The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Jagmeet Singh is really making the racism issue his bread and butter.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-rideau-hall-incident-1.5641764

Better to campaign on anti-racism than pro-racism (ie: Trump). It almost sounds as if you disagree with Jagmeet's (and most of Canada's) view on discrimination in law enforcement?

Originally Posted by Acajack

No the one where you said that Quebec, like Oregon, was nice and progressive in spite of the presence of some nationalists.

...such as the ones on here! (facepalm) lol, but sure you're welcome. Still wondering about the red part

[dleung]

Originally Posted by someone123

There is no filibustering here. Filibustering is when there's a political process and speakers delay the outcome. This is just a thread and anybody is free to post.

When I respond to some post about Francophone stuff it has no implied hidden meaning about black or indigenous people per se except as far as I connect it back to an argument like the one about unknowable experiences. But even that is just a narrow context; a dispute about a line of reasoning doesn't necessarily prove or disprove the conclusion.

Part of what's going on is, SSP being SSP, people tend to skim posts, make snap judgements about which of two sides the poster falls in, and then post in agreement or disagreement. You just have to wade through those poor quality posts on here.

Save the semantics - instead of filibuster, how about "exhaust everyone with endless red herrings to distract from the issue"? If there's a thread about fighting AIDS, and I go in with "how about cancer/car accidents/heart and stroke" or "all STDs matter" or slippery slope "oh gosh, what next, fighting gonorrhea??" ... one might wonder about my intentions.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Churchill statues are interesting and it would be a shame to lose them. In Canada, some of the more famous statues were created by Oscar Nemon after WWII. He fled Croatia for Britain during the Holocaust and most of his family was killed.

There is no question that Churchill is a complicated character yet also an important historical figure, and that many of the Churchill statues are significant postwar works of art. They have a distinct style from most statues created in the 1930's and earlier.

The way it's going, this might be yet another distinguishing feature for Quebec as a Distinct Society in the future: unlike Anglo-Canada, we'll still have statues.

One more exotic thing for North American visitors to Old Quebec to see!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by dleung

Save the semantics - instead of filibuster, how about "exhaust everyone with endless red herrings to distract from the issue"?

What is the point that you have been trying to get across that people have not listened to?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is the point that you have been trying to get across that people have not listened to?

Yeah, the "you're filibustering/exhausting me!" argument doesn't hold water - basically a rephrasing of "I've failed to convince you, and I think I'm now going to throw a tantrum until it convinces you".

Sometimes this thread goes many hours without a single post. Speak, if you want to speak.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

Better to campaign on anti-racism than pro-racism (ie: Trump). It almost sounds as if you disagree with Jagmeet's (and most of Canada's) view on discrimination in law enforcement?

:

What exactly is "most of Canada's" view on discrimination in law enforcement? "Most of Canada" is about 19 million people...

As for Jagmeet Singh's views, I went back and listened to the news conference just to prepare this reply.

After he referred to examples of recent police-involved deaths, and the terrorist assault on Rideau Hall, and opposing them, a reporter asked him if he thought the outcome would have been different at Rideau Hall if the assailant had not been white. He immediately answered "yes".

I don't deny there are issues with policing involving certain minorities, but I don't know how the leader of a major national party can say something like that so conclusively, about a specific incident.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What exactly is "most of Canada's" view on discrimination in law enforcement? "Most of Canada" is about 19 million people...

As for Jagmeet Singh's views, I went back and listened to the news conference just to prepare this reply.

After he referred to examples of recent police-involved deaths, and the terrorist assault on Rideau Hall, and opposing them, a reporter asked him if he thought the outcome would have been different at Rideau Hall if the assailant had not been white. He immediately answered "yes".

I don't deny there are issues with policing involving certain minorities, but I don't know how the leader of a major national party can say something like that so conclusively, about a specific incident.

He was expressing his belief, no?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

...As for Jagmeet Singh's views, I went back and listened to the news conference just to prepare this reply.

After he referred to examples of recent police-involved deaths, and the terrorist assault on Rideau Hall, and opposing them, a reporter asked him if he thought the outcome would have been different at Rideau Hall if the assailant had not been white. He immediately answered "yes".

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

He was expressing his belief, no?

They likely are his views, but shouldn't a leader of a "national" party be more respective of how they present their views.

Put another way, while I have no idea how serious interactions the RCMP has had with the public in 2020, but according to Lucki the RCMP have been called in on 60,000 health wellness checks this year so far - 2 of which resulted in a death. If we assume that those are the only involvements with the RCMP and the public, is Jagmeet then saying that the other 59997 interactions this year with the RCMP have been only with white people?? (Discount 1 from the 60K for the NS shooter .... who was white .... which obviously Jagmeet knows.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by shreddog

They likely are his views, but shouldn't a leader of a "national" party be more respective of how they present their views.

Put another way, while I have no idea how serious interactions the RCMP has had with the public in 2020, but according to Lucki the RCMP have been called in on 60,000 health wellness checks this year so far - 2 of which resulted in a death. If we assume that those are the only involvements with the RCMP and the public, is Jagmeet then saying that the other 59997 interactions this year with the RCMP have been only with white people?? (Discount 1 from the 60K for the NS shooter .... who was white .... which obviously Jagmeet knows.)

Respectful, perhaps? But respectful of whom, the police? He can either be up front with what he thinks, or he can be less than fully honest. Which does one prefer in a politician?

I can't say I share his belief, but I also can't say that I think that his belief is somehow "off".

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Respectful, perhaps? But respectful of whom, the police? He can either be up front with what he thinks, or he can be less than fully honest. Which does one prefer in a politician?

I can't say I share his belief, but I also can't say that I think that his belief is somehow "off".

While honesty can be a desired trait, so is nuance. If he hopes to grow the party saying or implying that only "white people" survive interactions with the RCMP may be a just too bombastic to actually help the situation.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by shreddog

While honesty can be a desired trait, so is nuance. If he hopes to grow the party saying or implying that only "white people" survive interactions with the RCMP may be a just too bombastic to actually help the situation.

I’ve only paid passing attention, but didn’t he say the opposite - that there would or could have been a different outcome if the perp had been a person of colour?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is the point that you have been trying to get across that people have not listened to?

Calm and rational filibustering is the worst. But I am so polite and nice, how could I be the bad guy?

“I have denied and tried to rationalize away for a 100 posts or so here to the frustration of anyone who actually cares about this topic, helping to drive many people away who would otherwise participate, but I didn’t raise my voice at least.”

[lio45]

lol @ the notion of "calm and rational filibustering". If it's rational, then it's what's called honest discussion and disagreement. (If you tried to argue on this forum that Earth is flat, you'd also encounter a lot of "filibustering" from most other users.)

Maple Creek actually does have a tropical climate, it's just that SSP Canada has been permanently "rationally filibustering" (using arguments like climate data, etc.) to block any (nonironical) acknowledgement of that fact.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Except this is all your own fantasy. Who here has denied that anti-francophone sentiment exists? No one I can recall.

I just said I haven't experienced it in the Lower Mainland within my own bubble.

The growing trend online is that all white people are racist and must be punished for it. Just has all men are sexist pigs. And if you just happen to be a white guy. Well you must be a sexist racist pig.

Maybe you don't see that in your own bubble in Vancouver. And in that regard I agree with you. But your bubble is not online and not being scrutinized under the lens of the online world.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by savevp

And here is a fine example of what I referenced. Somehow if Francophones decry racism it's hilarious and easily dismissed as the whingeing of a 'cabal.'

Why is it that some groups experiencing racism are a deceptive cabal but other racism is valid? Skin colour is not a satisfactory answer.

Best part if you go just into European history, where everyone is white. There was rampant racism. If you did that same thing in China there would be racism just amongst those in China. So being racist has nothing to do with skin color.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by lio45

lol @ the notion of "calm and rational filibustering". If it's rational, then it's what's called honest discussion and disagreement. (If you tried to argue on this forum that Earth is flat, you'd also encounter a lot of "filibustering" from most other users.)

Maple Creek actually does have a tropical climate, it's just that SSP Canada has been permanently "rationally filibustering" (using arguments like climate data, etc.) to block any (nonironical) acknowledgement of that fact.

You’re confusing rationality with truth.

They aren’t the same and a forum full of flat earthers is similarly annoying because they are just as obstinate and have a plethora of rationalizations with which to exhaust you and waste your time.

Within their system of accepted facts, their ideas are logical and therefore true. You will never convince them otherwise.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by shreddog

While honesty can be a desired trait, so is nuance. If he hopes to grow the party saying or implying that only "white people" survive interactions with the RCMP may be a just too bombastic to actually help the situation.

As KW said, this is his belief and yes he is entitled to it.

But to further your point, you would think someone whose job includes aspiring to the PM's position would exercise restraint when attaining the ultimate goal would technically make him the "boss" of the RCMP: he'd effectively name its Commissioner who would serve at Jagmeet Singh's "pleasure". Well, it's officially the Governor (General) in Council, but we all know the PM makes those decisions.

So while the PM can most definitely order the RCMP into line and have their actions investigated on a broader level, it's poor form to have their boss (even a potential one) say quite clearly that he is convinced its officers went easy on the white guy because he is white, and that he is sure they would not have done the same if he had been a person of colour - semi-subtly insinuating that that person would have been killed.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by savevp

Trying to highlight anti-Francophone racism in the current climate is a sisyphean task. No matter how much you employ logic or reason, your views will never hold water in woke circles for the simple reason that French Canada has a white, European background. It therefore occupies an immutable spot on the 'wrong' side. It's the same reason Jews are frequently targeted by progressive politicians. The white group will always be considered the racist oppressors

Modern progressive identity politics file groups into either the victim or oppressor category solely based on skin colour. There is no changing sides and no room for nuance. White people, according to progressive logic, are invariably racist and cannot leave that category. At best they can be woke allies but must always wear the shameful dogtag of being irredeemable racists.

Perhaps once the true aim of many (not all) of woke progressives is reached, namely anarcho-marxism, white people will stop being treated as universally racist by groups like BLM.

One wrinkle I'd add is that it's not purely skin color, sometimes you get religious groups and ethnic identities at play. Generally, there's been a trend for East Asians, Hindus, and Jews to go more conservative and Muslims and Hispanics to go more liberal, despite the range of skin colors of the groups involved. So they regard the more conservative ones as 'white-adjacent', and the more liberal ones as 'oppressed'. Sometimes they come at the adjacents just as hard, as they're the heretical collaborator class.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

You’re confusing rationality with truth.

They aren’t the same ...

Yes they are. If you are a rational interlocutor and the truth is provable, then either you already agree with the truth or else you can be convinced by the truth.

Rational == based on reason.
Denying an obviously proven truth is pretty much the textbook definition of "unreasonable". One can't both be considered rational and also be a devout flat-earther.

If you can't convince "us" (defined as "several highly-educated long-time forumers who all joined this forum a long time ago and obviously did not do that just to discuss racial relations on it one day") then that's on you, not on us.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

One wrinkle I'd add is that it's not purely skin color, sometimes you get religious groups and ethnic identities at play. Generally, there's been a trend for East Asians, Hindus, and Jews to go more conservative and Muslims and Hispanics to go more liberal, despite the range of skin colors of the groups involved. So they regard the more conservative ones as 'white-adjacent', and the more liberal ones as 'oppressed'. Sometimes they come at the adjacents just as hard, as they're the heretical collaborator class.

It's kind of the same thing, but I'd probably rephrase that as East Asians/South Asians/Jews tend to be wealthier (obviously correlating with less "leftist" voting, as you point out) while Muslims and Latinos tend to be poorer.

(Note that we don't even need to know the reason, just that that's what we're observing.)

Since the former groups are generally doing as well as (and even, in some cases, better than) "whites", they aren't considered groups that should get positive discrimination boosts.