Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[-1=e^ipi]

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".

Not sure I agree with what you are saying. Here you are suggesting 2 things: that communism was an extinctional threat and that islamism is not a greater threat than communism was.

Communism as an ideology was never an existential threat to the west. All western countries could adopt communism economic policy and they wouldn't necessarily be any less western. Many communists in the west support liberal democratic values such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. Communism is merely a bad economic system that doesn't take into account incentives of productive behavior.

Now if we are talking about the totalitarian communism practiced during the cold war (and still practiced in North Korea), that was never an existential threat either. Why? Because unlike islamists, these communists value human life, both their own and those of their enemies, they generally accepted the golden rule (treat others how you want to be treated), and they supported human/technological progress. Mutually assured destruction was more then enough to prevent significant conflict.

Now contrast with islamists who wish to "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Sura 9:29). Now for those that are unfamiliar with islam, Sura 9 is the last major revelation of the prophet Mohammed so abrogates earlier 'peaceful' verses that Mohammed made while in Mecca and Sura 9 was revealed in the context of Mohammed performing offensive islamic jihad on christian Syria. Of course only mono-theists like jews, christians and hindus are lucky enough to have the option to pay the Jizyah, polytheists such as the Quraish in Arabia only have the options of leave muslim lands, convert or die.

According to islamists, non-muslims are immoral sub-human kaffir and dying in battle against the kaffir is the greatest of deaths and will please allah the most. Things like value of human life (they don't value anyone's life even their own), or the golden rule (treat others how you wish to be treated) do not apply like they did vs communists. Nor is the west at conflict with easily identifiable nation states like we were during the cold war. I do not think that Islamism is an existential threat to the west (mostly because it is just another superstitious fairy tale that will die as people become more educated. Unlike christianity, islam does not have the same level of flexibility of interpretation, as the Qu'ran is effectively the word of god through Mohammed, so Islam is 100% incompatible with the idea of human evolution as a Muslim must believe in Adam & Eve), but it is still a significant threat

[bush_cheney2004]

...Now if we are talking about the totalitarian communism practiced during the cold war (and still practiced in North Korea), that was never an existential threat either. Why? Because unlike islamists, these communists value human life, both their own and those of their enemies, they generally accepted the golden rule (treat others how you want to be treated), and they supported human/technological progress. Mutually assured destruction was more then enough to prevent significant conflict.

No, the communists were a real and perceived existential threat because of Cold War military power and resulting economic stagnation. The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed in the guns or butter struggle...the west could have both. Millions of people died in "significant" proxy wars, far more than from today's "islamists".

Edited October 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

The Soviet Union collapsed because it picked a fight with Islam and the west is paying through the nose for it's butter these day's.

[bleeding heart]

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

No. He doesn't. I watched it twice, which took the summoning of some genuine will. The subject doesn't come up.

Why do you think it does?

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).

But not including the single example you chose to link?

Edited October 23, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

In this post, could you clearly define which definitions of liberal and conservative you are using?

It's true it's not perfectly clear...I guess I shouldn't be taking my clues from the contradictory and unsatisfactory "progressive" label which spawned this entire discussion?

I am contending that the overwhelming majority of Western political leaders are, and have been, "conservative" and "liberal"...and the "progressive" label applies only fitfully and occasionally. Therefore, the long list of horrors we could drum up, with ease, are the fault of "conservatives" and "liberals," and only rarely "progressives."

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).

Yes, and I'm the most "conservative" among myself, the Canadian Communist Party, and Jane Fonda circa 1969. The comparison means little. Labour is a centre-left party, a party of mainstream, Establishment liberals.

It was the "progressives" and the further Left that were most vocal in opposing Labour's deceptive war of choice against Iraq...while more centre-aligned liberals and cosnervatives more often supported it.

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?

Well, hold on a second. What part of "progressive ideology" has as its mandate a so-called "appeasement of Islam" and a hatred of free speech?

Remember, I was responding to the idea that Progressives have caused all sorts of damage; to which I responded (while agreeing that this has doubtless occurred in certain ways) that it is actually liberals and conservatives who have doen so...and much worse.

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

Sure, with their military and diplomatic aid to the genocidal Indonesian Generals, for probably the most explicit example.

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?

Because the preferred foreign policy methods have increased terrorism, as was predictable (in fact, predicted as soon as 9/11). The Iraq War alone precipitated an increase in magnitude of terrorist attacks...not considered too horrific, since most victims were Iraqis themselves. The current Drone program is making anger boil up quite intensely, and likely intensifying recruitment efforts--people get upset when civilians are slaughtered.

And it's not as if terrorists aren't responsible themselves for terrorism...that's a no-brainer. But those whose policies increase terrorist recruitment directly share culpability.

Now, the idea that some percentage of the political Left who are too politically correct to ever criticize Islam's barbaric strands, and who wants everyone else to shut up about it...well, the idea that these people are having a greater, negative effect than a catastrophic war, and on the killing of untold innocent civilians in several countries...the very idea beggars belief. It's preposterous.

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 don't know...but what's clear is that IF this is the problem, then your very remarks here are an open concession that liberal and conservative politicians (as well as media forces, intellectuals, etc) are at least co-responsible with the (less powerful) "progressives."

Which again begs the question of preferred rhetorical targets.

I you referring to how the Americans thought that communism was a greater threat then islamism so had no problem financing the Taliban?

To a degree, though I'm willing to believe that more of a blunder in long-term thinking that of direct culpability in outright terrorism, which is morally more depraved.

So no, I was thinking more along the lines of the Nicaraguan Contras, the El Salvadoran Death Squads (for "sub-national" terrorism); and the Indonesians, Haiti's Duvalier dynasty etc for the variety of State terrorism.

That is, Western governments have been routinely colluding in outright terrorism...I mean terrorism as it's currently defined in "official" language (speaking of "Orwellian." )

I hasten to add that I don't believe a truly "progressive" coalition of Western governments would behave necessarily any differently; that is, I don't consider it a matter of ideological distinction, but rather the institutionalized lunacy of great power.

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).

Again, you have yet to show how bad progressive behavior is somehow distinct from bad conservative or liberal behavior. Are you suggesting that we give the more powerful and influential political forces a pass, while concentrating on the less powerful and influential one...even when the former has caused so much havoc?

As for your second point, see directly above: I agree.

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.

I agree completely, so far as this goes, but I don't accept the analogy. Reagan, Ford, Trudeau, Thatcher, Blair, and Harper etc etc did not (variously) conduct wars of aggression, or materially aid genocidal killers, or support and defend the toppling of democratically-elected leaders because the subject peoples were stealing...anything.

With all due respect, I detect a hint of a priori justification in these behaviours....whereas some lefties wishing to censor speech deserve the harshest disapprobation.

Edited October 23, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

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?

I didn't say "statistics don't show anything helpful". I said that statistics that have been put forward aren't helpful to the problem at hand. If you weren't so sure of yourself, then you might learn this.

For example, there are no ways to objectively measure "integrating better". Instead, you can define your own ideas of what that means, and then produce a result that fits your own definition. And immigrants that make less than other immigrants may still be a net benefit to Canada. In fact, I trust that the current government likely has done the work and knows that this is so.

With regards to your offer: yes, I would like to see the net benefit analysis.

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.

You're trying to build a mathematical tower of Babylon here. It can't work, and the model will only feed back whatever biases you are using when you design it.

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.

Great, we're on the same page with that. But countries still exist, and as such they control policies such as immigration. As long as Canada exists, we should use rational discussion to determine its policies, and changes to those policies.

So, I will ask a second time: why change these policies ?

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.

No. You said you don't care about the fabric of Canada, (multiculturalism as part of the constitution, ingrained in the laws and institutions of Canada) and my question is then why are you expressing a desire to change it ? Moreover, if you don't believe in countries how can you believe in immigration ?

I'm trying to understand your core beliefs, and how they could manifest themselves in wanting to change policy.

Multiculturalism cannot work with cultures/ideologies that are culturally supremacist such as nazism or islamism.

I agree. Moreover, multiculturalism dissolves views such as those.

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).

Well, now we're (finally) down to the brass tacks ! Such things fall under the umbrella of 'reasonable accommodation', and the details will be worked out through our pluralistic process.

You don't have to puff up bogeymen like 'progressive racism' to make a case against nigabs and such. It's overkill.

The ones who seem to be most 'offended', to my observation, are those who are so timid about Canadian values that they're afraid that a lady wearing a veil will bring our country down. The culture cops on threads such as these are far too sensitive, IMO, with all due respect.

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?

I trust that Stephen Harper's government is focused on immigration and globalist thinking as they see it, for the benefit to Canada. I don't see the problems you see with it. I see Canada continuing to grow and prosper, and I work with the children of first generation immigrants who are amazing workers, taxpayers and as Canadian or more Canadian than you or me.

If you want to bring a major change to Canada, such as constitutional change, then the onus is on you to explain why it's needed, not me.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

There's no support for that, that I have seen. Moreover, organized crime in Canada has been blamed on previous types of immigrants or biker gangs, I suppose, who are made up of English and French Canadians, right ?

[Michael Hardner]

It strikes me that you can address 'progressive racism' quite easily by pointing it out when it happens. After reading the longish post from "-1" it seems to me that this is just a loooooong way around the mountain to make a case for reducing Muslim immigration.

We've been down this path umpteen times on here and nobody can produce an objective approach to assessing the value of a group of people. I can produce a government statistic that "proves" [not really] that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than other groups.

There is no math that will give you a "value number" for a race, religion or group. If you want to discuss how we'd assess such things, overall, you'd have to first create people who understand statistics and reality enough to have that mature discussion. I'd like to have that discussion someday.

[bleeding heart]

It strikes me that you can address 'progressive racism' quite easily by pointing it out when it happens.

Right, I agree. Because some progressives are naming Condell a "racist," doesn't mean they themselves hold racist views. If he isn't a racist, then all we can conclude is that they're mistaken--presumably from an intolerance towards certain opinions, maybe due to the "political correctness" we hear so much about....there are several possibilities.

Condell aside, no doubt at all that some progressives have racist views. Why should they be totally free from such weaknesses? It obviously raises a question of hypocrisy on their part, but how widespread and important this "issue" is has not been underscored too well. With the amount of ink spilled on the subject in the past ten years or so, you'd think we'd have more than a little scattershot of examples...and even many of them, small number that they are, themselves quite dubious.

Now, if people want to say that the political Right has been too often accused of racism...I think a strong argument could be made.

But if the "progressive racist" label is nothing more than a "right back at you" kind of deal, we must conclude that in and of itself it doesn't constitute a very serious argument.

We've seen the same thing recently with the "liberal fascism" rewrite of convention.

Edited October 23, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

A lot of thread energy here for a video that was basically a guy saying "I know you are but what am I?"

[Michael Hardner]

But if the "progressive racist" label is nothing more than a "right back at you" kind of deal, we must conclude that in and of itself it doesn't constitute a very serious argument.

Agreed. Not that tangential rhetoric is such a bad thing, but there's enough to debate in the topic itself, as we have seen.

And this may surprise some, but I do think it's possible to discuss such things as "fit" of peoples to Canadian culture but not in a framework wherein people come to the show with their conclusions in hand. Since these discussions seem to [frequently) start with the goal of limiting Muslim immigration and addressing that "problem" then an open discussion isn't possible.

Maybe it could be possible to generally discuss whether Canada is a meritocracy, and how we can structure our society to foster success in various areas of life, not just financial.

[-1=e^ipi]

No, the communists were a real and perceived existential threat because of Cold War military power and resulting economic stagnation. The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed in the guns or butter struggle...the west could have both. Millions of people died in "significant" proxy wars, far more than from today's "islamists".

Military power itself isn't a threat unless there is an incentive to use it (mutually assured destruction + valuing of progress and human life prevent that). Economic stagnation in communist countries hardly qualifies as an existential threat to western countries. The soviet union collapsed because it was fighting western funded islamists in Afghanistan, and also because it is an inherently bad economic system. As for people dying to proxy wars in the cold war, these weren't caused by the ideologies of communism (nothing in communism says you should kill people), where as deaths from islamic jihad are caused by islamist ideologies (since their is plenty of verses in the Qu'ran and other islamic texts to justify murder). There have been 1400 years of nearly non-stop islamic jihad on non-muslim countries. Do you think islam's spread to egypt, syria, turkey, maghreb, persia or hindustan was peaceful? If we compare the amount of deaths caused by islamism in history to the amount of deaths supposedly caused by 'communism' or 'christianity' or 'atheism' or something else that it comes

No. He doesn't. I watched it twice, which took the summoning of some genuine will. The subject doesn't come up.

Why do you think it does?

But not including the single example you chose to link?

Woops, I copy pasted the wrong url. My apologies. I'll try to refind the video where he mentions the concept of new Liberalism.

However, I did find this video (which is better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk

At 1:30 he says, "politically I used to belong to the liberal left... I still believe in those things, which is why I'm no longer on the liberal left... The liberal left has lost its way, lost its moral authority and become a threat to out freedom... Where does that leave me politically? Does it leave me on the right? no... my natural constituency has been poisoned by people like you".

There, does that satisfy you now? Can you give up your claim that Pat Condell somehow doesn't acknowledge the past of the 'left'?

[bleeding heart]

Woops, I copy pasted the wrong url. My apologies.

No need. It's a tough research project, sifting through a large quantity of videos, I get that, and have no reason to demand many hours of research from another poster. I only asked because you offered.

At 1:30 he says, "politically I used to belong to the liberal left... I still believe in those things, which is why I'm no longer on the liberal left... The liberal left has lost its way, lost its moral authority and become a threat to out freedom... Where does that leave me politically? Does it leave me on the right? no... my natural constituency has been poisoned by people like you".

There, does that satisfy you now? Can you give up your claim that Pat Condell somehow doesn't acknowledge the past of the 'left'?

No, not really...I think he is (because most people do) distinguishing between "the liberal left" and the farther left--his enemy, no better than Islamist killers, I think--who are often seen as quite combative to one another. For example, when I talked of the Left as early defenders of homosexual rights, I was thinking of the time when more mainstream liberals had no interest in the subject, happy enough to let the bigotry carry on.

However, as you have said, and as I have said, and in contradistinction to what (I've so far heard) Pat Condell say, is that the labels are somewhat nebulous, and sometimes overlapping.

At any rate, no, I haven't heard him acknowledge anything good about the left, except for vague terms (which he says they don't believe in anymore) such as "tolerance" and "social justice."

He also brings up the evidently horrific scourge of "anti-Americanism," without ever acknowledging American--to say nothing of British, Canadian, French, etc--culpability in...well, in anything...except for their alleged "appeasement of Islam" the one unforgiveable sin.

At any rate, genuine "anti-Americanism" is only really constituted by people who wish it destroyed. As he uses it, it's close to meaningless. At best, it's a triviality.

No one's ever called me "anti-Canadian" for my indictments--whether they're foolishly harsh, somewhat exaggerated, or spot-on.

But "anti-American" is used, well, pretty freely, even promiscuously.

An interesting phenomenon.

Edited October 23, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

Bleeding Heart:

Therefore, the long list of horrors we could drum up, with ease, are the fault of "conservatives" and "liberals," and only rarely "progressives."

Again, what is more relevant is if the ideologies behind the labels suggest bad policies or adversely affect humanity. Other ideologies adversely affecting humanity doesn't justify the adverse effects caused by 'progressivism'. The ideology of 'progressivism' (by Pat Condell's definition) is something that goes well beyond party lines and can affect people from left, right or center in western countries. It is what causes David Cameron (a conservative) to say this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5CHev43PhI

"There is nothing in islam that justifies this truly dreadful act... It is an utter perversion of the truth to say anything different." But this isn't true, there are plenty of verses in islamic texts and actions by the prophet mohammed that justify; it is David Cameron who is perverting truth for political correctness here. Don't believe me? Listen to the guy that actually killed Lee Rigby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTu8MhSdR4

Still don't believe that verses in islamic texts justify terrorist attacks? Then listen to this video by David Wood who goes into great detail in examining verses in the Qu'ran, Hadiths and in other islamic texts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7Ty8iPh5c

The 'progressive' ideas of political correctness, cultural relativism and progressive racism prevent the west from properly identifying the causes of islamic terror attacks and therefore developing effective strategies to deal with this threat. But maybe 'progressive' politicians like Justin Trudeau will eventually be able to find the 'root causes' of terrorist attacks, cause clearly it can never have anything to do with Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGeMp6R7y8

Well, hold on a second. What part of "progressive ideology" has as its mandate a so-called "appeasement of Islam" and a hatred of free speech?

​Cultural relativism, political correctness, progressive racism, ideology of unconstrained multiculturalism, hatred of the west (ideas like foreign conflicts must be the west's fault; things being the west's fault is usually the default position of progressives), etc.

Remember, I was responding to the idea that Progressives have caused all sorts of damage

Not the idea that progressives, but the ideology of progressivism. Stop referring to people and instead refer to ideologies.

Sure, with their military and diplomatic aid to the genocidal Indonesian Generals, for probably the most explicit example.

I would prefer some references here. Didn't the west side with East Timor over Indonesia?

The Iraq War alone precipitated an increase in magnitude of terrorist attacks...not considered too horrific, since most victims were Iraqis themselves. The current Drone program is making anger boil up quite intensely, and likely intensifying recruitment efforts--people get upset when civilians are slaughtered.

While I agree that these things significantly contribute to islamic terrorism, you haven't shown how these are caused by the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism. Politicians in the west (especially the US) make stupid foreign policy decisions all the time mostly because of ignorance, but that doesn't mean liberalism and conservatism cause this. I will give you that neo-con political ideology is a cause behind aggressive actions towards islamic countries and therefore contributes to islamic terrorism, but this still doesn't make the effects of progressivism any less bad.

As for the rest of your post, I don't really understand it's significance. Politicians that identify as liberal or conservative make bad policy decisions that either contribute to terrorism or finance terrorism, so what? How does that matter to the fact that 'progressivism' (as defined by Pat Condell) negatively influences the west, the main reason being that it prevents the west from identifying and dealing with the problem of islamism? Two wrongs don't make a right, and a second wrong doesn't make the first wrong any less wrong.

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

[-1=e^ipi]

For example, there are no ways to objectively measure "integrating better". Instead, you can define your own ideas of what that means, and then produce a result that fits your own definition. And immigrants that make less than other immigrants may still be a net benefit to Canada. In fact, I trust that the current government likely has done the work and knows that this is so.

With regards to your offer: yes, I would like to see the net benefit analysis.

There is no objective way to measure 'standard of living', but there are objective ways to measure things like gdp, life expectancy, literacy rates and then create the HDI index which can act as a proxy for 'standard of living'. Similarly, while there is no objective way to measure 'integrating better', it is possible to do objective analysis of proxies for 'integrating better'.

If you would like, here is a 2012 paper on Human Capital and Immigrant Wage gap by three professors from the University of Ottawa.

http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~scoulomb/pages/Coulombe-Grenier-Nadeau-Wage%20Gap-2012.pdf

This is the kind of rigorous statistical analysis I was talking about. I'll post a passage from the conclusion:

"it suggests that the worsening immigrant wage gap in Canada over the last couple of decades may not be so much to a geographic shift in immigrant source countries but rather an economic shift in immigrant source countries from relatively rich to relatively poor countries.From a policy point of view, this study suggests that if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests."

You're trying to build a mathematical tower of Babylon here. It can't work, and the model will only feed back whatever biases you are using when you design it.

Nope. Your lack of understanding of statistical analysis methodologies isn't a valid point.

So, I will ask a second time: why change these policies ?

Because the current immigration distribution is un-optimal. We mis-value the education levels of immigrants from a variety of countries, do not tie immigration strongly enough to employment (like the US), and often lose out to countries like Australia or the US in terms of good quality immigrants. Parties like the NDP wish to place too much emphasis on 'family' immigration rather than 'economic' immigration.

You said you don't care about the fabric of Canada

More like I do not understand what 'the fabric of Canada' means. Please define it.

why are you expressing a desire to change it ? Moreover, if you don't believe in countries how can you believe in immigration ?

​I have a desire to change immigration policy because it is un-optimal. And I never said I don't believe in countries; countries definitely exist.

The ones who seem to be most 'offended', to my observation, are those who are so timid about Canadian values that they're afraid that a lady wearing a veil will bring our country down.

I disagree with the niqab and kirpan not on cultural grounds. I have no problem with the hijab, the kippa and the turban. My disagreement with the niqab and kirpan lies with security concerns. I also think that some accommodations go so far as to violate concepts of equality and secularism. If a muslim woman can wear a face covering to a bank, why can't an atheist man? If a sikh man can carry a concealed dagger into a university, why can't a jewish lady? Laws should apply equally to everyone regardless of religious affiliation.

I trust that Stephen Harper's government is focused on immigration and globalist thinking as they see it, for the benefit to Canada. I don't see the problems you see with it. I see Canada continuing to grow and prosper, and I work with the children of first generation immigrants who are amazing workers, taxpayers and as Canadian or more Canadian than you or me.

I am unclear on the relevance of this comment. Are you implying that I do not understand the benefit of immigration or of immigrants?

Anyway, sorry that I haven't responded to all comments yet. I seem to be arguing 4 people here and am the one who brings the most evidence and references to the conversation.

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

[DogOnPorch]

Anyway, sorry that I haven't responded to all comments yet. I seem to be arguing 4 people here and am the one who is bring most evidence and references to the conversation.

At least they haven't stooped to name calling yet. Good job, btw.

[Michael Hardner]

If you would like, here is a 2012 paper on Human Capital and Immigrant Wage gap by three professors from the University of Ottawa.

I read the abstract but it says nothing about 'integrating better' in there.

The analogy you provide to GDP and standard of living also isn't helpful, as most people could see an immediate connection between GDP and standard of living but not 'GDP of a source nation' and 'fit with Canada'.

Nope. Your lack of understanding of statistical analysis methodologies isn't a valid point.

We haven't discussed methodologies at all on here, so it's astounding that you would jump to that conclusion about me. I wouldn't make such a judgement about you without knowing your background.

If you have a valid argument, make it and don't try to bring qualifications into it. It makes me think that you don't have anything else in the way of evidence.

Because the current immigration distribution is un-optimal.

You haven't shown us yet why. You said something to the effect of 'not caring about the fabric of Canada' earlier on, so even if you DID think the immigration distribution is wrong, why would you care ?

You haven't shown us the 'net benefit analysis' you promised either.

More like I do not understand what 'the fabric of Canada' means. Please define it.

All right. Let's just say 'Canadian policy'.

I disagree with the niqab and kirpan not on cultural grounds. I have no problem with the hijab, the kippa and the turban. My disagreement with the niqab and kirpan lies with security concerns.

And yet you're starting out with the opinion that immigration is not optimal, and presumably that Muslims are a problem since you keep going back to those examples.

I'd love to have a discussion with you based on facts, but all you have is one study that says people who come from countries with higher GDP tend to have higher salaries. It doesn't amount to the conclusion you're making, which I must conclude is based on personal preferences of some kind.

I am unclear on the relevance of this comment. Are you implying that I do not understand the benefit of immigration or of immigrants?

No, I'm answering your question as to why I don't believe your conclusion. I simply believe that the government is interested in sound fiscal management, and manages the immigration and refugee system to that objective, more or less.

Again, it's to you to convince us of your thesis, not us.

So far, it seems muddled and based on a study that doesn't reach the conclusions you think it does. That said, it's still far better than the previous anti-Muslim arguments that have been posted on here, congratulations for that.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's no support for that, that I have seen. Moreover, organized crime in Canada has been blamed on previous types of immigrants or biker gangs, I suppose, who are made up of English and French Canadians, right ?

Oh no....biker gangs and associated crimes are only caused by imported "American Blacks and Hispanics". LOL !!

[Michael Hardner]

Oh no....biker gangs and associated crimes are only caused by imported "American Blacks and Hispanics". LOL !!

Well, that's a whole topic in itself - prejudice against are closest friend and neighbour to the south. That's right - neighbOUr.

[bush_cheney2004]

Military power itself isn't a threat unless there is an incentive to use it (mutually assured destruction + valuing of progress and human life prevent that).

Military power is inherently a threat, and there are many incentives to use it. MAD does not apply to many conventional wars and military strikes during and after the Cold War. Human life means nothing except for the body count.

As for people dying to proxy wars in the cold war, these weren't caused by the ideologies of communism (nothing in communism says you should kill people), where as deaths from islamic jihad are caused by islamist ideologies (since their is plenty of verses in the Qu'ran and other islamic texts to justify murder).

Variants of "communism" in the form of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. directly led to the deaths of millions in domestic purges and persecutions. The scale of such actions dwarfs anything by radical islamists hell bent for jihad. Technically, Christians have killed far more people than Islamists.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, that's a whole topic in itself - prejudice against are closest friend and neighbour to the south. That's right - neighbOUr.

Well, at least give the "white" American biker gang imports some credit.

[DogOnPorch]

Sonny Barger might have started the HA but it took the North Chapter to really show everybody how it's done.

Yves 'Apache' Trudeau...Canada's Murder Inc.

[-1=e^ipi]

It strikes me that you can address 'progressive racism' quite easily by pointing it out when it happens. After reading the longish post from "-1" it seems to me that this is just a loooooong way around the mountain to make a case for reducing Muslim immigration.

Progressivism and islamism are distinct but related issues. The relation is that 'progressivism' as defined by Pat Condell makes it difficult to talk about the issue of islamism because people do not want to be labelled as 'racist' or 'islamophobe', and as a result the west hasn't properly identified the threat of islamism (see previous links on David Cameron and Justin Trudeau). This thread was started because people unfamiliar with Pat Condell's videos misunderstood his video so I wanted to clarify Pat Condell's position: progressive racism exists, progressivism & progressive racism make it difficult to discuss the islamism, islamism is the biggest threat to the west today & within the topic of islamism there are a number of issues (including islamic terrorism and immigration to western countries). Really my position (and Pat Condell's) position shouldn't be debatable, yet multiple posters here seem to want to argue against the position or devalue the position (either through ad hominem fallacies or by trying to argue that communism, liberalism and/or conservatism are also bad therefore why care about progressivism or islamism?). Why do you guys choose to do this? I'm not sure.

We've been down this path umpteen times on here and nobody can produce an objective approach to assessing the value of a group of people. I can produce a government statistic that "proves" [not really] that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than other groups.

Can't produce objective approaches for assessing value of groups of people???... It's called statistical analysis, it's done all the time. I provide a link in my last post to 1 of hundreds of thousands of papers do exactly this.

Sure idiot politicians or random posters on the internet can just make up statistics or misinterpret statistics to make whatever conclusions they want, but that doesn't devalue rigorous statistical analysis. And yes, I would like to see you produce 'a government statistic' that "proves" that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than Somalians. I called your bluff, now either produce these so called statistics or back off with your ridiculous claims.

There is no math that will give you a "value number" for a race, religion or group. If you want to discuss how we'd assess such things, overall, you'd have to first create people who understand statistics and reality enough to have that mature discussion. I'd like to have that discussion someday.

Again, refer to the paper by the group at the University of Ottawa I provided a link to. It has plenty of 'value numbers' (whatever that means) for immigrants from different countries of origins. As for your second sentence, I cannot create people, I am no god and creationism is nonsense. I have a reasonably good understanding of statistics (good enough to understand papers such as the one I linked to) for I do have a math-economics degree from the University of Ottawa. I'm not sure if your understanding is good however (all you seem to do is insult the field of econometrics).

With the amount of ink spilled on the subject in the past ten years or so, you'd think we'd have more than a little scattershot of examples...

Note really sure what you mean by scattershot of examples... examples of what? But overall with your post that contains this quotation, it appears that you now overall agree with me. You agree that progressive racism exists and that progressivism can lead to silencing debate on some issues such as islamism and affirmative action. In that case you agree with Pat Condell's video, so this thread has been a success! Am I mistaken?

But if the "progressive racist" label is nothing more than a "right back at you" kind of deal, we must conclude that in and of itself it doesn't constitute a very serious argument.

Well it can be, depending on if the progressive is actually racist or not, but I have yet to see the 'progressive racist' label be used vs particular people or at anywhere close the the frequency at which non-racists, who wish to have honest discussion about issues such as islamism or affirmative action, are labelled as racists by 'progressives'.

And this may surprise some, but I do think it's possible to discuss such things as "fit" of peoples to Canadian culture but not in a framework wherein people come to the show with their conclusions in hand. Since these discussions seem to [frequently) start with the goal of limiting Muslim immigration and addressing that "problem" then an open discussion isn't possible.

Well I think it is possible to discuss the compatibility of different immigrant groups to Canada. Econometric studies of statistical data can be used to guide immigration policy on how to optimize an immigration system to determine the immigrant distribution and the level of immigration optimal for Canada's economy. The idea of limiting muslim immigration is something that would have to be justified through statistical analysis before being implemented (though admittedly, limited immigration by religion is something that would be very controversial and hard to implement, so I would advocate limiting immigration, or rather assigning points, based on country of origin).

Edited October 24, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

No, not really...I think he is (because most people do) distinguishing between "the liberal left" and the farther left--his enemy, no better than Islamist killers, I think--who are often seen as quite combative to one another. For example, when I talked of the Left as early defenders of homosexual rights, I was thinking of the time when more mainstream liberals had no interest in the subject, happy enough to let the bigotry carry on.

When someone says things like 'the liberal left has lost its way' and 'my natural constituency has been poisoned' that doesn't sound like he is saying that two lefts have always existed and I don't acknowledge the supposed accomplishments of the far left who I now identify as the enemy. It sounds like he is saying that he feels that the political left has become corrupted and has morphed into something different.

The left of the past that defended homosexual rights (i.e. liberals) is different from the left of today that protects the gay-hatred and misogyny of islamism (i.e. progressives). The left has sort of adopted a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality, and 'because islamism disagrees with traditional western conservatism (which has strong christian influences) and muslims are a minority, surely islamism must be an ally of the left!'. That said, 'mainstream liberals' from the past that didn't support gay rights were obviously not very liberal (and would not fit Pat Condell's definition of liberal).

At any rate, no, I haven't heard him acknowledge anything good about the left, except for vague terms (which he says they don't believe in anymore) such as "tolerance" and "social justice."

Come on... Now I think you are being a bit unfair in your demands. I have provided plenty of evidence to explain Pat Condell's positions, showed that he identifies with the old left (or liberalism), showed that he is very much against racism, supports women's rights (frequently criticizes islam over it), supports gay rights, etc. I'm sorry that there isn't a video where he spends all his time discussing the great accomplishments of the left in the past, because he talks about more relevant current events instead. If you want to keep arguing whatever your 'point' about Pat Condell not acknowledging the great past of the left has morphed into, then so be it. But I think you are being unreasonable.

He also brings up the evidently horrific scourge of "anti-Americanism," without ever acknowledging American--to say nothing of British, Canadian, French, etc--culpability in...well, in anything...except for their alleged "appeasement of Islam" the one unforgiveable sin.

Seriously? Are you suggesting that anytime someone discusses issues of islam, racism, progressivism and/or freedom of speech they have to also mention the great accomplishments of the left as well as how terrible the evil imperialist west was? Why? I don't get why you keep asking 'Well why isn't Pat Condell talking about something else instead?'. He isn't talking about great accomplishments of the past left, or the evil imperialism of the west because he is talking about progressivism, racism and islam! I swear, there must be a name for this type of argumentative fallacy; I'll have to look it up.

Also, I think this sort of mentality may be indicative that you suffer from western apologism, a common trait of 'progressivism'.

At any rate, genuine "anti-Americanism" is only really constituted by people who wish it destroyed.

Proof?

No one's ever called me "anti-Canadian" for my indictments--whether they're foolishly harsh, somewhat exaggerated, or spot-on.

But "anti-American" is used, well, pretty freely, even promiscuously.

Yes because calling people anti-Canadian when arguing political positions never occurs... *sarcasm*

Suggest that Canada changes it's health care system(s) to include private enterprise? Get called anti-Canadian.

Suggest that Canada abolishes the minimum wage cause it's a dumb concept? Get called anti-Canadian.

Suggest that there are flaws with unlimited multiculturalism, especially if integration between new immigrants and Canadians is poor? Get called anti-Canadian, and racist, and islamophobe.

Suggest that Canada should have a less 'progressive' tax system to increase the incentive for productive behaviour, therefore increase GDP? Get called anti-Canadian.

Suggest that employment insurance should be made voluntary as it unfairly favours seasonal workers and due to moral objections on forcing this insurance/tax? Get called anti-Canadian.

Need I go on? Being called anti-Canadian or un-Canadian is very common, but is mostly used by the left (where as anti-American is mostly used by the right).

Edit: Will continue with replies in chronological order later. Sorry that I am still not caught up.

Edited October 24, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Progressivism and islamism are distinct but related issues. The relation is that 'progressivism' as defined by Pat Condell makes it difficult to talk about the issue of islamism because people do not want to be labelled as 'racist' or 'islamophobe', and as a result the west hasn't properly identified the threat of islamism (see previous links on David Cameron and Justin Trudeau).

Ok, but why call it 'racism' ? You could call it what it's always called 'political correctness'. Is that what this thread is about then ? Let's see.

This thread was started because ...

I still think it's a confusing misnomer.

And this...

... progressivism & progressive racism make it difficult to discuss the islamism, islamism is the biggest threat to the west today & ... Really my position (and Pat Condell's) position shouldn't be debatable,

Wow. Not debatable ? Wow. This seems to be a case of "you become the thing that you hate".

yet multiple posters here seem to want to argue against the position or devalue the position (either through ad hominem fallacies or by trying to argue that communism, liberalism and/or conservatism are also bad therefore why care about progressivism or islamism?). Why do you guys choose to do this? I'm not sure.

Perhaps because we don't believe you, also perhaps because you haven't actually submitted any evidence that we've seen. During the cold war, the US and Soviet allies were the biggest threats to each other. The Soviet system died from within, and if the US ever declines significantly it won't be due to Islam, it will be due to the natural cycle of large world powers rising and declining. Even the Chicago Bulls couldn't stay #1 forever.

Can't produce objective approaches for assessing value of groups of people???... It's called statistical analysis, it's done all the time. I provide a link in my last post to 1 of hundreds of thousands of papers do exactly this.

Statisticians, sociologist and the like would be amused that their studies actually "assess values of people" rather than measure metrics.

Sure idiot politicians or random posters on the internet can just make up statistics or misinterpret statistics to make whatever conclusions they want,

Yes they can.

but that doesn't devalue rigorous statistical analysis.

No it does not.

And yes, I would like to see you produce 'a government statistic' that "proves" that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than Somalians. I called your bluff, now either produce these so called statistics or back off with your ridiculous claims.

Ok. I also "called your bluff" it seems, of asking for your overall benefit analysis, which I think I asked for 3 times now. I will stop asking, as it seems you don't have it.

Here's my example of a fake "proof" that somebody could submit as a misrepresentation of statistics. It comes from HRDC Canada:

Pretty unfair that you would say you're calling my "bluff" before even asking me to show the graph, whereby I have asked you 3 times for your study.

Again, refer to the paper by the group at the University of Ottawa I provided a link to. It has plenty of 'value numbers' (whatever that means) for immigrants from different countries of origins.

I already explained to you: the paper talks about the relationship between earnings and source country GDP. That says nothing about overall "fit". I imagine somebody could use this study, for example, to justify increasing immigration from Saudi Arabia. How would you like that ?

As for your second sentence, I cannot create people, I am no god and creationism is nonsense. I have a reasonably good understanding of statistics (good enough to understand papers such as the one I linked to) for I do have a math-economics degree from the University of Ottawa. I'm not sure if your understanding is good however (all you seem to do is insult the field of econometrics).

Mea culpa - I should have said "create a group of people", or "assemble a group"

Your background proves my point: you somehow have made an elementary mistake despite your status as an expert on stats. The discussion we need to have is very difficult to have, without an informed group.

I think the rest of your post is directed at another poster.

So, I ask if you still have anything to add other than this one study that doesn't prove what you think it does ? Do you have a link to the overall benefit study that you promised earlier ?

I think that you have failed in your attempt to prove your point that our immigration system isn't optimal. I sincerely credit you for bringing a real study to the debate, though, that may be a first. What you failed in, however, is bringing pertinent information. And, although you didn't insult me, you did seem to feel a need to bring personal qualifications (ie. certificates and the like) into the discussion which shouldn't be required.

From your points and the examples you use, it seems to me that you're another poster who doesn't like Muslims and would like to work backwards from your personal feelings to create an objective methodology that proves the need to change immigration policies with respect to them. You're deluding yourself in that you think that the objective part of the analysis came first, and led to the conclusion that immigration policy needs to be changed. At least, that's how it seems to me. But your thinking is very cloudy to me, so...