Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
But this is just a "resident panel" that comments on issues of the day. Five minutes before they were probably talking about the pandemic and vaccines and five minutes later they may have been talking about the REM project, or something Biden did, or Putin and Navalny.
As I said, it's similar to the At Issue panel on The National (CBC).
These guests have not been specifically brought together to discuss the issue of racial profiling by the police. Which all networks in Quebec, including this one, actually also did in the past week or so.
So what the critics of this panel are moving us towards is a world where one can't provide an opinion on certain topics on a news channel panel (or by extension, anywhere else I suppose) unless you're a card-carrying member of the specific in-group involved.
Is that really what we want?
|
I'd radically prefer a world where people stopped talking about it altogether to be honest.
Rarely does it offer anything useful.
EDIT: I accpet that we all get baited into racial topics, thanks to our interest in cultural geography and demography. However it's the 2020s leave that — in the 2010s.
If you want to talk about bias etc by police go right ahead. I'm all for offering better funding and training for cops.
Mind you the single biggest obstacle to police reform are the unions.
I dispise corruption. But the people who attack police are usually the most corrupt people going.
I'd probably be a left wing person if I thought they were gonna be less populist and less corrupt but I'm not immortal.
It's funny because people that are most additament that race don't matter seem to focus on it a whole lot.
When the allegedly "most racist" steer clear of the topic, you know its time to move on.
Ironically the bigger source of inequality is cognitive. Not just in IQ but neurological wiring/mental health.
But the most woke are far more likely to attack someone from being neurologically different. They belittle anyone they see as less intelligent, make novelty seeking a moral virtue, attack people for being more conformist/egalitarian, than treat anyone prone to emotional outbursts as racist/predators etc.
They have no interest in working with people based on how they are and turn everything into a social engineering exercise.
I use to be a bit interested in the neurodiversity movement. But was turned off when one of my "allies" started trying to claim that white autistic men didn't face discrimination. Followed by a claim that I couldn't watch Dune because it was homophobic.
The kicker for me was the Christian Bale Meltdown. Guy obviously has mental issues, and the same people rambling about mental health just offloaded.
I'm not saying you can't — talk a person for being cognitively weaker. But acknowledge it for what it is.
It's a far bigger crime than racism in my opinion, for the simple fact it's based on something that is actually a real difference between peoples.
It's amazing how "non autistic" people cannot account for how radical the neurological differences are between people.
All people wish to do is social engineer the differences out of people.
I'm not gonna claim treating a homeless person like they are on par with a doctor is sustainable for a rational society. But call it for what it is.
We're wired to squeeze the neurologically weak out of the gene pool.
I judge people by their output not their inputs, I give zero value to good intentions and I don't care if someone is a sociopath etc, provided they aren't in a situation where they can harm people.
I worked in a manufacturing environment where there were multiple folk running around with antisocial personality disorder/conduct disorder/addictions etc. They were routinely the hardest workers, and we're also the ones to propagate a certain kind of social code, that add a great deal of inter team solidarity. It was a shark tank without doubt, but it was an environment worth exploring.
Prev
Linear Mode
