian ancestors were Confederates, some whom had statues around the South. While I wish I'd seen them, a missing statue doesn't mean I'll forget my ancestors' battles. Think of the Lost Cause as something similar to how the Quebecois view the Plains of Abraham: ancient but never forgotten history. (One of my Canadian ancestors fought at the PofA, on the winning side.)

There was no Lost Cause. There was (and is) only The Shame.

[urbandreamer]

My father's generation never referred to it as the Lost Cause; but his hatred for Yankees still persisted. When people criticized Trump, he just explained it: he's a typical Yank. Bush was a "carpet bagger." I wonder when the South will vote Democrat again?

[Acajack]

I think when most people allege the CBC is biased, they are talking about the radio network.

It has no ads and it has good ratings. Its morning shows are generally no. 1 in most major markets.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

My father's generation never referred to it as the Lost Cause; but his hatred for Yankees still persisted. When people criticized Trump, he just explained it: he's a typical Yank. Bush was a "carpet bagger." I wonder when the South will vote Democrat again?

When they deal with The Shame. That may be beginning, but I doubt it will go far enough.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Now that you have gotten the profanity out of your system, perhaps you would understand that I was being sarcastic.

Obviously 99.9% of Chinese Canadians celebrate New Years and always want to but it's the 0,1% we have to worry about. These professional drama queens that get so easily traumatised over absolutely anything are the one's that unfortunately get all the media attention due to their only qualifications for representing anyone is having an industrialise size mouth.

EVERYTHING offends somebody but that doesn't mean we toss our history and culture {both it's good and bad aspects} out the window to appease these intellectual midgets.

I don't know why we are focusing on Chinese-Canadians or any other minority group when it comes to this. Stuff like the alleged war on Christmas is almost always overwhelmingly led by white SJW woke people, not the minorities they purport to be representing.

[urbandreamer]

The Shame? My father was at the "I have a dream" march in 1963.

It's hard to compare the average Scots-Irish Southern teenaged farmer/soldier of 1860 to today: many of them were uneducated and were practically illiterate. They were mere pawns at the beck and call of the wealthy Virginian plantation owner class. What cemented their Yankee hatred was the destruction of their land, theft of their cattle and the forced marches south. Their grandparents were Revolutionary war heroes.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Architype

A lot of people, incl. me think that the CBC is important in defining our country/culture. How many countries don't have a national broadcaster? Is there a correlation between living standard, freedom of speech, level of democracy, and the presence of a national broadcaster? I think can predict the answer. I essentially am willing to go along with the SJW slant to a point, because I think the available alternative is more extreme, more dangerous, and typically devoid of reason and self examination. It's platform is still there, it's just not on the CBC.

indeed. I agree.

[MolsonExport]

North Korea has a national broadcaster. Are you lumping Canada in with them?

great argument. Brilliant. Impeccable logic, towering intellect.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Neutrality is indeed subjective, and I agree with you that nobody would bring out the Grand Wizard of the KKK to debate the merits of BLM. That would be needless inflammatory and just make the whole situation much worse.

Nobody would question the basic premise that black lives matter, but there are potential debates about how to ameliorate the situation. For example, just what does it mean to defund the police. How would this affect public safety? What are the best ways to divert funding to other areas, such as using social workers for wellness checks rather than an armed constable. There has been lots of coverage about the outrage and street riots in the US, but next to no coverage about the consequences of all this mayhem, such as the innocent small business owners who have watched the sources of their livelihood either looted or burned to the ground. Black lives matter, but people are being badly hurt and traumatized by the protests. This is a story that is not being heard. This is not balanced reporting.

You get what I mean. Instead of mindlessly giving an uncontested platform to the radical organizers of these protests, the broadcasters should also seek out views from the people directly impacted by the protests, or could be hurt by hastily conceived policies that could be enacted to appease the protesters. These voices are not being heard. Instead, all we get is calls for a reckless stampede to fundamental change in society without considering unintended consequences.

And yes, I do believe black lives matter. Change is definitely necessary. It just needs to be carefully considered and not rushed.

Well where is all of this radical change you fear? Some things have happened in the US, like with the Minneapolis police force, but who knows where that will really lead. We’re at the beginning stages of something and yes, voices which were not heard as much as they should have been roared to the surface, drowning out the usual attempts to silence them. That was awesome. Now the real work begins which will come against establishment resistance and critique. Your fears are so far unfounded.

I remember when the media response to riots was only “who has been impacted” and “this is destructive”. The pendulum swung the other way, as it inevitably does, even if it takes centuries.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Now that you have gotten the profanity out of your system, perhaps you would understand that I was being sarcastic.

Obviously 99.9% of Chinese Canadians celebrate New Years and always want to but it's the 0,1% we have to worry about. These professional drama queens that get so easily traumatised over absolutely anything are the one's that unfortunately get all the media attention due to their only qualifications for representing anyone is having an industrialise size mouth.

EVERYTHING offends somebody but that doesn't mean we toss our history and culture {both it's good and bad aspects} out the window to appease these intellectual midgets.

Perhaps we should focus on real complaints, of which we have enough, rather than muddying the conversation with far-fetched hypotheticals.

[rousseau]

• Video Link

Incredible stuff in this video from before the protesting from someone named Coleman Hughes, a black American who I gather is probably not popular among the SJW crowd.

From 2001 to 2017:
- incarceration rate of black men aged 18-19 dropped 72%
- incarceration rate of black men aged 20-24 dropped 60%
- incarceration rate of black men aged 25-29 dropped 59%
- teenage birth rate for black women aged 15-19 dropped 63%
- deaths from heart disease for black Americans over 65 down 43%
- life expectancy up 3 1/2 and 3 years for black women and men, respectively
- bachelor's degrees awarded to black students up 82%
- over 60% of black people report doing better financially than their parents did (higher percentage than whites or hispanics)
- black women now go on to earn more than white women from similar socioeconomic backgrounds

Why does nobody know this? Because "if it bleeds it leads," as they say, so the media is not generally motivated to discuss things like slow progress. It also doesn't fit the arguably racist SJW narrative (yeah, I went there) that black people are downtrodden victims of systematic oppression largely without agency. More critically, it doesn't fit the narrative that US society is fundamentally racist and does not allow black Americans to make the sort of advances given in the metrics above.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Incredible stuff in this video from before the protesting from someone named Coleman Hughes

Another interesting African American perspective is that of Thomas Sowell, an economist from Stanford.

He tends to focus on data and he's 89 now so he has a personal perspective on how things used to be. He'll talk about what it was like to live in 1948 Harlem when crime was dramatically lower or travel to Virginia around 1950 when there were still segregated hotels there.

He makes some unusual and compelling arguments.

For example he points out that affirmative action sometimes harms African American students. When he was at Cornell, he noted that about half of the black students were on academic probation. They were taken from the top 15% or so based on SATs (if I recall correctly) while the general population at the Ivy League was more like the top 1%. Many of the students could be thought of as "mis-matched" with respect to the institution; they would have thrived at most American universities but they were below average at an Ivy League. Admitting them in may have helped with a quota but at that time it personally set them up for failure.

Few people look at affirmative action from that angle; they tend to only talk about "fairness" in terms of admission.