I am being CENSURED by ? when I try to publish on Multicultural...

[Scott Mayers]

I've been watching videos online through YouTube and find that when I publish, a few moments later, I get deleted. The issue was on Multiculturalism from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCCKuZuBOkU. I'll publish what I wrote there here. I've already commented my dissent for the CBC's censorship here at this site. And it is to the specific insights on this issue particularly that seems to be purposely being monitored. I'm guessing it just means that it has some justification. While I contend that I could be 'wrong' on certain areas of this as it concerns practice, I believe our system is deliberately set up deceptively to promote the idea of "Multiculturalism" when in fact this concept is sincerely a smokescreen for real discrimination and abuse by our particular groups here in Canada using this to lock out democracy for all peoples in the future external to the select heritage of Ontario and Quebec established wealth.

My opinion is NOT about All Ontario or Quebec people. It is about the ones who have established wealth based on our history who are particularly responsible for what we might think of as potential 'crimes' against human rights should they be exposed.

Let me at least reprint here what I wrote and gets deleted when I publish before discussing. Note that I'm not pissed that I could be wrong for my views. It is that it appears that I'm being deliberately prevented from speaking freely on this for some reason. While this may or may not be what some may think is a bad thing (censorship), this should at least concern others as what it implies about our capacity to speak democratically:

I'm surprised at how much ignorance exists to understanding the difference of

Multiculturalism is to the Melting Pot idea. Multiculturalism is actually identical to "Mosaic" as

a type of end. However, this is not simply ANY collection of cultures. It is intended to do what

is in direct opposition to the American's First Amendment.

"Multiculturalism" is a renamed version of "Cultural Pluralism". The older term actually clarifies

what it is with more clarity but why it was traded. The idea is that PARTICULAR favored

"pluralalities" (= submajorities of majorities) should be protected IN LAW via the use of a

constitution that prevents a set of historically established set of cultures (based on genetic

inheritances mostly) to be maintained prior to any other 'freedoms'. It enables our

governments to IMPOSE a prior set of cultural groups to have clear rights over and above all

other people without democratic conventions to risk their status BEFORE all other rights to be

democratic otherwise.

The "Melting Pot" is "Assimilation" but the latter term has been falsely reinterpreted (with

intention to dismiss) the idea that people should have the democratic right to freely associate

without any imposition based upon one's genetic heritage. That is, it is not FORCED in law and

in fact prevented (as through the American First Amendment) to prevent governments from

favoring specific cultures, ethnicity, and religions. Another factor (which is a part of the First

Amendment) is that it prevents the idea of dictators like Kings or Queens, or other Godcommanded

authorities, from having a presumedly natural SUPERIOR right to command prior

to any other considerations in law AND to allow the demos (the people) to speak and

associate freely.

Our "Multiculturalism" here in Canada is intentionally designed to prevent the loss of certain

specific ethnic/cultural interests in respect specifically to both Quebec and Ontario's

established wealth. However, in light of these inherited peoples fortunes based upon nothing

but force itself, and often done in ways that had stolen it from others in the past, the idea of

extending to certain other cultures is a means to disperse the losses to the population as a

whole by negotiating to accept those significant other pluralities (like the Aboriginal

population) in the fold if only to prevent these peoples of the greatest losses of the

establishment from making a clear and recognized stance against the particular established

wealth. It allows the French and English Catholics, in particular, from taking on the burden of

their own faults of the thefts that gave them their wealth AND to hiddeously force the general

population (us 'commoners') to be liable instead. It keeps the wealth in those fortunate groups

who established Canada AND disguises it as an unclear kind of acceptance of diversity that

the Americans have so successfully fought against in their own establishment.

It also prevents the progressive cultures for all future time to be openly permitted the luxury of

democracy should it NOT be screened through the very Constitutionally protected groups FOR

ALL TIME!! Thus, it, for instance, preserves the Royalty of the English and its House of

Parliament to be able to dictatorially overthrow any democratically altered population in the

future from going against it; it preserves the Christian, especially the Anglican and Roman

Catholic religions, and the languages of both the French and English with priority. The

'agreements' of Treaties signed with the Natives were not one of favor as it basically placed

them in "zoos" (reserves) as if they were animals, not human, and by including them as a

'special' culture as well, "buys" this plurality off as they here in Canada represent the greatest

risk to the Ontario/Quebec establishment the most.

I don't believe "Multiculturalism", therefore, is actually the friendly acceptance of difference

(diversity) it is being sold to us as. It is a hideous attempt to prevent future 'commoners'

(peasants) from potentially democratically overthrowing the despots of our inherited

British/French authoritarians for all time. It also makes these specific people the arbiters of

"WHICH" future groups they will or will NOT accept into the fold.

It also enables the necessary means to step in to prevent things like freedom of speech and

people's natural capacity to associate where these select favored prefer segregated powers. It

is what has caused most of the Old World's conflicts. It is a means to assure NATIONALISMS

of people rather than the democratic representation of any population to prevail permanently.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry - are you saying 'censured' or 'censored' ? It sounds like you mean the 2nd one.

Also - this happened on the CBC online comments section ?

Maybe this belongs in the media section then ?

[Scott Mayers]

Sorry - are you saying 'censured' or 'censored' ? It sounds like you mean the 2nd one.

Also - this happened on the CBC online comments section ?

Maybe this belongs in the media section then ?

No, I wasn't censored here. It was on YouTube. The topic is political as to philosophy (because I intend it as dialectic on our political philosophy regarding things like the recent censorship at CBC.) The spelling? I use American spelling as I started my first years there. Unless there is two distinct meanings, please let me know. But it is not simply about media. But I'm alright if you should redirect this there.

I'm discovering that the very topic of Multiculturalism is vacant here on searches as is. The YouTube videos are even outdated. When I post, it posts momentarily. But when I refresh or check later, my content disappears. It doesn't seem to make sense as even the channel and that discussion in the video raises these concerns as sensible (and non-discriminatory in nature to be opposed to our Multiculturalism as opposed to Integration).

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, there are two distinct meanings.

[Scott Mayers]

Oh. My spell checker on Google keeps correcting me to favor one over the other. I am not being "censured" as meaning "harshly criticized". My content is being erased as I said above. Thus the context is at least clear which I mean. "Censor", that is.

Edit: It's funny,...the reason I preferred the American English was due to the "censure" I received when I first came (back) to Canada from my early American elementary school education. I was unusually reprimanded for how I spelled or pronounced words that even to most Canadians have adopted the American versions.

"Schedule" (I would pronounce,"sked-jual") but get corrected as, "shed-jewel", although you only hear this by our news staff west of Ontario. [i always thought that perhaps THEY should go back to "shoual" (for 'school') if they wanted to be so pedantic! ]

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[dre]

Yes, there are two distinct meanings.

There's two distinct meanings maybe but I think the differences between Canada and the US are exaggerated.

The US is no more of a "melting pot" than Canada, and perhaps even less of one. Its very common for example to see mostly black communities, mostly white communities, and mostly Latino communities. Based on my own experience I see more segregation based on race and culture in the US than I do in Canada. Or at least not less. The level of assimilation seems about the same to me.

[Michael Hardner]

There's two distinct meanings maybe but I think the differences between Canada and the US are exaggerated.

I wasn't commenting on that. These are actually two DIFFERENT words, in any English-speaking country. Look them up and see.

[-1=e^ipi]

Comments are deleted by the person who owns the youtube channel. So someone on tvo deleted your comments.

Why or who? I have no idea.

Maybe tvo hired someone to monitor comments and the person they hired happens to be a self righteous SJW that does not like dissenting opinion.

[Scott Mayers]

There's two distinct meanings maybe but I think the differences between Canada and the US are exaggerated.

The US is no more of a "melting pot" than Canada, and perhaps even less of one. Its very common for example to see mostly black communities, mostly white communities, and mostly Latino communities. Based on my own experience I see more segregation based on race and culture in the US than I do in Canada. Or at least not less. The level of assimilation seems about the same to me.

The practice in any system doesn't always match up to the ideals it sets up constitutionally. But that constitution still has the force in law and where it can be used to defend one's rights, the U.S. has this capacity to be fair. Culture, religion, nationalism, etc, are still going to exist in the U.S.. But it doesn't permit the government itself to openly create laws FOR or AGAINST these. If, in times of concern, they may be able to momentarily suspend this for security.

However, Canada reverses this to default (specified) religion, ethnicity, and culture as a Constitutional assertion. Suspension can only delay these for a period. We DO have a worse situation. Our constitution is still relatively new by contrast to the States. There they improve in evolutionary steps and have had a long history. In this respect, they've improved over the 239 years. Our Constitution is founded in 1982 (only 33 years). Given a generation or maybe two from any beginnings, these constitutions may seem alright at first. The test in time however proves that countries that foster segregated nationalism based on human genetic qualifiers within their constitutions create big problems.

[Scott Mayers]

Comments are deleted by the person who owns the youtube channel. So someone on tvo deleted your comments.

Why or who? I have no idea.

Maybe tvo hired someone to monitor comments and the person they hired happens to be a self righteous SJW that does not like dissenting opinion.

Thanks. I looked this name up. It says though that "tvo" is "TVOntario" and:

TVO is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors, and supported by a network of Regional Councillors from across the province. TVO also reports to the Ontario legislature through the Minister of Education, in accordance with the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act.

Instead of following the model of the federally owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which shows commercial advertisements, TVO is instead commercial-free in the manner of fellow provincial counterpart Knowledge in British Columbia and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States. Despite viewer donations, the majority of TVO's funding is provided by the Government of Ontario through the Ministry of Education, which provides $30 million annually.[Wikipedia entry on "tvo"]

Obviously my comment suggested suspicion against Ontario as one of the provinces imposing heritage rights on all by their historical precedence. Since they are being funded by them, and its leadership is also Liberal, who founded Multiculturalism by Trudeau, this may explain this censorship. However, it still doesn't make it appropriate to do so and only adds more force to my own suspicion.

[Scott Mayers]

I wasn't commenting on that. These are actually two DIFFERENT words, in any English-speaking country. Look them up and see.

Same exact roots. Different uses. I was using 'censure' as the act [a verb = assess] of a censor(ship) [noun = assessment].

Same root that derives "Senate" too.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

Censor is also a verb, though.

[Bryan]

Censor is stopping someone from expressing their views. Censure is rebuking or penalizing the speaker for making those views known.

[Scott Mayers]

My opening sentence: "I've been watching videos online through YouTube and find that when I publish, a few moments later, I get deleted."

Is anyone is confused at my intentional meaning here regardless? "Censor" as "deleting" is just the ultimate penalty of "censure". I and most people are more likely to default to the meaning of "censure" with other words we now have. I wasn't familiar with the use of this to simply any form of penalizing. And I dare anyone these days to actually use it this way if they don't want to be interpreted with the derogatory interpretation (unless they're using it as innuendo to place more significance on mere criticism for affect.)

On topic, I don't like the act of governments to censor as it directly opposes the spirit of free speech as it frames a false image of what actually represents the views of our citizens. With our government websites being privately owned, managed, and moderated WITH the protection of secrecy for the accountability of these censors or their politics, it make those sites virtually useless to trust as a reflection of our voice.

I'm disillusioned with our system of government and trust that no matter which party is in power, the underlying religious and Nationalistic ideals are permanently locked in because of our Constitution and history. The only actual differences in our parties are to which ethnicities, religions, or cults they represent and most prefer to be empowered at the expense of the rest. And the individual human has no place in this. It only adds more force that we are already penalized by economic differences that make many of us like 'floaters' born upon a world we have no right to stand on.