Michael Hardner

1. Interesting. I had to look up when it started, and Wikipedia sent me to this: https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/jcs.48.2.100 Multiculturalism started in Alberta! 1971. 54 years ago. Did not know that. 2. That's an observation. It's hard to tie them together as causal, given that the rest of the Western world has gone more or less the same path. 3. I don't think you're framing it accurately. Europe never embraced it nor shunned it. We have this moniker for accepting immigrants that's different than their ambivalence, but it's not so cut and dried. 4. I don't know how you can possibly get that from what I said. As such I'm just going to leave it. I will say that Islam never had a Reformation, because they were always rooted in backwaters where it wasn't worth it to go in and convert anybody. Those backwaters may never be converted, but they don't have to be either.

The ultimate point of racism is vanity: MY people, MY skin, MY point of view is... superior. It allows people to seal themselves off from reality and nurse their own feelings. It's odd to me that some people who feel this way consider themselves 'conservative'. Because our western traditions have always been about (ostensibly) believing in pragmatic dialogue to resolve differences, so that we can move forward, economically, and "pursue happiness". Racism is about sitting by yourself, and applying lipstick while staring lovingly into a hand-held mirror. "Aren't I beautiful ?" If it's good for you, then go for it I suppose. But I'm more interested in discussing reality. And, to throw a bone to both-sidesism, there's no point in being ashamed of your peoples' past either. You're not accountable for the triumphs or shames of your race. Learn from it and move on. Yes, racism is a thing, but it's not the cause of all of our ills. Nor can we use it to stifle conversations about common problems like immigration. In fact, I feel like Canada has finally arrived at a point where we can openly criticize immigration without some stigma.

I would say it started with the HUAC In the west: the house Un-American activities committee. But that was a reaction to the influence of the Soviet Union in America In the 1950s, which was real if overstated. When that initiative fell out of public favor, it wasn't that the American people turned against cancel culture. It was because the committee was reckless in its accusations, accusing innocent people. So clearly there is an appetite for excluding people with different values. And all political tribes do this. It's more interesting to find examples where the tribes themselves draw the line at cancellation.

Your posts are becoming more provocative, as you compare the failures of both ideologies to look at the impact of their viewpoints on our futures. However, if you will allow me a nitpicker 10: 1a. An overstatement. We're still standing, even if we're at the precipice of a fall. It's not at all clear that we won't be able to get over this. 1b. I pointed out above that all countries are experiencing this, and over half of them already have a replacement rate. Two load of sustain their population growth. 2. Technology? I guess so, very but it includes just wrapping plastic around it. So... Low-tech I guess. 3. I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of guilt. It's a left right nexus to me, that occurs when people talk about choice. Both left and right value the idea of personal Liberty, at least in this regard. Liberal Western democracy values choice and lets people choose. Maybe there's implied value given to certain choices, but I think it's a stretch to call that guilting 4. There should be some handwringing because we have rights and responsibilities in collision in this question. Also, your post has a moral foundation to it, so I don't think you can fairly condemn moralizing if that's even a thing. If you want to step aside from that whole thing where you don't want to moralize at all... Just talk about effects of decisions and cultural norms. Mcluhan did that with media, just talked about the effects of changes not whether it was good or bad. 5. That's an accurate assessment of our ability to look at the big picture. If we had better intellectual leadership, that wouldn't be. 6. I agree with this. Part of that is to accept that your subjectivity will always color your conclusions. 7. You are as free as anyone. But that means that free people will come to the conclusion that you're wrong. I don't think you can rightly say, you are not free because your conclusion was different from mine. 8. Agreed. But each political ideology has trouble dealing with the collision between rights and responsibilities. 9. A tiny earth population of a few million, with a high birth rate to sustain it... That's where we are headed.

But the core objection is a conspiracy schemed to lower the wages for working people. (That's the leftist part.)

Maybe global depopulation will be the issue that brings us all together? At some point do we declare a winner of the great race for richest man on earth?

Well, yes and no. It's true of Western countries but is now a global phenomenon. So it's also an issue for Bangladesh and every country with a lower replacement rate, like China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate

I don't enjoy Twister. Let's just let this sentence stand, as the summation of your position.

The situation is hypothetical. I will say that it's being reported. It's happening, but I'm not saying that I believe that either. What is clear is that there's a lack of trust, a lot of hypocrisy and finger pointing.

1. Yes, it's arrogant to think that your race owns these traits. 2. Okay, my bad. Were saying that another race other than yours is superior? Which one? 3. You said your culture is superior by your own admission. In the same paragraph you say it is and then challenge me to point out where you say it is.

People are repulsed by how unfair and arrogant it is, on the whole. Acknowledging that races are different is simple and not offensive. Deciding that one is 'superior' and that it happens to be yours is wrong-headed and arrogant.

I get it, but.... there has to be some kind of acknowledgement of the irony here: Canada's multiculturalism is a long-standing attribute of our culture, in different forms over the years. So... who decides what our culture is? I'm feel like we have more common values than culture.

What show is this now?🤔

I feel bad that he was killed. But it's weird for the government to threatened to persecute people who to disrespect him postmortem.

1. This is just based on your gut feeling. 2. Another piece of intuition from you. So how many people were there exactly? I read 25. The giant is sleeping in...

That sounds more like immigration, not multiculturalism. They're different. The USA forged many different peoples together quite well overall. They created their own new values, and it worked because they made a land of opportunity.

Very true. Even then, what has forgotten over time is the fights between these peoples and the effort that had to be made to forge unity And we're talking about people who largely had a common religion, race and were very aware of each other's culture back in the Homeland.

Our public sphere is designed for there to be experts, that we believe and listen to. If there are too many flat earthers, we get shamans and flakes instead of experts.

We should focus on educating those among us who think the world is flat, or that the greenhouse effect isn't real.

Well said.

You know me.

Please. If they were really conservatives they would place some value on freedom. I have many posters here on mute, have any self-described conservatives spoken against this?

But at least we have a new way to identify people who deny reality: anyone who denies that the FCC chief threatened to shut down criticism of the President. Anyone who wants to be real should start by admitting that. 🙂

That's that.

I want BETTER CHAOS 🙂