Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

The same treatment for all always seems the simplest to simple minds that can't comprehend the complexities of real life. 

But in reality, racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of personal and systemic discrimination and bigotry do exist, and do result in unequal treatment of some people. It is not "special privileges" to provide laws and means to try to compensate for society's discrimination and mistreatment of some groups of people.

2 wrongs don't make a right.  Giving someone ie: a job because of their skin colour or sex is discrimination, it's sexism and racism.  Quotas are set up completely arbitrarily.  The ends don't justify the means.  When minorities are discriminated against we need to fight that and charge people with crimes.

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, jacee said:

Oh, you're one of Bernier's white supremacist thugs! 

I saw video, punching a man and ripping his sign because it celebrated "inclusion". 

Why is it that white supremacists never want to acknowledge that that's what they are? Ashamed of the truth? 

It's because you don't know what a White Supremacist is, and you simply think anyone who disagrees with you is a White Supremacist. That's why we don't admit to your bullsh*t accusations, you're so off the mark it's comical.

I've seen lots of video of Antifa doing far worse than the supposed "White Supremacists" you claim to be fighting. Acting like you are on the side of the angels is laughable, you might be able to fool yourself, but you don't fool me. You're the real fascists Antifa.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Zeitgeist]

Jacee’s judgments are dangerous because such accusations destroy careers and reputations.  Instead of discussing a particular argument or weighing facts, he is resorting to alarmist insult.  It reminds me of the Salem witch trials or the local community spies who reported on counterrevolutionaries in Stalin’s Soviet Union.  It’s another Spanish Inquisition, another McCarthyism.  The victims are truth and democracy.  

[jacee]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

2 wrongs don't make a right.  Giving someone ie: a job because of their skin colour or sex is discrimination, it's sexism and racism.  Quotas are set up completely arbitrarily.  The ends don't justify the means.  When minorities are discriminated against we need to fight that and charge people with crimes.

I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. 

Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. 

I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense.

We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there.

But the tables will turn! 

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Jacee’s judgments are dangerous because such accusations destroy careers and reputations.  Instead of discussing a particular argument or weighing facts, he is resorting to alarmist insult.  It reminds me of the Salem witch trials or the local community spies who reported on counterrevolutionaries in Stalin’s Soviet Union.  It’s another Spanish Inquisition, another McCarthyism.  The victims are truth and democracy.  

First Amendment.

American Freedom.

Manifest Destiny.

Accelerationism FTW.

[Zeitgeist]

There are reasons why not as many women hold positions of power that aren’t related to bias.  It often relates to life choices.  Also it’s less socially acceptable for a man to be unemployed or underemployed than a woman.  Those social pressures have real impacts on mental health, to the extent of suicide rates.  

I strongly support rules to remove names from resumes and student assessments.  Justice should be as blind as possible.  Points for intersectionalities is an arbitrary and dangerous sinkhole.  

[Yzermandius19]

The amount of loserthink going on in jacee's head is funny stuff.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

The amount of loserthink going on in jacee's head is funny stuff.

Maggie Thatcher knows.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Maggie Thatcher knows.

They'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

Argie Bastards.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Jacee’s judgments are dangerous because such accusations destroy careers and reputations.  Instead of discussing a particular argument or weighing facts, he is resorting to alarmist insult.  It reminds me of the Salem witch trials or the local community spies who reported on counterrevolutionaries in Stalin’s Soviet Union.  It’s another Spanish Inquisition, another McCarthyism.  The victims are truth and democracy.  

"he"=she

Whose career? Whose reputation? How? Hahahaha

[Dougie93]

Just now, jacee said:

"he"=she

Crazy Old Bat. /shrugs

[Zeitgeist]

It’s the non-binary “zhe” or “they” according to the latest edition of Politically Correct Weekly.  

[WestCanMan]

On 10/6/2019 at 5:43 PM, Zeitgeist said:

MLK had it right: no discrimination based on colour, race, religion, or creed.  Keep it simple.  No special privileges for any groups.  No Bill 21.  No Indian Act.

To be honest, Bill 21 isn't discriminatory. No one is allowed to display any religious symbols at all while they're working for the government. Not Christians, not Jews, not Sikhs, not Muslims, no one.

If it was just one group or another that would be discriminatory.

I haven't read the whole Bill but I would imagine that political expressions aren't allowed either. Eg, MAGA hats or Trudeau hats or Bloc hats, etc. 

If you wanted to make a stink though Zeitgeist, which I'm sure you probably do, you could make a point of the fact that their flag has Fleur-de-Lys all over it, and the flag flies at all of the schools and government buildings.

The Fleur de Lis is widely used in European Heraldry and I'm pretty sure that represents a mix of French Roman Catholicism and Monarchy. There are countries outside of France that use the symbol but they're all Christian. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. 

Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. 

I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense.

We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there.

But the tables will turn! 

That's a really racist and sexist post jacee, through and through, and your comment that "the tables will turn" is a rally pathetic and racist wishlist.

I think that "white boss men", or anyone who's considered a "boss", would have a huge problem with your attitude, and it's not even something that you can just check at the door. It's a big, ugly part of who you are. 

You need to learn to be a positive person, and notice what's good in people, and you will find that you will have a hard time associating with your current crowd having conversations about entire races that you hate. 

 

[Abies]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

2 wrongs don't make a right.  Giving someone ie: a job because of their skin colour or sex is discrimination, it's sexism and racism.  Quotas are set up completely arbitrarily.  The ends don't justify the means.  When minorities are discriminated against we need to fight that and charge people with crimes.

It is discrimination, but it isn’t illegal discrimination. 

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, jacee said:

I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. 

Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. 

I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense.

We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there.

But the tables will turn! 

Hey this is 2015 baby...that shit do happen any more Justin is in charge didn't you here...what a bunch of crap....Those that only hire old white guys are only hurting themselves....the rest of the world has moved on,  and if they did not, the government has forced change where it could.....they have been forced into hiring specific groups over more qualified individuals such as DND for example . if your a women of color your raced to the front of the line regardless of test  scores or physical limitations....we have gone from one extreme to the other, reverse discrimination....And all of it is due to some politician looking at a graph after listening to some self proclaimed feminist jumping up and down claiming that hiring practices are skewed some how....and saying hey why is there not more female infantry candidates or female RCMP officers, or Coast Guard members…. lets fix that , cut back on the males until we correct this....... Every government dept is the same...Keeping in mind most women do not even want to be infantry officers, they want to have different career choices. Don't get me wrong some of the best Infantry officers I've served with are female ...but they will never be on equal numbers with male counter parts...because females are not attracted to these jobs...

Here is a new concept that we should all wrap our minds around, it's a new concept ready...how about we hire the best candidate for the job, male or female... Oh and by the way it is illegal to discriminate for any of those reasons... except when it is the government making the rules then it is ok to target specific people for their color of skin or gender, religious beliefs.....what we need is some common sense to prevail , but we are not ready for common sense just yet...

 

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, jacee said:

I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. 

Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. 

I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense.

We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there.

But the tables will turn! 

I don't disagree with that.  I'm saying discriminating against white people and men etc. is not the answer.

Now if you do, you better be 100% sure, not 99.9% sure, that there is discrimination going on in that specific organization, and that in every single case without exception the EXACT number that is calculated in that specific organization and in that specific position as resulting from discrimination is replaced appropriately and exactly by the affirmative action.  Otherwise it's just as evil.  But of course this is rarely done and people just pull quota numbers out of thin air.

As for your CEO comment, we will likely never see equal #'s of male and female CEO's even with zero discrimination.  The reason is 1. more men tend to go into business fields than women, just like there are more females who graduate and work as medical doctors than men, 2. women who go into business won't strive for CEO positions at the same rate as men because some take time out of the work force to have and raise children, as well situations like single motherhood and caring for elderly parents that takes up more personal time.

Imbalances in gender and race are sometimes but not always due to discrimination.  There needs to be solid data in each case, like the resume studies you referred to.

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

To be honest, Bill 21 isn't discriminatory. No one is allowed to display any religious symbols at all while they're working for the government. Not Christians, not Jews, not Sikhs, not Muslims, no one.

If it was just one group or another that would be discriminatory.

I haven't read the whole Bill but I would imagine that political expressions aren't allowed either. Eg, MAGA hats or Trudeau hats or Bloc hats, etc. 

If you wanted to make a stink though Zeitgeist, which I'm sure you probably do, you could make a point of the fact that their flag has Fleur-de-Lys all over it, and the flag flies at all of the schools and government buildings.

The Fleur de Lis is widely used in European Heraldry and I'm pretty sure that represents a mix of French Roman Catholicism and Monarchy. There are countries outside of France that use the symbol but they're all Christian. 

I actually fully support religious expression and a country’s right to recognize its religious roots, as long as no one is discriminated against on the basis of religion.  Perhaps this is an outlier view, but what concerns me about Bill 21 is that we’re cutting off our nose to spite our face, putting down all religious expression when the truth is that the real issue is religious or ideological expression that promotes hate or oppression.  It’s arguable that certain forms of religious dress are oppressive, such as the burka, but that doesn’t mean headscarves and crucifixes or yarmulkes should be banned.  It’s a draconian law that infringes on religious freedom, worse than Bill 101, Quebec’s fascist language law.  

Edited October 9, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I actually fully support religious expression and a country’s right to recognize its religious roots, as long as no one is discriminated on the basis of religion.  Perhaps this is an outlier view, but what concerns me about Bill 21 is that we’re cutting off our nose to spite our face, putting down all religious expression when the truth is that the real issue is religious or ideological expression that promotes hate or oppression.  It’s arguable that certain forms of religious dress are oppressive, such as the burka, but that doesn’t mean headscarves and crucifixes or yarmulkes should be banned.  It’s a draconian law that infringes on religious freedom, worse than Bill 101, Quebec’s fascist language law.  

 

Islam is yer problem. Not the other religions so much. They don't generally want unbelievers to submit to their dogma. Islam does.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islam is yer problem. Not the other religions so much. They don't generally want unbelievers to submit to their dogma. Islam does.

Well there is extremism there, but Bill 21 tries to solve that problem by suppressing all religion.  Quebec has removed the crucifix from the legislature and she already eliminated Catholic education.  Quebec jumps to extreme reactions like Bill 21 because by the end of the Quiet Revolution and in recent years, Quebec shed many of her cultural traditions.  Quebec is basically following the Republic of France with Bill 21, a country with real problems with extremism.  

Edited October 9, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well there is extremism there, but Bill 21 tries to solve that problem by suppressing all religion.  Quebec has removed the crucifix from the legislature and she already eliminated Catholic education.  Quebec jumps to extreme reactions like Bill 21 because by the end of the Quiet Revolution and in recent years, Quebec shed many of her cultural traditions.  Quebec is basically following the Republic of France with Bill 21, a country with real problems with extremism.  

 

Destroying one's own culture in an attempt to mollify an aggressive invasive culture is always a bright idea.

Islam is the problem. Buddhists aren't the ones burning down cathedrals.  

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Abies said:

It is discrimination, but it isn’t illegal discrimination. 

Right, it's even protected in the Charter.  It should be illegal.  All racism and sexism should be illegal.

[Yzermandius19]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Right, it's even protected in the Charter.  It should be illegal.  All racism and sexism should be illegal.

It's only protected in the charter if the notwithstanding clause isn't invoked. The Charter isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

On 10/8/2019 at 2:33 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Jacee’s judgments are dangerous because such accusations destroy careers and reputations.

Only if people paid attention to her. And no one does.