dialamah

Not really, because you allow hatemongering to go on under the "well it only applies against those for whom it is true". An imam telling his people.that Jews must be eliminated because they hate Arabs doesn't differentiate between Jews who would kill Muslims and those who wouldn't. That's hatemongering, the kind of hatemongering that leads to both innocent and guilty Jews being targeted. A Westerner who doesn't differentiate between the behavior and beliefs of Islamic extremists and Muslims in general is indulging in the same kind of hatemongering; the end result is that both innocent and guilty Muslims are targeted.

I said hatemongering is wrong, whether it's from Imams or Westerners. Hatemongers use rhetoric and treat their targets as some monolithic group, few, if any, of whom can be trusted; if one acts in a certain (negative) way, then they all will. From a Muslim hatemonger - if one Jew kills an innocent Muslim, they all want to kill Muslims. If one Westerner spits on a woman in a hijab, then they all will. If a Western country invades their land, all Westerners are complicit and must pay. The Westerners who hatemonger do the same thing. If one Muslim kills an innocent Westerner, they all want to kill Westerners. If one Muslim behaves barbarically towards a Jew, a westerner, a woman or an animal, then all Muslims are barbarians. If one Muslim group declares war on the West, then all Muslims want war on the West. Hatemongering doesn't just target those for whom the claims are true, it also targets those who are associated with the group, but who have entirely different beliefs and behavior. (Edited because I missed one of your sentences.)

You don't think it's ok to call out Westerners for hate-mongering? How come?

Agreed, bigoted hatemongering and dehumanizing discourse should be called out and condemned. This applies whether its Imams and Mullahs calling Westerners evil, or Westerners referring to Muslims as barbaric and ignorant or refugees as backwards goat herders.

It's not that they (LGBTQ and pro-choice) "hate your guts", as much as it is that social conservatives hate them/their practices and do whatever is in their power to control, limit or punish them. Why would they want anyone who even might hold those views in power? The people who accept that client change is real and must be addressed also don't "hate" conservatives; they just don't understand the anti-science stance of (many) conservatives, or their attitude of "not our problem". If conservatives want enough support to form government they need to pander less to social conservatives and those who are more concerned about taxes and the profit of the oil industry over the environment. 82% of Canadians consider climate change a serious issue. 77% of Canadians support a woman's right to abortion. The majority of Canadians also support gay rights and transgender rights. These are not an insignificant portion of Canadians, and the conservative base upon which Scheer rested his hopes, cannot compete - even if many people were angry at JT. I did not want to vote for JT this time, and I didn't. But I didn't want to vote Scheer, given his support base and how closely he appeared to align with them so I didn't vote for him either. Point is, it's a lot more likely I'd have voted Conservative if the leader was clearly LGBTQ friendly, and made it clear he took climate change issues seriously. Being less wishy-washy on abortion rights would also have helped. A strong pro-LGBTQ/pro-choice stance and a strong policy on addressing climate change may have made all the difference. I'm sure the problem here is that Conservatives would then be even more indistinguishable from Liberals. But given JT's proven issues, and Scheer's lack of track record as PM, he might have made the seats he needed if he'd very strongly emphasized progressive values and credible strategies for addressing climate change.

So true - leaving family/country behind is not easy. It requires a certain personality, which values change and new experiences - something that conservatives, by and large, do not have. This is why its so ludicrous to believe that very conservatives types are going to be moving to Canada in droves and 'taking over' or some such. Most conservatives types are going to want to remain close to what's familiar and traditional, not go hieing off to a foreign land that is unfamiliar and lacks the tradition and history that conservatives value. By default, we get the people who are the most liberal, open-minded and willing to change coming into our country, even if they fall into the 'more conservative' range by Western standards.

So you don't actually know what Cherry said? Ok then.

Speaking of praise for cohorts, you know what's funny? It was perhaps before your time, but when this forum implemented 'likes' on posts, a bunch of conservatives whined about how leftists would 'gang up' and like each other's posts but because the conservatives were such free thinkers, and independent minded, not needing support, they'd not be doing that. Oddly, however, it was just the opposite. And even now, if you look at the 'leader' boards, it's always the "most conservative" of the conservatives who are at the top of the board. So who is posting for praise really? See, I don't consider you an enemy. You're weird, too weird a lot of the time to even respond to. I don't personally care that Cherry was fired; I never liked him and don't even watch hockey. But his comments were certainly racist in nature.

Studies and statistics show exactly the opposite: immigrants and their children show lower levels of crime and violence than third+ generation Canadians. However, once they get to the third generation, crime and violence are equal - white or black. Low income people of *any* stripe tend to have more crime and violence in their community. If there are a higher percentage of black/brown people who are low-income by the third generation, that speaks to something other than 'where they came from' - it's a societal problem. But blaming them directly does take the heat off the elite/privileged in our society to actually do anything, so there's that. Pretty happy I'm white/elite/privileged (though not rich) - I get to walk around the street daily and not even be suspected of being ungrateful for the Canadian way of life, a fanatic or a criminal, and no chance that some stranger will yell at me for not being "Canadian".

Well then you're no different in your thought process that than the incel who drove his van into as many women as he could, or the folks who drove planes into the world trade center. Yah, yah ... I know you've never actually 'killed' any of your ideological enemies and you'll likely claim that you'd stop short of murder, but it's you and your ilk, regardless of which ideology you claim to abide by, or claim to hate enough to harm, that makes the world a worse place for everybody.

Because his comment is based only on what he can see about a person walking around: their color and whether or not they are wearing a poppy. White people are assumed, on sight, to be "Canadians". Brown people are assumed, on sight, to be immigrants . He said "You people who come here" - which would be immigrants. He's basically saying "I saw so many people who are clearly immigrants (black/brown) don't wear poppies; they take advantage of our way of life and don't show respect". Plenty of white people don't wear poppies, too, I've noticed (me included), but because I'm white, he would not group me in with "you people who come here". I, and all white people not wearing poppies, are excluded from his accusations of lack of respect/coming here for milk and honey, and way of life, merely because of the color of our skin.

Why would you want to whip up hatred against anyone? What good does it do?

This line of thinking sounds very much like the excuses used by men when they're caught out doing something inappropriate "It wasn't that bad, she wasn't really hurt by it, sure I could have not said what I did, but what's the big deal." I don't wear a poppy, but I didn't come here for "milk and honey", I was born here as was my mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. Cherry's comments about "they like our milk and honey" was directed toward immigrants, and more specifically toward brown/black people, because they are the ones who are assumed to be immigrants based only on what can be seen, which is the color of their skin. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Cherry had seen me, he wouldn't even notice the lack of a poppy on my person, because I'm white.

I wear that little band they have now; I can wear it all day (and all night if I forget to take it off), it doesn't fall of while I'm walking the dogs or running for the bus, and I don't forget to move it to the coat I'm wearing today. It's true that you might not notice it and be "annoyed" because of your assumptions about me based on something you don't happen to see. Seems pretty silly to me.

At least you're trying. I've gotten to the point where if something makes me have "feels", the very next thought is to wonder its true. The most common "feels" sought by people who deliberately spread misinformation is anger or "victimhood"; those emotions drive most people to innocently spread the misinformation. I find I'm skipping over more and more stories because it's quickly clear that its geared for emotional response instead information.

Better to trust the government rather than individuals, only one of whom may make a less than objective decision about their own need to have a gun. Government does not always make the right decision, but at least they are in a much better position to objectively determine someone's "need" for a gun.

Lies can be spread on paper, too. Prior to radio, that was the primary method. Trusting media was possible prior to social media, but now someone can say something online, and have it picked up and spread like wildfire. Twitter users seem to prefer spreading fake news, and maybe that's also true of other platforms. The problem of fake news might not be the MSM or Russian bots or any manipulation by "elites", but by the masses who prefer lies over truth.

Mohammed got his ideas from the practice of Christians and Jews at the time, including covering women and stoning for adultery. You've never actually read the Bible or paid much attention to history have you. Ever heard of the inquisition? Or the burning alive or drowning of witches? Or the instruction that if an unmarried woman was raped, she should marry her rapist, but if she was married, the rapist had to pay the husband some amount of money as compensation. There's plenty of examples of Christian barbarity throughout history, and even today in a few pockets of the world. Islam is cut from exactly the same cloth.

Tell that to the people who call themselves Christians and shame, attack, harass and shoot at abortion providers and their patients. Or those who do not allow gay people into their congregation, or allow women to hold positions of authority. Not to mention Christians in third world nations who believe that gays should be killed or at least jailed for life, that polygamy is God's will and that honor killings are acceptable when women misbehave.

Don't be silly. Christians still apply parts of the OT when it suits them to do so.

Have you read this thread, or any other thread discussing LGBTQ+? Conservatives here almost unanimously claim these people are lying, looking for attention, mentally ill, want to victimize children/women, are harmful to society. These are all the same arguments used against gay people, by the same segment of society, up until gay marriage was legalized. Some conservatives are still using those arguments against gays, but most have now accepted that gays are here to stay. They've now become so accepting of gays that the use the same gay rights they fought so hard against as a weapon against Islam and Muslims. I'm sure they'll follow the same course of action with LGBTQ+ people as well - fight hard against recognizing them, then lose and proclaim their progressiveness to target someone else.

Well, see, unlike conservatives, I don't assume Muslims are all gay-bashing/killing fanatics - and if your claim that those sorts of crime comprise only 0.0001 of all crimes, I'd say my lack of assumption is correct. Also, unlike conservatives, I don't assume that LGBTQ+ people are mentally I'll, looking for attention or pursuing an agenda to skulk in female washrooms and changerooms. So please explain to me why conservatives assume people that are "not like them" are up to no no good, lying or mentally ill?

We wouldn't have needed cops to.protect gays if conservatives hadn't said gay people are against nature, and claimed things like gays will target our children and destroy our society. We wouldn't need cops now to protect LGBTQ+ if conservatives didn't promote hatred by saying things like "penis=boy and no penis=girl" and that accommodating them will destroy society. We wouldn't need cops now to protect immigrants if conservatives didn't claim there were too many who don't "fit in" and that they will destroy our culture. Diviseness, led by conservative rhetoric, emboldens verbal and physical attacks against specific groups. Without hateful conservative rhetoric, we would have a more civil, and civilized, society and less need for policing.

Every single person I know who voted Liberal is working, and has been working since their teens. A couple of them hold senior, very well-paying positions not related to education. I don't know many people who don't work, come to think of it - and given that ~95% of Canada workforce is employed, with around 60% of them voting progressive (Liberal, NDP, Green), I think your comment is a serious divergence from reality.

And yet you bring up your own "personal anecdotes", equally as devoid of facts, as proof that Muslim men refuse to play nicely with women who have any kind of authority over them. And you also eagerly accepted as truth Teena's anecdote about her personal experience of Muslims. So, why is Jacee's anecdote rejected, while Teena's is not? Why would you even talk about your anecdotal experience, if such stories are proof of nothing in your mind? I'm guessing its because your anecdote and Teena's anecdote reflect badly on Muslims, while Jacee's does not. Jacee's anecdote suggests Muslims are individuals, some of whom are gay or sympathetic to gays. You'd rather that everybody viewed Muslims as a monolithic group for whom killing gays was all in a day's worship.