Uncivil Dialogue

[Big Guy]

The CBC allows and encourages comments through its web page on current affairs and other Canadian issues. For the first time, they have shut down any discussion on aboriginals or aboriginal affairs:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html

The moderators were having difficulty in keeping up with the necessary moderation of racial, prejudicial and hate postings. It appears that anonymous opinion boards seem to draw xenophobes, racists and hate mongers to a medium where they are able to hide behind their anonymity.

Go figure!

[bush_cheney2004]

Meh...the CBC is a gutless outfit funded and controlled by government anyway...with crappy television ratings. Several years ago, the CBC shut down its online forums entirely because it was caught with biased censorship concerning another ethnic/religious group. We would easily bypass the CBC's silly filters with creative spelling.

Another member has relayed this story before.

[Guest]

I haven't read the article, but has the CBC considered that some people just didn't have arguments? That always results in xenophobes, racists and hate mongers, too.

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't read the article, but has the CBC considered that some people just didn't have arguments? That always results in xenophobes, racists and hate mongers, too.

Even if they did, so what ? They are Canadian taxpayers too and deserve to have their point of view heard / moderated.

Off topic banter and crude comments abound in CBC reader comments for other topics.

Hateful comments about Americans are always welcomed !

Edited December 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Scott Mayers]

I just saw this on the news too. I already have problem with the fact that all our government websites are actually privately owned. This enables them to moderate it with respect to an unidentified group (anonymous) themselves to which I find troubling. As to this issue, I haven't seen the commenting, but think that they CAN set it up to be accountable by making the site government owned, require signing up non-anonymously with some identifying means (like a phone number) and have them non-moderated. I find the moderation to any degree on government sites a form of prevention of free speech.

The editor commented that he (and the board) decided to suspend this for a couple of months until they can find a more forceful moderation. Regardless, to any degree, this is limiting freedom of speech. It is already bad enough that the other media is as much too moderated and consolidated in the hands of select establishment concerns. (Ontario and Quebec, for the most part). The editor also commented that for ALL comments of dissent, they were either (1) outright hate, (2) 'ignorant' but still hateful, and (3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful. I question this even though I recognize that this does occur. I've already mentioned some of my own dissent with our Multiculturalist policy in preferred favor for the American Integration because our's is based on creating laws that interpret causes of real problems as solely due to racial or ethnic differences when the problems are almost always about differences of economy. Favoring culture/ethnicity as the means to address the real problems only create discrimination against those without these even in the same real conditions.

This is a sad announcement. And I'm ashamed of the CBC for it.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

Even if they did, so what ? They are Canadian taxpayers too and deserve to have their point of view heard / moderated.

Off topic banter and crude comments abound in CBC reader comments for other topics.

Hateful comments about Americans are always welcomed !

Most Canadians do not have a clear understanding of the distinction of our system as opposed to the Americans. While racial and discriminatory things occur in the States with more notice, they also evolve to improve their condition in stages of advancement. Our system is backwards in that we are strengthening the character of nationalism. We are a nation of nations but not of individuals.

Just yesterday on the news, I saw a short debate "cultural appropriation" in which they appear to think that its a crime to borrow from other cultures. An example they gave that some had issue with was Yoga as an appropriation of East Indian culture!! This is an example of the extreme to which our system is and will continue to foster. So I'm not surprised at the backlash of responses even without seeing them.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[bush_cheney2004]

Most Canadians do not have a clear understanding of the distinction of our system as opposed to the Americans.....

I agree, but that's another whole topic about how Canadians would define lots of things absent Americans. This has nothing to do with what passes in the United States and everything to do with the cowardly way the CBC has chosen to deal with Canadians using a Canadian resource that they pay for with tax revenue. The antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

[Argus]

Isn't this the CBC site whose every story which is in any way political has been filled with the most venomous anti-Conservative ravings imaginable for the past ten years?

I think most of the viewers of the CBC site, as well as the posters, are very strongly on the Left side of the political spectrum.

[On Guard for Thee]

Isn't this the CBC site whose every story which is in any way political has been filled with the most venomous anti-Conservative ravings imaginable for the past ten years?

I think most of the viewers of the CBC site, as well as the posters, are very strongly on the Left side of the political spectrum.

I suppose those on the right prefer the kind of drivel the likes of fox generates. No thanks, I prefer a little balance.

[eyeball]

I haven't read the article, but has the CBC considered that some people just didn't have arguments? That always results in xenophobes, racists and hate mongers, too.

I ascribe most of the xenophobic, racist, hate-mongering to deliberate miscomprehension of the arguments against them. Deliberate miscomprehension is cute coming from a petulant child but it gets a little repellant when adults keep doing it. The use of stupidity, a weapon of delusion if there ever was one, is a clear sign that no quarter will given or is expected so it's no surprise things get a little uncivil.

[eyeball]

I think most of the viewers of the CBC site, as well as the posters, are very strongly on the Left side of the political spectrum.

You think that about the vast vast majority of humanity.

[Scott Mayers]

I agree, but that's another whole topic about how Canadians would define lots of things absent Americans. This has nothing to do with what passes in the United States and everything to do with the cowardly way the CBC has chosen to deal with Canadians using a Canadian resource that they pay for with tax revenue. The antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

Yes, I'm just getting sick of the many problems that relate to the fact that we are inversely opposite to your First Amendment. It is this simple law you have to which our whole Constitution is based on. It is what gives our CBC the power it has to censure. They also do this as I was detailing by going through a privately owned group who is unaccountable AND who are protected of their secrecy. They are thus not only no different than the ones they are complaining about but are actually worse for it.

Isn't this the CBC site whose every story which is in any way political has been filled with the most venomous anti-Conservative ravings imaginable for the past ten years?

I think most of the viewers of the CBC site, as well as the posters, are very strongly on the Left side of the political spectrum.

This is intentionally deceptive Argus. While they are 'left' in many ways, it is the small 'c' conservatism that exists in this 'left' that is the problem. What is most prevalent in 'conservative' minds (= to save) is that they all believe is some favored Nationalism or group of Nationalisms. For our right-wing parties, they maintain a more Protestant-rooted conservative base AND that favor the dominant Nationality uniquely. Our Liberal party favors the conservative Catholic-related religious groups and to those who are traditionally the ancestral 'owners' with priority and other group Nationalisms secondarily. The NDP favors conserving the collective non-dominant minority group interests with strongest priority in direct opposition or extreme to the Conservatives [the party].

CBC is more 'liberal' only as to the GROUP minority (actually pluralities) who lack the independent means to have the power by majority as one group. This means they favor a more 'liberal' social ideal but are still commanded by the plurality groups that are still not representative of the individual, especially if you don't belong to the accepted coalition groups. While the CBC is most 'left', the rest of the media is most 'right'because they are completely privately owned and base their success on the power of capital in a concentrated Nationality.

CBC SHOULD be more 'liberal' by default. It is the 'conservatives' in all groups though that create the problem because they aim to favor some cultural group over one or more others when permitted. We can't escape this mentality unless we limit that our government not be allowed to have laws made of or for any group based on culture, religion, or ethnicity.

[Guest]

I ascribe most of the xenophobic, racist, hate-mongering to deliberate miscomprehension of the arguments against them. Deliberate miscomprehension is cute coming from a petulant child but it gets a little repellant when adults keep doing it. The use of stupidity, a weapon of delusion if there ever was one, is a clear sign that no quarter will given or is expected so it's no surprise things get a little uncivil.

That's funny, because I ascribe most of the accusations of xenophobic, racist, hate-mongering to deliberate miscomprehension of the arguments being made by the people being accused of such.

Edited December 1, 2015 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

That's funny, because I ascribe most of the accusations of xenophobic, racist, hate-mongering to deliberate miscomprehension of the arguments being made by the people being accused of such.

Do you have an example?

My favourite goes something like this. I'll say..."the west helped create the mess in the ME" and the reply is "so the west is responsible for everything that's wrong in the ME?"

What's your favourite example?

[Wilber]

As far as I am concerned, it is not possible to violate the rights of someone who chooses to spout off under the cloak of anonymity.

CBC can do whatever it wants, it owes the anonymous nothing.

[Scott Mayers]

I ascribe most of the xenophobic, racist, hate-mongering to deliberate miscomprehension of the arguments against them. Deliberate miscomprehension is cute coming from a petulant child but it gets a little repellant when adults keep doing it. The use of stupidity, a weapon of delusion if there ever was one, is a clear sign that no quarter will given or is expected so it's no surprise things get a little uncivil.

I agree with this. I think we need to give charity to people's words or intents. When we do, if they or ourselves are in error, we can actually affect one another more productively to change. If there is an imbalance of those who are against the Aboriginal concerns, this can be due merely on the basis of differences of economy and language. Poverty and average education levels that permit lots of writing, including language barriers, may be all the prevents the voices of Aboriginals to even come to sites or even forums in general. So does this mean we have to 'wait' until the population in question be in the same capacity first before openly speaking about these things? There are many other factors too that get too complex to discuss.

In the population of inmates in a prison, there will always be some group that is more represented. Does this mean we should abandon prisons to function unless we have equal representation of all groups? I proposed this idea before in the case of the vast majority of men as opposed to women being in prison. In any given population, there are just as many 'guilty-minded' men as women. Should we arbitrarily arrest enough women (or purposely go after a quota) to assure an equal amount of women are incarcerated as men? Should the incarcerated majority of men require by law that they can never speak of women because women are not their to represent themselves in equal balance of complaint?

[Guest]

Do you have an example?

My favourite goes something like this. I'll say..."the west helped create the mess in the ME" and the reply is "so the west is responsible for everything that's wrong in the ME?"

What's your favourite example?

I have lots, but they basically go like this:

I'll say: "Isn't it awful that one can be kiled for (insert one of the following: Drawing the Prophet, Adultery, Dishonourable Behaviour, Blasphemy, Apostasy, Homosexuality, etc.)"

And the response will be, well, you know...

Edited December 1, 2015 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

As far as I am concerned, it is not possible to violate the rights of someone who chooses to spout off under the cloak of anonymity.

CBC can do whatever it wants, it owes the anonymous nothing.

Without anonymity we'd probably never know that ugliness runs as deep as it does in our society.

[eyeball]

I have lots, but they basically go like this:

I'll say: "Isn't it awful that one can be kiled for (insert one of the following: Drawing the Prophet, Adultery, Dishonourable Behaviour, Blasphemy, Apostasy, Homosecualty, etc.)"

And the response will be, well, you know...

Obviously it's awful. What is there to misunderstand about that?

You've given a lousy incomplete example. You should have something better if you have lots.

[Guest]

Obviously it's awful. What is there to misunderstand about that?

That's what I say! That's why I'm so upset when people misunderstand and imply such views are a result of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. But you try to tell them that!

[Wilber]

Without anonymity we'd probably never know that ugliness runs as deep as it does in our society.

It can also give a warped impression of our society generated by a small minority of people who would post such crap.

[eyeball]

I agree with this. I think we need to give charity to people's words or intents.

You can only give the benefit of doubt so many times before you start running out of it. And running out of things is really what everything is coming down too. The water-hole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner. It's a difficult thing to survive a trip through a bottleneck and just as natural capital is getting tight so too is social capital - there will be blood, there is absolutely no doubt.

[Guest]

You can only give the benefit of doubt so many times before you start running out of it. And running out of things is really what everything is coming down too. The water-hole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner. It's a difficult thing to survive a trip through a bottleneck and just as natural capital is getting tight so too is social capital - there will be blood, there is absolutely no doubt.

Something you and I can agree wholeheartedly on...

[Boges]

Many comment sections implement a message system where you need to use a Facebook profile instead of some fake account. Not to say there aren't trolls on Facebook but it's more work to maintain a Facebook troll.

What type of comments are we talking about? Deliberate racist trolling, which seems to be weeded out largely on a site like this or are we just talking anyone who's not completely supportive of the plight of the First Nations?

[eyeball]

That's what I say! That's why I'm so upset when people misunderstand and imply such views are a result of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. But you try to tell them that!

Drawing the Prophet, Adultery, Dishonourable Behaviour, Blasphemy, Apostasy, Homosecualty, etc. is the result of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. There's nothing incomprehensible about this but you're still upset. What more do you need to tell people who agree with you?