I am Groot

Really? Because I didn't relate any anecdotes. Perhaps you just don't know what an anecdote is. Just like you don't know what evidence is. Certainly you don't seem to understand the difference between causal and correlational. Giving me google searches of hysterical people blaming 'systemic racism' for every statistical difference between whites and blacks is thoroughly unconvincing. Especially when three of the five are the same paper, which, like the other two assumes that 'white privilege' is a thing and then purports to tell us the impact on black healthcare etc of this white privilege. An actual, valid study would not make the assumption that white privilege exists. Making that assumption right from the start demonstrates the ideological influences on the academics making the claims below it and invalidates anything they might have to say. Mind you, academia is so filled with blustering ideological zealots these days, especially in the humanities, that nothing they say on the subject can be trusted anyway. You know what IS convincing? All the Black people trying desperately to come and live in Canada or the US vs NO Black people deciding these are terrible places and they want to leave.

Nope. Try again.

I'm sorry. I keep overestimating the intelligence of the left and that seems to confuse the issue. No, this topic is not about race. There is a subtle but easily discernable difference between talking about race and talking about the religion of the progressive left. What this topic is about is the behaviour of institutions guided by this new religion and its various books of revelations. Canada doesn't have a problem with race. It has a problem with progressives.

Individual acts of discrimination do not suggest black social and economic failure is due to 'unfairness' as opposed to the predictable outcome of their own culture. Indeed. I can easily hand wave them away since you have linked to exactly ZERO studies in this topic. Here's a suggestion. Perhaps it's not so much a lack of empathy as that we're way smarter than you are? Just consider it for a few moments. Or perhaps it's that we're less bigoted than you are? We feel people should be responsible for their own actions. And, unlike you, we aren't willing to simply smile benignly at the poor, silly little black people and pat them on the heads whenever they commit rape or murder or give them a hug as they drop out of school to sell drugs, and tell them it's not their fault they can't get a good job just because they can't read or write very well and tend to use the F word in every sentence and dress like a gangster ready to cut someone's throat if they look sideways at them. Oh, I'm sure you're right. Systemic racism is the new buzzword and the left wing academics love it! It's trotted out whenever there is any statistical basis for showing blacks perform less well in any endeavor than whites. Blacks don't get into universities as often as whites? Why, that's systemic racism! We have to change the rules and lower the requirements in order to offset this terrible systemic racism! I mean, it couldn't be because too many black kids quit school without a graduating, or don't study much at all and wind up with diplomas with words they can barely read, could it? Meanwhile, Asian kids are in school every day, then studying and doing homework every evening while mom and dad supervise. But no, it's gotta be "systemic racism"! The magic get-out-of-jail card (Iiterally in some cases) that exempts people from the results of their own actions. You know which blacks do well? The ones who finish high school and then get married before having kids.

Sure I do. Slavery was a universal system. Just because you only ever hear about the slavery in the US because your information all comes from American TV doesn't mean it wasn't omnipresent all across the globe. You think Black Americans are the only people who are the descendants of slaves? They're not. They're just the only ones still blaming slavery for all their social and economic failures. LOL. Asians have been treated brutally for a thousand years, mostly by their own rulers. Read up a bit on the history of China or Japan, or India for that matter, and you'll see what real brutality was like. Even where people weren't slaves they were peasants, and the difference between a peasant and a slave was often indiscernible. Well, maybe if you keep capitalizing words that will impress us so much we'll be convinced of the intelligence of your arguments.

Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and "war on poverty' programs of the 1960s the fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960. Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, but at a slower rate of progress. It was not some economic grand deliverance. A Legacy of Liberalism Thomas Sowell

Well, to begin with, I could point out the difference but that would seem a pointless exercise as I already did. The means of addressing one is not the same as addressing the other. If you were actually interested in doing anything about it as opposed to virtue signaling about how morally superior you are this would matter to you. Second, police rarely kill a black man for no reason. In almost every case the reason is the Black man is a criminal, refusing lawful orders, and in most cases doing so violently.

Did it? I keep coming up against the fact that Black economic progress was moving steadily closer to that of whites until the civil rights era opened up those jobs you speak of and the black family unit collapsed.

How many decades do white people have to work to rectify this supposed burden? How many hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent trying to do so through various affirmative action, social welfare, grants, loans and spending programs since the 1960s? The UK spent 5% of its GDP per year compensating freed negros and working at freeing others and what credit do they get for it today? None whatsoever. This is, as John McWhorter says, a religious crusade which tries to affix original sin to everyone who has a white skin. And the only way to temporarily ease the guilt is through continuous prayer and good works - or in this case constantly chanting about your white privilege and racism. But there is, of course, no way to permanently remove it. Despite the fact every people on Earth engaged in slavery throughout all the history of time, including Africans well before Europeans showed up, and including the indigenous people in North and South America. All over the world there are societies which had slavery for centuries, sometimes eons. None feels any particular guilt over it except a few anglosphere countries influenced by the shallow thinking of the progressive American academic and media communities.

That's a pretty low bar to surpass.

No one has made that argument. No one has even suggested it. You are simply making it up.

You have failed to demonstrate any unfairness. Certainly, you've failed to demonstrate that this 'unfairness' is responsible for poor black economic performance as compared to superior asian economic performance. The reason for that is that Asians get married, their kids are raised in two-parent families, and those parents place heavy emphasis on their children's' schooling. Black kids are mostly raised in single parent families with absentee fathers. You'll no-doubt say that's the fault of white society but as per Thomas Sowell discussed earlier the Black family unit was intact through to the civil rights era, and violence and crime was low in the black community. What happened then? You can't blame slavery. Societies differ in every way based on their cultures, behaviour and characteristics. You cannot expect them to perform similarly in every category. Ascribing lower performance to some kind of unfairness without even being able to point at it is a pointless (pardon the pun) exercise. Lastly, pretending you're somehow more courageous or have more empathy, that those you disagree with lack integrity for disagreeing with a baseless theory is just so bloody typical of the progressive left. Every discussion with you guys ultimately revolves around how noble you are and how nasty those who disagree with you are. It's tiresome and stupid.

This isn't a topic about race. Nor, I believe, have any other topics I've started been about race. It's just that you're interpreting everything through the prism of the critical race nonsense you were indoctrinated with.

The examples you chose are not racism. I realize people use that word to describe virtually any sort of discriminatory behavior or different outcome among whites and blacks but that's out of sheer ignorance. Racism is literally the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Virtually no one but a few cranks believes in that in the Western world. The examples you provided are not of racism but prejudice. Prejudice literally means to pre-judge an individual based on the observed, proven or believed characteristics/traits of the group that person is a member of. This is why young black men get stopped and searched far more than young White or Asian men. This is why black women get followed around in stores by clerks while Asians and whites generally are not. People are basing their suspicions on the group characteristics they know about. I.e., blacks committing far more violence or shoplifting than other groups. If it were Asians who were known to commit more violence they'd be the ones being stopped and searched. They'd be the ones drawing suspicion when they drove around or entered a store. People should be aware of prejudice and fight it in their behaviour. Of course, if you're the owner of an expensive leather shop in Manhattan, and 1% of your customers are black while you know from police statistics and your own experience that 80% of those who steal your goods are Black, well, it's hard to push back against prejudice. Prejudice is why black taxi drivers prefer not to pick up black customers. Also because black people don't tip as well as white people (generally). You can't lecture people about racism and get any traction against prejudice. Because it isn't racism causing discrimination, it is the perceived behaviour of the group which is causing it. Really, to change prejudice you need to change the behaviour. Or at least, as an individual, do your best to stand out from the group.

And then he and Liberal leaders who followed him set about committing cultural genocide against English Canada while doing everything they could to preserve Quebec's culture.

Given how people have tired of Trudeau and his continuing betrayal of almost everything he originally campaigned for the Tories ought to be higher than that. The distance and dislike between Left and Right has grown considerably since Harper's first election. I don't see them getting in unless they're in majority territory. Under any other circumstances the NDP, and possibly even BQ will team up to ensure Trudeau stays in power. And to do that he's got to come up with policies that strike a chord with Canadians. Fleshed-out policies that address pressing concerns. No niggling little tax breaks tailored towards specific voting blocks. The Liberals are going to hit the Tories with a big, negative, scary-scary campaign again, just as they did the last two elections. And Poilievre is a lot more vulnerable thanks to his stupid embracing of cryptocurrency and support for the trucker convoy.

Well, even if I accepted such hubris as reasonable, even if Canada had such towering respect that other countries would be influenced by our magnificent example of self-sacrifice - neither of which is remotely true - I don't feel the need to spend money to impress foreigners with our nobility. There are far better examples of zealous pursuit of CO2 reductions than Canada will ever manage, and they're not impressing anyone either. Hundreds of coal plants are still going up, mostly being built by the nations which will be most heavily impacted by a warming climate. So color me somewhat indifferent to their plight.

And yet so deep is your sense of self-righteousness you felt the desperate need to comment anyway.

I believe this is called having your own facts.

Name two.

Seriously? Why? This is a woman with almost as many character flaws as Trudeau, whose nearly cold-dead fingers were finally pried off the leadership only to have her sabotage the party and its new leader when it wasn't the one she wanted. This is not a serious party and it shouldn't be allowed to distract people by taking part in debates. I'd say the same for the BQ outside of Quebec, too. All they do is make the debates even more boring and uninteresting than they'd otherwise be.

Uhm, no, you took it off the rails Sunday by ignoring what I'd written, posting a juvenile Trump type cartoon and then pretending that all discussion of immigration is 'anti-immigrant'. I'm not interested in playing any further games with someone with that kind of knee-jerk response.

No, I don't think you are. You're not approaching this like an actual discussion. Your attitude is more like it's a competition and if you can deliberately misconstrue something I've said - even though you know exactly what I meant - you can score some kind of imaginary point for yourself. There's no meaningful exchange of ideas or information in that sort of environment because you don't really care what I say so much as how I say it. Hardner does this too. It's irritating and kind of disappointing because neither of you seems like you're dumb guys but it makes open discussions kind of impossible.

I wasn't aware the law of supply and demand was a boneheaded theory. Let me guess, you're a social science major? Which is why you posted that silly little cartoon from Trumpland to mock people who -- say immigration is driving down wages. Are you bipolar or something? Schizophrenic? Please cite me where I suggested that as opposed to saying the numbers are too high. In fact, your previous post was the one which seemed to be drawing a line in the sand whereby anyone who dares to criticize immigration was some brainless Trump type who hates foreigners. It was rising in a stable way, predicted to reach 50 million by 2100. Now it's expected to reach that fifty years sooner. Apparently you don't understand what a conspiracy theory is. I never suggested a conspiracy., I never suggested collusion. The media are primarily made up of progressives and I've seen them go on message for many decades, spewing out story after story against nuclear weapons, at one time, or the current climate change and identity politics efforts. They had quite the impact on the public's perception of gay marriage. As did the government efforts at promoting American style patriotism. A government effort at promoting bigger families could also bear results. It's worth trying anyway. As for the media and immigration. It's a rare, rare event when any story that gives information casting a dark light on immigration gets printed in any newspaper or appears on any television show. That is not conspiracy, just that media stays on message, invariably pumping out pro-immigration stories just as they do anti-racism or climate change stories.