The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Seems no different from the fragility of any other group.

To those who don’t understand the concept and are too set in their ways to learn more about it, sure.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

To those who don’t understand the concept and are too set in their ways to learn more about it, sure.

It arguably becomes a racist concept the moment you say only certain people have this behaviour based on the colour of their skin.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Architype

So to be practical, shouldn't this be tried on a trial basis (like a controlled experiment) in various demographic environments to see how it works first. I think that would be a reasonable approach before going into it blindly.

Absolutely. I will nominate my hometown to be the place that we do this, too.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Feel free to test that anywhere that I do not live.

Thanks!

Why do you think it's bad, though? Like, I live in a neighbourhood where I have people using drugs in my backyard and the few times I've called police they just assault the person and a couple weeks later they're back, so status quo doesn't work. I see youth in and out of foster care and corrections, so that doesn't work.

It's easy for you live in suburban Quebec and say the system is fine. Come stay with me for a few weeks, and we'll see if you still think that way.

And sure, policing in Gatineau might not be that bad, and maybe it doesn't need to be changed. But whatever is being done here, doesn't work well. Whatever was being done in Mississauga, where the family of a man in distress called for help and then help came and shot him dead, obviously is an example of the system not working.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Seems no different from the fragility of any other group.

Except that white fragility comes from the group that holds the most sway over the systems that run society.

I've noticed myself that people pay more attention to what I say than when native people say the same thing. I've experienced it many times. That's what white privilege is. That's what we're referring to when we say those words.

Why do you want to maintain the system as it is when so many people are showing its flaws to you? Why do you get so nervous around those who advocate for change? What do you fear will happen to you as a result of the implementation of those changes?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

So, that's actually the opposite of what anyone is asking for. New York's social experiment with stop and frisk (and Toronto's social experiment of carding) demonstrated that black people who were stopped by police were less likely than white people who were stopped by police to have drugs and weapons on them. It also demonstrated that police repeatedly stop the same black person with no results than they ever stop the same white person with no results.

If, instead of asking for the practice (which affected everyone to at least some degree) to be stopped, we had asked for them to stop and frisk or card more white people, then your comparison would have some merit to it. But that wasn't requested, so your comparison is silly.

You're looking at this in a totally black or white way. I'm for the middle ground, i.e. letting the police use their resources the best way possible, according to their judgment in the circumstances, and not forcing them to always be strictly reactive. (There are stories in the paper every now and then about cops that managed to prevent a severe crime by just having a feeling and stopping the right person at the right time for a routine check, so that's something that does happen.)

So if they feel like some profiling helps efficiency, I'm okay letting them do it. (I know they do - they pay WAY more attention to males and young people than our share of the general population.)

You also ignore root causes of crime and criminality: people who are placed lower on the social ladder are more likely to be desperate, and desperation leads to crime. Reduce desperation, and you'll reduce crime. Stopping and frisking people and writing them up for repeated minor violations makes them less employable on paper, but not in practice. So stop doing that. It hurts western society to do that.

I never said anything in favor of giving people criminal records for minor violations, not sure where that comes from.

I'm for letting cops do their jobs, which sometimes involves them deciding to check out people based on what they find suspicious even if no crime has yet been committed, using their best judgment all the time.

Then why not advocate that the police be reduced in size and refocused on investigating only violent and severe crimes, and leave the bulk of their other work to other agencies, many of which are not even publicly funded? I volunteer at a youth centre that my city's chief of police has said is indispensable and an important part of crime prevention and making the job of police easier in this neighbourhood, she's also advocated for many policing tasks to be transferred to other non-police agencies—and this was over a year ago, before #defundthepolice—so clearly, even people leading law enforcement are on the same page. And most of our funding this year is from donations, not the government. This represents a savings to the taxpayer. Even the chief of what has been described as one of the most racist police forces in Canada agrees with the core principles of defunding police.

So why wouldn't you? Over 20% of our property taxes go to the police budget. It could be less.

I'm not saying no to this. But again, both the "new" police (with less tasks, dealing only with the more severe stuff) and the other non-police agencies should all be allowed to use their best judgment, without being forced to respect quotas or ignore data, because that's the optimal way to use finite resources.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Once again, read a book. Do some research. Systemic racism isn’t a pie-in-the-sky idea.

Maybe I should start with history, right?

Look man, if you read through my previous posts I'm agreeing with you that systemic racism is real but unless you want a quantifiable solution the tearing down of society and blaming basic nobody whites (like me) harbours nothing but resentment and a lack of will of taking your plight in anyway serious. You want a face of an authoritarian police figure in politics that holds people like you (or me even) back? Rally your friends and colleagues together and picket outside Bill Blair's house. People like him are you're enemy, not me. But if you vilify people like me then I'm all out of white guilt No matter what I say or do won't be enough under the current dogma, so why should I even play? Why should ~25 million other Canadians play too? Nothing is going to be satisfactory other than having our (fleeting) careers in jeopardy for even saying anything. It's regressive thinking. It helps nobody.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

What an imagination.

Funnily enough, it does speak to what you perceive western society to be built on. Dismantle the racist parts of the foundations and you can’t picture it.

I’m part of the system. I hold many practical, centrist views. I can’t stop laughing at your vision of me.

Western society is undeniably built upon white European views on society and how they should be structured, in the case of Canada the country you and I live in and benefit from are from white Europeans at the expense of Indigenous people. For a black man in Canadian society you should be treated as an equal to a white man based off of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you aren't then you are being discriminated against. But if you are being discriminated against it isn't at the benefit of a regular white guy, it is at the expense of the privilege of the elites (like the Trudeaus, the Irvings, the Westons).

Unalienable rights are based off "old white men" and subsequently over the years/decades/centuries(?)/generations as society has fought for the rights of others:
Women's sufferage -> women (albiet, white at the time...) = equal to a white man.
Abolition of Jim Crow, Redlining etc -> Black men/women = equal to a white man.
And so on.

So where today are we not equal? Driving while black? If that is the case (and I believe you) then sure lets work together to remove that stigma. But don't come at me or people like me thinking we're the ones holding you back. Attack people like Bill 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Blair and his cabal of shitheads. I'm not holding you back, so don't hold my career or future hostage like I'm culpable in it all. That's all I'm saying.

The current dogma says otherwise. That's why I probably come across as hostile about it and I refuse to be held hostage either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by vid

Absolutely. I will nominate my hometown to be the place that we do this, too.



Why do you think it's bad, though? Like, I live in a neighbourhood where I have people using drugs in my backyard and the few times I've called police they just assault the person and a couple weeks later they're back, so status quo doesn't work. I see youth in and out of foster care and corrections, so that doesn't work.

It's easy for you live in suburban Quebec and say the system is fine. Come stay with me for a few weeks, and we'll see if you still think that way.

And sure, policing in Gatineau might not be that bad, and maybe it doesn't need to be changed. But whatever is being done here, doesn't work well. Whatever was being done in Mississauga, where the family of a man in distress called for help and then help came and shot him dead, obviously is an example of the system not working.



Except that white fragility comes from the group that holds the most sway over the systems that run society.

I've noticed myself that people pay more attention to what I say than when native people say the same thing. I've experienced it many times. That's what white privilege is. That's what we're referring to when we say those words.

Why do you want to maintain the system as it is when so many people are showing its flaws to you? Why do you get so nervous around those who advocate for change? What do you fear will happen to you as a result of the implementation of those changes?

That is where you guys are mistaken.

You think I am in denial about the system needing to be reformed because a) I criticize your approaches for doing it and b) I call you out for your ideological intolerance.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It arguably becomes a racist concept the moment you say only certain people have this behaviour based on the colour of their skin.

Well we live in a society built on white supremacy so race as an issue, as a shaping force of who we are, is unavoidable.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by vid

So, that's actually the opposite of what anyone is asking for. New York's social experiment with stop and frisk (and Toronto's social experiment of carding) demonstrated that black people who were stopped by police were less likely than white people who were stopped by police to have drugs and weapons on them. It also demonstrated that police repeatedly stop the same black person with no results than they ever stop the same white person with no results.

If, instead of asking for the practice (which affected everyone to at least some degree) to be stopped, we had asked for them to stop and frisk or card more white people, then your comparison would have some merit to it. But that wasn't requested, so your comparison is silly.

You also ignore root causes of crime and criminality: people who are placed lower on the social ladder are more likely to be desperate, and desperation leads to crime. Reduce desperation, and you'll reduce crime. Stopping and frisking people and writing them up for repeated minor violations makes them less employable on paper, but not in practice. So stop doing that. It hurts western society to do that.



Then why not advocate that the police be reduced in size and refocused on investigating only violent and severe crimes, and leave the bulk of their other work to other agencies, many of which are not even publicly funded? I volunteer at a youth centre that my city's chief of police has said is indispensable and an important part of crime prevention and making the job of police easier in this neighbourhood, she's also advocated for many policing tasks to be transferred to other non-police agencies—and this was over a year ago, before #defundthepolice—so clearly, even people leading law enforcement are on the same page. And most of our funding this year is from donations, not the government. This represents a savings to the taxpayer. Even the chief of what has been described as one of the most racist police forces in Canada agrees with the core principles of defunding police.

So why wouldn't you? Over 20% of our property taxes go to the police budget. It could be less.

This is a really great post.

It is interesting to note that much more successful countries employ something like this - a dollar spent on a program that gives children/young adults a better chance at an improved future will yield 10X that benefit in the future. A young adult steered away from a life of crime is much more likely to be a contributor to the social safety net than a taker from it.

The foolish countries save the dollar on the kids and spend 10 on the law-and-order aspect. Naturally, that leads to the quasi-military policing and things like recently happened in Minneapolis.

What I think the movement lacks is a strong, reasonable voice like MLK. Indeed, that's what he campaigned for in the years leading up to his death and the shame was that his death set things back for years.

Now we get such polarized voices so that the reasonable is drowned out. Maybe it's the media and its focus on being entertaining, or the crack-cocaine like effect of Twitter on discourse of both sides. The reasonable isn't entertaining, so it's ignored. So, all we can focus on is Tweet-like mantras or other inanity.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That is where you guys are mistaken.

You think I am in denial about the system needing to be reformed because a) I criticize your approaches for doing it and b) I call you out for your ideological intolerance.

Exactly. There are jump to conclusions from the other side here - I never said I wasn't in favor of some improvements nor that the status quo was perfect. I just disagree with some of the more extreme rhetoric we've been seeing lately, most of which if implemented as is (thankfully, I don't see that happening), would likely make things worse, not better.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

What do you fear will happen to you as a result of the implementation of those changes?

"I'll be living in a more racist, segregated, and divided society than the one I currently live in" would be a justifiable answer to your question.

(It's also a good reason to oppose said changes, IMO.)

[savevp]

Originally Posted by wave46

Now we get such polarized voices so that the reasonable is drowned out. Maybe it's the media and its focus on being entertaining, or the crack-cocaine like effect of Twitter on discourse of both sides. The reasonable isn't entertaining, so it's ignored. So, all we can focus on is Tweet-like mantras or other inanity.

Twitter's black hole effect on discourse notwithstanding, what has arguably inflamed passions on at least one side is when real life figures are being punished for expressing reasonable opinions publically. Again, the Stockwell Day situation comes to the fore. Even if what he said is wrong, offensive, or whatever else, his denial is a sincerely held viewpoint from someone who had been deemed worthy of commenting on these things publically.

I think people rightly fear that the foundational concept of the right to dissenting opinion in public debate is on the edge of the cliff, if it hasn't already fallen off. This isn't an issue that arose in June, 2020 and, to be fair, for every Stockwell Day there is a Rex Murphy who's writing remains unencumbered.

We've reached a point, though, where most public figures simply can't express reasonable dissenting opinion about the topic du jour. It's not that there's a mob waiting outside corporate offices to pounce on executives who downplay systemic racism in Canada, but the culture of fear that pervades corporate suites has done that job better than any mob could. And on this forum, it will come in the form of commenters declaring me, or others, fragile, racist, etc. or dismissing valid arguments with 'read a book' or 'educate yourself.'

These concerns go beyond Twitter, and into deeper questions or how free speech should be, and at what cost should speech remain free? It's where Jordan Peterson found his fruit and it's not a question that society will move on from after this current wave of conspicuous social activism subsides.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Don't worry, they're coming after the history books, too. They always do. Look at the revisionist 1619 Project the NYT is putting out.

If I understand the rationale behind 1619 and wanting it to replace 1776, should it not be 1607?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly. There are jump to conclusions from the other side here - I never said I wasn't in favor of some improvements nor that the status quo was perfect. I just disagree with some of the more extreme rhetoric we've been seeing lately, most of which if implemented as is (thankfully, I don't see that happening), would likely make things worse, not better.

But to be fair, you spend vastly more time and energy posting about your disagreement re the extreme fringe "SJW" rhetoric than you do posting about your agreement with the non-extreme criticisms of the status quo shared by the vast majority of people (like me) who generally support concerns about discrimination and inequality in our society. So I don't think it is that surprising that some posters "jump to conclusions".

(And for the record, as I think you know, I value you as a poster - for what little that is worth to you!)

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Maybe I should start with history, right?

Look man, if you read through my previous posts I'm agreeing with you that systemic racism is real but unless you want a quantifiable solution the tearing down of society and blaming basic nobody whites (like me) harbours nothing but resentment and a lack of will of taking your plight in anyway serious. You want a face of an authoritarian police figure in politics that holds people like you (or me even) back? Rally your friends and colleagues together and picket outside Bill Blair's house. People like him are you're enemy, not me. But if you vilify people like me then I'm all out of white guilt No matter what I say or do won't be enough under the current dogma, so why should I even play? Why should ~25 million other Canadians play too? Nothing is going to be satisfactory other than having our (fleeting) careers in jeopardy for even saying anything. It's regressive thinking. It helps nobody.



Western society is undeniably built upon white European views on society and how they should be structured, in the case of Canada the country you and I live in and benefit from are from white Europeans at the expense of Indigenous people. For a black man in Canadian society you should be treated as an equal to a white man based off of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you aren't then you are being discriminated against. But if you are being discriminated against it isn't at the benefit of a regular white guy, it is at the expense of the privilege of the elites (like the Trudeaus, the Irvings, the Westons).

Unalienable rights are based off "old white men" and subsequently over the years/decades/centuries(?)/generations as society has fought for the rights of others:
Women's sufferage -> women (albiet, white at the time...) = equal to a white man.
Abolition of Jim Crow, Redlining etc -> Black men/women = equal to a white man.
And so on.

So where today are we not equal? Driving while black? If that is the case (and I believe you) then sure lets work together to remove that stigma. But don't come at me or people like me thinking we're the ones holding you back. Attack people like Bill 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Blair and his cabal of shitheads. I'm not holding you back, so don't hold my career or future hostage like I'm culpable in it all. That's all I'm saying.

The current dogma says otherwise. That's why I probably come across as hostile about it and I refuse to be held hostage either.

Unless you are far more powerful and influential than I am, I sincerely doubt that anyone is personally blaming you for the flaws in our society's largest, oldest, and most important institutions.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If I understand the rationale behind 1619 and wanting it to replace 1776, should it not be 1607?

1619 is the year the Dutch first brought slaves to America.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're correct in both cases, though the enlightened way is that even if a member of Group X raped and murdered a member of your family, you're not supposed to harbour prejudices against other innocent members of Group X simply because of that fact.

Three people killed in an alleged terrorist attack in Reading UK. How are their family members supposed to orient their world view if they are to remain enlightened?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

1619 is the year the Dutch first brought slaves to America.

Why would that be a more a foundational moment for the USA as a whole than, say, Jamestown?

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

I just disagree with some of the more extreme rhetoric we've been seeing lately, most of which if implemented as is (thankfully, I don't see that happening), would likely make things...

...a more racist, segregated, and divided society than the one I currently live in

So, if you're going to

Originally Posted by Acajack

a) criticize approaches

and

Originally Posted by Acajack

b) call out ideological intolerance

You need to give some more specific examples of where and how my ideas are ideological intolerance that will result in a more racist, segregated, and divided society than the one we currently live in.

Explain that in a way that I can understand, and I will certainly consider adjusting my position on the issue, but so far all you've given me is a bunch of assumptions that "things are good, will be bad, and that's not good!" and I can't really work with that.

Like, if you guys are trying to criticize, then criticize. I'm open to criticism. I'm not open to shrugging off because that gives me too little to work with. The questions I asked you in the previous post weren't because I was trying to play gotcha, it's because I want to better understand your insight into this but you're being vague and guarded about it and I don't understand why. You aren't in denial about the system needing reform? Great! Act like it.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Why would that be a more a foundational moment for the USA as a whole than, say, Jamestown?

Jamestown was eventually abandoned. Slavery became a pillar of the American economy for 250 years.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Three people killed in an alleged terrorist attack in Reading UK. How are their family members supposed to orient their world view if they are to remain enlightened?

Why did the terrorist attack happen? What was the ideological root of the terrorist's motive? I bet it was similar to all the others. That's where the solution lies.

If all we discuss is how the family should react to the terrorist attack, then we leave the door open for more terrorist attacks. They could forgive the attacker and become best friends with his whole family, and terrorist attacks will still happen until the root cause of the attack is identified and solved.

We can apply this to most crimes.