Uncivil Dialogue

[Michael Hardner]

The water-hole is getting smaller and the animals are getting meaner.

Do you really think there's more bigotry and racism than, say, 100, 50 or 20 years ago ?

The internet puts a broadcast centre in everyone's house, so you are going to find out the ugly truth about your neighbours' beliefs, ie. they're not like yours. But it's not the same as saying things are getting worse... just clearer.

[Guest]

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?

Are you missing a word or two here? Homosexuality is the result is the result of bigotry, racism and xenophobia? Maybe a copy and paste error?

[eyeball]

Do you really think there's more bigotry and racism than, say, 100, 50 or 20 years ago ?

I think there will be in the next 20, 50 and 100 years and I think we're at or close to the turning point now, maybe even past it.

The internet puts a broadcast centre in everyone's house, so you are going to find out the ugly truth about your neighbours' beliefs, ie. they're not like yours. But it's not the same as saying things are getting worse... just clearer.

Wait until the state can tap into that broadcast, things will just keep getting clearer for sure.

Edited December 1, 2015 by eyeball

[Boges]

I think there will be in the next 20, 50 and 100 years and I think we're at or close to the turning point now, maybe even past it.

Yeah we'll be longing for those days of segregation and slavery.

[eyeball]

Are you missing a word or two here? Homosexuality is the result is the result of bigotry, racism and xenophobia? Maybe a copy and paste error?

Your right it was a copy and paste error.

In any case the question stands, why are you upset when people agree with you?

Edited December 1, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Yeah we'll be longing for those days of segregation and slavery.

We'll be longing for lots of things and I won't be surprised if meeting that longing will involve a little slavery. We're part way there now given all the crap we buy that's made in sweatshops.

[Michael Hardner]

Wait until the state can tap into that broadcast, things will just keep getting clearer for sure.

The state is free to tap into it but they're not interested, in fact they seem confused by the concept.

[eyeball]

The state is free to tap into it but they're not interested, in fact they seem confused by the concept.

That'll just inspire them to look deeper and wider. Not knowing is the ultimate splinter in every government officials mind. It drives them nuts.

Edited December 1, 2015 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

There continues to be discussion on what is considered bigotry, xenaphobia, prejudice, Islamophobia et al.

I suggest that it varies with the individual.

You post a point of view in which you believe the content reflects your opinion. If you would express the same ideas to family and the public and be prepared to defend and be accountable for what you say then obviously you do not feel it to be any of those.

If, on the other hand, you would never say in public what you posted on an anonymous board then I suggest you look in a mirror.

[Argus]

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

Want to see warped? Read the Globe and Mail comments sections...

[Guest]

Your right it was a copy and paste error.

In any case the question stands, why are you upset when people agree with you?

It's not a matter of agreeing with me. I can't imagine anyone would disagree. It's just that bringing it up seems to some to be indicative of the aforementioned xenophobia, racism and bigotry. That's the upsetting bit.

Agree but shush seems to be the order of the day.

[Guest]

There continues to be discussion on what is considered bigotry, xenaphobia, prejudice, Islamophobia et al.

I suggest that it varies with the individual.

You post a point of view in which you believe the content reflects your opinion. If you would express the same ideas to family and the public and be prepared to defend and be accountable for what you say then obviously you do not feel it to be any of those.

If, on the other hand, you would never say in public what you posted on an anonymous board then I suggest you look in a mirror.

I personally think that anyone who indulges in the barbaric religious practices that I find repulsive is indulging in repulsive, barbaric religious practices, and I would have no trouble stating so in public. To my Mum, even, if she were still around.

Racist?

[Wilber]

Want to see warped? Read the Globe and Mail comments sections...

I was referring to comment sections in general. It is usually the same old culprits who are responsible for most of the trash. Most reasonable people can't be bothered engaging with that level of mentality, so they take up space that is out of proportion to their number. To say they are representative of society as a whole is giving them far too much credit.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Agree but shush seems to be the order of the day.

It's another Col. Jessep moment....Canada says it wants the truth...but Canada can't handle the truth for some of this stuff.

[The_Squid]

The comments section of any website brings out the bastards and shitheads who use the anonymity of the internet to post racist, stupid, derogatory, gutless comments.

CBC may want to think about eliminating that particular forum for the racist shitheads to spew their nonsense altogether.

[waldo]

It's another Col. Jessep moment....Canada says it wants the truth...but Canada can't handle the truth for some of this stuff.

no need to raise the profile of a CBC online forum to that of "Canada says/Canada can't" Good to know you read, link to and quote from CBC here so often - keep up your support for 'MotherCorp'! Good on ya.

[TimG]

(3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful.

This is the problem with leftists: dissent is not welcome. I am sure this comment is directed at people who argue that the entire concept of 'special rights for DNA' is morally wrong and inconsistent with the values of a egalitarian democratic society. A view that is most definitely not racist but always characterized as racist by the totalitarian left because it offends their 'cult of the victim' world view. Edited December 2, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

This is the problem with leftists: dissent is not welcome.

I think that's a broad slag. Surely there's a political doctrinaire tradition on the right too.

I'm starting to see the broad slags of the left and right as lazy thinking. I'd also like a cite that proves this news editor has dismissed all of the dissent from his point of view. It seems like a very obvious mistake for somebody at that position to make.

[Michael Hardner]

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 guess I can't challenge a cite for something you heard or saw happen live on MSM but I'll ask you to confirm WHO this was, and that he/she said that ALL dissent fell into these 3 categories ?

[Boges]

LOL!

http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2261-cbc-closes-comments-on-indigenous-stories-after-4th-comments-moderator-dies-from-exhaustion

The CBC currently employs over 6,500 full time employees, approximately 3,000 of whom are devoted exclusively to moderating the comments sections on the broadcaster’s online service.

[Scott Mayers]

NOTE: try to make an effort to read as this applies to us all. I think what I explain here is the caused of all of the problems relating to discrimination. Although this doesn't excuse abuse by the posters of the CBC [i never actually saw them] this argues for the underlying cause and I try to also add what we can do. In light of my preference for the American's First Amendment, I believe that cultural problems are naturally still more powerfully perceived as the cause when it is the difference of economies ONLY. As such, even the First Amendment doesn't solve problems in practice only because this constitutional law is NOT actually enforced and is hard to challenge by other factors. It is still nevertheless the ideal to which we at LEAST require to begin with and only happens to be the best kind of law that has ever had a chance to improve these problems thus far. We just need to figure out how to add a means to enforce this by default.

I'm sorry for the length of this. I preserve my right to also change my mind on this in respect to practice. But I believe this is theoretically a correct interpretation of the problem and my suggested solution.

I guess I can't challenge a cite for something you heard or saw happen live on MSM but I'll ask you to confirm WHO this was, and that he/she said that ALL dissent fell into these 3 categories ?

It was on CBC news with an interview with some guy representing a part of the editorial staff or representative of it. The interview was given by Wendy and I was paraphrasing what I'd just heard. The point is, they classed all forms of dissent as unacceptable. While they asserted (1) outright hate, the other reasons were based on what they could not technically assign as 'hate' but that they still interpreted as either 'ignorant' or 'hidden hate due to ignorance'.

I've commented before on the logic of "Multiculturalism". It is just a means to justify in its own propaganda that our politicians should have a right to create laws that separately privilege groups in law based on culture, ethnicity, and religion with priority over all other considerations. The creation of the U.S. was based on the fact that England was treating North America and the people of these colonies as subjects to serve the England profitably at the expense of the rights of the settlers. It did this by defaulting to an assumption imposed on all that England and its heritage was matter-of-factly and intrinsically special above all other people (commoners). It got to the degree that it imposed that the people of the colonies could not establish their own posited right to create industry and manufacture but should send the raw resources to England; it treated the people of the colonies as relative 'slaves' who had to also be taxed without those taxes being returned in any way to serve the people. It was an English dictatorship snobbishly assuming that inherent genetic and cultural factors supersede the logic that respect people's economies.

It is differences of economy that determines whether one succeeds or not. But traditionalists believe in inherent God-entitled entities based upon their genes or their ancestral roots. Or, at least, they depend on their subjects to believe this without question. This is what created the initial separation of the U.S. from England.

Then, as this same traditional belief still most predominated by many, as it did to the Confederates who believed that the Black race were simply subject to their own heritage that made them 'naturally' the slaves they were, it forced the U.S. upon defeat of this to create the First Amendment to limit the power of government to create laws based on culture, ethnicity, or race. It was a rational progressive idea to which distinguishes the 'Old World' mentality to the new one.

The rationality is about Actual causes to social problems between people -- differences of economy, not genetic or contingent fortunes that people inherit. Our ideal of "multiculturalism" is a purposeful campaign to keep the traditional belief in hierarchical privileges based on inherent factors to excuse a continued right to create laws that discriminate between people.

Here in Canada, we 'inherited' this British belief. As such, our Constitution locks in special (not ALL) groups of people based on the classification of genetic or contingent origins (heritage). Multiculturalism is a means to maintain what the U.S. fought against by rhetorically hiding its nature of discrimination AGAINST excluded and undesired groups by appealing to fostering diversity as a virtue that posits favor FOR the desired groups instead. It is still the same logical meaning of inappropriate discrimination but is hidden by appealing to ones prejudices for their own groups over the individual AND the whole.

Example: Imagine you have a household which represents a simplified model. To be 'fair', let us assume that the parents of such a household represent the arbiters of authority by their heritage. Since they are the parents, we seem to naturally accept this in a family.

Now the children represent the rest of the population that inherit the rights that the parents have commanded by their virtue of natural authority. So, in this light, the parent is assumed to be absolutely respected authoritatively and so can choose to treat their children either all the same or differently as they see fit. The parent can be 'fair' by default by treating each child as equal and independent. However, they can also treat some children differently by their same authority as they are the dictators of heritage.

Our country by default treats the parents' authority as the priority right to command who gets treated one way or the other. In this way, if they believed that they want to classify how they treat their children based on hair color or sex, they can arbitrarily choose to define this. What our system (Old-World thinking) does is to treat the parent's authority as absolute for all times based on their traditional classification to discriminate upon their children on classifications they saw fit, regardless of their logic. For instance, if the parent commanded that red-headed children should never eat pork, this rule, even though it may not actually have any real justification or some potential one in error, it becomes a law for all red-headed children for all time to have this same treatment. This would be then defined as a 'red-head' tradition inherited by their genetic/cultural rule from their ancestor. [note that the parent's rule here for red-heads IS the 'heritage', not the fact that the parents are the same for all. This is like the fact that all people ARE related as people. But it treats some arbitrary parent(s) at some point to be authoritative to define all that follows.]

Now all, some, or none of the heritage rules that the parents could assign to the children do not have to have any justification in logic to be 'fair' for that class. So, these parents may, for instance, define yellow-headed children as having an inherent right to freely choose what they get to eat or not. This is an advantage for yellow-heads. But they could also be granted a disadvantaged right. For instance, if the parents loathed the way their yellow-headed children looked, they might make the rule, "no yellow-headed child should be allowed to wear expensive clothes as it doesn't improve their circumstances and is a waste of an expense."

"Multiculturalism" is like the way these parents are privileged to define what is rightfully inherent or not. Now, generations later, while people may have recognized that the 'disadvantaged' inheritances are what caused the most havoc in the past [like the slavery of African Americans in the Confederate South.] But the ones who have had such fortune of 'advantages' over 'disadvantages', still approve of their fortune and yet know that if the rest of society would overthrow this right of even their inherited privilege or penalize them for it which would threaten their own fortunes. The classification to privilege one on their heritage is obviously illogical. Yet, in practice, the only way that the ones who have gained from this ideal are able to preserve their own fortunes would be to find a means to keep the best parts of this system by appealing to others to 'see' the positive 'advantages' while simultaneously hiding or diminishing the negative ones.

By selecting specific children with extraordinary contrast who receive more 'disadvantages' over 'advantages', they can at least preserve this irrational system of heritage-based privileges of their own by favoring specific or targeted child-types who most threaten their own demise should they continue. If, for instance, the green-headed children were most disadvantaged based on heritage rules and they represent the largest potential threat, by tweaking which 'inherent' rights that have remote advantages with more attention while disguising the disadvantages, they can make the green-headed children at least think they would benefit by maintaining this "multicultural" illusion.

Here in Canada, the established cultures of Quebec and Ontario are the children who were most advantaged and are threatened should the rest of society recognize the unfair logic of their privilege based upon heritage. So they have cleverly fostered the "Multiculturalism" idea by instead of abandoning their unfair advantage or be responsible to pay back personally for the costs to repair what gave them privilege, they target specific heritage-classified people in order to grant them certain protection, even while they still don't believe it right to treat all of their siblings the same. One disadvantaged group here is the Aboriginal population. The success of the Catholic (Anglican/French-Roman) Ontario and Quebec establishment was based on what they received in the past from what took away from the Aboriginals. Thus, the Aboriginal population was 'targeted' as another special class in order to create laws that at least prevent this group from making the favored establishment responsible.

And it is this logic to which many individuals are complaining about when they are of the actual logical classes that get treated based on their heritage as commanded by our Constitution. The reason the mostly 'white' and 'male' population are of the inherent class of complainers on issues regarding Aboriginals is due to the fact that these particular 'white' and 'male' population are exclusively discriminated against as they are both falsely presumed to be the benefactors of heritage when their logical conditions do not apply. This is because they don't actually belong to the particular established privileged groups defined by those in power. It is because economic differences, NOT heritage, is the actual cause of all problems by nature. Yet, the ones who desire discriminating who ARE privileged and like to keep people thinking that the causes are about some natural heritage when it is actually the arbitrary heritage they've defined are intended to hide their own belief in discrimination.

It's self-feeding. Multiculturalism itself is a policy that only fosters more, not less, discrimination and why you have people in real disadvantages complaining. This does NOT mean that the ones posting in dissent of Aboriginal rights laws are against Aboriginals, intrinsically. It means that Multiculturalism is a policy that turns people of the same logical disadvantaged (like all 'impoverished' people) against one another. It also cleverly makes it appear by contrast that these complainers are the actual cause of the discrimination when it is actually being mediated this way to create this illusion. Thus it makes the actual creators of discrimination AND in control to be justified in making more drastic and discriminatory policies, like the banning of free speech in the context of the CBCs complaints.

The solution is to redress our Constitution and insist on a separation between culture/religion/ethnicity from laws. If the American's First Amendment was not able to fix this, at least, the people have a means to be able to address this in time. It also lacked the clarity that could have been more strict to assure this separation remains and why even the States still also have problems. But the "multicultural" anti-intellectual thinking permeates all humans, especially when we are economically favored OR deprived in contrasts. Our human error is to induce the wrong causes based upon emotions. So we 'see' genetic-classes as causes easier than the economic ones. We still allow inheritance based on ones economic factors which only contribute to this. To solve this factor too, we CAN do this by limiting the right to inherit wealth by individuals. How is it somehow inherently a right to become billionaires, for instance? While greed is our common genetic inheritance, we can fix this through both minimal rights to 'own' and maximum rights to 'own'.

[Boges]

tl;dr

[Scott Mayers]

I also apologize for the many grammatical errors I made above. I'm being distracted by that "Mass Shooting in California" on the news while I wrote it. Looking back some of it is clearly in need of edit. I'll leave it as is for now though. Just ask what you might not follow and I'll try to repair any misunderstandings.

[Scott Mayers]

tl;dr

That's what Twitter is for.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sorry for the length of this.

Sorry ?

It was on CBC news with an interview with some guy representing a part of the editorial staff or representative of it. The interview was given by Wendy and I was paraphrasing what I'd just heard. The point is, they classed all forms of dissent as unacceptable.

This was the one thing I asked for and you haven't provided it.

"some guy" said all forms of dissent were unacceptable. I'll just say it: I don't believe it. If he did say it, he should be fired.