The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by savevp

Pity is the new admiration, victimhood is the new achievement for the woke left. And as a "privileged" white person, pity and victimhood can only be acquired by proxy; adopting the outrage apparently felt by the racialized folks they claim to represent. Of course this only comes across as patronising and a new form of white supremacy - the messianic white person looking out for the little people.

If you don't feel or understand genuine empathy, then perhaps this is the only way to interpret the situation. How sad.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No. An argument was built up about people being called a racist when they weren't, which devalues the word. Then it was argued that was stupid and devalued the concept of racism and the whole battle for equality.

It was easy to argue against because it was silly and untrue. That's the definition of a strawman argument.

Not sure if it's a strawman but what's really hard to believe is that you and others don't actually think deep down that a bunch of posters on here truly are racist.

But the idea that there is any advocacy for keeping minorities down or keeping minorities in their place on this thread is a totally absurd notion, not backed up by any posts.

People may disagree (quite strongly sometimes) on the means of attaining that goal, but basically 100% of posters on here want minorities to do well/better and see their lot in life improve.

A lot of you guys seem to be eschewing that fact in order to smear people who don't fully agree with you.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

+1

Excellent post.

Some of the people who are now liberally accused of being racist fought against the Nazis in WW2. Did they fight in vain?

I'd add that one of the things turning people like myself towards the right is identity politics.

When people blocked via rail and got away with it on the basis of their racial characterization it was a jumping of the political shark.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Here's the bait!!!




And here's the switch.


I can't tell if this is a lack of self awareness or just a political philosophy that values empathy over basic basic logic.

This is why I'm seriously wishing that we could start making the practical steps towards a real life partition.

There's just no way I can trust people like yourself, it just isn't ever gonna happen.

Do you actually think he believes that to be a fundamentally good thing?

He just seems to be following the analysis to its plausible conclusion. And I don't think he's wrong.

It has nothing to do with celebrating it.

It's like a doctor who tells a smoker he's at risk of getting lung cancer. He's not gleeful at the prospect of the person getting sick and dying. It's just that his analysis can't support any other conclusion.

What use is there in sugar-coating things and pretending that riots, vandalism and violent crime, and calling all white people racist, in (supposed) support of the George Floyd cause has a zero likelihood of leading a good number of silent majority voters to vote for Trump? (Even if at the moment these people are lying very low.)

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

Pretty damn certain that both Acajack and I have been called racist in all seriousness on this forum already.

(Also, I think dreambrother808 has been pretty close to calling a bunch of other forumers racist, though I can't say whether he actually did, or merely suggested it.)

When you start getting into french identity politics it isn't hard to start reaching at that one.

My understanding is that you Acajack etc are effectively nationalists, even if it is only in a minor sense.

Specifically the idea that Canadian immigrants in Quebec should be forced to learn french.

I'm heavily on both sides of the fence with this one.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Do you actually think he believes that to be a fundamentally good thing?

He just seems to be following the analysis to its plausible conclusion. And I don't think he's wrong.

It has nothing to do with celebrating it.

It's like a doctor who tells a smoker he's at risk of getting lung cancer. He's not gleeful at the prospect of the person getting sick and dying. It's just that his analysis can't support any other conclusion.

What use is there in sugar-coating things and pretending that riots, vandalism and violent crime, and calling all white people racist, in (supposed) support of the George Floyd cause has a zero likelihood of leading a good number of silent majority voters to vote for Trump? (Even if at the moment these people are lying very low.)

So you think its fair to lean into the idea that pushing people into the arms of trump is something to be scared of? Directly because they are being pushed further into racism?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

He has certainly strongly implied that all white people are racist, either directly, or by association, and he has certainly liberally used the term "snowflake" for those he thinks intolerant of criticism. I personally feel like I've been told that I am racist on here (at least implicitly), which I strongly resent.

I have never used the word "snowflake" here. I don't know what world you are living in.

Everyone is racist, or rather holds racist beliefs in our society because those messages have been rained down on us since we were born.

Your resentment is your emotion to navigate. It is not a determinant of how rightful that feelings is. You have shown a strong resistance to admitting to racial realities in our society because of racism. Are you racist? Well are you aware enough to observe that within yourself or have a deeper understanding of these concepts? Sounds like a no, for now.

Racism and racist beliefs are not irredeemable things. We are all redeemable. As with anything, awareness, ownership, making amends, changing, etc., are the varied ways to redeem ourselves. Each individual's redemption is specific to them, their thoughts and beliefs, their prior actions.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

People may disagree (quite strongly sometimes) on the means of attaining that goal, but basically 100% of posters on here want minorities to do well/better and see their lot in life improve.

The big problem is that a lot of the protests like BLM are tied to Marxist rhetoric and policy goals that I doubt will help the lives of a significant number of people, since they have such a terrible track record. Some people will profit by positioning themselves within the diversity "industry" (e.g. White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo).

One thing I note in this thread is a conspicuous lack of concrete policy proposals that would help disadvantaged minorities in Canada. Ideally workable proposals that could get buy-in from a majority of Canadians.

There was a post a while back about extremists setting back the MMIWG movement and I agree with that. Had they stuck to a message around dead and missing women and girls they would have had easy support and sympathy from Canadians. But instead the focus shifted to confusing genocide claims and guilt tripping, with our PM simultaneously asserting that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian and some Canadians are more Canadian than others. It got its confusing 15 minutes of fame in the media and that was that.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'd agree to an extent.

I think the point of disagreement (from me, at least) is that the biases are less based on race and more based on wealth. Race is a convenient flashpoint on which to split the less wealthy and probably is being used in such a fashion. I'd say racism is promoted by a power structure that is more intent on keeping people poor than it is on any concept of 'racial superiority'.

To use an example to the south of us, the voting intentions of various poor segments of society is quite polarized, despite a common goal of aspiring to not be poor. Then Donald Trump takes power and provides a huge tax cut for corporations and upper-class Americans, whilst attacking Obamacare.

By finding a common goal, using strength in numbers and having a united front, we can change the world. It's no secret why the UAW and Martin Luther King Jr. were allies - they understood their common denominator.

Class and race co-exist to oppress people. One doesn't cancel out the other. They both exist as intersectional realities.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by someone123

But if you look at a bunch of posts on here, like on the last page, you'll see that often hours go by between replies. And everybody is free to reply at any time. You can also put people on ignore if you want, then you won't even see the content of their posts.

Unfortunately, as a moderator, you can not be placed on ignore.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Class and race co-exist to oppress people. One doesn't cancel out the other. They both exist as intersectional realities.

Sure.

We can use an alliance for a common goal to remove oppression. The more commonalities your alliance has, the wider net it casts upon a population.

When we split, our respective causes are both weaker for it. We should be hesitant to toss away allies even if we don't 100% agree on all topics.

If the poor and oppressed in the United States allied for a cause, think of how they could advance their respective agendas. When they fight among themselves, they lose badly. Critical mass is necessary for societal change.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

When you start getting into french identity politics it isn't hard to start reaching at that one.

My understanding is that you Acajack etc are effectively nationalists, even if it is only in a minor sense.

Specifically the idea that Canadian immigrants in Quebec should be forced to learn french.

I'm heavily on both sides of the fence with this one.

Not sure what you mean by that, so you'd have to elaborate.

I'd say that in a country where much of the population growth comes through immigration, funnelling immigrants into the main and historic French-speaking part of the country and directing them in a variety of ways towards English and not French (as was done for a century or two) is arguably not that dissimilar to what Beijing has done in Tibet. Only with a softer hand perhaps.

So there ya go...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Sure.

We can use an alliance for a common goal to remove oppression. The more commonalities your alliance has, the wider net it casts upon a population.

When we split, our respective causes are both weaker for it. We should be hesitant to toss away allies even if we don't 100% agree on all topics.

If the poor and oppressed in the United States allied for a cause, think of how they could advance their respective agendas. When they fight among themselves, they lose badly. Critical mass is necessary for societal change.

And guess who is advantaged in that scenario?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Are the Black and LGBT communities really comparable to the racist "community"?

I absolutelly hate the term "community", it implies you have some values in common.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The big problem is that a lot of the protests like BLM are tied to Marxist rhetoric and policy goals that I doubt will help the lives of a significant number of people, since they have such a terrible track record. Some people will profit by positioning themselves within the diversity "industry" (e.g. White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo).

One thing I note in this thread is a conspicuous lack of concrete policy proposals that would help disadvantaged minorities in Canada. Ideally workable proposals that could get buy-in from a majority of Canadians.

There was a post a while back about extremists setting back the MMIWG movement and I agree with that. Had they stuck to a message around dead and missing women and girls they would have had easy support and sympathy from Canadians. But instead the focus shifted to confusing genocide claims and guilt tripping, with our PM simultaneously asserting that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian and some Canadians are more Canadian than others. It got its confusing 15 minutes of fame in the media and that was that.

Though there is a strategy that is common for example in the labour movement, whereby you ask for something that is a bit pie in the sky in the hopes of eventually settling for something in the middle that is still better than where you were before.

I suspect that in the case of MMIWG and also BLM there is some of that in the strategy, though as we've seen if you aim too high this can easily backfire.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So you think its fair to lean into the idea that pushing people into the arms of trump is something to be scared of? Directly because they are being pushed further into racism?

As I keep saying - it's not necessarily good and not necessarily bad. It just... is.

But if you abhor Trump as most people on here do, then it should likely be classified in the "bad" slot.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Here's the bait!!!

And here's the switch.


I can't tell if this is a lack of self awareness or just a political philosophy that values empathy over basic basic logic.

This is why I'm seriously wishing that we could start making the practical steps towards a real life partition.

There's just no way I can trust people like yourself, it just isn't ever gonna happen.

People react poorly to being unfairly labeled. If I want to build a movement, I'd build it to include the majority of the population.

Are people prejudiced? Absolutely.

Do I believe that people can overcome prejudices and expand their worldview? Absolutely.

They won't achieve that if they're insulted, because people generally react poorly to being insulted. My observation is that insulting people and narrowing a cause to the sufficiently pure, yet tiny base is entirely self-defeating.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I keep saying - it's not necessarily good and not necessarily bad. It just... is.

But if you abhor Trump as most people on here do, then it should likely be classified in the "bad" slot.

My point was why on earth would you bring up Trump when trying to talk about how divisive labeling everything as racist is.

If you mean that as more of a confession/act of self awareness sure.

I won't deny I'm on the either side. At this point I don't care if we have a separation between parties.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Though there is a strategy that is common for example in the labour movement, whereby you ask for something that is a bit pie in the sky in the hopes of eventually settling for something in the middle that is still better than where you were before.

I suspect that in the case of MMIWG and also BLM there is some of that in the strategy, though as we've seen if you aim too high this can easily backfire.

Yes, this is clear. Like you said, I don't think it is always a good strategy. I don't even think it is generally a good strategy.

When negotiating you do want to leave room for concessions but that is different from asking for the moon and the stars, things your "opponent" can't or won't concede. Real negotiation is generally a process of trying to identify good trade-offs, maybe while concealing how much you would give up if pushed so you get a better deal, not simply "meeting in the middle" or being intransigent.

Then again an intransigent minority can sometimes impose big changes on the majority, usually if they're indifferent. Or lead to the complete collapse of a government. But I am not sure how likely that is in Canada, and the police unions are fairly politically powerful themselves. There are good concrete targets for BLM type protesters to go after, e.g. municipal funding for quasi-military hardware for police forces.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by wave46

People react poorly to being unfairly labeled. If I want to build a movement, I'd build it to include the majority of the population.

I agree entirely with that sentiment and I think that would be the easy beginnings of a reconciliation.

Originally Posted by wave46

Are people prejudiced? Absolutely.

Do I believe that people can overcome prejudices and expand their worldview? Absolutely.

They won't achieve that if they're insulted, because people generally react poorly to being insulted. My observation is that insulting people and narrowing a cause to the sufficiently pure, yet tiny base is entirely self-defeating.

My point was you through an insult in there as you literally said that.

A) If you call people racist they'll go into the hands of

B) Racists

C) Trump suporters.

> They own the word. The worst outcome. You've now created something worse - someone who doesn't care about being labeled a racist. They say "whatever" and shrug their shoulders. In extreme cases, you've driven them into the arms of the people who actively oppose your cause. You've another hardcore Trump supporter.


This is your literal words. If you think this is just nitpicking you're missing the point.