The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or that people are inherently inferior or flawed due simply to which group of they are a part of. Kinda like how you sound when talking about French Canadians.

You missed the point.

I guess you're still salty about me observing that by-far the most vocal Canadian defenders of the "America First"/"Send her back" president all happen to be from the hijab-ban province

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dleung

I guess you're still salty about me observing that by-far the most vocal Canadian defenders of the "America First"/"Send her back" president all happen to be from the hijab-ban province

Your sample is literally n=1 here.

Acajack is a Francophone from outside Quebec, and "once" is an Anglo (and currently living in California in a way I suspect may be permanent).

If you were intellectually honest enough to consider actual data (just writing that, it's hard not to laugh...) you'd know that Quebec is where the dislike of Trump is among the highest in the entire country. (IIRC, the Prairies is where he's the least disliked; Alberta, more specifically.)

[dleung]

Well yeah, Quebec is like Oregon. Love both places. Overall progressive, but with a nationalist contingent that posts on forums and reddit

[saffronleaf]

A great lecture on the development of this new woke left.

• Video Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi9omtAiNQ

[Architype]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

A great lecture on the development of this new woke left.

[youtube]xoi9omtAiNQ[/ youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi9omtAiNQ

It's sometimes difficult to understand whether postmodern thought is a continuation of western enlightenment or if it is in complete denial and opposition to it.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

My observation is close to the opposite, at least in my home neck of the woods - the laws are generally designed to be on the side of the authorities, to the point that they'd be almost oppressive if always applied as written, and it's the cops who are expected to use discretion in the real world application of those powers... however, whenever there's a "problem", as a citizen, you legally don't have a leg to stand on.

"They stopped me without (what I think is) a good reason! Then they kept me for a while! And they weren't friendly at all."

Yep, they can do that.

"But they don't automatically do that to everyone else!"

They don't have to.

... I have to say, I understand the logic; it's easier to operate under rules that are as permissive as possible for your side, even if in practice you don't use them to that extent (because you want to be fair to the other side). And the government is the one making those rules. The analogy would be me being in charge of designing tenant/landlord rules, for example. In practice, you wouldn't observe as much change as you'd think - good tenants would still get treated well and be happy.

I think we're talking about two different thinks. Police don't enforce human rights codes. Tribunals and courts do (and only if a complainant initiates the proceedings themself).

With respect to enforcement of criminal and (some) regulatory offences by police (which you seem to be referring to), police certainly do have some discretion in doing so. However, if some can prove that arbitrary racial stereotypes were a factor in the exercise of that discretion (for example, Toronto Police's "carding" practices, then that is discrimination (contrary to the Human Rights Code.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

You missed the point.

I guess you're still salty about me observing that by-far the most vocal Canadian defenders of the "America First"/"Send her back" president all happen to be from the hijab-ban province

Not really, there is a clear pattern over several years on here.

But thanks for the nice (I think) compliment (kinda) in your other post!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don”t know Vancouver very well, but those sound like political decisions. If the cops started rounding up addicts the media would lose their shit.

Addicts maybe. Bike thieves?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's pretty much exactly what they're doing. One very clear example is jaywalking tickets. If you're "an individual known to them", you'll get zero mercy - arrested and fined the second you're caught. Meanwhile you can jaywalk in front of a cop all day long if you're a normal citizen, no problem. Extremely selective enforcement.

Traffic infractions are the worst, and infuriating when you see somebody do something wrong and/or dangerous with a cop nearby. They could care less.

Then they set up a speed trap on a known location (bottom of a hill on/off a bridge are favs in Vancouver) on a Sunday morning and it's shooting fish in a barrel.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Addicts maybe. Bike thieves?

Bike thieves are usually addicts too.

[savevp]

Maybe, just maybe, a positive from the current anti-police climate will lead to them cutting back on tactics like predatory traffic enforcement, thinking the public relations damage isn't worth the money collected. Unlikely though.

For me, the real measure of decline in Canadian policing is how squad cars have changed. For example, most police cars have switched from Crown Vic's to SUVs, all the more intimidating. But really, it's the paint schemes. Even after Toronto Police Service got huge pushback against their ridiculous silver camo redesign, they've still gone with a low visibility paint scheme. Calgary, the OPP, and others who are black painted are even worse.

Many police in Canada used to be yellow and blue painted, to encourage high visibility. That's still the case in the UK, and most of the world whether green,yellow, or orange. But here, police seem to have caught on to the American tendency to be a 'force' rather than a 'service.'

I don't see that as racist (anymore so than cops might be on a yellow painted motorbike, rather than a black SUV). If the conversation around police in Canada was about the change in perception of police from service to force, perhaps we could tackle these issues. Instead, a group with nebulous, diffuse, and often counterproductive aims have taken over an increasingly divisive public discourse and likely reduced the potential for change.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

A great lecture on the development of this new woke left.

• Video Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoi9omtAiNQ

Interesting I suppose but it isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

Our society is segmenting by IQ at an alarming rate. Dumb people end up in gender studies and end trying to find jobs as social engineers(a profession that doesn't/shouldn't exist). Smart liberals get jobs in actual engineering/stem/nursing and end up living in classy high end condo's in the major metros.

They vote for transit, education supports that have allowed them to be come architects engineers etc, and at the end of the day defer to these unskilled folk out of guilt.

The fundamental problem with the left is that they value change for the sake of change as good as long as the "intentions" are good.

The obvious outcome which we are living in, in which these changes perpetually favor people on the upper classes of our society as the changes reflects the realities of these peoples lives. The classic short circuit of this mind frame is when poor students think their lives with limited income in anyway compares to being full grown adults with limited means.

When analysts realize there are problems in the system they can't offer a solution without loading that solution onto futher change, because at the end of the day they are indoctricated by society to believe that change has always been on the side of moral "progress".

In short it is near impossible for the left to go backwards. It just isn't something they are well tuned for. As each new wave of change floats in to fix the problems of the past, society doesn't improve it spirals into even more complexity.

Obviously complexity is something where high IQ'd individuals thrives which only pushes the intellectual divide even further down the road.


Make absolutely no mistake the new "Breitbart" right was entirely based on the idea of intellectual divergence. This is why near ever single major conservative will allude and make reference to IQ.

This left is trapped unless they can figure out a new frame work, where they value simplicity and function, and focus on fixing past solvable issues before moving on the next wave of change.

People who are confusing Trumpians as neocon's or typical right wing populist are completely missing the point.

The Trump movement revolves around egalitarian simplicity. Even if Trump fails the next wave of this mentality is lying in wait.

It is only a matter of time before republicans capture the black vote in this egalitarian wave.

The left has its hands tied. Leftists by nature are motivated by change, however it is very hard for them to present change by reverting back to what we've lost over time.


This whole cop fiasco is a perfect example. Everyone is scratching their heads trying to think up new ways of reinventing policing. When they still haven't addressed issues surrounding under policing where police are afraid/unable to enforce the rule of law. We all know the people least likely to be affected by this are the very elites dreaming up how to change these systems. This is the exact same thing that happened with the pipeline protests. You have a bunch of white liberals feeding protests that are blocking pipelines that will help protest working class jobs.



Modern leftists are so far removed from the people they hope to protect that they just can't get it through their heads that they have to get out of the way. Making policing even more complex is only doing damage. Minimal change is most practical, especially when you want the low IQ types policing themselves.


The cycle makes sense. Smart well meaning people like to analyze and solve problems. Step 1 is to fight against those conservatives like myself who are setup to ignore problems. You get people like myself to agree there is a problem and than logical you jump to the solution. But the cycle just doesn't work, if you haven't done the homework of why the last solution has failed you can't move onto the next. While doing your homework and fixing those mistakes sounds ideal it just doesn't fit into our modern political framework. Recalls are not popular.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Doesn’t race as an issue have the same problem? For all the talk about oppression from affluent woke white people, the vast majority of non-white Canadians live comfortable middle class lives. Many of them have problems with racism, but they also have no interest in undermining the system in a significant way.

Yes, the experiences of all non-white people are not the same.

The messages I am conveying come directly from Black and Indigenous people in North America. I know it's easier for some to say that these are the ideas of affluent woke white people, but they're not. Some white allies may be adding to the conversation and supporting these changes but they are not the source. They have been forced to uncomfortably struggle with their own racism, myself included. That is part of the process.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Architype

It's sometimes difficult to understand whether postmodern thought is a continuation of western enlightenment or if it is in complete denial and opposition to it.

This is my understanding based on the video:

- Modernism refers to a school of thought where science, reasoning, facts, data, industry, etc., are given primacy, and religion is given a limited role. This went on to form what we think of as "liberalism" in the broadest sense, as in "liberal democracies". Modernism is Western Enlightenment thought.

- Post-modernism is a reaction in to Modernism. The main thing about post-modernism was going against grand narratives. For example, Marxists have a 'story' about the world. People who follow religions have a 'story'. For post-modernists, even the modern outlook that epmhasizes science is just another 'story'. This has a lot of implications. For example, most forms of nationalism are grand narratives; as is marxism; capitalism, etc. Also they didn't believe in objective truth and believed in moral relativism.

- The issue with 'deconstructing' these stories and objective things was that there was nothing that post-modernists were really doing. It's pretty nihilistic so can't use it for change.

- Post-modernism then evolved into the 'woke' movement we see today. They hold a lot of the same questioning of traditional grand narratives, moral relativism, no objective truth, etc., except that they posit the existence of power structures in every society. And these power structures have different axis; so for example feminists posited the patriarchy, a gender system that everyone participates in and is affected by and disproportionately in a manner favorable to men. Another example is systemic racism, a race system ... favorable to Whites.

These systems are presumed to be truthful and all phenomena can be analyzed from that perspective. It's like Marxism, which at first blush you may think is just an economic system. But the epistemology, metaphysics, etc. of Marxism can be applied to virtually all phenomena. E.g., you can study say, a religious riot, from the Marxist perspective by considering the class differences involved in the riot.

This is why it sometimes feels like people are literally on the hunt for things to be offended by. Critical race theory (the term used to refer to the ppl who study the race system) will look at almost everything from the angle of race, which to many feels sometimes unwarranted. Some go as far as saying their system is the truth, period, rather than just another way of looking at things.

All of this has further evolved with the introduction of 'intersectionality', which tries to bind these different systems together. Although there are frictions involved -- for example, the post-modern look at gender (= gender is a construct; another grand narrative) can be at odds with critical feminism (= system of patriarchy exists and everyone is involved in it and disproportionately to the favor of men).

[Architype]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Interesting I suppose but it isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

Our society is segmenting by IQ at an alarming rate. Dumb people end up in gender studies and end trying to find jobs as social engineers(a profession that doesn't/shouldn't exist). Smart liberals get jobs in actual engineering/stem/nursing and end up living in classy high end condo's in the major metros.

...

All convenient and sweeping generalizations. And yet, conservatism is known for being mostly a blue collar (Maga/less educated) ideology, especially south of the border.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, the experiences of all non-white people are not the same.

The messages I am conveying come directly from Black and Indigenous people in North America. I know it's easier for some to say that these are the ideas of affluent woke white people, but they're not. Some white allies may be adding to the conversation and supporting these changes but they are not the source. They have been forced to uncomfortably struggle with their own racism, myself included. That is part of the process.

I’m sure you are very sincere, but I get the sense there is a lot of selectivity in which voices get amplified and usually it aligns with the narrative the “allies” want to project. This is really obvious with the environmental movement, which wants indigenous voices as long as they agree with their world view.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Architype

All convenient and sweeping generalizations. And yet, conservatism is known for being mostly a blue collar (Maga/less educated) ideology, especially south of the border.

Eh wha? What do you mean and yet?

[Architype]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

...

... even the modern outlook that epmhasizes science is just another 'story'. This has a lot of implications. For example, most forms of nationalism are grand narratives; as is marxism; capitalism, etc. Also they didn't believe in objective truth and believed in moral relativism.

- The issue with 'deconstructing' these stories and objective things was that there was nothing that post-modernists were really doing. It's pretty nihilistic so can't use it for change.

- Post-modernism then evolved into the 'woke' movement we see today. They hold a lot of the same questioning of traditional grand narratives, moral relativism, no objective truth, etc., except that they posit the existence of power structures in every society. And these power structures have different axis; so for example feminists posited the patriarchy, a gender system that everyone participates in and is affected by and disproportionately in a manner favorable to men. Another example is systemic racism, a race system ... favorable to Whites.

...

Science is being dismissed as just another story, but it clearly isn't . The postmodernists dismiss scientific methods, yet they use these methods for the construction of their own narrative.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Eh wha? What do you mean and yet?

An extension of the categorization that you already made. I thought you were defending conservatism.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Architype

An extension of the categorization that you already made. I thought you were defending conservatism.

I am, what's your point about sweeping generalization?