What are the important cultural differences between Canada and the US?

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Ginsy said:

...it works in a weird way that combines socialism, or maybe you can call it welfare, with capitalism.  

Weird, but... yeah after 60 years or so maybe it's not that weird.

[Ginsy]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Weird, but... yeah after 60 years or so maybe it's not that weird.

Yeah. I meant 'weird' as in I wouldn't imagine the two working together or even come up with the idea, but it does work.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Ginsy said:

Yeah. I meant 'weird' as in I wouldn't imagine the two working together or even come up with the idea, but it does work.

In the gospel, there's a clear expectation that Jews would pay a tithe to help the community.  Eventually, that became enforceable by law.  In the mid-20th-century, western countries rebuilding from WW2 created strong economies by balancing the economic needs of the people through open democracies, progressive taxation, and minimal state interference in entrepreneurship.   This is liberal society, ie. a balance.  And it's a difficult balance, since there are groups who are constantly trying to tip it in their favour.

[taxme]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:59 AM, Michael Hardner said:

In the gospel, there's a clear expectation that Jews would pay a tithe to help the community.  Eventually, that became enforceable by law.  In the mid-20th-century, western countries rebuilding from WW2 created strong economies by balancing the economic needs of the people through open democracies, progressive taxation, and minimal state interference in entrepreneurship.   This is liberal society, ie. a balance.  And it's a difficult balance, since there are groups who are constantly trying to tip it in their favour.

Everybody, even you, wants to try and tip the balance in their favor. It's human nature. So, what's your point? 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

Everybody, even you, wants to try and tip the balance in their favor. It's human nature. So, what's your point? 

The point is that we should try our best, in this particular case, to squelch out that nature of ours for the greater good of everyone.

This is clearly a case where social engineering is a beneficial thing.

It'll be interesting to see how you reconcile your fear of social engineering with the need to thwart human nature...without your head imploding that is.

[taxme]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

The point is that we should try our best, in this particular case, to squelch out that nature of ours for the greater good of everyone.

This is clearly a case where social engineering is a beneficial thing.

It'll be interesting to see how you reconcile your fear of social engineering with the need to thwart human nature...without your head imploding that is.

1. Nobody really cares about anything but themselves, and that will go on until the earth blows itself up and comes to an end. Live with it.  You obviously don't care about Trump wanting to drain the swamp, do you? That would help everyone of us out if Trump were able to do so. Believe me when I say that Hillary could careless about you or me or anyone else here. It is all about her. 

2. Social engineering is brainwashing. How is being brainwashed beneficial? 

3. Don't worry about me, worry about yourself. I will do just fine. Canadians are very good at worrying about themselves only. I have not yet met a Canadian that gave a chit about anyone or Canada. Watch out for that little tidbit from imploding your head. 

[turningrite]

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

I am probably projecting, but it seems to me Americans are more fearful.

American customer service is far superior.

Canada has a centre of the Universe (Toronto) while the U.S. power is less centralized.

Americans look inward and Canadians look to the U.S.

That's an interesting list. As a birthright Canadian-U.S. dual citizen raised by an American mother, your second point touched on something my mother often noted, which is that Canadians expect far too little in return for their money. She felt this applied both to private sector transactions as well as to interactions with government agencies. She felt that Canadians were too docile and too willing to accept mediocrity. At heart, she was a libertarian although she accepted that government, if carefully watched and monitored, could provide limited benefit to the broader population. I never felt she was inward looking. In fact, she was very intelligent and despite growing up in a working class environment acquired a university degree before reaching the age of 20 in an era where it was uncommon for women, especially in her economic class, to be university educated.  She was self-critical where what she perceived to be America's faults were concerned just as she was of those of her adopted country. She felt it was an obligation of all citizens in a democracy to be skeptical of the motives of those in power in business and in government as well as of those representing special interests. She was a democrat and a rebel to her core and to this day I tend to view the U.S.  through the prism of her attitudes and values. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, turningrite said:

At heart, she was a libertarian although she accepted that government, if carefully watched and monitored, could provide limited benefit to the broader population.

That's a huge enough if to be virtually unrealistic.  That said I'm an anarchist that dreams much the same thing.  

[turningrite]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's a huge enough if to be virtually unrealistic.  That said I'm an anarchist that dreams much the same thing.  

She tended to equally see capitalism and socialism as scourges in their own right, particularly if taken to their logical extremes. She believed that people had a right to basic services like health care, for instance, and that if the private sector couldn't adequately serve this need there was a role for government to play to ameliorate the influence of private sector monopoly. However, she was equally skeptical of government monopoly. She tended to see ideological conflict as pertaining to conflicting forms of monopoly and felt the only legitimate role of the state when acting to serve the people was to serve as a referee on behalf of the broad public interest. 

[eyeball]

I'm really not as interested in settling differences in ideology as I am in doing something about the divide between governments and the governed and more to the point the seeming inability if not unwillingness to better control our governments.  IMO this bane on our existence is also our civilizations Achilles Heel - this will become more obvious as we continue drawing down our planets natural and social capital and the gaps between rich and poor and the powerless and powerful grow ever wider.

We could do something as simple as outlawing in-camera lobbying but I'm pretty sure the scheming bastards would just talk about shit around the gold course.  Personally I'd monitor and souveil our governments to a degree that would make Orwell blush.  I doubt any government in existence would willingly submit to souveillance so it will have to be done by political candidates willing to be wired for total public awareness during their term of office.

A cheap table top time-viewer that gave everyone the ability to view any point in space and time through a wormhole would be really neat.

[turningrite]

Personally, I think government is a necessary evil. I think it important to understand its legitimate role in balancing competing interests within societies, a role that's even more vital in complex and varied societies. Libertarians tend to acknowledge that a minimal level of government is necessary while anarchists reject the legitimacy of government. Governments in North America, and perhaps generally throughout the West, have become too attached and beholden to special interests. There's a lack of objectivity in the approach to policy matters. Obama's health care agenda was effectively scuttled in the U.S. by the failure to develop a public insurance option to ameliorate the impacts of the private insurance monopoly. On the other hand, the public health care monopoly in Canada has generated a mediocre health care system in which vital services are essentially rationed. To me, it seems like two sides of the same coin where outcomes are undermined by an inability on the part of the state to challenge monopoly.  

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, turningrite said:

Libertarians tend to acknowledge that a minimal level of government is necessary while anarchists reject the legitimacy of government. 

I didn't reject the theory or idea.

Quote

To me, it seems like two sides of the same coin where outcomes are undermined by an inability on the part of the state to challenge monopoly.

I'm pretty certain that particular inability of the state is often as not by design. In a democracy such as ours it's ultimately our fault for not insisting on far more robust oversight.

[Machjo]

I think one major difference between the US and Canada is how Canadians tend to favour the inscribing of ethnic identity construction into the laws and the Constitution (e.g. the Official Languages Act, the separate school system, Christian statutory holidays even with mandatory closures on those days in some provinces, etc. etc. etc.)

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

I think one major difference between the US and Canada is how Canadians tend to favour the inscribing of ethnic identity construction into the laws and the Constitution (e.g. the Official Languages Act, the separate school system, Christian statutory holidays even with mandatory closures on those days in some provinces, etc. etc. etc.)

Yes, and this is the historical sign of downfall when even many in the U.S. are wanting this in one form or another if only to get their own cultures entrenched (protected). The U.S. First Amendment was to assure that the people have the capacity to free speech but have a government NOT able to favor any culture (ie, "religion" in the original terms). When governments like ours in Canada support a pretence of "multicultural" love, it is a false front intended to lock in specific cultures and religions along with those genetic links of those relating to coincidental ancestral behaviors. 

If we do not alter our Constitution to REMOVE absolutely any privilege of governments to make laws based on cultural/religious powers, we can never even have hope for a peaceful society. 

[Machjo]

31 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Yes, and this is the historical sign of downfall when even many in the U.S. are wanting this in one form or another if only to get their own cultures entrenched (protected). The U.S. First Amendment was to assure that the people have the capacity to free speech but have a government NOT able to favor any culture (ie, "religion" in the original terms). When governments like ours in Canada support a pretence of "multicultural" love, it is a false front intended to lock in specific cultures and religions along with those genetic links of those relating to coincidental ancestral behaviors. 

If we do not alter our Constitution to REMOVE absolutely any privilege of governments to make laws based on cultural/religious powers, we can never even have hope for a peaceful society. 

I think you might be exaggerating there, but I can say that I find official bilingualism highly irritating. I'm a French-Canadian myself and serve the Government of Canada from the private sector. On the surface, I should be happy that official bilingualism increases my employment prospects in French and English. But I'm also well aware that the official status of French and English in the Constitution give me an unfair advantage in the Canadian economy. Morally, ethically, I reject that advantage.

I could see a few ways to solve this problem. A moderate first step could be to remove the official status of French outside of Quebec and that of English in Quebec. That would put me on at least somewhat of a more equal footing to let's say an indigenous or Chinese Canadian or a Canadian who knows ASL among others. If we were to take it to an extreme, we could even adopt Esperanto or a similar international auxiliary language that all Canadians would need to learn by the end of high school. Since it would be easy to learn by design (some studies putting Esperanto at from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than English), 50 hours a year for six consecutive years starting at the age of eight would more than suffice for even a somewhat below average student in aptitude. As a result, we'd all be on an equal footing, with all needing to learn a common easy-to-learn second language. Other solutions could exist too of course.

Imagine if the US adopted English and Spanish as official languages USA-wide just like English and French in Canada and entrenched it into the constitution. Suddenly, bilinguals in English and Spanish would enjoy an unfair advantage in government, public education, packaging and labeling, etc. On the surface you might think all Spanish-English bilinguals would support this. But in reality, at least some of them would be very bothered by it as they experience unfair advantages coming their way as a result of this policy. They would start to sympathize with non-Spanish and non-English speakers and feel opposed to defenders of the policy on moral and ethical grounds. Some of the most outspoken opponents of the separate school system are in fact Catholics. It shouldn't surprise us. They're probably just reacting the same way I do to official bilingualism as they turn against and reject the privilege imposed on them.

 

What I find most irritating are unilingual English-speakers who defend official bilingualism to their own detriment. On one level, I appreciate their intentions and even admire their willingness to support a policy that undermines their own personal interests. We need more people like that in our society. However, in defending French-speakers as a disadvantaged minority, they ignore how official bilingualism hurts speakers indigenous languages, sign languages, and other unofficial language communities who are even more disadvantaged that we are. If you want to promote some kind of official status for a disadvantaged language, why not a sign language for the Deaf or the local indigenous language or even an international auxiliary language like Esperanto to help the Deaf, dyslexics, and Deaf-dyslexics learn a phonetic language for efficient communication with the hearing instead of promoting Canada's two most advantaged languages?

I'm not denying the good intentions of unilingual English Canadians who aggressively defend official bilingualism. I'm just criticizing the lack of thought they put into their decision.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Machjo

[Scott Mayers]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I think you might be exaggerating there, but I can say that I find official bilingualism highly irritating. I'm a French-Canadian myself and serve the Government of Canada from the private sector. On the surface, I should be happy that official bilingualism increases my employment prospects in French and English. But I'm also well aware that the official status of French and English in the Constitution give me an unfair advantage in the Canadian economy. Morally, ethically, I reject that advantage.

I could see a few ways to solve this problem. A moderate first step could be to remove the official status of French outside of Quebec and that of English in Quebec. That would put me on at least somewhat of a more equal footing to let's say an indigenous or Chinese Canadian or a Canadian who knows ASL among others. If we were to take it to an extreme, we could even adopt Esperanto or a similar international auxiliary language that all Canadians would need to learn by the end of high school. Since it would be easy to learn by design (some studies putting Esperanto at from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than English), 50 hours a year for six consecutive years starting at the age of eight would more than suffice for even a somewhat below average student in aptitude. As a result, we'd all be on an equal footing, with all needing to learn a common easy-to-learn second language. Other solutions could exist too of course.

Imagine if the US adopted English and Spanish as official languages USA-wide just like English and French in Canada and entrenched it into the constitution. Suddenly, bilinguals in English and Spanish would enjoy an unfair advantage in government, public education, packaging and labeling, etc. On the surface you might think all Spanish-English bilinguals would support this. But in reality, at least some of them would be very bothered by it as they experience unfair advantages coming their way as a result of this policy. They would start to sympathize with non-Spanish and non-English speakers and feel opposed to defenders of the policy on moral and ethical grounds. Some of the most outspoken opponents of the separate school system are in fact Catholics. It shouldn't surprise us. They're probably just reacting the same way I do to official bilingualism as they turn against and reject the privilege imposed on them.

 

What I find most irritating are unilingual English-speakers who defend official bilingualism to their own detriment. On one level, I appreciate their intentions and even admire their willingness to support a policy that undermines their own personal interests. We need more people like that in our society. However, in defending French-speakers as a disadvantaged minority, they ignore how official bilingualism hurts speakers indigenous languages, sign languages, and other unofficial language communities who are even more disadvantaged that we are. If you want to promote some kind of official status for a disadvantaged language, why not a sign language for the Deaf or the local indigenous language or even an international auxiliary language like Esperanto to help the Deaf, dyslexics, and Deaf-dyslexics learn a phonetic language for efficient communication with the hearing instead of promoting Canada's two most advantaged languages?

I'm not denying the good intentions of unilingual English Canadians who aggressively defend official bilingualism. I'm just criticizing the lack of thought they put into their decision.

Thank you for this. I absolutely agree to this and have argued THAT this is one factor that proves our government's setup of Multiculturalism is a front: 

Example, here in Canada as opposed to the U.S., our government places a demand through CRTC that all programs have a priority access to the blind. But besides the difficulty of their closed captioning as it is, WHY has there never been any intent to have French and English subtitle options for all programming? This is odd considering the U.S. voluntarily grants larger pluralities these options. 

Language segregation is the most powerful means to lock those of your own IN and block all others outside from affecting their own. It is weird that people think that whispering in front of others acts as a form of abuse:

But that speaking your own language (when you CAN speak the same language of others around you), is not abusive?

Language segregation is a means of abusers and cults to ISOLATE their members in ways that both prevent the insiders to understand the outsiders but as a means to alter HOW they interpret outsider's languages. The fact that we have "Bilingualism" is itself another proof of intentional bias just for the reasons you noted. It actually does not matter WHICH language is used for an 'official' language, but if it is more than one, it is absolutely intentional manipulative move by those in power to design 'official' multiple languages without proving their sincerity of their logic by being completely inclusive of all languages. 

The rationale for one language is to be sure that we can communicate  in common. Quebec's unique distinction being preserved is about those within it who belong to strong religious convictions demanding isolation. But the non-French who argue for this are just being conned by the fuzziness of how the bilingualism is being sold as proof of their desire for inclusion through multiple cultures. It's dangerous. 

Thank you again. [I also like that you don't necessarily agree with me to all I might say. Why does it have to be all for or all against for some?]