The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[savevp]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-ubc-1.5621268

(^Resignation at UBC today)

Frustrating that doing so much as liking a tweet deemed offensive is enough to get your career destroyed now, even though the celebrated founder of BLM Toronto has explicitly tweeted about killing men and white people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/toronto...ite-folks/amp/

(^Yusra Khogali tweet from a while back)

The double standard these days that doing so much as expressing some level of disagreement or appreciation for an argument counter to the approved narrative is worthy of banishment, but invoking racial murder is okay for others...

I understand it's not one person or agency responsible for the promotion of certain voices and repression of others, but the collective efforts of most media outlets and enabling by politicians has normalized this phenomenon. Am I missing something here, genuinely? To me, Ms. Khogali is more of an extremist than most and casually invoking murder along — and racial lines would, in my view, be as much grounds for no-platforming as anything Stockwell Day said. At the time, Ms. Khogali was given many opportunities to 'justify' her tweets

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The only CBC I pay attention to these days are:

1) - CBC Moncton Radio Morning as I get ready for work, and during the morning commute. It is a good resource for local news, but increasingly has an SJW slant. I tolerate it because there is no viable alternative. None of the other 12 local radio stations is particularly palatable.
2) - CBC Radio 2 for classical music in the mornings as I work. The radio goes off at 2 PM when they start playing banal modern music.
3) - I used to watch the CBC regional Atlantic Canada newscast at 11 PM, just to flesh out the news from Atlantic Canada, but since the pandemic started, the regional newscast has been replaced with a second dose of the national news. If I didn't watch the CBC National News the first time around, why would I watch it the second time? My main source of news is CTV Atlantic Live at 5 and CTV News at 6.

That's it. I don't watch any CBC news coverage otherwise. I pay no attention to CBC entertainment programs. I mostly listen to satellite radio, including the BBC World Service. My TV entertainment is increasingly from streaming services. I do however have a soft spot for CBS Sunday Morning - a good general interest soft news and infotainment program.

CBC is increasingly irrelevant to me.

I have had exactly zero contact with CBC since mid-March (since moving to Vancouver).

I drive a lot less here (I live right next to my business, in a decently walkable neighborhood, and I'm making an effort to walk every time I can) and on the few times I do, there's plenty of radio stations here to choose from so I'm always listening to music instead.

Typing this, I just realized I hadn't missed CBC at all in the 3+ months that it has thoroughly ceased to exist for me.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

That has always been pretty obvious to me.

Imagine an university where there's two clearly distinguishable groups of students:

1) Smart ones, who are there because they're smart;
2) Black ones, who are there because they're black.

Everyone who lives in such an environment during their formative years will likely be subconsciously "gathering data" on reality that will likely shape their views for the rest of their lives to a certain degree.

[savevp]

Edit: double post, sorry.

[Antigonish]

What we are experiencing is something I'd like to compare to that of a nasty end of the relationship fight.

When two people say the most heinous, threatening, awful things to each other during a breakup it's essentially impossible to reconcile afterwards. There will never be a chance to make up and get back together, there can't be "stay as friends" because when you show your true motives, your real feelings about the other person it's over for good. What is said is said, and what is done is done.

After the extremism being spewed I cannot in good conscious ever trust people like this, politicians, media, pretty much any established institution or institutional leaders because what we are witnessing is their true motives. It is impossible to reconcile with these people, there is no middle ground. Those who've tried diligently to maintain a middle ground are now losing their careers and having death threats ushered at them. It's over.

If you are still oblivious to what is being done right now in front of you I feel like you might be beyond saving at this point. This has nothing to do with ones political policy beliefs. It's about destruction and control.

Regardless of your stance on firearms, you should be able to piece the clues together why "Canada's ruling party" wants everyone disarmed. Do you trust these people after what they say? After how they've exposed their true colours?

You should be very very frightened about what is coming. Don't be ignorant to reality.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by savevp

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/michael-korenberg-resigns-ubc-1.5621268

(^Resignation at UBC today)

Frustrating that doing so much as liking a tweet deemed offensive is enough to get your career destroyed now, even though the celebrated founder of BLM Toronto has explicitly tweeted about killing men and white people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/toronto.cit...s-about-killing-men-and-white-folks/amp/

(^Yusra Khogali tweet from a while back)

The double standard these days that doing so much as expressing some level of disagreement or appreciation for an argument counter to the approved narrative is worthy of banishment, but invoking racial murder is okay for others...

I understand it's not one person or agency responsible for the promotion of certain voices and repression of others, but the collective efforts of most media outlets and enabling by politicians has normalized this phenomenon. Am I missing something here, genuinely? To me, Ms. Khogali is more of an extremist than most and casually invoking murder along — and racial lines would, in my view, be as much grounds for no-platforming as anything Stockwell Day said. At the time, Ms. Khogali was given many opportunities to 'justify' her tweets.

Nothing to see here, just someone forced into a grovelling apology for thought crime whose career has been destroyed. Yeah, sure, he's an idiot for "liking" Trump, but Christ...criticizing BLM is "racist"?

Yeah, of course it is. These are the times we live in. I'm guessing the "UBC Students Against Bigotry" don't see the thundering irony of what they do in light of the name of their organization.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Some causes like "solve inequality" or "solve racism, which may be systemic and hard to identify" are too vague to serve as fruitful goals. Income inequality is an example of a dubious goal. It is complicated and caused by many factors, the biggest ones being beyond our control (e.g. geography and natural resources). It is unclear that past interventions have been a net positive. The biggest force for equality in the world is technological development. It is very hard to craft interventionist social policies that don't backfire. It's doubtful that outrage mobs will converge on good policies.

Hey, let's fix

Originally Posted by JHikka

The income inequality in Canada

I have a great idea: punishing taxes on the rich. Let's just take their money and redistribute it! Super easy, no downside!

Oh, wait a minute, who could possibly have foreseen

Originally Posted by JHikka

The richest in Canada holding money overseas

?

Why would they ever want to do that?!?!?

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Regardless of your stance on firearms, you should be able to piece the clues together why "Canada's ruling party" wants everyone disarmed.

Sorry, but no. You've crossed the border into Crazy Town now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Nothing to see here, just someone forced into a grovelling apology for thought crime whose career has been destroyed. Yeah, sure, he's an idiot for "liking" Trump, but Christ...criticizing BLM is "racist"?

As usual it was pretty hard to find out what he actually did. It's telling that liking a Donald Trump tweet is presented like an offence on its face. I am no Donald Trump fan but he is the elected president of the US.

Isn't it anti-democratic to punish people for liking Donald Trump or Republican stuff? I guess it is a bit different since we are in Canada but imagine if the UBC decided that the Conservatives and Liberals are all white supremacists (the Liberal leader being a confirmed blackface performer) and only public support for the NDP is acceptable. I don't think it is appropriate for employers to behave like this, any more than it is appropriate for rich corporatists to try to prevent their workers from voting NDP.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Sorry, but no. You've crossed the border into Crazy Town now.

I'm not even a — owner. Maybe you should put two-and-two together. The — ban was never based on anything factual and in the 2+ months since things have only just begun to kick off.

Sorry you don't see it but don't say you weren't warned. The society you and I grew up in is a once in humanity situation. It's has always been temporary due to people seeing the benefits of social cohesion that benefits everyone. The status quo of humanity has been violence, "us vs them", might makes right, and so on. If members of society cannot coalesce, then the status quo begins it's ugly cycle all over again.

I wish I was wrong. If I am I'll buy you a case of Keiths or something. But the naivety of Canadians is our downfall. We think this kind of authoritarianism could never happen here but we are humans too. —, unfortunately.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I'm not even a — owner. Maybe you should put two-and-two together. The — ban was never based on anything factual and in the 2+ months since things have only just begun to kick off.

It seems to be agreed upon by both sides of the political spectrum that this current — ban accomplishes nothing other than giving the illusion the government are doing something. For the anti-— crowd (majority) it doesn't tackle root causes or address the border. For the pro-— vocal minority, it scapegoats legal — users and is arbitrary.

However, this idea you perpetuate, Antigonish, that — are somehow a guarantor of civil liberties is not only a bizarre American export, but an almost comical perversion of reality. As if, in the face of a tyrannical government, Canadians would rise up with our — and storm Ottawa to uphold our rights. No, we have a constitutional Monarchy and a generally quite stable democracy, if we don't like our leaders we vote them out, as do the Americans. This import of US — culture into Canada is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The government's attempt to limit firearms, no matter how ineffectual, isn't some 'deep state' ploy to subdue the populace, at worst it's a misguided attempt to appeal to the will of the majority to limit the proliferation of firearms in Canada.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by savevp

It seems to be agreed upon by both sides of the political spectrum that this current — ban accomplishes nothing other than giving the illusion the government are doing something. For the anti-— crowd (majority) it doesn't tackle root causes or address the border. For the pro-— vocal minority, it scapegoats legal — users and is arbitrary.

However, this idea you perpetuate, Antigonish, that — are somehow a guarantor of civil liberties is not only a bizarre American export, but a grotesque perversion of reality. As if, in the face of a tyrannical government, Canadians would rise up with our — and storm Ottawa to uphold our rights. No, we have a constitutional Monarchy and a generally quite stable democracy, if we don't like our leaders we vote them out, as do the Americans. This import of US — culture into Canada is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

While I agree with your above point the 2nd one is not what I implied.

Canada is a geographical nightmare, it's not about "storming Ottawa with —" any and all tyranny such as the killing fields in Cambodia, or the slaughter of Kulaks by USSR was not done from one organized army vs a 'rebel' army, it was done systematically from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, village vs village. All it takes is 100 brownshirts (far left or right) to start moving from street to street anywhere, dragging people from their homes. I understand this may seem hyperbole to you but all you need to do is start reading history to know the signs. A (now former) colleague of mine is in his late 40s and an immigrant from Bosnia. Someone has lived those exact experiences just within my lifetime has told me personally to watch out for what is coming.

I'd rather seem a bit crazy to someone like you if it means being at least mentally prepared for what's coming and count the steps as it happens then be completely vulnerable if/when the time comes. By then it is too late, sorry.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

That's very interesting Chad. I had heard that Eskimo was a northern Cree name given to the Inuit and meaning "eaters of raw meat", and thus was meant in a mocking manner. What you heard puts an entirely different slant on things.

"People of the ice who eat whale" has an entirely different connotation as far as I am concerned, and actually sounds rather noble.

That’s right!! “People of the Ice Who Eat Raw Meat” That’s exactly what she said. She didn’t say it was derived from Cree though. She’s from Arctic Bay, Nunavut, and at least the majority of people there refer to themselves as Issikimoo (Eskimo). And hell yeah it’s noble as —! The games they play to keep warm for months on end, their knowledge of animals with anti-freeze properties in their blood, the way they use literally every part of every animal they consume even to this day, including the blood. It’s unreal.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

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.

Couldn’t have possibly put it better myself.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

I'd rather seem a bit crazy to someone like you if it means being at least mentally prepared for what's coming and count the steps as it happens then be completely vulnerable if/when the time comes. By then it is too late, sorry.

I wouldn't call you or anyone crazy for suggesting we can easily slip into public violence if not vigilant; it's not that much of a stretch to look at certain European cities/banlieues and especially American cities to see pockets of Western civility teetering on the brink. But the idea that arming the citizenry is the deterrent to this has been emphatically proven false by the same American cities. The idea that citizens should be armed and ready, like quasi-soldiers, to defend often diffuse civilisational ideas is perhaps largely responsible for the tendency of American society to fracture itself every couple decades.

On the contrary, our abiding trust in government and our institutions, misplaced or not, has been a guarantor of our stability and relative cohesion as a society, even in the face of immense cultural differences from east to west, with Quebec, etc.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That’s right!! “People of the Ice Who Eat Raw Meat” That’s exactly what she said. She didn’t say it was derived from Cree though. She’s from Arctic Bay, Nunavut, and at least the majority of people there refer to themselves as Issikimoo (Eskimo).

If they refer to themselves as Eskimo, how come we can't call them that?

I'm trying to conceive being pissed at someone from away for referring to me as "a Québécois" and it's just not working at all.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by lio45

If they refer to themselves as Eskimo, how come we can't call them that?

I'm trying to conceive being pissed at someone from away for referring to me as "a Québécois" and it's just not working at all.

Is the imposition, on Indigenous people, of Eurocentric standards of what constitutes racism so different than the imposition of modern moral standards on historical figures? It shouldn't be a surprise that there are proscribed terms, with the use of them declared racism.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by savevp

I wouldn't call you or anyone crazy for suggesting we can easily slip into public violence if not vigilant; it's not that much of a stretch to look at certain European cities/banlieues and especially American cities to see pockets of Western civility teetering on the brink. But the idea that arming the citizenry is the deterrent to this has been emphatically proven false by the same American cities. The idea that citizens should be armed and ready, like quasi-soldiers, to defend often diffuse civilisational ideas is perhaps largely responsible for the tendency of American society to fracture itself every couple decades.

Unfortunately it isn't about fighting for or against a nation state it is about fighting for yourself, your family, and your immediate community. The use of racial tensions is pushed through our institutions but I don't believe it's the actual reason for what is coming. All of it is financial/economic. When we as Canadians appeal to authority like we do now, when said authority is responsible for financial/economic collapse even the most passive Canadian will not sit by and continue to appeal to that authority when economic depression sets in, when financial hyperinflation kicks in, when unemployment is at great depression level. Canadians like other civilized countries will not shrug their shoulders and think "well, it will take 50 years of extreme austerity to correct the problem under the status quo, it is what it is". That is what is coming, and that's why I am terrified of it; also why I am terrified at how many people still haven't clued in and think that a year from now things will go back to normal. They won't. Because what we live isn't "normal" which is what I was alluding to in my original post.

On the contrary, our abiding trust in government and our institutions, misplaced or not, has been a guarantor of our stability and relative cohesion as a society, even in the face of immense cultural differences from east to west, with Quebec, etc.

This time around that will not happen, though. When financial instability affects us at a personal level, no trust in central government is justified by the masses any more. People will not put their faith in Ottawa to ensure they have 3 meals a day while the banks ask for their trillions of dollars of debt repayments. People will simply not tolerate that no matter how civilized under the current system.

It is a slow bleed. And while Canada has become pretty damn dysfunctional lately it won't truly kick off until it does south of us. It is not a matter of if but when. Whoever loses the American election in November will not honor the victor. The powerful groups pulling the strings of the Democrats and Republicans will not let their "team" control the other; it's been a civil war behind closed doors for many years now. Only in the past couple weeks/months has it actually spilled into the streets with the average citizen.

Sorry for the scaremongering - but it is what it is. I won't ignore the signs to ease my anxiety because I don't have a team in the fight but I do know for sure I will directly have to the deal with the consequences whether I want to or not.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by lio45

If they refer to themselves as Eskimo, how come we can't call them that?

I'm trying to conceive being pissed at someone from away for referring to me as "a Québécois" and it's just not working at all.

Apparently some Inuit find the term offensive which I find odd given that "Eskimo" is a term they use.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

If they refer to themselves as Eskimo, how come we can't call them that?

I'm trying to conceive being pissed at someone from away for referring to me as "a Québécois" and it's just not working at all.

You only need to listen to a contemporary hiphop song to get your answer.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

It would have to include CBC News including the TV and web sides. Locally in Winnipeg the CBC is easily the number one promoter of stories with what we might call a "SJW" slant.

Not a fan of CTV News in general but lately they actually seem more balanced than the CBC.