American democracy and its double standards

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I guess we’re into semantics.  I’d say we’re using racial, not racist, language.  Anyway I don’t see too much mean spirited discussion on here.  It gets heated and people get angry, which is fine.  

 

It can be whatever the admin wants on this private forum, but those rules don't apply in the public space for America.

Canada has already been called out for using the very racist term "visible minority" by the UN and other groups, but usage still continues.   I suspect that Team Trudeau will go after this next.

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It can be whatever the admin wants on this private forum, but those rules don't apply in the public space for America.

Canada has already been called out for using the very racist term "visible minority" by the UN and other groups, but usage still continues.   I suspect that Team Trudeau will go after this next.

I really don’t understand how the term visible minority can be construed as racist.  Will we stop calling the sky blue?  If you have a different physical appearance from the majority of the population, then the group with which you share such visible traits is in minority.  So what?  I also have an issue with the word racialized, which makes race sound like mutilation. We all have race.  I find it interesting how some words used to provide a factual description  are very charged.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I really don’t understand how the term visible minority can be construed as racist.  Will we stop calling the sky blue?  If you have a different physical appearance from the majority of the population, then the group with which you share such visible traits is in minority.  So what?  I also have an issue with the word racialized, which makes race sound like mutilation. We all have race.  I find it interesting how some words used to provide a factual description  are very charged.  

 

The very concept of "race" is a social construct that has been used to label and subjugate other people throughout history.    Canada's use of the term "visible minority" in employment law (and adopted as a mainstream label elsewhere in public and private contexts) has been criticized by the UN because at its foundation, the visible attributes of whites (even though that varies widely) forms the baseline to which all others are compared and defined, with the exception of "aboriginals", who have their own racist label gauntlet to run in Canada.

Whites/caucasian peoples are not the standard to which others should be compared and categorized by government....that is inherently "racist".

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/visible-minority-a-misleading-concept-that-ought-to-be-retired/article12445364/

 

[Zeitgeist]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The very concept of "race" is a social construct that has been used to label and subjugate other people throughout history.    Canada's use of the term "visible minority" in employment law (and adopted as a mainstream label elsewhere in public and private contexts) has been criticized by the UN because at its foundation, the visible attributes of whites (even though that varies widely) forms the baseline to which all others are compared and defined, with the exception of "aboriginals", who have their own racist label gauntlet to run in Canada.

Whites/caucasian peoples are not the standard to which others should be compared and categorized by government....that is inherently "racist".

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/visible-minority-a-misleading-concept-that-ought-to-be-retired/article12445364/

 

Well I disagree.  As a white person I would be a visible minority in India, China, or Kenya.  Big deal.  I think these are perhaps the most dangerous kinds of accusations because if I don’t like what someone has to say about a topic, I can change my identifier and make accusations of retrograde language.  Jordan Peterson discusses this problem.  Since he refused to use a particular pronoun promoted by some activists to describe transgender people, he was accused of discrimination. His argument was that he was being required to consent to a particular interpretation of people.  The outcry from the far left on campuses was almost deafening.  It was extremism and attempted censorship.  

That’s not to say that language doesn’t change over time.  It’s inappropriate today to refer to blacks as negros.  However that change in usage happened gradually.  If my grandfather said negro today, I’d think, okay that’s dated, but I wouldn’t attack his character over it.  I have to remember his context and what he’s used to.  

There’s too much judging the actions of the past with today’s lens.  We know a lot of things that happened are inappropriate by today’s standards.  When people know better, generally they do better.  We too will be deemed retrograde   

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well I disagree.  As a white person I would be a visible minority in India, China, or Kenya.  Big deal.  I think these are perhaps the most dangerous kinds of accusations because if I don’t like what someone has to say about a topic, I can change my identifier and make accusations of retrograde language.  Jordan Peterson discusses this problem.  Since he refused to use a particular pronoun promoted by some activists to describe transgender people, he was accused of discrimination. His argument was that he was being required to consent to a particular interpretation of people.  The outcry from the far left on campuses was almost deafening.  It was extremism and attempted censorship.  

 

That's fine, but you have demonstrated why censorship of such terminology means less liberty...less freedom of expression/speech.

Surely you do not contend that you get to pick and choose which terms are acceptable while others are "hate speech".

This matter has already been settled in the U.S. courts, decades before cheeky millennials discovered the power of words on social media.

Whatever happens in Canada to limit speech in the interest of "peace, order, and good government" is up to Canadians, but such limits will not pass constitutional muster in the United States.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine, but you have demonstrated why censorship of such terminology means less liberty...less freedom of expression/speech.

Surely you do not contend that you get to pick and choose which terms are acceptable while others are "hate speech".

This matter has already been settled in the U.S. courts, decades before cheeky millennials discovered the power of words on social media.

Whatever happens in Canada to limit speech in the interest of "peace, order, and good government" is up to Canadians, but such limits will not pass constitutional muster in the United States.

Free speech is alive and well here and I think most people here would see the absurdity of much of the nitpicking over what constitutes the most politically correct language this week.  Incendiary language, I would argue, is still a problem. It doesn’t happen often, and very little of it is ever deemed illegal in the US or Canada, but it’s still dangerous.  I’m not advocating censorship, except in extreme instances.  I do advocate sensitivity for some issues and people.  That’s usually where common decency comes in, which isn’t always that common. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Free speech is alive and well here and I think most people here would see the absurdity of much of the nitpicking over what constitutes the most politically correct language this week.  Incendiary language, I would argue, is still a problem. It doesn’t happen often, and very little of it is ever deemed illegal in the US or Canada, but it’s still dangerous.  I’m not advocating censorship, except in extreme instances.  I do advocate sensitivity for some issues and people.  That’s usually where common decency comes in, which isn’t always that common. 

 

Sorry, but not good enough.   The most profane forms of speech need the most protections, along with speech in opposition to any such views.

"Common decency" is not a legal or constitutional standard.

With so called "hate speech" laws on the books, there is less liberty in Canada, but that is Canada's choice to make.

 

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sorry, but not good enough.   The most profane forms of speech need the most protections, along with speech in opposition to any such views.

"Common decency" is not a legal or constitutional standard.

With so called "hate speech" laws on the books, there is less liberty in Canada, but that is Canada's choice to make.

 

We have a safer, less violent society than yours for reasons.  Perhaps consider what those reasons might be.  They might help avert some serious problems.  I know most Americans are proud of the First Amendment, and we have our own speech protections, but there’s a downside to certain freedoms when they compromise other freedoms, such as protection of the person.  I see far more downsides in your Second Amendment, for example, than upsides, but I’m used to hearing the religious fervour in support of it from many Americans, so I don’t expect it to disappear.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

We have a safer, less violent society than yours for reasons.  Perhaps consider what those reasons might be.  They might help avert some serious problems.  I know most Americans are proud of the First Amendment, and we have our own speech protections, but there’s a downside to certain freedoms when they compromise other freedoms, such as protection of the person.  I see far more downsides in your Second Amendment, for example, than upsides, but I’m used to hearing the religious fervour in support of it from many Americans, so I don’t expect it to disappear.  

 

Nor should it disappear...such are the things that make the United States different from Canada...from the very beginning.

Trading constitutional liberties for security may be quite acceptable to many (but not all) in Canada, but that is not the case in the USA.

BTW, American media and social media platforms dominate Canada, so the "fervour" does quite well there.

 

[Zeitgeist]

25 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nor should it disappear...such are the things that make the United States different from Canada...from the very beginning.

Trading constitutional liberties for security may be quite acceptable to many (but not all) in Canada, but that is not the case in the USA.

BTW, American media and social media platforms dominate Canada, so the "fervour" does quite well there.

 

I think we influence the US more than you suggest.  We’re on and in that media too.  In many respects it’s all integrated. Both countries are able to adopt whatever policy choices they want.  

Edited March 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think we influence the US more than you suggest.  We’re on and in that media too.  In many respects it’s all integrated. Both countries are able to adopt whatever policy choices they want.  

 

I have searched for but have yet to find any Canadian social media platforms that dominate in the U.S. the way Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram do in Canada.

American media content is also very popular, complete with guns blazing, violence and "racism"....so much so....the CRTC tries to fight it off with CanCon protectionism.

Edited March 20, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes I will in extreme instances.  Marching through Jewish communities waving swastikas and chanting “dirty Jews die” when these residents’ parents or grandparents were murdered by Nazis who thought and said the same things is too much of an abuse of people to be justified as a mere expression of free speech.  

It's not just a mere expression of free speech, but it is free speech, and it should not be banned just because people's feelings will be hurt. Free speech is more important than Jews not being subjected to speech they don't like, no matter how justifiable it is that they are offended.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[paxamericana]

On 3/18/2019 at 11:44 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I’m not for banning most speech even when I know some of that speech is irresponsible, but when speech infringes on other freedoms like a child’s ability to walk to school and be in public places without being called racist insults, a line is crossed.

To put it in perspective, being rude to someone or saying something mean can be considered hate speech and therefore be liable to the state sending people to jail. Regardless of what hate speech is even overtly racist rants, should still be protected under free speech. This is why I think the american protection of free speech is superior. Most western enlightenment ideals  outside the US is fading. This notion that hate speech is the justification to silence people lead to the gulags and concentration camps. 

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 Free speech is more important than Jews not being subjected to speech they don't like, no matter how justifiable it is that they are offended.

There's no utility in it.  I am great with banning this.  We ban loud music and nudity and this is less useful and more offensive.

Libertarians and Professors can have a free speech room on the edge of town somewhere.

[OftenWrong]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no utility in it.  I am great with banning this.  We ban loud music and nudity and this is less useful and more offensive.

Libertarians and Professors can have a free speech room on the edge of town somewhere.

The utility should be a way to ridicule and expose them, not prohibit and make it go underground. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The utility should be a way to ridicule and expose them, not prohibit and make it go underground. 

That is proven to not work.  See Charlottesville.

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is proven to not work.  See Charlottesville.

As if charlosttesville represent everyday life when two people disagree. 

[Argus]

On 3/4/2019 at 12:24 AM, imnotyou said:

Thus, racism has not gone away from the United States with their vaunted freedom and democracy, and moreover, it exists both for black and white people. This is an obvious evidence of double standards. Moreover, the unshakable confidence of Americans in the exclusivity of their freedom and democracy led to the fact that American policy in the world is perceived as Washington`s hypocrisy which tends to condemn the actions of other people, ignoring their own shortcomings.

This is an incoherent rant without any underlying logic or fact. Because a comedienne says something nasty that's evidence of racism? Because some cops were called on a sleeping black woman that's an indictment of society? Every international assessment of racism puts India as the most racist society, and the US and the rest of the West as the least racist societies on Earth. The racism that exists in the US is a fraction of what used to exist and still exists throughout the world. Certainly it can't hold a candle to the racism of India, Europe or the middle East.

[Argus]

23 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes I will in extreme instances.  Marching through Jewish communities waving swastikas and chanting “dirty Jews die” when these residents’ parents or grandparents were murdered by Nazis who thought and said the same things is too much of an abuse of people to be justified as a mere expression of free speech.  

And yet, some Jewish lawyers decided it did. Because they felt unrestricted freedom of speech was the best protection available against demagogues. Speech is very, very heavily restricted in parts of Europe, like France and the UK, when it comes to any critical commentary on other races, religions or ethnicity. It has noticeably NOT resulted in a feeling of togetherness and the absence of racism and extremism.

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no utility in it.  I am great with banning this.  We ban loud music and nudity and this is less useful and more offensive.

Libertarians and Professors can have a free speech room on the edge of town somewhere.

It doesn't matter if there is no utility to it, it is protected free speech. How offensive or useful certain speech is, does not effect whether it should be protected free speech or not. Loud music and public nudity are not banned because they are too offensive and lack utility, that has nothing to do with it.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

18 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I have searched for but have yet to find any Canadian social media platforms that dominate in the U.S. the way Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram do in Canada.

American media content is also very popular, complete with guns blazing, violence and "racism"....so much so....the CRTC tries to fight it off with CanCon protectionism.

Kik and Pornhub

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

It doesn't matter if there is no utility to it, it is protected free speech. How offensive or useful certain speech is, does not effect whether it should be protected free speech or not. Loud music and public nudity are not banned because they are too offensive and lack utility, that has nothing to do with it.

So do you have anything to say other than it's free speech?  I think they should shut it down.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

So do you have anything to say other than it's free speech?  I think they should shut it down.

None of the reasons you give for shutting it down are good, you are suggesting restricting people's rights for no good reason. If you don't have a good argument, you certainly don't get to restrict free speech with that argument as justification, the burden of proof is on you to prove why the restrictions are necessary, not on the people who don't want their rights restricted, to prove that they aren't necessary.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is proven to not work.  See Charlottesville.

Ignorance is the bigger threat.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So do you have anything to say other than it's free speech?  I think they should shut it down.

 

No can do...it would be like shutting down hockey in Canada.