The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[wave46]

Originally Posted by someone123

I always thought the CBC had value to the extent it sticks to some principles rather than just doing whatever the market-driven media outlets are doing. One good principle would be to cover Canadian issues or perspectives, and another would be to provide coverage around the county that wouldn't otherwise tend to happen (go out to smaller regions/areas or bridge the language gap).

While it is not as dependent on the forces of viewership, it does have to justify its budget somehow. The sweet honeypot of Trump outrage draws more viewers and far outstrips covering topics that affect smaller, regional Canada more. I find their radio programming far better than their television programming, as it is more attuned to local markets.

[Nashe]

I follow snippets of mainstream media just about all over. Not always to get a "fleshed out" viewpoint, but also just so I know what people are "goin' on about" if they're particularly miffed. When I hear an interviewer frame a setup question an then "pounce", it kinda turns me off. I avoid editorials like the plague. Gross.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I follow snippets of mainstream media just about all over. Not always to get a "fleshed out" viewpoint, but also just so I know what people are "goin' on about" if they're particularly miffed. When I hear an interviewer frame a setup question an then "pounce", it kinda turns me off. I avoid editorials like the plague. Gross.

Unfortunately, "Gotcha!" moments are far more entertaining. Then people wonder why political leaders refuse to go off script or give any kind of meaningful answers.

They're waiting for "Gotcha!". It ruins discourse.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by wave46

Unfortunately, "Gotcha!" moments are far more entertaining. Then people wonder why political leaders refuse to go off script or give any kind of meaningful answers. They're waiting for "Gotcha!". It ruins discourse.

Exactly. It's bordering on "reality tv" when the setups are that obvious. And it stifles the flow of ACTUAL information. People are so scared to step on a landmine that they don't step anywhere. Media coaches must be making sick bank.
If there is one thing I LOATHE is being manipulated. If I sense a hint of it, at best I'll put a wall up. At worst, I'll tune completely out.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

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.

Every democracy, that is. Obviously N. Korea has a mouthpiece broadcaster, don't confuse it with a real public broadcaster which serves the public, not a despot dictatorship. N. Korea is an extreme example of the alternative you asked about as well.

According to academic research ... public service media compared to commercial media produces:

• more hard news
• more international news
• more domestic politics
• more current affairs programming
• more coverage of public policy issues
• reporting that is less sensationalist and more balanced
• stories that focus on policy substance

People who are exposed to news on public television are:

• likelier to vote
• better informed than people exposed to news on private TV
• likelier to have more realistic perceptions of their societies, crime and immigration
• less likely to express negative attitudes towards immigration and immigrants

Countries with strong and well-funded public broadcasters have:

• higher levels of social trust and social cohesion
• people who are less likely to hold and express extremist political views"

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/a-matter-...gardner-on-public-broadcasting-1.4701029

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Every democracy, that is. Obviously N. Korea has a mouthpiece broadcaster, don't confuse it with a real public broadcaster which serves the public, not a despot dictatorship.





https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/a-matter-...gardner-on-public-broadcasting-1.4701029

Ring, ring goes the bell!

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ring, ring goes the bell!

Wikipedia is actually the only charity I give money to.

[SignalHillHiker]

A friend of mine is from upstate New York, surrounded by rednecks. She's very anti-political labels and cancel culture. Her own ideals, she's very left-wing and empathetic - pro Black Lives Matter, LGBT rights, etc. But she has zero patience for people who are angry and she always things like, "If someone says something racist in front of you, don't get angry. That accomplishes nothing. If you call them out rudely, you only reinforce their beliefs. You have to approach it with kindness. For example, if someone says a racist joke, tell them you don't get it and ask why they're funny. Whatever they say, just keep asking that until they realize it isn't. Then they've learned that for themselves, and it's not you telling them, which will never and has never worked." Or, for example, "Democrats, Republicans on TV... no. If you're being paid to talk about your politics, I really don't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 what you have to say."

And it all sounded a bit too... libertarian idealistic to me... but, I happened upon this Ted Talk from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church explaining what got her out of it. And it was people like this buddy from "the hick part of NY" lol

https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_r...ist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en

[ssiguy]

Racism, sexism, and homophobia will be with us forever unless there is a PROFOUND change in our socio-economic system and values and that is not in the cards. The sad reality is that discriminated groups WANT and even DEMAND many parts of these bigoted attitudes to continue.

Racial and ethnic minorities want to rid society of discrimination but reinforce it by living in urban ethnic ghettos making sure that they have as little contact with other groups as possible. They the first ones that refuse to marry outside of their grouping. They also refuse to accept the notion that racism is not a one-way street and racism towards other non-Caucasians is not "cultural" but discriminatory.

Women want to be treated equally and not as 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 objects but go out of their way to do it. From gobs of make-up {think about that word for minute}, colouring their hair every shade under the rainbow, high heels, bras to show of the "goods", and they still put a very high value on any potential partners on the size of their wallet.

Gays don't want to be stereotyped but have no problem doing it themselves, From twinks to bears to otters to jocks to rice or curry queens......gay culture is nothing but one big pigeon hole. Drag queens that are somehow funny yet are sexism 101 by their attire making women look like bitchy 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 with massive 🞵🞵🞵🞵, gobs of obscene make-up, and boufont hair.

Looking thru the window to find scapegoats is so damn easy but isn't life a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 when someone asks you to look in the mirror?

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Racism, sexism, and homophobia will be with us forever unless there is a PROFOUND change in our socio-economic system and values and that is not in the cards. The sad reality is that discriminated groups WANT and even DEMAND many parts of these bigoted attitudes to continue. This, of course, requires us as both individuals and societies in general to take a good hard look in the mirror which we are loath to do.

I would say in all my experience that the people who want this the most are White liberals with their crocodile tears.

Even look at the Trudeau black face event -- virtually no traction or impact on the vast majority of visible minorities, many of whom have no historic knowledge of blackface and its implications in the US or what have you. Much of the rage I saw on social media came from White liberals.

Even with all this rioting and looting -- scores of White people involved. It was hilarious seeing one of the protests with an all-White group of protesters and yet many of the police officers keeping watch were Black.

White liberals have to do a good job of scaring minorities and convincing them that White people are evil and that these White liberals are their only saviors. So they are just as keen as anyone else, if not moreso, in perpetuating ideas of how awful minorities are doing or whatever, even if it is often inconsistent with reality.

I mean I don't mind getting my feet washed by self-flagellating cucks but I never asked for it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Gays don't want to be stereotyped but have no problem doing it themselves, From twinks to bears to otters to jocks to rice or curry queens......gay culture is nothing but one big pigeon hole.

Why do you write as if gay people all share collective guilt? If person A does something bad and person B shares the same 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 orientation, B is guilty?

You could have reformulated your point by focusing on bad behaviour instead of stereotyping by 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 orientation.

This is one of the most poisonous aspects of both identity politics and plain old racism. Just because you have the same skin colour as someone somewhere else on the planet doesn't mean you have any control over what they do or should judged for their behaviour.

[someone123]

Imagine a hypothetical middle-aged gay white male as an example of how crazy identity politics can be.

In 1992, age 26, you're discharged from the Canadian military for being gay and your career is destroyed.
Through the late 80's and 90's, you watch half of your friends die from AIDS.
In 1998 you listen to media coverage "gay panic" defense; maybe Matthew Shepard's murder was justifiable because he flirted with some guys in a bar.
In 2002 you see more bathhouse raids happen, and some of your friends get harassed by police for consensual 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 activity.
In 2015, age 49, you are told to check your privilege by Millennial activists. You can't understand what it's like for minorities dealing with systemic discrimination, or what it's like to have to worry about your safety around police!

Hopefully this demographic enjoyed the "honeymoon" of circa 2005-2015 when they experienced comparatively little harassment for being who they are.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Why do you write as if gay people all share collective guilt? If person A does something bad and person B shares the same 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 orientation, B is guilty?

You could have reformulated your point by focusing on bad behaviour instead of stereotyping by 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 orientation.

This is one of the most poisonous aspects of both identity politics and plain old racism. Just because you have the same skin colour as someone somewhere else on the planet doesn't mean you have any control over what they do or should judged for their behaviour.

His point was very, very poorly expressed, but I think that groups that have grievances (often legitimate) frequently forget that they also have the obligation to be non-discriminatory.

In the metro area where I live, while I wouldn't say it is most of them, it is not that uncommon to encounter members of visible minorities in Ottawa who have, let's say, "issues" with francophones.

This past winter, my wife took an Ottawa taxi from Canada's capital to her office in Gatineau, and the driver (who was clearly not a Smith or a MacDonald) ranted about Québécois francophones for most of the trip. My wife does not have an accent in English so I guess he thought she wasn't francophone. Needless to say, he got zero tip.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

His point was very, very poorly expressed, but I think that groups that have grievances (often legitimate) frequently forget that they also have the obligation to be non-discriminatory.

I understand that but my social circles are mostly LGBT and something like "rice queen" would be considered unacceptable in this group ("archaic" might be a better word, something that is inappropriate but also from another time). A lot of people in the gay community try to focus more on issues like 🞵🞵🞵 positivity or body positivity instead of just physical characteristics.

I don't know why ssiguy's experience, which often sounds to me like it came out of a time capsule from 2002, should be more representative than mine, or why we should accept his accusations without evidence and "tar" all gay people with negative judgement. I am very skeptical that gay people are worse than average in any of these areas. I suspect they tend to be held to a higher standard of social progressiveness in many areas. I bet that you would find more mixed-race gay couples than straight couples, for example.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I understand that but my social circles are mostly LGBT and something like "rice queen" would be considered unacceptable in this group ("archaic" might be a better word, something that is inappropriate but also from another time). A lot of people in the gay community try to focus more on issues like 🞵🞵🞵 positivity or body positivity instead of just physical characteristics.

I don't know why ssiguy's experience, which often sounds to me like it came out of a time capsule from 2002, should be more representative than mine, or why we should accept his accusations without evidence and "tar" all gay people with negative judgement. I am very skeptical that gay people are worse than average in any of these areas. I suspect they tend to be held to a higher standard of social progressiveness in many areas. I bet that you would find more mixed-race gay couples than straight couples, for example.

I am sorry if you thought I was placing more validity on ssiguy's views than yours. I certainly wasn't.

But haven't you yourself said in the past that the gay community can sometimes be discriminatory (ie "no Asians" in dating ads)?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the gay community or any minority should be held to a higher standard. Only the same standards as everyone else.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But haven't you yourself said in the past that the gay community can sometimes be discriminatory (ie "no Asians" in dating ads)?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the gay community or any minority should be held to a higher standard. Only the same standards as everyone else.

I question why somebody putting "no Asians" on Grindr reflects on some abstract "gay community" and not just an act by an individual. At minimum we need to be able to say something about the incidence rate if we want to start talking about demographics. And even if we establish that it's common, the idea of collective guilt is still wrong.

If a straight woman were to put "no Asians" on her Tindr profile would that reflect badly on the "straight community"? Or is Paul Berdardo a "straight serial killer" who somehow tells us about straight culture?

This is a common complaint that minorities have, e.g. black person appears on TV robbing and it's perceived as a "black robber". White person appears and it's a "robber". Or somebody might even just say "black guy" vs. "guy" (maybe with implied whiteness, maybe not).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I question why somebody putting "no Asians" on Grindr is a reflection on some abstract "gay community" and not just an act by an individual. At minimum we need to be able to say something about the incidence rate if we want to start talking about demographics.

If a straight woman were to put "no Asians" on her Tindr profile would that reflect badly on the "straight community"? Or is Paul Berdardo a "straight killer"?
.

I guess you're not the one who brought it up on here, then. Pretty sure it was a forumer who self-identifies as gay. And they brought it up as being very, very common.

Personally, I wouldn't know how common "no Asians" or "no fatties" is on dating sites, straight or gay, as I don't visit those.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I would think the Toronto Star comes closest, or used to.

Used to, they have social justice journalists in their titles now. It's quite a farce.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess you're not the one who brought it up on here, then. Pretty sure it was a forumer who self-identifies as gay. And they brought it up as being very, very common.

Personally, I wouldn't know how common "no Asians" or "no fatties" is on dating sites, straight or gay, as I don't visit those.

You opened a can of worms, human worms. The no Asian is usually because statistics show Asians have smaller penises, and the BBC is king on Grindr. So is it racism or being a size queen?

How many women profiles put I don't date short guys.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

You opened a can of worms, human worms. The no Asian is usually because statistics show Asians have smaller penises, and the BBC is king on Grindr. So is it racism or being a size queen?

How many women profiles put I don't date short guys.

I would like to say that I don't really care about *any* of this.

That said, some might say this is simply making excuses for being racist. Averages are just averages. I am sure many Asian people are above average and many black people are below average. There is an contemporary argument that says we shouldn't be judged based on assumed averages (of any nature) and their relationship to our race.