Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 14 hours ago, Rue said: 1. People who claim to be experts on racism means what exactly> How does someone with some academic degree or a presumption in their mind they are experts, become an expert on racism? The very notion is idiotic. 2. Shalom, and then some. 1. You could ask that about anything. People who claim to be experts on law means what exactly ? Just because they studied and practised for decades they know more than me ? 2. The rest of the post was pretty much more of the same, so I kept the 'Shalom' as #2 and shalom back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 The thing that bugged me when I read the thread is that nobody knows what the government is doing, but they know damn well they're against it. And based on the government's reputation, I can see why but still... why not wait until it comes out what they're doing ? Yes, they shouldn't have secret consultations, but presumably it will come out at some point. And - out of curiosity - is there any government survey on racism, any consultation that you would be ok with ? I mean, there are signs that it's a problem right ? And governments are supposed to solve problems. If you accept that the government has the right and power to act in this area, I will accept your criticism of how they're doing it. And we can start with their furtive fact-gathering as complaint #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: The thing that bugged me when I read the thread is that nobody knows what the government is doing, but they know damn well they're against it. And based on the government's reputation, I can see why but still... why not wait until it comes out what they're doing ? Yes, they shouldn't have secret consultations, but presumably it will come out at some point. And - out of curiosity - is there any government survey on racism, any consultation that you would be ok with ? I mean, there are signs that it's a problem right ? And governments are supposed to solve problems. If you accept that the government has the right and power to act in this area, I will accept your criticism of how they're doing it. And we can start with their furtive fact-gathering as complaint #1. I think it's probably more your view of the subject and the views of those who commented that bugged you the most. You can see why those views are expressed, and you agree it shouldn't be secret, but it still bugs you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 I don't know if am against it because I don't really know what they are doing. If they are going to use it to make laws, they will need to be a lot more transparent about how they got there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 41 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I think it's probably more your view of the subject and the views of those who commented that bugged you the most. You can see why those views are expressed, and you agree it shouldn't be secret, but it still bugs you. Not really. I think the way the Liberals go about doing things is arrogant at best and anti-democratic at worst. But I also can't blame them, given the fact that there are only a handful of people who are capable of discussing such topics thoughtfully and no national leaders who can proxy for the different points of view represented by Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Not really. I think the way the Liberals go about doing things is arrogant at best and anti-democratic at worst. But I also can't blame them, given the fact that there are only a handful of people who are capable of discussing such topics thoughtfully and no national leaders who can proxy for the different points of view represented by Canadians. I think there are a lot of people who are capable of discussing such topics thoughtfully. The problem is, some of them might disagree with liberals. And the best way of dealing with people who disagree with you is to pretend you haven't heard them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I think there are a lot of people who are capable of discussing such topics thoughtfully. The problem is, some of them might disagree with liberals. And the best way of dealing with people who disagree with you is to pretend you haven't heard them. As a raw number, maybe yes, but not as a percentage. How exactly can you have a 'public' conversation when there is no 'public'. Sure, the Liberals would stack the deck anyway (any government would) but how would you do the discussion anyway ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: As a raw number, maybe yes, but not as a percentage. How exactly can you have a 'public' conversation when there is no 'public'. Sure, the Liberals would stack the deck anyway (any government would) but how would you do the discussion anyway ? I wouldn't. It would never have occurred to me if I hadn't read about it on here. Given they are, openness is better than secrecy, in my opinion. You can't always get what you want with open discussion though, so as you say, the deck will probably be stacked to come to the correct conclusion, even if it's incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I wouldn't. It would never have occurred to me if I hadn't read about it on here. Given they are, openness is better than secrecy, in my opinion. You can't always get what you want with open discussion though, so as you say, the deck will probably be stacked to come to the correct conclusion, even if it's incorrect. Well, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: Well, exactly. It's nice to agree every now and then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Rue said: I look like. Ted Cruz....green and jello like. Ewwww,. That should even give a vulture pause to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 7 hours ago, bcsapper said: It's nice to agree every now and then. No it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h102 Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 I don't see a debate as useful, the government usually does not hold debate on these issues, what they do however do is have consultations with experts and people directly effected by whatever topic they are making and having. So for instance, if we are talking gun regulation, we will have people who are pro-guns come out and consult and advise politicians on why there should be less gun regulation and not a ban. We also will have some anti-gun people come out and advise the counter to that. So with racism, we are going to have the diversity consultants, racialized persons etc come out as the anti-racism side. So which person is going to come out and argue and debate in favor of racism?... .... .... This is the real reason why a debate would be impossible. While Canada is a tolerant country to a degree, it is not a racism free zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: The thing that bugged me when I read the thread is that nobody knows what the government is doing, but they know damn well they're against it. And based on the government's reputation, I can see why but still... why not wait until it comes out what they're doing ? Yes, they shouldn't have secret consultations, but presumably it will come out at some point. And - out of curiosity - is there any government survey on racism, any consultation that you would be ok with ? I mean, there are signs that it's a problem right ? And governments are supposed to solve problems. If you accept that the government has the right and power to act in this area, I will accept your criticism of how they're doing it. And we can start with their furtive fact-gathering as complaint #1. What are the other things the government is not telling us about? Are people that naive to think that is the only thing they are keeping quiet about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningrite Posted October 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, h102 said: I don't see a debate as useful, the government usually does not hold debate on these issues, what they do however do is have consultations with experts and people directly effected by whatever topic they are making and having. So with racism, we are going to have the diversity consultants, racialized persons etc come out as the anti-racism side. So which person is going to come out and argue and debate in favor of racism?... .... .... This is the real reason why a debate would be impossible. In any consultation one should hope that all sides are heard. What's needed is perspective. Where you raise the issue that few if any are likely going to come out and argue in favor of racism,you entirely miss the point. The real objective of any effective analysis should be to determine whether our interventionist policies are accomplishing their intended goals, whether they're creating negative or unintended consequences and, ultimately, whether they're necessary at all. A piece published in the NP several months ago (link below) indicates that minority representation on university faculties has now achieved equity in terms of broadly reflecting minority vs majority demographics but the piece notes that equity advocates still aren't satisfied and apparently seek ever more 'equity', a mission that apparently will never reach completion. The goalposts have now been moved and equality of outcomes based on measures chosen by the advocates as well as specific representation for less advantaged sub-groups, presumably in the latter instance at the expense of the majority representation even though some other equity sub-groups are now over-represented, are the new targets. Presumably, under-representation of the majority is the intended even if not explicitly acknowledged goal here. So, what is equity? What should it look like and what should it hope to achieve while maintaining a semblance of fairness for those not favored by its requirements. These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed lest the general public develop the impression that the whole enterprise is simply a game that intends to reallocate public resources to meet the political objectives of constituencies favored by government. Is this all part of what Maxime Bernier has described as "extreme" diversity and multiculturalism? Is the Trudeau government even concerned about the answer to that question? Probably not, but I suspect many Canadians are. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/turns-out-there-is-discrimination-in-hiring-professors-but-not-against-minorities Edited October 18, 2018 by turningrite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 1 hour ago, GostHacked said: What are the other things the government is not telling us about? Are people that naive to think that is the only thing they are keeping quiet about? What people are naive about is in thinking that Trudeau's promise of openness and transparency would actually be a 'thing' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 2 hours ago, GostHacked said: What are the other things the government is not telling us about? Are people that naive to think that is the only thing they are keeping quiet about? Hopefully when conservatives are in power next time they'll enact legislation that makes the avoidance of transparency a crime. How hard can it be to outlaw in-camera lobbying for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 8:10 AM, turningrite said: According to a report published in the G&M, Ottawa has commenced a secretive consultation on racism, hoping to avoid any public backlash that might emerge if Canadians were permitted to openly debate the topic. This suggests that insiders, presumably heavily represented by advocates and lobbyists from the funded identity and "diversity" industry will have the field to themselves to convince the government that Canadians are truly and hopelessly racist. Meanwhile, international studies and comparisons actually identify Canada as being among the world's most tolerant countries. Reportedly, the advocates are already complaining that the concept of "systemic" racism has been taken off the table by the government. The notion of a hidden hand in racism must presumably be permitted to reflect their 'a priori' logic. Is this consultation really necessary or is it simply a prelude to more socioeconomic interference and virtue-signalling on the part of progressives as well as a government that's already heavily invested in the identity-politics game? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-holds-consultations-on-racism-behind-closed-doors/ Why the secrecy? The government apparently does not want we the white people in Canada to know as to what they are up too. It would appear as though non white minority special interest groups and immigration lobbyists and lawyers are starting to dictate to Canadians as to how our immigration policies here in Canada are going to work if what you wrote above is true. How can Canadians be considered racist at all when the majority of our new immigrants and refugees(80%)are all coming from the non-white world. That does not make Canadians appear to be hopelessly racist. That makes white people to appear to be a bit stunned and way too tolerant. Personally, I would call it a program and agenda for white genocide. It would appear as though it is the white people who are on the receiving end of racism here in Canada today. White people are being replaced by non-whites in Canada by an immigration policy that favors more nonwhite immigration and to a less white immigration policy. Canadians are being forced to accept other cultures that they will have to live and work with. I don't remember being asked for this? I guess that I must have missed the memo that was put out by our dear leaders? Curious? Do our politicians work for Canada or the rest of the world? Just wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 8:57 AM, GostHacked said: It might be part of this SJW bullshit we keep hearing about. Don't want to offend anyone, bunch of snowflakes. The government needs to give us the information/data. Otherwise we cannot even make a proper decision on it based on the info they give. Stupid government. Maybe it is time to start offending more people for a change. Start pissing off the leftist SJW bullshitters and really give them something to whine and cry about. Canadians need to start to demand more input into all of this nonsense about racism and just how bad it really is supposed to be in Canada. We cannot rely on the government for anything anymore. They do what they want to do and to am with what you or me have to think or say. When something is suppose to be kept secret and kept behind closed doors than that is the time to want to demand openness. It is not the government that is stupid here. It is more like we the people are the stupid ones here because we let the government constantly get away with things like this. For this prime mistake of ours who said that if elected transparency will be the rule of his government than you know that is a downright lie because there is no government that believes in transparency. If they did then they would all get fired or they would have to be up front and honest something politicians are not very good at doing. Probably just about all politicians appear to only know how to lie, cheat and steal taxpayer's tax dollars. But hey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 10:11 AM, turningrite said: Of course, one has to assume the Trudeau government is only interested in hearing polarized, predetermined positions that are unaffected by reason, evidence, facts or rational thought, provided they bolster the government's predetermined positions and its identity politics approach to campaigning and policy. It looks like this "consultation" will be conducted within an echo chamber, a fact utterly consistent with the government's general approach to such issues. One side of the debate only, please! "Too know only one side of the story is too know nothing at all". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 11:23 AM, dialamah said: Tell me, of what use is "public debate"? A bunch of media talking heads on CBC, Global, Globe and Mail, National Post, etc, being rejected by ~30% of the population because they're "Liberal supporters"? Refusal by the same demographic to trust studies by experts or academics, preferring to use questionable sources and unverified claims to declare the experts liars? People on social media or political forums arguing their partisanship and throwing insults to anyone who fails to take their opinion as "absolute truth"? Public "debate", what a joke. Consultation with people who know what they are talking about seems like a good idea to me. The only people who object to this are those who have made up their minds that racism is non-existent in Canada, or that only white people are discriminated against because "diversity" and "White Liberal Guilt". Here in Canada there are minority hiring quotas being implemented by governments, and businesses that have to deal with the government, which to me is an act of racism. When we are told that there must be 10% of some minority must be hired is not only racism but communism. If anyone wants to start up a business and prefers to hire only people of their own color than so be it. It's their business and business to do what they want to do in their business. Chinese restaurant owners prefer to only hire other Chinese to work for them. I have yet to have gone into a Chinese restaurant ans saw some white person serving. That to me would appear to be an act of racism if one wants to take it that way. All this talk about racism is just that, all talk. If there are incidents of racism , so what, this is not a perfect world and besides if someone wants to be racist just where is it your business or mine to say anything about it? Anyone should be able to dam well hate or be racist to anyone that they wish too. Racism is here to stay and it goes on in just about in every country on earth. I believe that racism is being pushed so as to allow the government to enact more hatred laws to shut people up from being able to have an honest debate on racism that is supposed to be so big in Canada. Secrecy is not the right way to go about trying to solve a problem. It makes the government appear as though it has something to hide. And besides, it is your tax dollars that are being used to help keep you out of the loop as to what is going on. Canadians really need to start to open their constant closed mouths and stop allowing themselves to be intimidated by the government or the leftist liberal media in Canada. When the day comes when we see the clan marching down some main street in Canada by the tens of thousands then you will have something to cry about. But until then relax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 On 10/17/2018 at 10:19 AM, dialamah said: Sent it back; you need it far more than I do with you anxiety over minorities, the government and White guy persecution. "White guy persecution". Are you not aware that what you said above can be seen as racist against white people? I took offence to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 2 hours ago, eyeball said: Hopefully when conservatives are in power next time they'll enact legislation that makes the avoidance of transparency a crime. How hard can it be to outlaw in-camera lobbying for example? Very hard indeed. Politicians do not like transparency. It would screw up their planned programs and agendas that they may want to force on we the people without debate behind closed doors. A good plan but it ain't going to happen, pardner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I can't engage when I have 2 minutes as t coffee and only my phone. Some are on here all day. Please. You engage when you selectively feel like it. Save it Saint Michael of the Hardner. Regards, Rue of the Ruins 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 18, 2018 Report Share Posted October 18, 2018 4 hours ago, eyeball said: Hopefully when conservatives are in power next time they'll enact legislation that makes the avoidance of transparency a crime. How hard can it be to outlaw in-camera lobbying for example? Two days pot is league and you are reduced to some sort of stoned jargon. Get back to me when the buzz is off. Or buzz off. Or whatever. I think you might try answer in Ojibiwa. It would be easier to understand, 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.