The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[urbandreamer]

Some black folks have called me cracka in the past. I'm not offended as some of my poor Scots-Irish ancestors were real authentic crackers from Virginia/Georgia/Tennessee. It depends on context: you're literally digging a ditch (worst job ever) and people talk shit about nothing in particular. Woke people have likely never worked a real manual labour job in their life.

As for the N word, I agree only black people should say the word. Wendy Mesley deserves to be fired. (Why should journalists be allowed to keep moving from show to show for decades when there's thousands of people without voices?)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Discussing why you think white people should be allowed to use the N-word is something better relegated to 4chan or some racist subreddit.

It is also the realm of Trump supporters, which is just pointing out the obvious truth. This is one of their cherished conversation topics to waste time and get on other people's nerves.

My vocabulary will not be diminished in the slightest.

Just wondering about moving targets that can lead to people's lives and careers being destroyed.

Funny but I am having thoughts of Iran 1978-1979.

"This was Ok yesterday but it is not today. Expect to be punished retroactively."

[vid]

Acajack's whole political philosophy is essentially "it doesn't affect or offend me, therefore it's OK and I will defend it", so all of you trying to explain to him why things are offensive and he should change his mind to oppose them are just wasting your time.

"I'm not racist, but here are 446 posts defending offensive words and behaviours!"

Question to everyone except Acajack, Lio, Someone123, and Rousseau, et al.: Why are we still doing this here?

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by vid

Acajack's whole political philosophy is essentially "it doesn't affect or offend me, therefore it's OK and I will defend it"...

That's obviously not true.

[vid]

tHaT'S oBvIoUsLy Not TrUe>



I had actually predicted it would be Acajack who would say that so I lose this round! Time for a shot.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by vid

Acajack's whole political philosophy is essentially "it doesn't affect or offend me, therefore it's OK and I will defend it", so all of you trying to explain to him why things are offensive and he should change his mind to oppose them are just wasting your time.

"I'm not racist, but here are 446 posts defending offensive words and behaviours!"

Question to everyone except Acajack, Lio, Someone123, and Rousseau, et al.: Why are we still doing this here?

Yeah, it’s revealed sides to people that were uglier than I imagined.

This is not the place for an enlightening conversation on race. So be it.

[vid]

Do you see this?



Do you know what this is a picture of?

[vid]

It's where I keep my fucks. Do you see that they are missing?

[vid]

I ran out!!!! Can you believe?!

[theman23]

Originally Posted by savevp

The CBC's role as theoretically impartial national arbiter of news and opinion, funded by all Canadians, means it must be held to a higher standard than private networks. Though I'd argue what happened to Wendy Mesley would be no more acceptable had it happened at CTV or Global.

Executive at CBC lose their jobs and be forced to resign the same way the ones in the private media outlets do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by vid

Question to everyone except Acajack, Lio, Someone123, and Rousseau, et al.: Why are we still doing this here?

Not bothering here anymore. It's become a circle jerk of bad faith whataboutism by the usual crew that simply wants to minimize actual issues.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by vid

Acajack's whole political philosophy is essentially "it doesn't affect or offend me, therefore it's OK and I will defend it", so all of you trying to explain to him why things are offensive and he should change his mind to oppose them are just wasting your time.

"I'm not racist, but here are 446 posts defending offensive words and behaviours!"

Question to everyone except Acajack, Lio, Someone123, and Rousseau, et al.: Why are we still doing this here?

Because some people in democratic society object to declarations on which words you can and cannot use. Rightly or wrongly, people associate restrictions on language as an erosion of democratic rights or at the very least the start of a slippery slope. Censorship is a path well-trod and it's clear certain forumers see history repeating itself right here and now.

And when governments, media, and society at large dismiss these concerns reflexively by labelling such discussions as racist and forbidden, nothing is solved. Instead, right wing extremists come out of the woodwork. A forum like this one should be a place to debate ideas, not shut down all dialogue because you're offended or take offence by proxy on behalf of ethnic communities. Even if the cause is noble, the act of immediate and complete censorship of language always, always backfires.

Shut the discussion down at your peril, knowing it only pushes more extreme voices underground until they re-emerge. This is why dialogue on controversial and uncomfortable issues matters more than ever, rather than censorship.

And before the hounds start baying, let me be clear; at no point have I suggested people should be using racist language. Merely that reflexive censorship doesn't help.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by savevp

The CBC's role as theoretically impartial national arbiter of news and opinion, funded by all Canadians, means it must be held to a higher standard than private networks. Though I'd argue what happened to Wendy Mesley would be no more acceptable had it happened at CTV or Global.

Impartiality and neutrality aren't part of the CBC's mandate as set out in the Broadcasting Act. According to s. 3(1) of the Act:

(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should

(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada

TBF, I really don't understand the issue with the discipline Wendy Mesley received. Like all major employers, the CBC has a code of conduct for employees, which employees must agree to as part of their employment contract. Like all major employers, the CBC disciplined an employee for failing to comply with the code of conduct in proportion to the offending action and the offender's position within the organization. Any other scrupulous employer would've done the same thing in a similar circumstance. I don't see how this in any way could be reasonably construed as a left-wing witch hunt; rather, it's the standard for any corporate office in 2020 as informed by relevant legislation (e.g., the Canadian Human Rights Act in this case), organizational values/goals and HR best practices—hardly the bailiwick of the radical left.

I mean really, is there any circumstance in which any of you would be comfortable saying the n-word in your current workplace? And even if you could somehow rationalize saying it (which I'm sure some of our more flexible mental gymnasts here will make the effort to do), would you honestly expect your employer to be okay with it?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

Impartiality and neutrality aren't part of the CBC's mandate as set out in the Broadcasting Act. According to s. 3(1) of the Act:



TBF, I really don't understand the issue with the discipline Wendy Mesley received. Like all major employers, the CBC has a code of conduct for employees, which employees must agree to as part of their employment contract. Like all major employers, the CBC disciplined an employee for failing to comply with the code of conduct in proportion to the offending action and the offender's position within the organization. Any other scrupulous employer would've done the same thing in a similar circumstance. I don't see how this in any way could be reasonably construed as a left-wing witch hunt; rather, it's the standard for any corporate office in 2020 as informed by relevant legislation (e.g., the Canadian Human Rights Act in this case), organizational values/goals and HR best practices—hardly the bailiwick of the radical left.

I mean really, is there any circumstance in which any of you would be comfortable saying the n-word in your current workplace? And even if you could somehow rationalize saying it (which I'm sure some of our more flexible mental gymnasts here will make the effort to do), would you honestly expect your employer to be okay with it?

This is a good explanation.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I mean really, is there any circumstance in which any of you would be comfortable saying the n-word in your current workplace? And even if you could somehow rationalize saying it (which I'm sure some of our more flexible mental gymnasts here will make the effort to do), would you honestly expect your employer to be okay with it?

Each social situation we find ourselves in has boundaries. You cannot walk around naked in public, you cannot beat your wife, etc... without consequences. You are "free" to do all of those things. Heck, you could even murder someone if you wanted to. But there will be consequences.

An inability to abide by commonly understood boundaries, put in place to protect yourself and others, is impinging on your freedom only if you expect to have an absolute version of that, which you don't and never will. Expecting unlimited freedom is a child-like version of reality.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I take your point about impartiality, though I'd still argue the CBC has an implicit responsibility to strive for neutrality as the publically funded national broadcaster.

In regards to Wendy Mesley, I disagree that this is solely about whether an employee can say a proscribed word. Had she said it flippantly, or on camera, that's a more obvious breach of standards. The fact she was quoting a potential interviewee, though, as part of due diligence for a broadcast, changes the circumstances for me (and obviously others). And moreso, her intent to constructively discuss racism, as a journalist, should be taken into account.

There are obviously fundamental disagreements between forumers and the public about whether simply uttering the word is harmful, but the context by which Mme. Mesley used it was not only as a quote but with positive and constructive intent ("exposing the truth" as she wrote).

And so, this can maybe be distilled down to the larger argument of whether intent matters in diagnosing racism, or whether the action itself is inherently racist. I know where I stand on this, but I know others disagree strongly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

This is a good explanation.

There are a lot of different angles to this though. There's the question of what the CBC's policies are and what their mandate is on paper, the question of how they should best operate in practice, the question of how a society ought to work (do we have certain banned words or not, and how bad is it if you say them? Do you get fired if you say "shit" one day? Or are words discouraged through gentle social pressure?).

On top of this there are aspects of the Wendy Mesley story that we may never know. What are the norms of behaviour at the CBC? Are people consistently punished? What was Mesley like? I don't think there's enough information to tell if Mesley was singled out, or if she was the model employee who slipped up vs. a nightmare to work with off-camera who finally got what was coming to her. To me it seems hard to come down strongly one way or the other without knowing more. And that's probably a part of why some in this thread focused more on the "n-word" phenomenon itself.

I agree it's hard for me to get away from the idea that the "n-word" is something I'd never say at work. But I'm also not sure it's healthy to consider single words said in any context so terrible that they demand official punishment including possible termination of a decades-long career. For one thing I don't know how people with poor impulse control or high stress jobs fit into that norm.

One hazard the CBC has to deal with is that if they don't offer at least some diversity of perspectives they become associated with specific political views and vulnerable to governments that don't agree with them and can defund them.

[rousseau]

The current SJW moment encapsulated in a confrontation:

• Video Link

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by savevp

I take your point about impartiality, though I'd still argue the CBC has an implicit responsibility to strive for neutrality as the publically funded national broadcaster.

In regards to Wendy Mesley, I disagree that this is solely about whether an employee can say a proscribed word. Had she said it flippantly, or on camera, that's a more obvious breach of standards. The fact she was quoting a potential interviewee, though, as part of due diligence for a broadcast, changes the circumstances for me (and obviously others). And moreso, her intent to constructively discuss racism, as a journalist, should be taken into account.

There are obviously fundamental disagreements between forumers and the public about whether simply uttering the word is harmful, but the context by which Mme. Mesley used it was not only as a quote but with positive and constructive intent ("exposing the truth" as she wrote).

And so, this can maybe be distilled down to the larger argument of whether intent matters in diagnosing racism, or whether the action itself is inherently racist. I know where I stand on this, but I know others disagree strongly.

What can one say? The black CBC employee who heard the word used did not feel Mesley was justified, and Mesley's subsequent apologies would indicate the Mesley is of the same view. Although "privilege" was mentioned, I don't think "intent" had much to do with the outcome, except, perhaps, to lessen the consequences for Mesley, who is still a CBC employee, afaik.

[kwoldtimer]

More and more - L'Oreal is joining other multnationals in eliminating "whitening" from its marketing and product labels; Mississippi is looking at removing the Confederate flag from its state flag; Dixie Brewery in New Orleans will be changing its name, and that of its Dixie beer; The Simpsons will no longer use white voice actors for characters of colour; Princeton University is removing Woodrow Wilson's name from its School of Public and International Affairs (racist).