White Pride

[Argus]

On 6/13/2018 at 7:56 PM, dialamah said:

 As I pointed out previously, how would anyone know unless the individual advertised his/her religious/political stance or their occupation?  

And as I responded earlier, that merely shows the hypocrisy of the far left (including you) in suggesting that police could come, as long as they 'stay in the closet' and no one knows what they are.

[GostHacked]

On 6/12/2018 at 10:39 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think so.  You can get arrested for lewd behaviour.  If someone has evidence to the contrary I would (and would not) like to hear it.

I think parading around town with your junk almost exposed riding floats that are very provocative, it's not pride in being gay, it's pride in being really promiscuous. The gay people I know don't care for this kind of exposure. Any other day you'd be arrested in public for this kind of attire,  warning ahead!!

 

[Michael Hardner]

Meh.  it's not a sex act.  There is even nudity in the city sometimes and it won't always get you arrested but the cops might ask you to cover up.

[dialamah]

On 6/23/2018 at 9:25 AM, GostHacked said:

I think parading around town with your junk almost exposed riding floats that are very provocative, it's not pride in being gay, it's pride in being really promiscuous. The gay people I know don't care for this kind of exposure.

Some people are exhibitionists, and they're the ones who get a thrill out of wandering around in public with lots of "exposure".   Doesn't mean they want to have sex with a lot of people, or even in public.  

[Hal 9000]

On 6/25/2018 at 10:16 AM, dialamah said:

Some people are exhibitionists, and they're the ones who get a thrill out of wandering around in public with lots of "exposure".   Doesn't mean they want to have sex with a lot of people, or even in public.  

But, clearly you can see how people who aren't necessarily against the gays are against these "exhibitionist" parades...right?

[taxme]

On 6/20/2018 at 8:32 AM, turningrite said:

I believe the BLM-Pride controversy reflects the fact that Pride no longer plays a vital role in promoting gay rights, which are now largely codified in law even if acceptance isn't universal in the general population. The Pride festival I most recently attended, about 6 or 7 years ago, seemed like a 'fin de siecle' event. It appeared to me a rather boring corporate-driven and cliche-soaked enterprise. When I'd previously attended the event in the mid 1990s, there was an edge to it as the gay community was at the time fighting for basic civil and social rights as well as AIDS treatments. I suspect the whole thing was ripe for a takeover and that seems to be what's happened. I read a fascinating piece in the National Post a week ago where the author, who identifies himself as being gay, notes the irrelevancy of the parade in today's context. A good friend of mine, who is gay, believes it time the Pride festival be reconsidered. If it's no longer relevant to much of the LGBT community, why should it be relevant to anybody else? It's served its purpose.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-gay-and-i-wouldnt-blame-doug-ford-for-avoiding-torontos-pride-parade

Let the gay movement get on with life. Stop with the whining and crying because the majority of heterosexuals don't want to hear about how hard they have been done by anymore. We all know that they are around now so just shut up and stop trying to make yourselves look like a bunch of fools. Enough already. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by taxme

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

Let the gay movement get on with life. Stop with the whining and crying because the majority of heterosexuals don't want to hear about how hard they have been done by anymore. We all know that they are around now so just shut up and stop trying to make yourselves look like a bunch of fools. Enough already. 

You can't stop Pride now as it is essentially a Mardis Gras and tourist (ie. money) magnet.  There are businesses that stay open all year to make money during that week.

https://www.ipsos.com/en/world-pride-kicks-toronto-canada-poll-shows-strong-majority-71-among-15-developed-nations-support

83% of Canadians believe that LGBT people should be free to live their own lives btw, which explains why basically everyone at pride is straight now.  

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid thread derailment syndrome. 

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Avoid thread derailment syndrome. 

Yes, it's interesting how a topic intended to discuss "White Pride" has morphed into a discussion of gay rights. Perhaps people interpret the topic as broadly pertaining to identity issues, but maybe a separate topic on gay issues would be more appropriate.

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/27/2018 at 9:27 AM, turningrite said:

Yes, it's interesting how a topic intended to discuss "White Pride" has morphed into a discussion of gay rights. Perhaps people interpret the topic as broadly pertaining to identity issues, but maybe a separate topic on gay issues would be more appropriate.

I think the digression was related to the concept of 'pride' and so partly relates. I support the LGBTQ community but also would not go to a 'pride' gathering because the concept actually justifies even those of "White Pride" groups where they may be of the extremes. At least these should remain voluntary and governments, including bureaucrats related to their services (like the police), should resist 'volunteering' in the name of these offices as they incidentally act to bias government favor (or disfavor). 

[BuzzKillington]

Yes, it's gotten to the point I don't watch ANY news shows or talk shows from the US. Strange thing is, social justice lunatics seem to want to push everybody into their assorted little tribal group identity, which would seem to be contradictory to their stated goals of inclusion and diversity. I guess that means everybody but the evil white man? Then we have to listen to Hollywood talking heads preaching about diversity from the safety of their gated communities, and preaching about gun control from behind their phalanx of armed body guards. 

Liberalism is a swirling ball of contradictions, so don't get me started. 

But yeah, the 'evil white man' who was the first to put an end to slavery. The evil white man who created damn near everything under the sun, not to mention the most progressive, technologically advanced and comparatively SAFEST societies to ever exist in human history. Which is of course, why everybody wants to come here and subject themselves to the "oppression" of the evil white man. 

And if you go to University do you know what you will be studying? The vast achievements of old dead white guys. Pick any discipline: Science, medicine, business, the arts. 

Yeah, those evil white men are the worst. 

I swear, if SJW's get any stupider their heads are going to implode because nature abhors a vacuum. 

PS: I watched a few Jordan Peterson videos and can't figure out what all the hubbub is about? 

Edited July 1, 2018 by BuzzKillington

[taxme]

On 7/1/2018 at 12:02 PM, BuzzKillington said:

Yes, it's gotten to the point I don't watch ANY news shows or talk shows from the US. Strange thing is, social justice lunatics seem to want to push everybody into their assorted little tribal group identity, which would seem to be contradictory to their stated goals of inclusion and diversity. I guess that means everybody but the evil white man? Then we have to listen to Hollywood talking heads preaching about diversity from the safety of their gated communities, and preaching about gun control from behind their phalanx of armed body guards. 

Liberalism is a swirling ball of contradictions, so don't get me started. 

But yeah, the 'evil white man' who was the first to put an end to slavery. The evil white man who created damn near everything under the sun, not to mention the most progressive, technologically advanced and comparatively SAFEST societies to ever exist in human history. Which is of course, why everybody wants to come here and subject themselves to the "oppression" of the evil white man. 

And if you go to University do you know what you will be studying? The vast achievements of old dead white guys. Pick any discipline: Science, medicine, business, the arts. 

Yeah, those evil white men are the worst. 

I swear, if SJW's get any stupider their heads are going to implode because nature abhors a vacuum. 

PS: I watched a few Jordan Peterson videos and can't figure out what all the hubbub is about? 

Jordan Peterson is not the problem. It is the liberal SJW snowflakes who cannot seem to grasp as to what is being said to them by people like Peterson. Liberals are not use to listening to anyone who speaks with common sense and logic. They prefer to listen to left wing liberal radicals like Colbert and Maxine Waters and be taught on how to act and look dumb and stupid every day of their life. Aw well.  It's Okay to be white. There is no reason to feel ashamed or guilty about being white.  

[Michael Hardner]

On 7/1/2018 at 3:02 PM, BuzzKillington said:

1. Liberalism is a swirling ball of contradictions, so don't get me started. 

2. But yeah, the 'evil white man' who was the first to put an end to slavery.

3. PS: I watched a few Jordan Peterson videos and can't figure out what all the hubbub is about? 

 

15 hours ago, taxme said:

4. It is the liberal SJW snowflakes ...

5. There is no reason to feel ashamed or guilty about being white.  

1. Most people who rail against it either don't know history, or are hyperbolic about what liberalism means, or both IMO.

2. By this logic if I burn down a forest then I put the fire out, I get credited for putting the fire out.

3. Neither can I.  He's basically "Oprah" of the alt-right, making lonely single nerds feel like the government should have a program to help them.  He's not that bright.

4. Didn't you get "offended" when you saw a woman in a headscarf ?  That's pretty snowflakey in my books, since it's pretty easy to turn your head if you don't like what you see.

5. No, and the alt-right desperately needs this strawman more than anyone.

 

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1. Most people who rail against it either don't know history, or are hyperbolic about what liberalism means, or both IMO.

2. By this logic if I burn down a forest then I put the fire out, I get credited for putting the fire out.

3. Neither can I.  He's basically "Oprah" of the alt-right, making lonely single nerds feel like the government should have a program to help them.  He's not that bright.

4. Didn't you get "offended" when you saw a woman in a headscarf ?  That's pretty snowflakey in my books, since it's pretty easy to turn your head if you don't like what you see.

5. No, and the alt-right desperately needs this strawman more than anyone.

 

1. I know enough about liberalism history to know that liberals are the destroyers of all things decent and moral and normal. The SJW liberal snowflakes of the world have mental issues as far as I am concerned. My opinion and I am sticking with it. 

2. Did you not understand what was said. Yes, the white man was involved in slavery but rectified that decades later. You are aware though that slavery still exists in some Arab and African countries in the world today, right? Are there any white controlled countries where slavery still exists? If not, it is time for you to get off the white slavery bull chit. It's over, fella. And if someone starts a fire anywhere and then helps to put out that fire it is still called Arson and they will not get credit for it but they will get jail time for it. 

3. Petersen is far from coming close to Oprah. Oprah is a racist, Petersen is not. What Petersen is trying to do is make SJW left wing liberal snowflakes start using their brains for a change and start to use more common sense and logic in their lives and less emotionalism and foolish talk and violence. All they appear to want to do is sow dissent and violence and to show just how intolerant and bigots they can be towards others who have a different opinion and point of view to their's. I can say that Petersen is a lot more brighter than some people out there. Just saying. 

4. And I am still offended by Muslim women in Canada when I see them walking around all covered up from head to toe in their Halloween costume. So, I should just then turn my head away and ignore Muslims who refuse to want to assimilate into the Canadian culture? I see them pretty much always trying to demand that they be allowed to try to change our rules and regulations and try to apply Sharia law instead on Canadians where they can and try and change how Canadians do things in their own country? No way will I turn away from exposing those people. We are all infidels to Muslims. Live with it, snowflake. I do. 

5. Dam right they need that white straw man if they do not want to become a minority in their own country. It is the alt-left that is always trying to destroy the Western white culture and traditions that have made the Western world great. Works for me. 

Just for your information, although I know that you don't give a crap anyway, but the white population of Canada in 1971 was about 97%. Today in 2018, the white population has declined to around 64% and no doubt still dropping thanks to the massive amount of third world immigration going on into Canada. And then you attack and mock and wonder as to what and why white patriotic nationalists like myself are doing in trying to point out this decline in the white population in Canada. The color of white in that Canadian picture of today is being touched up with many more non-white colors. This does not work for me. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

1. I know enough about liberalism history...

2.  Yes, the white man was involved in slavery but rectified that decades later. 

3. Petersen is far from coming close to Oprah.  ... I can say that Petersen is a lot more brighter than some people out there.  

4. And I am still offended by Muslim women in Canada ...

5. It is the alt-left that is always trying to destroy the Western white culture and traditions...

6. ...white patriotic nationalists like myself ...

1. No, you really don't.  You tear down pluralism, a central tenet of western democracy, so you clearly have no idea nor any clear morality.

2. And ?  That's worthy of praise ?  Immoral.

3. I think I would disagree with you if I could disentangle those two garbled sentences.  Your thoughts are twisted, as are your morality and your language.

4. I know.  Isn't that the mark of a Snowflake ?  One who gets offended so easily and rushes home in tears because they saw a Muslim woman on the bus ?

5. No - see #1.

6. You can't be patriotic to a colour.  There is a name for someone who is "patriotic" (?) to a colour but I can't call you that or you will get offended.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, you really don't.  You tear down pluralism, a central tenet of western democracy, so you clearly have no idea nor any clear morality.

2. And ?  That's worthy of praise ?  Immoral.

3. I think I would disagree with you if I could disentangle those two garbled sentences.  Your thoughts are twisted, as are your morality and your language.

4. I know.  Isn't that the mark of a Snowflake ?  One who gets offended so easily and rushes home in tears because they saw a Muslim woman on the bus ?

5. No - see #1.

6. You can't be patriotic to a colour.  There is a name for someone who is "patriotic" (?) to a colour but I can't call you that or you will get offended.

 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, you really don't.  You tear down pluralism, a central tenet of western democracy, so you clearly have no idea nor any clear morality.

2. And ?  That's worthy of praise ?  Immoral.

3. I think I would disagree with you if I could disentangle those two garbled sentences.  Your thoughts are twisted, as are your morality and your language.

4. I know.  Isn't that the mark of a Snowflake ?  One who gets offended so easily and rushes home in tears because they saw a Muslim woman on the bus ?

5. No - see #1.

6. You can't be patriotic to a colour.  There is a name for someone who is "patriotic" (?) to a colour but I can't call you that or you will get offended.

1. Liberalism is an insane ideology. As i said Canada in 1971 had a white population of 97%. In 2018 the white population in Canada is now at 64%. So why have you not commented on that? Is it because you cannot counter those numbers or just trying to avoid talking about it? C'mon, say something on it.   Source: Canadian Nationalist Party.   www.Nationalist.ca  

2. I think that is worthy of praise. I cannot understand as to why you can say that it is not worthy of praise and call it immoral? Such silly and ridiculous talk. 

3. I said that Petersen is a lot more intelligent than Oprah ever will be. Oprah is a racist lefty liberal. She said once that "old white people have to die". That is a racist thing to be saying and do not try to tell me that it is not racist. 

4. Yup, nothing has changed. I am and always will be offended when I see a Muslim woman wearing a black Halloween costume from head to toe, and not only "on the bus".  

5.You can keep your pluralism. I do not have to agree with your illogical thoughts and opinions. I have a right to my own thoughts and opinions and a right to express them. So live with it. 

6. I am a white patriotic nationalist and proud of it and proud of my white colored skin. Everything you say offends me. 

[Argus]

This is an excellent writeup on the topic.

White Americans may be embracing a race long associated with blandness and bad bread in part because they’re within shouting distance of becoming a minority in what they had been regarding as their country. Donald Trump is an aggravating factor, but American retreat to racial foxholes well predates his watch. For I also blame identity politics — which have whipped up racial antagonism, encouraged nakedly anti-white bombast and ushered in a glaring double standard that’s unsustainable. You cannot have black identity politics, and Latino identity politics, without conjuring the pastel version. Yet only ‘white identitarians’ are demonised as driven by hatred. Whites are the sole race the mainstream western media forbids to forge a sense of unity or to defend their own interest. The only identity whites are allowed is self-disgust. Whites who stray from ceaseless self-crit are moral degenerates.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/identity-politics-are-by-definition-racist/

[Scott Mayers]

Being left-of-center and complaining about this within others there is frustrating as hell. What's worse is that you present the point and then you get complete silence without further open discussion. That others there simply deplatform anyone disagreeing is also making the left more and more polarized towards ONLY those who follow suite on this counter-logical thinking about identity. 

I still hold that unless we challenge the constitution with its provisions of protection for the Catholic/Anglican churches and the political elite of the families of the traditional-Canada (Ontario-Quebec alliance), we will remain in this grey uncertainty. The U.S. is also countering their own First Amendment and could use a redress to repair this if possible. 

I'm more pissed that all the media in Canada and the U.S. are completely on-board with this Identity-politics counter-racist/counter-sexist behavior. Notice that the media now reporting on the Charlottesville statue incident blatantly reference  ALL people questioning tearing down the statues of history as "White Supremacists". Can't anyone not notice that this is no different than the ancient Egyptians destroying the temples of those reigns the newer Dynasties go against? Why should history be obliterated and reconstructed in today's emotional imagination? Ironically, the same kind of supporters would still not question questioning the Holocaust facts by those they themselves interpret as 'reconstructionists' of history! ...very hypocritical thinking.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Zeitgeist]

Jordan Peterson is a brilliant dose of realism.  I don't understand the fuss.  His work has helped so many people.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Being left-of-center and complaining about this within others there is frustrating as hell. What's worse is that you present the point and then you get complete silence without further open discussion. That others there simply deplatform anyone disagreeing is also making the left more and more polarized towards ONLY those who follow suite on this counter-logical thinking about identity. 

I still hold that unless we challenge the constitution with its provisions of protection for the Catholic/Anglican churches and the political elite of the families of the traditional-Canada (Ontario-Quebec alliance), we will remain in this grey uncertainty. The U.S. is also countering their own First Amendment and could use a redress to repair this if possible. 

I'm more pissed that all the media in Canada and the U.S. are completely on-board with this Identity-politics counter-racist/counter-sexist behavior. Notice that the media now reporting on the Charlottesville statue incident blatantly reference  ALL people questioning tearing down the statues of history as "White Supremacists". Can't anyone not notice that this is no different than the ancient Egyptians destroying the temples of those reigns the newer Dynasties go against? Why should history be obliterated and reconstructed in today's emotional imagination? Ironically, the same kind of supporters would still not question questioning the Holocaust facts by those they themselves interpret as 'reconstructionists' of history! ...very hypocritical thinking.

While I hear what you're saying about the pendulum swinging too politically correct or failing to appreciate historical context and rewriting history, I think you have to look at these situations case by case.  If a symbol or historical figure offends people, rather than rushing to judgement French Revolution style and cutting the heads off of the statues, we need to have open discussions between representatives of the various sides who can best articulate their faction's arguments.  At that point, people can make informed decisions and apply pressure one way or the other to the political/organizational leadership or through elections.  I think the danger that we face as a society is when an extreme but vocal faction is given carte blanche to dictate.  In a democracy we believe that most people are fair-minded and we can point to historical precedents and charters/bills that remind us of the fundamental protections of certain rights.  Courts can help us interpret how these controversies should be regarded in relation to our socially agreed upon values.  The point is, there needs to be thought, consideration, and discussion before these decisions are made.  I've seen it happen too often when speakers with a different and important message like Peterson present their ideas at university campuses or on media.  Some extreme individuals drown out their voices.  No one knows the credentials or arguments of these individuals, but in a fearful way, campuses allow these elements to dominate and set the agenda.  Consequently, speaking engagements are canceled, debate is shut down, our thinking isn't challenged.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Scott Mayers]

On 8/19/2018 at 8:27 PM, Zeitgeist said:

While I hear what you're saying about the pendulum swinging too politically correct or failing to appreciate historical context and rewriting history, I think you have to look at these situations case by case.  If a symbol or historical figure offends people, rather than rushing to judgement French Revolution style and cutting the heads off of the statues, we need to have open discussions between representatives of the various sides who can best articulate their faction's arguments.  At that point, people can make informed decisions and apply pressure one way or the other to the political/organizational leadership or through elections.  I think the danger that we face as a society is when an extreme but vocal faction is given carte blanche to dictate.  In a democracy we believe that most people are fair-minded and we can point to historical precedents and charters/bills that remind us of the fundamental protections of certain rights.  Courts can help us interpret how these controversies should be regarded in relation to our socially agreed upon values.  The point is, there needs to be thought, consideration, and discussion before these decisions are made.  I've seen it happen too often when speakers with a different and important message like Peterson present their ideas at university campuses or on media.  Some extreme individuals drown out their voices.  No one knows the credentials or arguments of these individuals, but in a fearful way, campuses allow these elements to dominate and set the agenda.  Consequently, speaking engagements are canceled, debate is shut down, our thinking isn't challenged.

Personally I'm more of a fan of things like archaeology and think that ANYONE"s history, whether good or bad, is all of ours, not something owned by some particular group based on genetic associations. The media is actually more responsible for creating diversity by announcing the protest with added innuendo of it being representative of some racist issue. It draws out both extremes. 

Regardless, instead of destruction as they were clearly intending to rile up others by doing, they can opt to find a means to MOVE those symbols into a museum and asking those who DO support the extremes to participate to preserve them with respect. We are proving how absurd this is today here in Canada as now people are demanding that John A MacDonald's statues should be destroyed with extreme offence. 

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/19/2018 at 10:06 PM, Zeitgeist said:

1. Jordan Peterson is a brilliant dose of realism.  I don't understand the fuss.  2. His work has helped so many people.

1. The 'fuss' is that he's a mushy thinker and imprecise speaker and isn't saying anything particularly brilliant.  So people make a fuss because they wonder why others are making such a fuss.

2.  Which is fine, but usually said about self-help types (which he is) and not academics.

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The 'fuss' is that he's a mushy thinker and imprecise speaker and isn't saying anything particularly brilliant.  So people make a fuss because they wonder why others are making such a fuss.

Peterson is, however, a good debater and fascinating to watch in that role. I don't buy into a lot of his male psychology buzz but think he has some interesting insights into broader cultural issues.

[Leon]

On 5/12/2018 at 5:07 PM, Argus said:

Well, you called him a 'shit intellectual'. I don't think that's criticizing  ideas. And when you criticize someone in such a fashion you are by inference sneering at/ dismissing those who have read/watched/listened to him and agree with him on a number of issues. That's unlikely to get you much favorable intellectual discussion in return.

 

Calling Peterson a 'shit intellectual'  isn't criticism.   It is merely mindless 'white noise' and deserves the appropriate attention.

[WestCanMan]

My tribe is non-hyphenated Canadians. 

Wait a sec, there’s a hyphen, and the word hyphen in that. 

Now what?