Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[-1=e^ipi]

This is a follow up thread to the now locked 'there's no racist like a liberal racist' thread. The title of this thread is the debatable question "Does 'progressive racism' exist?", but feel free to debate related topics such as "Is 'progressive racism' moral?", or "Are some policies/ideas that some may argue to be supported by 'progressive racism', such as affirmative action, reserve system in Canada, or silencing 'islamophobes' justified?".

Now, it may be helpful to some to clearly define the meaning of 'progressive racism' as well as different definitions of some words like 'progressive', to avoid confusion over the meaning of people's arguments. The video by Pat Condell that started the initial thread can be found in the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI&feature=player_embedded

Edit: Please watch this video as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

Edit2: Video link that shows Pat Condell believes the left has become corrupted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk

For those that do not know, Pat Condell is a popular youtube atheist who criticizes a number of different topics including Islam, christianity, other religions, the EU, progressivism, multiculturalism, attacks on freedom of speech, and other topics.

A number of forum members on this site misunderstood what Pat Condell was trying to say because they are not familiar with his videos and are not aware that he uses a different definition of the word 'progressive'. An example is the quote below:

Moonlight Graham:

The guy has a few good points, none of which haven't been made a thousand times before. His overall argument is a complete mess with holes so big you could fly a 747 through them & with a disturbing number of stereotypes. Above all, he stereotypes all "progressives" into one giant bunch of "racists", as if all "progressives" (whatever that means anyways) believe the same things. He's racist against progressives!

To which I responded:

-1=e^ipi:

Pat Condell uses his own definition of progressive, rather than the progressive definition of progressive. He distinguishes very much between 'liberal' and 'progressive' (likes liberals, dislikes progressives). His definition and distinction are more clear in other videos, but basically progressives are usually people suffering from white guilt (though you can be 'progressive' without being white), who support multiculturalism without limit or without consideration of which cultures are involved (specifically Islam), who do not want to criticize certain things (usually to do with islam) for fear of offending people and for fear of being called racist, who would rather label people who disagree with them as racists rather than engage in intelligent debate, who support things like affirmative action which are clearly racist because they implicitly do not think that non-whites are equal so need help (though they will never admit this to themselves or others). Progressives tend to delude themselves into thinking that they occupy some sort of moral high-ground over those who disagree with them. The term 'progressive' and other terms progressives tend to use are somewhat Orwellian in nature in that their true meaning is hidden behind a euphemism (who isn't against progress?). Progressives have dominated the politics of most western countries (US is a good exception) for decades.

Ironically, by calling Pat Condell a racist against progressives, you have done 2 things that support his point and indicate you are a progressive. First, you label someone as a racist with no evidence to back up your claim, most likely because he disagrees with you and it is easier in the progressive mind just to label those that disagree as racist. Secondly, progressives are not a race, so it is logically impossible to be racist against progressives.

Unfortunately, that wasn't a good enough explanation to make it clear to others what Pat Condell was arguing in his video. I'll post a few more exchanges from the previous thread to help clarify things:

Bleeding Heart:

Pat's entire video here is predicated on the fact that those who disagree with him are racists.

-1=e^ipi:

No, you misunderstand the video completely. Pat is criticizing a group of people that he identifies as progressive (under his definition of progressive, not the Orwellian progressive definition of progressive). He isn't criticizing all those who self identify as progressive, only those that fit his definition. More specifically, he is criticizing those who try to silence him when he criticizes Islam (specifically islamic misogeny, treatment of apostates, treatment of kaffir, barbaric practices such as severing of limbs, desire to silence free expression), especially when they call him a racist islamophobe. Pat mentions that many so called progressives are more than willing to criticize Mormonism, but never dare criticize Islam and identifies the reason as their inherent racism for not wanting to criticize the religion of 'brown people'.

Bleeding Heart:

That's all progressives. Irritating as it may be, words have meanings which can be sussed out.

-1=e^ipi:

???? Words can have multiple definitions based on context or who uses them. I merely clarified those that didn't quite understand the video because they thought Pat was using the traditional 'progressive' definition of progressive, rather than his own definition of progressive.

Take the word liberal, it can mean many things depending on context. It comes from the latin word liber, meaning free. In the US it is often equivalent to leftist, or socialist. In Canada or Britain, liberal can often mean someone who supports a centrist political party; where as in Australia it can mean someone who supports the right wing liberal coalition. Someone might say, 'I spent my money very liberally' meaning 'I was very care-free with how I spent my money'. Liberal can also have much more broad definitions such as 'all developed countries are liberal democracies', or 'the NDP, the CPC and the LPC are all liberal parties in that they all support liberal democratic values of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and private enterprise independent of government'.

Bleeding Heart:

Whether or not he is a racist or an Islamaphobe, I couldn't personally say.

-1=e^ipi:

You could watch the guy's videos... He most certainly isn't a racist (but that doesn't stop people from making accusations). As for islamophobe... If by islamophobe you mean 'someone who makes valid criticisms of islam and islamism but is called islamophobic in an attempt by progressives and islamists to silence his criticism' then yes he is an islamophobe. In that case, I am an islamophobe as well. The inherent misogyny, intolerance and incompatibility of western liberal values with Islam as preached by the 'prophet' Mohammed, messenger of Allah, (not the westernized, non-practicing variation of islam, practiced by people who couldn't tell a phone book from a Qu'ran) is repulsive.

Bleeding Heart:

I could talk about the political Right's support for genocide and their propensity for all sorts of psychological ills...and when called on it, point out that I'm using my OWN definition of "conservative," so they need not get their panties in such a bunch over my rank generalizations and pretence to the nuances of the discipline of psychology.

-1=e^ipi:

Indeed you could make your own definition of conservative to mean the subgroup of conservatives that support genocide and then criticize that subgroup for supporting genocide. Of course how relevant that would be to the real world would depend on how many of these 'conservatives' actually exist in the real world and how relevant their control is of implementing policies.

With respect to Pat Condell's definition of 'progressive', he provides plenty of examples (in other videos) of people and organizations that he identifies as 'progressive', so he isn't just talking about a hypothetical group of people that only exists in his head. He names the guardian news paper, the bbc, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (especially in their attempt to silence Ezra Levant), David Cameron (in his recent comments after the beheading of that British Soldier by domestic jihadis in broad daylight) just to name a few.

Pat chooses to use the word 'progressive' because he believes this word best describes the group of people he talks about since they tend to use Orwellian euphamisms for various things so by using the word 'progressive' he is implicitly calling out their bluffs on Orwellian euphamisms.

Bleeding Heart:

You misunderstand, which I see is your habit.

You are plainly invoking a moral high ground over me...because you view your own argument as morally superior.

-1=e^ipi:

No, I understood what you wrote clearly in this case. I just chose to give a non-direct answer.

Look, I do not assume to have a moral high ground over someone just for having a different opinion than them (it depends on the issue and on the arguments given). If I disagree with someone over the solution to a physics problem, I do not assume to be morally superior than them because of it. On the other hand, if someone is explicitly advocating racism then I would have a morally superior position.

But of course both those cases are different then what 'progressives' tend to do: They tend to assume that because someone disagrees with them on issues unrelated to race (be it unemployment insurance, minimum wage, rate of immigration, limit of reasonable accommodation of different cultures, issues of Islamic jihad, etc.), it must be because of a hidden intent of racism of which they have no evidence of.

I'll give 2 examples to help clarify. If I am arguing with someone who supports affirmative action, then I might accuse my opponent for the racism of lower expectations since affirmative action is an inherently racist policy. On the other hand, if a progressive is arguing with me over say minimum wage, they might accuse me of being racist for not supporting the idea of minimum wage because I am racist to non-white people and non-white people are more likely to earn minimum wage (which isn't necessarily true), therefore that is the reason I oppose minimum wage (even though minimum wage has nothing to do with race and I did not mention race at all in any of my arguments). In both examples there is an accusation of racism, but in one case it is merited, and the other it is not.

I hope that I have provided sufficient explanation such that everyone now understands the concept and definition of progressive racism. I also gave the example that Justin Trudeau would be considered a progressive, where as Martha Hall Findley would be considered a liberal by Pat Condell's definitions.

There is certainly a distinction between progressive racism and racial supremacism (such as that advocated by the nazis); the two types of racism are quite different. However, racism is still racism and it is wrong to judge people by their race (or have race-based laws). Progressive racism (despite the good intentions of progressive racists) leads to people supporting policies that are racist and/or bad for society. Examples would include support for race-based affirmative action, support for the clearly failed reserve system in Canada & Indian Act, support for institutions that hinder free speech (such as human rights commissions), and the desire to label those that criticize Islam as racists.

Now, it may be helpful to some to clearly define the meaning of 'progressive racism' as well as different definitions of some words like 'progressive', to avoid confusion over the meaning of people's arguments. The video by Pat Condell that started the initial thread can be found in the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4PjxSmtoI&feature=player_embedded

Edit: Please watch this video as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

For those that do not know, Pat Condell is a popular youtube atheist who criticizes a number of different topics including Islam, christianity, other religions, the EU, progressivism, multiculturalism, attacks on freedom of speech, and other topics.

A number of forum members on this site misunderstood what Pat Condell was trying to say because they are not familiar with his videos and are not aware that he uses a different definition of the word 'progressive'. An example is the quote below:

Moonlight Graham:

The guy has a few good points, none of which haven't been made a thousand times before. His overall argument is a complete mess with holes so big you could fly a 747 through them & with a disturbing number of stereotypes. Above all, he stereotypes all "progressives" into one giant bunch of "racists", as if all "progressives" (whatever that means anyways) believe the same things. He's racist against progressives!

To which I responded:

-1=e^ipi:

Pat Condell uses his own definition of progressive, rather than the progressive definition of progressive. He distinguishes very much between 'liberal' and 'progressive' (likes liberals, dislikes progressives). His definition and distinction are more clear in other videos, but basically progressives are usually people suffering from white guilt (though you can be 'progressive' without being white), who support multiculturalism without limit or without consideration of which cultures are involved (specifically Islam), who do not want to criticize certain things (usually to do with islam) for fear of offending people and for fear of being called racist, who would rather label people who disagree with them as racists rather than engage in intelligent debate, who support things like affirmative action which are clearly racist because they implicitly do not think that non-whites are equal so need help (though they will never admit this to themselves or others). Progressives tend to delude themselves into thinking that they occupy some sort of moral high-ground over those who disagree with them. The term 'progressive' and other terms progressives tend to use are somewhat Orwellian in nature in that their true meaning is hidden behind a euphemism (who isn't against progress?). Progressives have dominated the politics of most western countries (US is a good exception) for decades.

Ironically, by calling Pat Condell a racist against progressives, you have done 2 things that support his point and indicate you are a progressive. First, you label someone as a racist with no evidence to back up your claim, most likely because he disagrees with you and it is easier in the progressive mind just to label those that disagree as racist. Secondly, progressives are not a race, so it is logically impossible to be racist against progressives.

Unfortunately, that wasn't a good enough explanation to make it clear to others what Pat Condell was arguing in his video. I'll post a few more exchanges from the previous thread to help clarify things:

Bleeding Heart:

Pat's entire video here is predicated on the fact that those who disagree with him are racists.

-1=e^ipi:

No, you misunderstand the video completely. Pat is criticizing a group of people that he identifies as progressive (under his definition of progressive, not the Orwellian progressive definition of progressive). He isn't criticizing all those who self identify as progressive, only those that fit his definition. More specifically, he is criticizing those who try to silence him when he criticizes Islam (specifically islamic misogeny, treatment of apostates, treatment of kaffir, barbaric practices such as severing of limbs, desire to silence free expression), especially when they call him a racist islamophobe. Pat mentions that many so called progressives are more than willing to criticize Mormonism, but never dare criticize Islam and identifies the reason as their inherent racism for not wanting to criticize the religion of 'brown people'.

Bleeding Heart:

That's all progressives. Irritating as it may be, words have meanings which can be sussed out.

-1=e^ipi:

???? Words can have multiple definitions based on context or who uses them. I merely clarified those that didn't quite understand the video because they thought Pat was using the traditional 'progressive' definition of progressive, rather than his own definition of progressive.

Take the word liberal, it can mean many things depending on context. It comes from the latin word liber, meaning free. In the US it is often equivalent to leftist, or socialist. In Canada or Britain, liberal can often mean someone who supports a centrist political party; where as in Australia it can mean someone who supports the right wing liberal coalition. Someone might say, 'I spent my money very liberally' meaning 'I was very care-free with how I spent my money'. Liberal can also have much more broad definitions such as 'all developed countries are liberal democracies', or 'the NDP, the CPC and the LPC are all liberal parties in that they all support liberal democratic values of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and private enterprise independent of government'.

Bleeding Heart:

Whether or not he is a racist or an Islamaphobe, I couldn't personally say.

-1=e^ipi:

You could watch the guy's videos... He most certainly isn't a racist (but that doesn't stop people from making accusations). As for islamophobe... If by islamophobe you mean 'someone who makes valid criticisms of islam and islamism but is called islamophobic in an attempt by progressives and islamists to silence his criticism' then yes he is an islamophobe. In that case, I am an islamophobe as well. The inherent misogyny, intolerance and incompatibility of western liberal values with Islam as preached by the 'prophet' Mohammed, messenger of Allah, (not the westernized, non-practicing variation of islam, practiced by people who couldn't tell a phone book from a Qu'ran) is repulsive.

Bleeding Heart:

I could talk about the political Right's support for genocide and their propensity for all sorts of psychological ills...and when called on it, point out that I'm using my OWN definition of "conservative," so they need not get their panties in such a bunch over my rank generalizations and pretence to the nuances of the discipline of psychology.

-1=e^ipi:

Indeed you could make your own definition of conservative to mean the subgroup of conservatives that support genocide and then criticize that subgroup for supporting genocide. Of course how relevant that would be to the real world would depend on how many of these 'conservatives' actually exist in the real world and how relevant their control is of implementing policies.

With respect to Pat Condell's definition of 'progressive', he provides plenty of examples (in other videos) of people and organizations that he identifies as 'progressive', so he isn't just talking about a hypothetical group of people that only exists in his head. He names the guardian news paper, the bbc, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (especially in their attempt to silence Ezra Levant), David Cameron (in his recent comments after the beheading of that British Soldier by domestic jihadis in broad daylight) just to name a few.

Pat chooses to use the word 'progressive' because he believes this word best describes the group of people he talks about since they tend to use Orwellian euphamisms for various things so by using the word 'progressive' he is implicitly calling out their bluffs on Orwellian euphamisms.

Bleeding Heart:

You misunderstand, which I see is your habit.

You are plainly invoking a moral high ground over me...because you view your own argument as morally superior.

-1=e^ipi:

No, I understood what you wrote clearly in this case. I just chose to give a non-direct answer.

Look, I do not assume to have a moral high ground over someone just for having a different opinion than them (it depends on the issue and on the arguments given). If I disagree with someone over the solution to a physics problem, I do not assume to be morally superior than them because of it. On the other hand, if someone is explicitly advocating racism then I would have a morally superior position.

But of course both those cases are different then what 'progressives' tend to do: They tend to assume that because someone disagrees with them on issues unrelated to race (be it unemployment insurance, minimum wage, rate of immigration, limit of reasonable accommodation of different cultures, issues of Islamic jihad, etc.), it must be because of a hidden intent of racism of which they have no evidence of.

I'll give 2 examples to help clarify. If I am arguing with someone who supports affirmative action, then I might accuse my opponent for the racism of lower expectations since affirmative action is an inherently racist policy. On the other hand, if a progressive is arguing with me over say minimum wage, they might accuse me of being racist for not supporting the idea of minimum wage because I am racist to non-white people and non-white people are more likely to earn minimum wage (which isn't necessarily true), therefore that is the reason I oppose minimum wage (even though minimum wage has nothing to do with race and I did not mention race at all in any of my arguments). In both examples there is an accusation of racism, but in one case it is merited, and the other it is not.

I hope that I have provided sufficient explanation such that everyone now understands the concept and definition of progressive racism. I also gave the example that Justin Trudeau would be considered a progressive, where as Martha Hall Findley would be considered a liberal by Pat Condell's definitions.

There is certainly a distinction between progressive racism and racial supremacism (such as that advocated by the nazis); the two types of racism are quite different. However, racism is still racism and it is wrong to judge people by their race (or have race-based laws). Progressive racism (despite the good intentions of progressive racists) leads to people supporting policies that are racist and/or bad for society. Examples would include support for race-based affirmative action, support for the clearly failed reserve system in Canada & Indian Act, support for institutions that hinder free speech (such as human rights commissions), and the desire to label those that criticize Islam as racists.

Edited October 23, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Moonlight Graham]

Ironically, by calling Pat Condell a racist against progressives, you have done 2 things that support his point and indicate you are a progressive. First, you label someone as a racist with no evidence to back up your claim, most likely because he disagrees with you and it is easier in the progressive mind just to label those that disagree as racist. Secondly, progressives are not a race, so it is logically impossible to be racist against progressives.

I was being sarcastic when I said Pat was "racist against progressives".

[waldo]

(waldo: paraphrased) a Condell progressive is one who supports multiculturalism without limit or without consideration of which cultures are involved (specifically Islam)

can you also define (for Condell... for yourself?) what limited/reserved/cautionary multiculturalism is?

[bleeding heart]

Indeed you could make your own definition of conservative to mean the subgroup of conservatives that support genocide and then criticize that subgroup for supporting genocide. Of course how relevant that would be to the real world would depend on how many of these 'conservatives' actually exist in the real world and how relevant their control is of implementing policies.

Yes, certainly; but I was alluding to discussions I've had on this forum, with both liberals and conservatives, in which they've evinced support for actual culpability in actual attempted genocide (as well as numerous other atrocities...and I'm talking about matters that are uncontroversially crimes, just so that's clear; I even generously leave out Iraq, for example, though of course it could easily be included).

I'm talking Indonesia/East Timor, the Nicaraguan Contras, and too many other depraved incidents to summon without carpet-bombing the thread. As well as more general discussions of what is and what is not acceptable for liberal and conservative leaderships in the powerful democracies to indulge in. (Answer: most thing are ultimately acceptable, though some debaters balk more quickly at rape as a valid weapon of war, or the torture and intentional slaughter of innocent civilians. Others shrug, or defend it outright. Evidently this is insufficiently barbaric to raise Condell's hackles as well.)

And since the crimes are real, were in fact committed by self-described liberals and conservatives, and then here supported by liberals and conservatives, I put it to you that matters of "implementing policies" makes affirmative action and the grotesque HRC laughably trivial by comparison.

If by islamophobe you mean 'someone who makes valid criticisms of islam and islamism but is called islamophobic in an attempt by progressives and islamists to silence his criticism' then yes he is an islamophobe.

I already covered this, and explicitly, in the now-locked thread. I'm not sure why you'd summon an implied question that has already been answered.

As for "progressive racism"; no, honestly, I'm not sure it is perfectly clear. If Condell (and yourself) allude only to progressives who actually engage in the race-baiting ad hominems, then fine. I get the feeling it's slightly more expansive than that, though I could be wrong.

I also don't quite buy the "Orwellian" descriptor you use. I do understand it; as you say, who is opposed to "progress"? And personally, I don't self-label as a "progressive," even though I'm so often aligned with self-described "progressives'" views. I don't much care for the word.

But your use of "Orwellian" doesn't quite work, in my opinion, because the formulation is too broadly applicable to so many matters:

"Pro-life";

"Pro-choice";

"Anti-American";

"Family values";

"Patriot."

All these terms are politicized footballs, particularly 1., 2., and 4....and no one is opposed to choice, life, or family values; and few are opposed to patriotism or to America. ("Opposition" meaning as often as not "criticism," I add, anticipating a response from some folks on this contentious matter, and my wishing to avoid a thread hijack for as long as possible.)

So, no, I don't think "progressive" can be accurately described as "Orwellian," or at least no more so than many other terms that rarely or never get saddled with the adjective.

It may well not be a very good word to use for what was once simply described as "the Left." (Another problematic term, but I won't get into that one just now.)

Edited October 22, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Rue]

With due respect because you are making a sincere effort to explain it, your exercise in defining what is a "progressive racist" or what ever other concepts you wish to define are just that-definitions you create and give meaning to.

I find the word progressive an open ended definition as well as the word racist. These words can have more then one meaning depending on the context they are used.

What you have done is to present a definiton using a particular context. And so?

Bottom line is you create a word, and use it as a labe to mean a certain idea. So?

Its called intellectualization. You do it. I do it. Others do it. We go tit for tat on what we think is the way to approach a matter.

Bottom line, words are just words. It all depends on the context of whose spinning those words.

Words are illusionary and necessarily misunderstood without their actual context.

For what it is worth I agree words like "left" or "right" used to label political inclinations have become problematic. So too has the word "progressive".

In fact most people I know who use the word "progressive" to explain their views in my subjective opinion are "reactionary"-their concepts react to the situation they are confronted with and dependent on being stated in a negative exercise to counter the initiated concept.

Progressive? Its just a word. They used to put it in front of conservative for years. Politics has a way of rendering all words absurd. I mean just look at how we use the words Liberal and Conservative in Canadian politics. The people who use such words have no idea who Bentham, Locke, Hobbes or Burke were or the origins of either. These are just names now like Repubican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour or Liberal in the UK and so on.

In fact the Liberals in Quebec were anything but Liberal, more like Union Nationale. Very little difference between Daniel Johnson and Jean Charest.

Then again her eminence Madame Marois basically recycles good old fashioned Duplessis rural prejudices with a modern version of the Catholic Church called Quebec seperatism. Instead of a priest telling you that your faith determines your vote you have Her eminence Archbishop Marois now doing the same. She needs no sceptre or mitre. Her head is already a large pointed object.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Rue

[-1=e^ipi]

I was being sarcastic when I said Pat was "racist against progressives".

Sorry, my mistake for not identifying your comments as sarcasm.

can you also define (for Condell... for yourself?) what limited/reserved/cautionary multiculturalism is?

Sure. It is a form of multiculturalism which allows the immigration primarily from / mixing of cultures that are pluralistic (i.e. not supremacist) and are compatible with liberal democratic values. In particular, it advocates immigration from countries with cultures that are highly compatible with the host country's culture (ex. Western Europe and East Asian immigration to Canada) vs those countries with cultures that are not very compatible with the host country's culture (ex. Pakistani and Somali immigration to Canada). It does not advocate that one should only allow immigration from the 'compatible' countries, but rather that culture should be a significant deciding factor when determining if an individual should be allowed to immigrate.

'Limited' multiculturalism (if you want to use the word limited) isn't just restricted to immigration, but also to do with cultural accommodation; an individual who supports 'limited' multiculturalism might be okay with people wearing some religious clothing items, but take issue with the niqab because it covers the face and with the kirpan because it is a weapon that can be used to kill people. 'Limited' multiculturalism is often contrasted by 'unlimited' multiculturalism (more commonly just called multiculturalism) as advocated by cultural relativists and western apologists.

But really, the best way to understand 'limited' multiculturalism is to give examples because it a concept that is primarily relevant in western countries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It is also very difficult to talk about 'limited' multiculturalism without talking about Islam because Islamic supremacism is the primary concern of critics of 'unlimited' multiculturalism as advocated by 'progressives' (again, using Pat Condell's definition of progressives here). The EDL (English Defence League) could be (I say could be because there are still some skin-heads that try to hijack the organization) considered an organization that advocates limits to multiculturalism (advocates lower immigration from Islamic countries and less cultural accommodation to islamists, while being very inclusive in that the EDL consists of gays, atheists, christians, hindus, jews and people of all races). Advocates of 'limited' multiculturalism should not be confused with xenophobes, racists and other bigoted groups that prefer uniculturalism and no or extremely limited immigration (though 'progressives' will often try to label them as such).

I'll give a more personal example. In my life I have gone to many schools in Canadian cities (and in other countries), all of which had student populations where the majority are either immigrants or children of recent immigrants. For the vast majority of students, there were no issues retaining a foreign culture while adopting Canadian culture or with assimilating and mixing with everyone else. When it came to academic performance and extra-curricular activities, people of East Asian or Indian decent usually did the best (often due to strong influence from parents); in general, immigrants or children of immigrants performed better than Canadians that have families that have been in Canada for a longer period of time.

However, in one case I went to a school where Somalian Muslims made the.largest cultural group. In this school, which had many hijab-wearing (not the more colorful hijabs worn by more moderate muslims, but the conservative ones worn by those that follow Wahabbi Islam) allah-swearing muslims, gender segregation was common, muslim girls were submissive to muslim boys, bullying of non-muslims was common, female teachers often were not respected by students, students did not value education (as more value is placed on allah & the koran) and reciting of the Qu'ran and/or mentioning Allah were common in the classroom. From my experience, it just seems to me that it would make more sense to increase the amount of immigration from China while reducing the immigration from Somalia and that cultural compatibility should play a role in immigration. Now to be fair/to clarify, the above example certainly isn't representative of all Muslims and there is much cultural variation between Muslim countries (I've known many secular, non-practicing, alcohol-drinking muslims that integrated very well and performed very well academically. Generally I have had no issues with Iranian-Canadians either).

As for "progressive racism"; no, honestly, I'm not sure it is perfectly clear. If Condell (and yourself) allude only to progressives who actually engage in the race-baiting ad hominems, then fine.

Yeah, progressive racists are primarily progressives that engage in race-baiting ad hominems. Though one could be a progressive racists without ad hominems (ex. if one supports affirmative action cause one feels that other races are inferior so need the help, or again if one criticizes Mormonism but not Islam because of the racial make up of the followers of the different religions).

I get the feeling it's slightly more expansive than that, though I could be wrong.

Well, perhaps other videos will help. Here is a different Pat Condell video which more clearly defines terms like 'progressive' and 'liberal' than the previous video given:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

And here are some videos that criticizes the BBC and the Guardian for bias and Orwellian progressivism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOgV6Fvc8wc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFOubJ4vJ2Y

But your use of "Orwellian" doesn't quite work, in my opinion, because the formulation is too broadly applicable to so many matters

While I will admit that other political groups may use similar tactics of using euphemisms or redefining words for political gain (US conservatives are particularly good at this), it doesn't make what 'progressives' do any more acceptable.

"

Family values" "Patriot."

I do not know if I would consider these words as euphemisms, but I guess it depends on perspective. Family values or traditional values seems to be a fairly neutral term; I can not consider it a euphemism (maybe it is to conservatives?). Patriotism is irrational, so I do not consider Patriot as a euphamism.

[-1=e^ipi]

I find the word progressive an open ended definition as well as the word racist. These words can have more then one meaning depending on the context they are used.

Indeed you have 2 definitions of racist. The traditional definition meaning someone or something that discriminates based on race (in the sense that nazis or affirmative action are racist) and the 'progressive' definition of racist, meaning someone that disagrees with me or criticizes Islam, which isn't a race, so I'm going to label them as racist.

But yes, I'm glad you agree with me that the meaning of words changes based on context and who uses them. That's why I felt it necessary to give an explanation of Pat Condell's definition of 'progressive' so people could better understand the video (as people were misunderstanding it in the previous thread).

[Michael Hardner]

To the title of the tread, the answer is clearly yes.

Next, I ask - do we care ? A lot of things exist, but how significant do they need to be for us to label them as a phenomenon and discuss them in and of themselves ? Why not just examine the racism inherent in certain progressive arguments ?

Next, I ask about 'limited multiculturalism'. Again - why discuss it ? Is there a call for such a thing ? I don't think anybody has made any kind of objectively convincing case for that. The case cited is an anecdotal personal situation, which of course isn't anywhere near enough for us to seriously consider changing the fabric of the entire nation.

If the response to my last sentence is 'well, immigration is changing the fabric of our nation [for the negative]' then show me how. It seems to me I've asked for this evidence many more times than I have seen people blindly accuse others of racism - so where are we with it ?

[eyeball]

We're probably as close to it as we are to the answer to the question, what is an atheist.

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, progressive racists are primarily progressives that engage in race-baiting ad hominems. Though one could be a progressive racists without ad hominems (ex. if one supports affirmative action cause one feels that other races are inferior so need the help, or again if one criticizes Mormonism but not Islam because of the racial make up of the followers of the different religions).

First of all, I should clarify that I agree there exist racist progressives. I'd be surprised if anyone really argued otherwise. However, I don't think this delineates any sort of special case; it simply places progressives in the same boat as liberals, conservatives, and anything in between.

Now, a person might argue that the chief difference is that progressives often have anti-racism as part of their self-declared make-up, as one of their core beliefs, so it's the sanctimonious hypocrisy that rankles. And I can sympathize with this view. But ultimately that doesn't matter so very much; none of the political groupings are free from hypocrisy--I daresay we'd all have quite a time trying to avoid hypocrisy. More to the point, hypocrisy isn't what's at issue: racism is what's at issue. And so the bottom line--that progressives are no more racist than the other groups you've identified here--suggests to me that Condell is engaging in a type of Special Pleading.

At bottom, I get a whiff of the cherished tradition, a century old, give or take, of Left-Obsession, in which this entity called "The Left" (ever-shifting, depending on how rightward leans the accuser) is so iniquitous...but based more or less on mainstream, even universal, weaknesses, errors, and omissions.

The political Left (I mean as opposed to mainstream "liberals") has also, ironically, long been the champion of some of the notions that folks like Condell profess to hold dear; a point which he avoids...indeed, he must, so as not to muddy his pat denunciations with the greyness of historical truth.

For example, if, as you say, he believes in equal rights for homosexuals, he must surely be aware that it the Left and the Left alone who long ago took up the cause in solidarity with gay people. (And, as with Muslims victimized by Western militarism, these progressives cared not a whit whether homosexuals were left, liberal, or conservative. A principled critic must NOT care.)

While my impression is that liberals like to take credit for the vast improvement over the way homosexuality is now perceived, they were in fact pretty homophobic, then tolerantly uninterested, and finally supportive...a support that occurred only in recent memory.

Same with the Libertarians, hamstrung as they've long been by their contradictory relationship with conservatism.

That is, the liberals finally learned a little something from "the left" which they so often despise. And not for the first time. Hell, Canadian liberals came on board a little over a decade ago...pretty late to the game, I should say. And in America, during the 2008 Democratic primaries, (five short years ago) there was ONE supporter of same sex marriage....out of eight contenders! (Predictably, it was Kucinich, the lefty-est, progressivy-est of them all, by far.)Hillary and Obama, in solidarity with their more reactionary brethren, were explicitly opposed.

The successes of the leftist politics--and I'm talking about notions with broad, mainstream acceptance, nothing that is (any longer) deemed "radical"--are many. Usually liberals have been dragged kicking and screaming into the more humane world, their essential...well, conservatism...a bulwark against what they later recognize as good (and on which they subsequently congratulate themselves for their forward-thinking.)

None of this undermines an argument against progressive racism...or ANY leftwing stupidity. But it does suggest to me that the common left-hatred and its familiar refrains are always conveniently selective, or even troubled by a gaping memory hole.

Edited October 22, 2013 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

So the real question is what is a lefty. Is it like knowing what an atheist is i.e. you only know for sure if you're not one?

Edited October 22, 2013 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed you have 2 definitions of racist. The traditional definition meaning someone or something that discriminates based on race (in the sense that nazis or affirmative action are racist) and the 'progressive' definition of racist, meaning someone that disagrees with me or criticizes Islam, which isn't a race, so I'm going to label them as racist.

However, the very concept of 'race' is a social construct and inherently discriminatory by design. Canada's notion of a 'visible minority' incorporates such concepts to an extreme for domestic purposes with full support by 'progressives' and conservatives alike.

[-1=e^ipi]

Next, I ask - do we care ? A lot of things exist, but how significant do they need to be for us to label them as a phenomenon and discuss them in and of themselves ? Why not just examine the racism inherent in certain progressive arguments ?

Well there are 2 issues with progressive racism. The first is the fact that it is racist. The second in that I tries to stifle honest debate about important issues such as rising islamism in the west, discussion of affirmative action, etc.

Next, I ask about 'limited multiculturalism'. Again - why discuss it ? Is there a call for such a thing ? I don't think anybody has made any kind of objectively convincing case for that. The case cited is an anecdotal personal situation, which of course isn't anywhere near enough for us to seriously consider changing the fabric of the entire nation.

I gave a 5 paragraph response to your question on limited multiculturalism, only 2 paragraphs were anecdotal. I agree that anecdotal stories are not strong evidence for anything, I just thought it would help some people to understand. That said, if you want I can provide statistical analysis of data collected by statistics Canada and other organisations that examine how recent immigrants to Canada fair (in terms of income) even after controlling for things such as educational background, amount of work experience, etc. In such studies countries such as Switzerland, Austria and South Africa tend to perform very well where as countries such as Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh perform poorly. Or would you prefer I bring statistics on honor killings per capita, rape per capita, probability of being incarcerated per capita for immigrants of different countries of origin? Point is, immigrants from some countries perform very well (often outperforming non-immigrants) where as immigrants from other countries perform less well.

I'm not really sure why you are so focused on the phrase 'changing the fabric of the entire nation'. I'm not really sure what the fabric of Canada is and personally I don't really care. Are you trying to imply that I'm xenophobic or something? Good luck with that.

More to the point, hypocrisy isn't what's at issue: racism is what's at issue. And so the bottom line--that progressives are no more racist than the other groups you've identified here--suggests to me that Condell is engaging in a type of Special Pleading.

To clarify, racism isn't the only issue. Its effects on freedom of speech and on the discussion of various issues is also an issue. Other racist groups such as neo-nazis and skinheads are highly marginalized in western society and are in no position of power. Progressives on the other hand are often in positions of power, have significant influence in media and have been effective at reducing freedom of speech (Human Rights Commissions anyone?).

The political Left (I mean as opposed to mainstream "liberals") has also, ironically, long been the champion of some of the notions that folks like Condell profess to hold dear; a point which he avoids.

Pat Condell doesn't deny that 'the left' in the past did support ideals such as freedom of speech, opposition to misogyny (not caving into islam), avocation of gay rights (not caving into islam), pluralism, etc. He doesn't mention it in the first video linked in the thread, but he does mention it in other videos. Do you need me to find them for you? I would prefer you stop assuming that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge something just because he doesn't mention it in 1 of hundreds of videos. But yes in other videos he acknowledges the left's past but claims that it has been corrupted by things such as political correctness. Obviously being an atheist that opposes tradition, supports gay rights, supports pluralism, etc. he can't identify the conservative party (not to mention one could argue that David Cameron is a 'progressive', or at least caves into 'progressives'). The guy is frustrated that no mainstream party even remotely represents his political views.

The rest of your post just continues with the false premise that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge the left's past, which he does, so it has been refuted. And regardless of the left's past, what is relevant is the politics of today and how that will affect the future. In which cases, discussion of issues such as islamism is very relevant and why 'progressives' that try to have honest discussion about these issues is problematic.

So the real question is what is a lefty.

Is it like knowing what an atheist is i.e. you only know for sure if you're not one?

An atheist is someone that does not hold a belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheist is clear. I do not understand your comparison.

However, the very concept of 'race' is a social construct and inherently discriminatory by design.

​Race isn't merely a social construct, it is genetic in origin and results from different populations adapting to different geographical conditions over time. There is a reason that darker skin is preferred in equatorial regions where as lighter skin is preferred in polar regions and it isn't the result of being a social construct. That said, I do find the notion of 'visible minority' a bit silly, though collection of racial data for use when analyzing statistics and making policy decisions has some merit (statistics of course is something the Canadian conservatives do not like very much).

Edited October 22, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[DogOnPorch]

Pat Condell was once part of 'The Left'. Now he is a member of the UKIP....libertarians...which...face it...can only do so well at the polls.

[DogOnPorch]

An atheist is someone that does not hold a belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheist is clear. I do not understand your comparison.

It's that tiresome forte' some folks have to question everything in 'correct' fashion....

Is the sky really blue? Or does it just need cheering-up?

...sorta BS.

[bleeding heart]

To clarify, racism isn't the only issue. Its effects on freedom of speech and on the discussion of various issues is also an issue.

Yes, and I agree. My point is that this isn't peculiarly a Lefty phenomenon...but simply places the Left in the rather sordid company of conservatives, liberals, and the self-described "apolitical."

If that sounds like a weak defense, it's because it's meant to be.

Other racist groups such as neo-nazis and skinheads are highly marginalized in western society and are in no position of power.

Those are not the "other groups which you've identified" to which I was referring.

I was referring to liberals and conservatives. They are in MOST positions of power.

Progressives on the other hand are often in positions of power, have significant influence in media and have been effective at reducing freedom of speech (Human Rights Commissions anyone?).

Yes, the HRCs (as I've pointed out twice) range from useless, down to worse than useless, right down to chilling and oppressive.

It's nice that I can agree with Ann Coult....er, Mark Steyn on at least one subject. And I do.

I'm also gratified that the most egregious section is potentially on the chopping block. We'll see.

However, there are a lot more "liberals" and "conservatives" in positions of power than "progressives," particularly of the kind that you claim Condell is narrowly speaking of.

It is primarily liberals and conservatives who are responsible for catastrophes like the Iraq War, for the toppling of democracies and the undermining of democratic movements...and for the collusion in attempted genocide to which I alluded elsewhere. The progressives have been largely opposed to these things.

How "significant (is their influence) in media" on these matters does not speak to self-evidently profound effects.

Sure, progressives have had some effects on other matters....so long as violent foreign policies aren't n display (their opposition to these things is more often than not ineffectual, though there might be some beneficial long-term effects): on gay rights, women's rights, and several other issues, as I've said.

And yes, doubtless they've had some pernicious influence as well.

But, given the liberal/conservative "influences" and policy matters I've spoken of above, it's blatantly self-evident that the progressives have not been more damaging than have their liberal and conservative counterparts. Less so, in fact.

For an example really salient to your argument: I would argue that politically-correct appeasement of extremist Islam is eclipsed by liberal and conservative policies that have directly contributed to, and increased, terrorism and potential terrorism.

Not to mention the more direct matter: intentional culpability, collusion...with terrorism itself. Which by definition is a more serious problem than PC-ing about Islam while condemning Mormons.

I'd be interested if such a thing also raises Condell's ire. I doubt it, but would not be displeased to be proven wrong.

Pat Condell doesn't deny that 'the left' in the past did support ideals such as freedom of speech, opposition to misogyny (not caving into islam), avocation of gay rights (not caving into islam), pluralism, etc. He doesn't mention it in the first video linked in the thread, but he does mention it in other videos. Do you need me to find them for you? I would prefer you stop assuming that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge something just because he doesn't mention it in 1 of hundreds of videos.

Yes, I would very much appreciate you linking me to such videos.

The guy is frustrated that no mainstream party even remotely represents his political views.

Well, gee. Welcome to the near-universal club, Mr. Condell!

The rest of your post just continues with the false premise that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge the left's past, which he does, so it has been refuted.

Not yet. We'll see after you've linked the videos (two would suffice, I think)...and if the videos are actual acknowledgements that align at least roughly with the points I've made, which is after all your claim.

And regardless of the left's past, what is relevant is the politics of today and how that will affect the future. In which cases, discussion of issues such as islamism is very relevant and why 'progressives' that try to have honest discussion about these issues is problematic.

Yes, but we've already plainly established that we're talking about some percentage, who knows what size, of progressives.

Once again, there is a certain percentage of liberals, and of conservatives, who are guilty of similar things...and frankly of much worse. I think the case can be made that their influence is broader and deeper, both policy-wise and in the media (laughably deemed "progressive," or "leftist."

Speaking of which, have you noticed how there is only cherry-picked examples, scattershot, rather than a fully-fledged institutional analysis? The latter is by definition the only rational and educational way to discuss bias (progressive or otherwise) in....an institutional structure!

Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent remains, to my knowledge, the Gold standard on this (and to clarify a misperception, they neither hypothesize nor conclude that the mainstream media is "conservative," either.)

And if it's effectiveness is only by default, because of a dearth of other institutional studies...that's entirely, 100% the fault of those clamouring about the "leftwing media," but who refuse to tackle the subject in a serious way.

At any rate, I would indeed be interested in seeing Condell's videos on the positive historical influences of the Left (indeed, influences that he's taken to heart, and which constitute part of his very belief system.)

I won't go so far as to ask for his denunciations of libertarianism, as libertarians are profoundly allergic to self-criticism.

​

Edited October 22, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

]Well there are 2 issues with progressive racism. The first is the fact that it is racist. The second in that I tries to stifle honest debate about important issues such as rising islamism in the west, discussion of affirmative action, etc.

Now you've gone from my admission that it 'exists' to some kind of power it has to stifle debate. My submission is that you have to show more than existence to call others to action against it.

I gave a 5 paragraph response to your question on limited multiculturalism, only 2 paragraphs were anecdotal. I agree that anecdotal stories are not strong evidence for anything, I just thought it would help some people to understand. That said, if you want I can provide statistical analysis of data collected by statistics Canada and other organisations that examine how recent immigrants to Canada fair (in terms of income) even after controlling for things such as educational background, amount of work experience, etc. In such studies countries such as Switzerland, Austria and South Africa tend to perform very well where as countries such as Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh perform poorly. Or would you prefer I bring statistics on honor killings per capita, rape per capita, probability of being incarcerated per capita for immigrants of different countries of origin? Point is, immigrants from some countries perform very well (often outperforming non-immigrants) where as immigrants from other countries perform less well.

Firstly, it wasn't my question. Secondly, we've been down the road of such statistics in the past and they don't show anything that's helpful to the problem at hand. Showing how poorly certain immigrants adjust isn't proof that they're not a net benefit to Canada.

Something that would be new would be for somebody to suggest an aggregate assessment to determine the value of an individual and explain how we can implement that to determine the value of an immigrant. That approach, though, doesn't allow for pre-selected and culture-laden terms like 'honour killing' which only exist in certain culture-regions.

I'm not really sure why you are so focused on the phrase 'changing the fabric of the entire nation'. I'm not really sure what the fabric of Canada is and personally I don't really care. Are you trying to imply that I'm xenophobic or something? Good luck with that.

I don't know that I'm focused on that, but I did use the term. No, I'm not concerned with your personal views.

If you don't care about Canada, then why suggest some kind of change to how Canada works ? Multiculturalism is a central part of this country, that's what I'm getting at.

Why are we talking about limiting multiculturalism at all if you don't care ? I'm confused.

Edited, multiple times, to try to fix formatting.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes, I would very much appreciate you linking me to such videos.

Here is one where Pat refers to the 'New Left' which is clearly distinct from the 'Old Left': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o

I'll try to get more examples but there are over 6 years of videos and none of them really concentrate on the past of the left so it is more difficult to find comments in videos that mention the left's past than I thought (Pat mostly concentrates on current events, so comments on acknowledging the west's past are spread out among many videos).

Unrelated, but here is a video that more specifically describes Orwellian language used by progressives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SReDcW0fokE

[-1=e^ipi]

I won't go so far as to ask for his denunciations of libertarianism, as libertarians are profoundly allergic to self-criticism.

To be fair, i'm not sure how well the libertarian label fits Pat Condell. He might be a libertarian in a more general sense but I doubt in more strict definitions of libertarian (like those that want severely limited government intervention). He doesn't do videos on tax policy or size of government so it is difficult to know. My best guess is that he might be more closely aligned with the Canadian Freedom Party than with the Canadian Libertarian Party (if he were Canadian). As said earlier, he does support UKIP and the EDL.

For example, if, as you say, he believes in equal rights for homosexuals, he must surely be aware that it the Left and the Left alone who long ago took up the cause in solidarity with gay people. (And, as with Muslims victimized by Western militarism, these progressives cared not a whit whether homosexuals were left, liberal, or conservative. A principled critic must NOT care.)

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that muslims victimized by western militarism are supportive of homosexuals, or that 'progressives' are sympathetic of muslims victimized by western militarism? Why do you feel it necessary to bring up the muslims victimized by western militarism?

I was referring to liberals and conservatives. They are in MOST positions of power.

In this post, could you clearly define which definitions of liberal and conservative you are using? Depending on the definitions used, progressive may or may not overlap with both liberal and conservative. Justin Trudeau for example, can be considered both a liberal and a conservative depending on which definitions are used.

It is primarily liberals and conservatives who are responsible for catastrophes like the Iraq War, for the toppling of democracies and the undermining of democratic movements.

I'm not sure how valid this is (especially without clear definitions of liberal and conservative). The LPC did not support the Iraq War, where as the Labor party in Britain did (and the Labor party is the most 'progressive' of the 3 main parties). Furthermore, even if I were to agree with the claim that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' were responsible for the Iraq War, what indicates that it is a result of the ideologies of 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' and not due to political opportunism or faulty intelligence?

and for the collusion in attempted genocide to which I alluded elsewhere.

Liberals and conservative have been colluding in attempted genocide??? What??? Am I misreading something?

I would argue that politically-correct appeasement of extremist Islam is eclipsed by liberal and conservative policies that have directly contributed to, and increased, terrorism and potential terrorism.

Yes, please elaborate. How have liberalism and conservatism contributed to an increase in islamic terrorism that exceeds the damage done by progressivism in fighting islamism? (I'm not saying I disagree with your statement, but without knowing your definitions of liberal or conservative, or hear your arguments and reasoning I cannot say)

Not to mention the more direct matter: intentional culpability, collusion...with terrorism itself. Which by definition is a more serious problem than PC-ing about Islam while condemning Mormons.

Isn't it all related? Isn't the biggest issue the failure of the west to properly identify the causes and assess the significance of islamic terrorism? I you referring to how the Americans thought that communism was a greater threat then islamism so had no problem financing the Taliban?

Yes, but we've already plainly established that we're talking about some percentage, who knows what size, of progressives.
Once again, there is a certain percentage of liberals, and of conservatives, who are guilty of similar things...and frankly of much worse. I think the case can be made that their influence is broader and deeper, both policy-wise and in the media (laughably deemed "progressive," or "leftist."

Damage done by individuals who identify with certain political positions is different from damage caused by ideologies (you need to show that any bad things done by liberals and conservatives is done as a result of liberalism and conservatism, and even so I'm not sure how that makes any negative consequences of 'progressivism' any less negative). A muslim man killing another man because the muslim wanted to steal a car is different from a muslim man killing another man because that man left islam and the punishment for apostasy in islam is death. In both cases a muslim man kills another man, but only one of the cases is a result of islamic ideology.

Speaking of which, have you noticed how there is only cherry-picked examples, scattershot, rather than a fully-fledged institutional analysis?

You need to elaborate more and give examples.

Secondly, we've been down the road of such statistics in the past and they don't show anything that's helpful to the problem at hand. Showing how poorly certain immigrants adjust isn't proof that they're not a net benefit to Canada.

Statistics don't show anything that's helpful... right...

Would you prefer a net benefit analysis rather than a statistical analysis?

Immigrants from some countries integrate better and make more income even after factoring for education and work experience than other immigrants. Why wouldn't you prefer the immigrants from those countries that integrate better?

Something that would be new would be for somebody to suggest an aggregate assessment to determine the value of an individual and explain how we can implement that to determine the value of an immigrant.

Yeah we could do something like use calculate the 'productivity' (or basically whatever is left over after statistical analysis) of immigrants from different countries after controlling for things like education, work experience, age, language proficiency, etc. using statistical data on incomes of recent immigrants and then use this 'productivity' to add or subtract points to an immigration applicant's application.

If you don't care about Canada, then why suggest some kind of change to how Canada works ? Multiculturalism is a central part of this country, that's what I'm getting at.
Why are we talking about limiting multiculturalism at all if you don't care ? I'm confused.

By Canada, do you mean the Land of Canada, the People of Canada, or the State of Canada? If you are trying to use some appeal to patriotism fallacy on me it will not work because I reject patriotism as irrational. If someone said 'nationalized health care is a central part of this country' would that make nationalized health care any more justified? If not, why does such an argument apply to multiculturalism? But that is besides the point.

Multiculturalism cannot work with cultures/ideologies that are culturally supremacist such as nazism or islamism. Multiculturalism shouldn't mean having to accept face coverings (niqabs) in public, allow for kirpans (concealed daggers) in crowded areas, or constantly change language to not offend anyone (yet 'progressives' will argue that 'multiculturalism' does). The cultures of new immigrants and how well these cultures interact with Canadian cultures is very relevant.A better question might be why do you feel that there shouldn't be limits on multiculturalism?

Edited October 22, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[bush_cheney2004]

Isn't it all related? Isn't the biggest issue the failure of the west to properly identify the causes and assess the significance of islamic terrorism? I you referring to how the Americans thought that communism was a greater threat then islamism so had no problem financing the Taliban?

No, the Americans were correct in the context of the Cold War, and Canada acted accordingly. Islamic "terrorism" will never rise to the same level of perceived and actual existential threat to the "west".

[DogOnPorch]

That's because Islamic terrorism seems to always happen to somebody else. You can ultimately choose to ignore it on an individual level. An SS-25 says something else, entirely. Even if it's just sitting there all parade-like.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's because Islamic terrorism seems to always happen to somebody else. You can ultimately choose to ignore it on an individual level. An SS-25 says something else, entirely. Even if it's just sitting there all parade-like.

Yep...call me when Osama and his buddies get some of these:

[DogOnPorch]

Yep...call me when Osama and his buddies get some of these:

Yes...if Oppenheimer's wee post-atomic speech isn't going through your head looking at that...it should be.

[Argus]

If the response to my last sentence is 'well, immigration is changing the fabric of our nation [for the negative]' then show me how. It seems to me I've asked for this evidence many more times than I have seen people blindly accuse others of racism - so where are we with it ?

How about violent street gangs? I grew up in a time when we didn't have any of note. This was an American phenomenon, mainly of American Blacks and Hispanics. Immigration created the street gang problem in Canada, helped feed it, and continues to do so.

[Argus]

However, the very concept of 'race' is a social construct and inherently discriminatory by design. Canada's notion of a 'visible minority' incorporates such concepts to an extreme for domestic purposes with full support by 'progressives' and conservatives alike.

Of course it's not nearly as racist as the government mandated affirmative action programs which have been in place in your country now for a generation.