The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Edit

The term has its etymological roots in the Arabic word (Arabic: كافر kāfir) that is usually translated into English as "disbeliever" or "non-believer" to describe "one without religion" or by a Muslim to describe a non-Muslim.[8] The word is non-racial and applied to non-Muslims in general, and therefore in the past to non-Muslims who were encountered along the Swahili coast by Arab traders.



Shocking a racial slur created by the religion of peace?

[kwoldtimer]

More and more - "The "Dixie Chicks" are now "The Chicks"; Unilever is dropping the words "whitening", "lightening", and "fair" from its skin products marketing and brandnames; Johnson and Johnson is dropping two lines of skin lightening products popular in Asia.

[kool maudit]

Heartening to see Unilever take these first steps toward enlightenment even as its palm oil suppliers continue to use slave labour.

The arc of history bends toward justice, and if free statements are its beginning, then surely massive overhauls of the high-globalization model and its many abuses in the developing world are somewhere toward its end.

It takes a while!

[kool maudit]

Just look at Jeff Bezos' acquitition of Seattle's Key Arena, which will be renamed "Climate Pledge Arena". Sure, it's just a pledge right now, but I have been assured that this giant, climate-controlled building designed to display frivolous rituals to tens of thousands of people will soon be as environmentally neutral as the lotus flower.


(sorry for the derail, back to racism, but my admiration for the sudden fundamental decency of the world's untouchable oligarchs is hard to contain)

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

But this is the point, the unifying feature is a chaotic desire for change.

Change is impossible if you don't have a coherent framework for that change, and the left as a unit has lost it.

I identify (for the most part) as part of "the left" but I have no chaotic desire for change. I have a desire for good faith, pragmatic, considered and democratic change intended to make our society more fair and more just (recognizing of course that those are complex ideas).

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Just look at Jeff Bezos' acquitition of Seattle's Key Arena, which will be renamed "Climate Pledge Arena". Sure, it's just a pledge right now, but I have been assured that this giant, climate-controlled building designed to display frivolous rituals to tens of thousands of people will soon be as environmentally neutral as the lotus flower.


(sorry for the derail, back to racism, but my admiration for the sudden fundamental decency of the world's untouchable oligarchs is hard to contain)

I'm not sure you can argue this is a derailing.


This is like saying talking about hand washing is a derailment of Covid.

Batshit crazy philosophy attached to die hard consumerism/hedonism is exactly what it sounds like.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Isn't it the same principle that's at play with the N-word? You're not allowed to use it in any circumstances, even to say that's it bad. Even to reference past uses of it as having been bad.

It's entirely plausible and maybe even likely that someone will say that the mere sight of a swastika even in an anti-swastika and anti-Nazi message which is what the strikeout circle and bar clearly represent, is still too much.

The only reasons we haven't heard it yet is because a) anti-Semitism is not a top-of-mind issue right now and b) it's being used against Trump.

I have to confess that if I were a Holocaust survivor I might find the multiplication of swastikas in the public domain, even with the red strikeout, a bit unsettling.

I have never ever heard anyone express this concern. IlSeems like an utter non-issue to me.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I identify (for the most part) as part of "the left" but I have no chaotic desire for change. I have a desire for good faith, pragmatic, considered and democratic change intended to make our society more fair and more just (recognizing of course that those are complex ideas).

My point is your views conflict with the views of your peers.

We live in a democracy, if you want to accomplish any of your desires you have to work with other people.

So unless you're willing to conform to a tangible idea your political ideas won't only not happen, they'll fuel a fire that is tearing apart society.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

My point is your views conflict with the views of your peers.

We live in a democracy, if you want to accomplish any of your desires you have to work with other people.

So unless you're willing to conform to a tangible idea your political ideas won't only not happen, they'll fuel a fire that is tearing apart society.

Society is being torn apart?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I have never ever heard anyone express this concern. IlSeems like an utter non-issue to me.

It's an utter non-issue... until it isn't.

How about marchers in the streets with signs that have the N-word written out in full but struck out by red circles and bars?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's an utter non-issue... until it isn't.

How about marchers in the streets with signs that have the N-word written out in full but struck out by red circles and bars?

That seems intended to convey a very different (understandably offensive and harmful) message.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Society is being torn apart?

I don't think that's an unfair characterisation of what's happening in America, much of Europe... The West, broadly. It's probably not terminal, but certainly the basic social cohesion between left and right is dramatically reduced at present. Thankfully Canada has been spared the worst of this so far.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Society is being torn apart?

Depends on what you mean, nothing is ever gonna be like some Micheal Bay blockbuster.

We're experiencing a social divide that can only be compared to the protestant reformation. People are no longer sharing fundamental political values. People on the left outright reject the notion that people should be left alone free from the reach of globalism.

So if you don't want to be part of a global culture all you're are left with is aggressive rebelling.


We already have experienced this with Quebec. Problem is Quebec is a left wing seperatist group. This obscures the harsh reality that if we had seperatism is Texas, Nebraska etc that North America would grind to an economic halt relatively quickly.


And I'll tell you I'm 100 % there.

I'd take a substantial hit in income if it meant I didn't have to worry about being outnumbered by leftist.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by savevp

I don't think that's an unfair characterisation of what's happening in America, much of Europe... The West, broadly. It's probably not terminal, but certainly the basic social cohesion between left and right is dramatically reduced at present. Thankfully Canada has been spared the worst of this so far.

It's a period of tumult, no doubt. But relative to the 1960s or the 1930s (or even the Occupy protests in this century), I certainly wouldn't characterize this as "society being torn apart".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Depends on what you mean, nothing is ever gonna be like some Micheal Bay blockbuster.

We're experiencing a social divide that can only be compared to the protestant reformation. People are no longer sharing fundamental political values. People on the left outright reject the notion that people should be left alone free from the reach of globalism.

So if you don't want to be part of a global culture all you're are left with is aggressive rebelling.


We already have experienced this with Quebec. Problem is Quebec is a left wing seperatist group. This obscures the harsh reality that if we had seperatism is Texas, Nebraska etc that North America would grind to an economic halt relatively quickly.


And I'll tell you I'm 100 % there.

I'd take a substantial hit in income if it meant I didn't have to worry about being outnumbered by leftist.

I feel like you guys live in a different world (with a different history) than me. Different perspectives, I guess.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

It's a period of tumult, no doubt. But relative to the 1960s or the 1930s (or even the Occupy protests in this century), I certainly wouldn't characterize this as "society being torn apart".

The 60s was directly a generational issue.



And the 30s took the death of 6 million jews to resolve. This North American ethnocentrism has to drop. We were a cunt hair away from the horrors of WW2 and we had the threat of communism cropping up everywhere after until 91.


This intense survivor bias makes absolutely no sense. Society was always perpetually fractured up until 1945. WW2, the threat of communism, and the power of advertisers meant we all conformed to this same ideal of what a western life is.

The fall of the soviet union, and the rise of fractured marketing demographics means we've returned to the normalcy of history.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

That seems intended to convey a very different (understandably offensive and harmful) message.

Open your mind, though.

Think of signs that might simply say "Don't you call me (N-word spelled out)!"...

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I feel like you guys live in a different world (with a different history) than me. Different perspectives, I guess.

Of course we do there is an endless number of reasons for why this would be the case.

The problem is we've been forced to globalize our values. This is exactly why anti globalist movements are so powerful.

I'm a Newfoundlander I hardly want to leave the farming village my grandfather was raised in, and yet I'm more or less forced to live in some mainland city that is less like my home than Texas.

The irony of this diversity cult is that they have to be reminded that people of the same race actually have diverse interests.

Foreign economic powers, large scale immigration, or big government programs are not on most people's radar.

This isn't because they are far right nuts. It is a simple logic that globalization will always clash with the individual.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Open your mind, though.

Think of signs that might simply say "Don't you call me (N-word spelled out)!"...

Well, like many things, it would depend on the apparent intent of the person doing so. If it was held by someone who had been called that name and experienced racial discrimination in his or her life and was holding up that sign to decry such things, I doubt very many (if any) people would be offended.

If it was held by someone in bad faith or just for the sake of being a provocateur etc, I expect it may well offend some people. Depending on that person's type of employment and the publicity such a stunt received, it might even cause his or employer enough reputational damage to prompt that employer for terminate this employee for cause. Or maybe the employer will just terminate this person without cause for any number of reasons (which, in the absence of a collective agreement, it is likely perfectly entitled to do). Maybe this sign-holder will also lose see friends or family members who personally find such behaviour repugnant or offensive. These all seem like natural and foreseeable consequences of such actions. People should weigh the costs and benefits of engaging in such behaviour prior to doing so.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Well, like many things, it would depend on the apparent intent of the person doing so. If it was held by someone who had been called that name and experienced racial discrimination in his or her life and was holding up that sign to decry such things, I doubt very many (if any) people would be offended.

If it was held by someone in bad faith or just for the sake of being a provocateur etc, I expect it may well offend some people. Depending on that person's type of employment and the publicity such a stunt received, it might even cause his or employer enough reputational damage to prompt that employer for terminate this employee for cause. Or maybe the employer will just terminate this person without cause for any number of reasons (which, in the absence of a collective agreement, it is likely perfectly entitled to do). Maybe this sign-holder will also lose see friends or family members who personally find such behaviour repugnant or offensive. These all seem like natural and foreseeable consequences of such actions. People should weigh the costs and benefits of engaging in such behaviour prior to doing so.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.

Just trying to wrap my head around the idea that just hearing certain words or seeing certain symbols is intolerably hurtful to some on the one hand, but that there is also some slack on the other. And how it's sometimes difficult to keep track of the interplay between the two. As Wendy Mesley found out.