I am Groot

No, it's the injustice and racism of it all.

No, 'social justice' is an incredibly stupid interpretation of justice. What I describe is social justice at its fundamental base. It's all based on statistics about who is doing better or how many of this or that identity group are in this or that profession or job. And white people are the base. If any group is performing worse, it's time for state intervention due to racism. Nobody ever complains that Asians are doing the best - ever. Nobody ever says Asians are being racist because black people aren't matching them in economic success or the number of doctors or lawyers. No one cares how Asians do.

If you believe India was colonized/was a colony of England, then Japan was a colony of the United States. It supplanted the local government, oversaw an entire change in culture, introduced democracy and all the rules around it, including the writing of a new constitution, and entirely reshaped Japan's society.

Clearly it's you. Like, for example, here is a case of a 'tragic victim of Canada's colonial history', and gave him a break in that a woman just happened to be killed during a home invasion he took part in with another man. It was only his 161st recorded, crime after all, so she decided to go lightly and give him another chance. See how the government is on our side? Well, someone's side. “Tragically, Mr. Parisian appears to be a victim of the adverse impact of Canada’s colonial history,” Ker said while referencing a pre-sentence report. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/man-who-posed-as-cop-during-deadly-home-invasion-sentenced-to-7-years-1.6809487

China has more modern infrastructure because its government has been determined to modernize everything and has put massive amounts of money into doing so. The US governments, unfortunately, have been obsessed with cutting taxes, and with it modernization and even basic maintenance on their infrastructure. When they do build infrastructure they tend to build it as cheaply as possible. Though there are exceptions. https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/29/santiago-calatrava-oculus-world-trade-center-transportation-hub-new-york-photographs-hufton-crow/ Who ever said it was? Who ever said India's was the best, as opposed to the cheapest?

Sorry? How are you defining that? If by 'colonized', you mean 'some colonial power took over and moved its people there in great numbers, overriding the local culture' then the only countries that qualify are the ones in the Western Hemisphere and Australia/New Zealand. If you mean 'a foreign government or power moved there with its military might and took over completely, running the place, giving orders and basically overseeing everything going on for decades' then yes, Japan was colonized. Not for as long as India, but probably even more closely controlled. And this exposure to the West and Western culture is the reason places like Japan, Singapore, and South Korea are more advanced than others in their region.

I'm talking about anyone of any race or religion who embraces and adopts the tenets of Western culture. The culture that made the West the most scientifically and culturally advanced, tolerant, open-minded, free, and wealthy civilization in the history of the world. You know, the culture the progressives largely reject and want to destroy.

Andrew Coyne sets out just how dangerous this new bill can be. But the new proposal is to set up a whole separate category for crimes motivated by hatred. Well, not just crimes. The new crime would apply not only to offences under the Criminal Code but “any other Act of Parliament.” Got that? It doesn’t matter how obscure or trivial the law: anyone who breaks it for reasons of hate would be guilty of a crime. And the punishment? Once again, up to life imprisonment. The overkill does not stop there. The bill also proposes to punish people for speech crimes they have not yet committed, but that someone fears they might. Any person, that is, who “fears on reasonable grounds” that someone else will commit an offence under the hate laws can apply to a court to shut them up – or in the words of the legislation, to order “the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace.” Enforcement provisions range from having to wear an electronic monitoring device, to house arrest, to time in jail. Again: not for any act they might have committed, or even any act they might be contemplating committing, but for words someone fears they might utter. “Peace bonds” are not unknown in Canadian law, but for speech? And we haven’t even gotten to the most contentious part of the bill! https://archive.is/lDHZs

What in the hell has all this crap about colonization got to do with the freaking online harms bill, you bunch of loons?

The anti-Canada hyperbole has been going strong for at least a decade, mostly coming from the Left, from our prime minister, from his government, and from a variety of Left wing, indigenous, and racial activist groups. The kind of thing which might well be shut down as 'hate speech' under the new law. Daring to question the idea that Canada committed genocide against natives due to the 'mass graves' found at former residential schools. https://tnc.news/2024/03/11/op-ed-indigenous-mass-graves-and-genocide-libels2/

When I was young, my mother worked for an MP. And she told me how so many programs and purchasing decisions were made to disproportionately benefit Quebec. That was so in Mulroney's time, too. It was a big fat bribe to please not separate, and also benefit the PM's home province where he had so many seats (both Trudeau and Mulroney). That continued when Chretien was PM but tailed off a lot when Harper became PM.

Z, that's a great opening line for me to introduce something I just found out on the news tonight. Unless you have a very young child, you probably haven't paid a ton of attention to the federal government's daycare subsidy rollout. Maybe you just thought, well, it will cost billions, but it's probably a good thing, and paid no more attention to it. What I found out on the news is that this daycare subsidy is available to parents earning up to $180,000 a year. Like, WTF!? Why is it so high!? Also, it's not really for white people. Did you think otherwise? Oh well. It's not like they broadcast the fact. "The federal government has made a requirement of the provinces to focus their growth on underrepresented groups that have historically low number of spaces relative to their population, so we are prioritizing our growth," said education minister Stephen Lecce. Which means, unlike the first year of the program, not all centres who want to opt-in can do so. According to a letter from the City of Ottawa obtained by CTV News, some daycare providers are being told they cannot opt-in as the province prioritizes spaces for Indigenous, low-income and diverse communities. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/universal-childcare-not-so-universal-according-to-ontario-government-1.6808204 Not if you say it online. They can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, at no cost to them. They can even do it anonymously. Well, he could rescind the bill. Or he could just abolish the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I can't see where it's really needed anymore in this day and age. There are no such organizations in the US and they get along fine with just a court system to redress the same issues.

Most of what people call racism today isn't. Racism is the tiki torch people who think that white people are a superior race. I.e., it's in our DNA. Almost no one believes that anymore. Prejudice means to pre-judge. As an example, a store clerk who watches a black customer much more carefully than a white customer is exhibiting prejudice. They are pre-judging this person based on what they know or think they know about black people. BTW, the clerk might be black themselves, or brown or anything else. Bigotry is negative assumptions largely made out of ignorance. They have an opinion about some group of people and can't be convinced out of it, at least not easily. The prejudiced clerk might actually be acting out of knowledge that the majority of shoplifters are black (for example) or that they're disproportionately likely to be black. In New York in the 1980s when crime was particularly nasty you couldn't get a cab in black areas, and black men could not get picked up by cabs, despite the majority of cab drivers being black. Most of the armed robberies were being committed by black men (still true today). So they didn't want to take the chance. Today, the word 'racism' has displaced them, and is used for any sign that a person even notices another person's skin colour. Or if a person tells an ethnic joke. Or makes an innocent, honest assumption about something like asking a person with a foreign sounding name where they come from.

Where does the mainstream come from? It comes from the major media, from academia, politics, artists. And these are the industries/areas where those who call themselves progressive seem to be most heavily found and conservatives are comparatively rare. So the people who call themselves progress can, indeed monopolize aspects of language, and make it all-but illegal and sometimes even illegal for people to use the wrong kinds of language.

I don't think whites are superior. I do, however, think Western civilization, and the culture that flows from it, is superior to that of anyone else in the world. That is why Europeans have been so successful compared to the rest. It's not in their DNA. It's in their culture. There's no way I would consider myself 'superior' to someone like Thomas Sowell or Glen Lowry or John Mcwhorter, for example. Pretty sure I'm superior to Ahmed Hussen, though. Then again, who isn't?

Although they are a minority in Canada (and the US) those who call themselves progressives tend to congregate in non-productive areas like government, academia, and the media. Thus the media and the 'message' of our mainstream tends to be almost entirely that of the progressive elites viewpoint on social justice issues.

Social Justice. Sounds like a reasonable concept, doesn't it? Of course, that depends on what kind of interpretation you put on it. Even the word 'justice' itself can be twisted, if you're of that kind of mindset. What is 'justice' to the Left? Generally, it means everyone gets the same outcomes, regardless of input. This is an outgrowth of the Left's long flirtation and broken-off love affair with Communism. For if the state owns all then all are equally wealthy. No one has more than anyone else. Regardless of effort, skill or talent. The Left applies this to its most recent love affair, which is with identity politics. All groups must be equal in all things, with white people being the base group. Any group that performs less well than whites are not to be seen as inferior, or making different choices due to different preferences and cultural beliefs, but as victims of white oppression. And thus it is the state's business to elevate that group to the point they are equal to whites. This ignores Asians, who generally perform better. Asians do not exist. They are a fantasy race that should never be considered in such efforts. The Left insists that it is the state's business to intervene if the number of men making widgets is noticeably higher than the number of women. It does not, however, care if the number of women making widgets is considerably higher than the number of men. The same consideration is given to various racial groups. The only requirement for social justice is that white people must not perform better than any other group. And since White people earn more than Black people the Left invented the idea of a great, amorphous systemic issue they termed 'systemic racism'. It's the cause of all inferior progress by Black people, you see. No, there's no actual evidence other than statistical superiority in some things by white people. But that will do. The Left seldom requires much in the way of evidence to solidify their beliefs in this or that faddish concept. Of course, the left has twisted other words of late. Like the word 'hate'. They adopted it about ten or fifteen years ago and have since embraced it as their favorite word. Now it used to be you could be prejudiced or bigoted - words well-defined in the dictionary, but no longer used. The Left made 'racism' their default word because it has a more sinister original definition and can be more readily hurled at their enemies (anyone NOT Left). But even racism wasn't enough as the number of groups the Left identified as requiring their protection grew. It doesn't really work for Muslims, for example, or Trans, or the disabled. So the Left decided to switch to "hate" instead. There can no longer be any prejudice or suspicion or doubt about any group. Now all that is gathered together under the term 'hate'. This makes it easier to craft rules and laws against it, like the Liberals' new online hate bill that will ban the expression of doubt or disbelief about anything regarding transgenderism (even though two thirds of Canadians have doubts about elements of the transgender activist demands). Opposing these demands will no longer be permitted. Just as opposing gay marriage, immigration, or open border can be defined as hate and allow for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to investigate you and perhaps bankrupt you with enormous fines. It doesn't take much to qualify as 'hate', either. One joke will do it. One offhand comment. Hiring the wrong person. Getting into an argument with the wrong person. Disagreeing with government policy. Even disagreeing with government policy that is deliberately crafted to be racist is defined as hate! But that's all part of how the Left changes language, then insists that anyone not changing with them is immoral and must be punished. The word 'retarded' became essentially forbidden and punishable as the Left switched to 'disabled'. Now that's no longer allowed as they've settled on 'differently abled'. You are hectored and lectured for saying 'illegal alien' and told to use 'undocumented alien' instead. You can't complain about the homeless. Now they're 'unhoused'. And once the Left abandons a word it becomes forbidden. Punishable by as much as they can get away with in a still-democratic society. They alone, of course, are the arbiters of what the word means. And that can change over time.

Herbie, you have inspired me. I'm going to start a new topic dedicated to you.

Not to mention the extra cost you spend searching for a charger and then charging up your car if it can't be done every night at home.

With what?

No. Most people aren't aware of just how complex it is. They just hear that it will protect children from porn and think that's a good thing. And if it makes it harder for adults to get porn, well, who cares about those perverts anyway? They also have no idea, if they even know about the hate speech portion of the bill, how illiquid and undefined the description of 'hate' is.

No, I'm going with the obvious fact the Left doesn't see Black people as entirely human. They hold them to different standards than they do white people on issues like crime, and feel that they need the help of the white knights of the Left to push them forward because they clearly aren't capable of competing with white people (or Asians, I guess). Thus the lower requirements to enter university, and the requirement of business and government to hire them... or else face punishment. If you thought they were as good as white people, after all, you wouldn't be opposed to merit hiring.

Right back at you.

The bill - C63, is supposedly aimed at porn. Another of those "We must protect the chiillldreeeeen" type bills that are largely useless. But it also contains amendments to the criminal code and allows cost-free, anonymous complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against any online article they disapprove of. It will be an incredible weapon in the hands of social justice zealots, who will be able to launch multiple complaints at no cost against anyone arguing against any of their sacred issues. And it will be up to that person or organization to get a lawyer to define themselves. Meanwhile, the complainant has no cost and can remain anonymous. From a man who headed the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, we get this warning: The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression. That is what the Liberals intend. By drafting a vague law creating a draconian regime to address online “harms,” they will win their wars without firing a bullet. The consequences for violating the law are so severe that it should be expected that hardly anyone would risk violating it. Even news media organizations and big tech companies should be expected to avoid the risk. In this moment when we need it the most, robust political discourse in Canada could disappear with a whimper. Under the current law, you have to be a complainant to receive a remedy from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Under the proposed new powers, the tribunal will be able to award $20,000 to “any victim identified” in a communication deemed to be hate speech. How many victims might be identified if the hate speech is posted online? Is everyone who sees a hate speech message a victim? I chaired the CHRT. It has no business policing 'hate speech' | National Post https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content