This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No.  Rebel media isn't worthy of mention in the national media debate.  It doesn't just have it's flaws.  It's a clown show without even a shred of journalistic integrity, and serves no purpose other than to rile up an out-of-touch and wildly ignorant base, and to reassure in the face of their own ignorance.  

CTV isn't worthy of mention in the national media debate.  It doesn't just have it's flaws.  It's a clown show without even a shred of journalistic integrity, and serves no purpose other than to rile up an out-of-touch and wildly ignorant base, and to reassure in the face of their own ignorance.  

 

Case in point, the video that I just posted the other day where CTV opens their coverage by talking about Rayshard Brooks and summarizes the story thusly in their opening monologue:

"Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru."

Another version of the story that they ran with was "A black man was killed while running away from police."

That right there is the epitome of "not a shred of journalistic integrity".

Your turn moonbox. Dig up some lies, don't just run your mouth without a shred of proof of anything that you're saying.

People say the same thing about Fox, but when it comes time to put up some facts, I hear crickets.

You're a leftist who's been told: "Don't look at that news, it's fake", and so you run around yapping like a chihuahua "That's fake! That's fake!" but you really don't have a fucking clue.  

Quote

On the unapologetic Left, for example, we have newspapers like the Toronto Star.  They wear their partisanship pretty openly, but at least they make pretenses of professional journalism (coloured as it is by editorial bias).  One thing they don't do, however, is send confrontational granola reporters out to seek trouble and pick fights/arguments at neo-nazi rallies.   

Riiiight, so openly partisan is cool? Do they tip it off when they're about to start lying? Like say for example, "In 1996 we set a journalistic standard called 'bullshit that only a total idiot would believe' and we're still adhering to that standard today".

Let them go find some of these mythical neo-Nazis that we hear so much about. They're out there, right? I think I saw a picture of them all riding Ogopogo the other day, laughing and shooting RPGs into the poorer parts of Wakanda. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Who tells the truth, Rebel Media ? That's the same answer someone will give you on the other side for MSNBC. They are laughing at how easy it is to make money on division. You think the investors or whoever is running Rebel Media cares about the average Canadian ? This is not the same media from 80, 90's. Is called a propaganda machine that steps on individual rights by caving to group mobs. 

For me if I ever talk like I found the truth somewhere, in one place, I am in trouble, it is a sign that I have to keep searching as the truth is in the journey not in the destination.

Do you really think that the people who watch MSM don't know that they're being lied to? Those guys get busted all the time, and I know instantly that I'm being lied to when I watch CTV and CNN and CBC because their diatribe doesn't match their video. I can't speak much to MSNBC because I don't watch at all, but I'll say that for certain re: the others. 

Every story that they've run with and vouched for has fallen flat.

FYI, I don't think that Rebel Media is a comprehensive media outlet that reports on every topic known to man. They pick their spots. It's not a 1-stop-shop.

The reason that I have a far higher degree of trust in Rebel is that they have video of everything that I've ever watched there, and the content jives with the content of their videos.

I didn't just randomly decide to trust them. I see a lot of content on the web, conservative in nature, that I completely disregard. 

If you have some criticisms of Rebel, can you cite something, and comment on the inaccuracy of it? I do that all the time with the MSM. I'd appreciate some examples, I'm not much for 'random poster anecdotes'. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Funny how everyone talks about this 'systemic racism' word but no one seems able to point to it.

Sure they can but it's a lot like trying to point out global warming.

[Michael Hardner]

"Rebel Media has its flaws" 

 

Quote

During a Rebel mission to Israel from March 4 to 11 and on subsequent videos posted to YouTube and Rebel, Gavin McInnes recorded a series of caustic remarks about Israel and Jews in which he sometimes affected an exaggerated Israeli or Jewish accent.

McInnes, a co-founder of Vice Media, said Israelis have “a whiny, paranoid fear of Nazis.”

His Israeli hosts “assume we’re going to listen to all this s–t we get fed,” he added, “That’s having the reverse effect on me: I’m becoming anti-Semitic.”

Describing a visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial and museum in Jerusalem, “or as I called it,” he said, using air quotes “the Holocaust museum – no, I’m just kidding.”

He said he felt compelled to defend Holocaust deniers.

“I felt myself defending the super far-right Nazis just because I was sick of so much brainwashing and I felt like going, ‘Well, they never said it didn’t happen. What they’re saying is it was much less than six million and that they starved to death and weren’t gassed, that they didn’t have supplies,” McInnes says in one video.

“I’m not saying it wasn’t gassing. Please don’t take that clip out of context, but that’s what the far-right nuts are saying,” he continued.

“It’s like a liberal thing, it’s arguably a white thing, but it’s a Jewish thing to sort of dwell on the past. And this whole nation-state is talking about ‘Seventy-five years ago, my people were killed.’ Always the Jews, always killing us, we are the scapegoats.

“God, they’re so obsessed with the Holocaust. Yes, I know it was bad – don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-Holocaust.”

McInnes went on to falsely blame Jews for the deaths by starvation of millions of Ukrainians under Josef Stalin. “I think it was 10 million Ukrainians who were killed. That was by Jews. That was by Marxist, Stalinist, left-wing, commie, socialist Jews.”

He also blamed “Jewish intellectuals” for influencing the treaty that ended World War I and paved the way to World War II.

McInnes later uploaded a video titled “10 Things I Hate About Jews,” which was subsequently retitled as “10 Things I Hate About Israel.”

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/rebel-media-star-gets-flak-10-things-hate-jews-video

So ... yeah, go ahead WestCanMan... tell us again how CTV is worse than this.  Your credibility is less than zero.

[Independent1986]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

tell us again how CTV is worse than this.  Your credibility is less than zero.

Life is like a mathematical equation that always, in the end balances itself out.

Sometimes the numbers might be different on the right side or left side but always we reach a restart point, point 0 

(2+2)*3 = (1 + 2)*4

This has helped me a lot to maintain my neutrality, no need for my input. 

The criminal racist treatment of minorities in Israel always attracts other criminals to criticize like this Rebel Media reporter, both sides creating a ripple effect and conflict arises. And this goes back in history for all human kind.

Same with engaging in criminal activities, chances are when you do crime you might run into a criminal in uniform. Now that criminal in uniform will meet other criminals in prison.

Sometimes when I get overwhelmed by outside events I think about this simple equation and make sure I don't join either side because at the end the groups and fanatics will always get to a point 0. Why get in the middle of the chaos ?

Life is so easy when you focus on bettering yourself ! 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Independent1986

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Rebel Media has its flaws" 

 

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/rebel-media-star-gets-flak-10-things-hate-jews-video

So ... yeah, go ahead WestCanMan... tell us again how CTV is worse than this.  Your credibility is less than zero.

1) If you're going quote me, don't be a weasel and do it up front, so I get a notification that you're blabbing about me. I just randomly found this.

2) Ezra Levant is a Jew, and he owns Rebel. He wouldn't have an actual anti-Semite at Rebel.

3) Gavin McInnes is a shock comic with offensive taste. I'm sure that you find Dave Chapelle funny and he is an actual racist and fear monger. FYI being a fear monger is the actual worst kind of bigotry there is. 

4) If you want to be honest, Jews (and other arm-waving groups) have been a bit less than honest, actually misleading with the whole portrayal of the holocaust. I actually thought that it was the only genocide in human history until I was in high school, based on the way that the event is portrayed in Canada and taught in schools.

Stalin intentionally killed as many as 20M people, depending on whom you believe, through his various deviant methods: millions died the Holdomor, via execution, and in the Gulags, and there were various other massacres of smaller numbers of people. More recently than the Holocaust, Mao killed up to 45M million of his own people (mostly with communist stupidity, but many intentionally), 10M people were killed in the formation of Pakistan (including genocides in India and Pakistan), 3M people were killed in a genocide in 1971 by Pakistan, there were duelling genocide not that long ago in Yugo, and the campaign of genocide in Syria that ended just two years ago.

Genocide is actually far too common, and I greatly resent the fact that the Holocaust is portrayed as a unique event. The topic of genocides is far too serious for any one group to run a misinformation campaign about genocides of any nature, for any reason. It needs to be studied, not politicized. 

Canada (post 2015) and the United States (pre-2017) failed to take serious direct action against islamic state. We should have known better, we were in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. We completely failed to learn from history, there was a massacre as a result.

Not fair for McInnes to make jokes about it, but it's an actual topic worth discussing. The holocaust was not unique. The topic of genocide deserves immense and unbiased study, and politicization is not appropriate. 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So ... yeah, go ahead WestCanMan... tell us again how CTV is worse than this.  Your credibility is less than zero.

You talking about other people's lack of credibility is like trump talking about other people's lack of humility. 

I cited CTV, as an information broadcasting entity, being intentionally dishonest and inflammatory, in their flagship program. You cited a single member of a media group being an idiot. Your example holds almost no water by comparison. 

[Moonbox]

 

Quote

My point is you never heard of it. Because the media narrative is to focus solely on white cop on black suspect/victim crime. So you get every single instance where they can make it into an outrageous incident, where they label it racist without evidence, but you don't get the rest. So it's fairly easy to believe this is a race thing concerning blacks when it isn't. Police killings of unarmed people rarely happen, but when it does, especially if the person killed is black, it's going to be front page news everywhere. Yes, her killer went to prison. But let's compare the situations. Her killer refused to even answer why he shot her. He wasn't fired within forty eight hours and charged within four days. He wasn't charged until a year later, and fired at that time. And there were no riots, no nationwide protests, and far, far less publicity, despite the face her case was arguably more outrageous because she wasn't a criminal, just a law abiding citizen.

Except the media isn't solely focused on white cop vs black suspect violence.  They're focused on police violence, and most (but not all) of the videos that have come out and we're actually seeing are against black folk.  It's pretty silly to say that just because there weren't riots for Justine back in 2017, that this is somehow "proof" that the media is painting an unfair picture.  People of all races are outraged by the videos we're seeing, and until we saw them we didn't actually realize how bad things were. 

The real kicker, and the craziest part about your backwards argument is that the current environment of protest and the resulting changes we'll see as a result will benefit ALL races.  When police are properly held accountable for their actions, are forced to submit to public transparency and oversight and the culture of covering for each others' abuses is curbed, white chicks like Justine are going to be safer too.  

 

 

Quote

14 in a year, less than half the rate of lighting strikes. Less than the number of unarmed white people killed by police.

Where?  In Canada?  There were 235 in the US last year.  

Quote

Funny how everyone talks about this 'systemic racism' word but no one seems able to point to it. No one seems to have an explanation as to why the American born children of black immigrants don't go to jail nearly as much as other blacks, graduate high school and go to college at much higher rates, and perform 58% better in terms of salaries. If the issue is 'systemic racism' why do they thrive? Maybe systemic racism isn't really a thing.

 

It's easy to point to.  Go google the term "Redlining".  I'll do you a courtesy and give you a quick synopsis in case you don't want to read a whole article.  It was an official practice across the USA to categorize neighborhoods and districts as desirable or undesirable places for investment, with minority inner-city neighborhoods predominantly in the lowest categories.  What was the effect?  Municipalities used it to decide where they were going to invest public funds (schools, infrastructure etc) and banks and insurers used the data to make lending decisions.  As a result, generations of black people in the USA were declined for loans because of where they lived, when less qualified white folk would get approved.  For decades, qualified black folk couldn't buy homes because of where they lived and though it was never explicitly because "you're black" it was because "you're from a bad neighborhood that happens to be black."  

We can ask the Natives in Canada how not being able to own real estate or property affects their economic mobility.   

Just for the record - when you post video links for people to watch that are 13 minutes long, kindly provide some sort of time stamp or explanation.  I watched for 5 minutes and then closed it because nothing interesting had been discussed yet. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Moonbox
wording

[Moonbox]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Your turn moonbox. Dig up some lies, don't just run your mouth without a shred of proof of anything that you're saying.

People say the same thing about Fox, but when it comes time to put up some facts, I hear crickets.

You're a leftist who's been told: "Don't look at that news, it's fake", and so you run around yapping like a chihuahua "That's fake! That's fake!" but you really don't have a fucking clue.  

You hear crickets because you choose to.  Loud and angry nattering is unfortunately not a substitute for intelligent debate, but I think that point's lost on you.  You're hilariously ignorant and uninformed on most of the topics you choose to rant about (like that nonsense about Canada's economy earlier in this thread) but nobody here has a chance to convince you otherwise.  

If you were even remotely open-minded and willing/capable to review outside information, you could do a quick search and very easily find a long list of debunked lies, retracted statements, and absurdly stupid reporting from current Fox News anchors.  My favorites were Hannity's attempt at comedy over Obama's choice of mustard (he was getting tired of being mocked by late-night hosts, I think), the birther conspiracy, or of course the "terrorist fist-bump".  If you take that sort of nonsense seriously, what hope is there for you to be reasonable here?  As late as June 10, Tucker Carlson was blathering about how lockdown measures weren't necessary and that states who re-opened quickly weren't seeing their cases explode.  How's that turned out for him?  Mhmmm....

Anyways, I suppose it doesn't matter that I've voted conservative in probably 90% of Ontario and Federal elections.  You've already determined I'm a leftist chihuahua so I don't really know where we go from here.  Thanks for chuckles.  

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Moonbox

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Except the media isn't solely focused on white cop vs black suspect violence.  They're focused on police violence,

Okay, sure. A cop killing a white man gets 30 seconds of coverage. A cop killing a black man gets 30 hours of coverage.

Quote

and most (but not all) of the videos that have come out and we're actually seeing are against black folk.

And why do you suppose that is given that the police kill a lot more white people than black people?

 

Quote

People of all races are outraged by the videos we're seeing, and until we saw them we didn't actually realize how bad things were.

Videos pre-selected for you, with a common theme, designed to cause outrage. Surprise.

Quote

The real kicker, and the craziest part about your backwards argument

Why is my argument backwards?

Quote

is that the current environment of protest and the resulting changes we'll see as a result will benefit ALL races.  When police are properly held accountable for their actions, are forced to submit to public transparency and oversight and the culture of covering for each others' abuses is curbed, white chicks like Justine are going to be safer too.

That's a possibility. Let me tell you another possibility. Police are going to back off, do the minimum they have to, avoid any pro-active activities that might get them into conflict with a minority member. In concert with this their departments in many cities are going to have less money, leading to less training. Fewer people will be willing to be police, knowing that if they make the least mistake their own department will hang them out to dry, knowing that everywhere they go people hostile to them will be waiting with cameras for them to say or do anything the least bit controversial. The people willing to do the job will become those with no real prospects anywhere else. Crime will soar.

Given the current climate of hostility towards police and the positions taken by all sides, I regard my possibility as almost infinitely more likely than yours.

Quote

Where?  In Canada?  There were 235 in the US last year.

No, only 14 unarmed blacks were killed by police last year. That number has been trending steadily downward by the way.

Quote

It's easy to point to.  Go google the term "Redlining".

It's easy to point to yet you have to point to something which is no longer in existence. So I guess it's not so easy to point to, eh?

Quote

We can ask the Natives in Canada how not being able to own real estate or property affects their economic mobility.

Yes, every single person who believes in systemic racism, when pressed for an example, brings up the Indian Act. Because it's pretty much all there is. And it remains because of the impossibility of getting agreement on how to change or eliminate it with 600 chiefs who, for the most part, find life pretty comfortable under the Indian Act.

Quote

Just for the record - when you post video links for people to watch that are 13 minutes long, kindly provide some sort of time stamp or explanation.  I watched for 5 minutes and then closed it because nothing interesting had been discussed yet.

Within those five minutes he had already pointed out the flaws with the belief in Systemic Racism which would have caused any reasonably receptive individual to reconsider their beliefs in how widespread it is.  Evidently you are not such a person.

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You hear crickets because you choose to.  Loud and angry nattering is unfortunately not a substitute for intelligent debate, but I think that point's lost on you.  You're hilariously ignorant and uninformed on most of the topics you choose to rant about (like that nonsense about Canada's economy earlier in this thread) but nobody here has a chance to convince you otherwise.  

So you don't have an honest truthful answer, and you're backed into a corner, so you come out with some sandbox insults.

It's not my fault that you think that painting fingernails contributes to the economy in the same way as producing oil. 

Quote

If you were even remotely open-minded and willing/capable to review outside information, you could do a quick search and very easily find a long list of debunked lies, retracted statements, and absurdly stupid reporting from current Fox News anchors.  My favorites were Hannity's attempt at comedy over Obama's choice of mustard (he was getting tired of being mocked by late-night hosts, I think), the birther conspiracy, or of course the "terrorist fist-bump".  If you take that sort of nonsense seriously, what hope is there for you to be reasonable here?  As late as June 10, Tucker Carlson was blathering about how lockdown measures weren't necessary and that states who re-opened quickly weren't seeing their cases explode.  How's that turned out for him?  Mhmmm....

The onus isn't on me to do an investigation into your broad, unfounded allegations.

You're the accuser, and FYI Moonbox, saying "j'accuse" isn't enough. You need to cite something.

I don't know wtf you're talking about with mustard.

The birther conspiracy wasn't Hannity's, it was started by a Democrat named Andy Martin in 2004, and Hillary bumped it up in 2008.

What is the "terrorist fist-bump"?

Tucker Carlson was right, some states did have ridiculous covid measures. Can you specifically cite what he was wrong about?

The things that you're citing here are nickel-and-dime. There's nothing at all here to compare with the constant stream of lies that CTV/CNN et al said just about the Dr For/Kavanugh incident alone.

Then there's Russian collusion. Ukrainian collusion. Biden did nothing wrong. The Whitehouse wasn't spied on. "Trump lied about rain during his inauguration speech". "Trump lied about the size of his crowd". "A truck killed some people, we need to talk about gun laws". "This is Trump's Benghazi". "Suleimani was a beloved leader of Iranians". "Trump isn't keeping his campaign promises". "13 people have been indicted on Russian collusion charges". "Manafort went to jail for Russian collusion".  I could go on and on about serious material lies that the leftist media perpetuated for months, with headline news coverage. Walls are racist. Trump invented separating children from their families at the border, here's a picture of kids that Trump's men locked in cages [from 2014 when Obama was president]. Border agents used tear gas on a mom and her kids. Border guards forced women to drink out of toilets. Trump is a misogynist, Hillary isn't. The riots are mostly peaceful. Rayshard was shot while he was running away. Tasers aren't dangerous.

They didn't notice that Jussie Smollett's crime was a case of him trying to incite racial division in the country. If his plan succeeded, it would do more damage than a terrorist attack.

Those losers also lend credibility to Only Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

Leftist journalism in an intense source of problems in north america, you just don't notice it because you have blinders on and you refuse to take notice when you've been lied to.

Do you understand the depth of the treachery that CNN engaged in when they fabricated a false and defamatory story about Nick Sandman, a high school kid who was at a pro-life rally, and broadcast that slander to all of America and the world?  

They got caught "fabricating". Fabricating is by far the worst form of lying there is. It makes lying by omission sound ok. It makes being disingenuous seem quite honest. Not only that, they fabricated a lie to make the worst form of accusation possible, and they did it to a fucking minor. 

CNN is the lowest of the low. You can't get any lower than committing slander against a kid to tell America that he's basically a racist out taunting old natives ffs.

When they lost in court for that, their idiot viewers didn't even blink. You're still here calling Hannity a liar for perpetuating a bit of Dem propaganda lol. That's sickening. (I'll admit that he never should have taken any Dems at their word).

Quote

Anyways, I suppose it doesn't matter that I've voted conservative in probably 90% of Ontario and Federal elections.  You've already determined I'm a leftist chihuahua so I don't really know where we go from here.  Thanks for chuckles.  

Where we go from here is just admit that Rebel media has a job to do because CTV and CBC will never hold the PM accountable for anything. Those two are on full damage-control mode for that idiot 24/7. 

I don't laugh when I read your clueless posts. There are no chuckles. I just feel sad for this country because it's chock full of people who will regurgitate ridiculous-seeming MSM idiocy the day after they just caught the MSM lying (or should have easily caught them lying).

If you can't admit that CNN and CTV COMPLETELY lack credibility then you're destined to be a perpetual victim of mushroom management - keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

On 6/24/2020 at 2:38 PM, Argus said:

Funny how everyone talks about this 'systemic racism' word but no one seems able to point to it. No one seems to have an explanation as to why the American born children of black immigrants don't go to jail nearly as much as other blacks, graduate high school and go to college at much higher rates, and perform 58% better in terms of salaries. If the issue is 'systemic racism' why do they thrive? Maybe systemic racism isn't really a thing.

BOOM!

I honestly think that the worst thing that you could teach a little black kid is: "You won't be able to get a good job because the system is racist against you, and the police might just kill you for no reason at all. It happens all the time to black people, but not to white people."

The Dems and CNN feed that BS to kids 24/7 with a firehose.

Barack Obama did it to a greater extent than anyone when he said (Re: Treyvon Martin) "He looked like me, that could have been my kid" [or whatever]. Basically the only context in which his words could have meaning, is if Treyvon didn't do a single thing to contribute to his own demise. IE the fact that "he looked like Obama" meant that Zimmerman was going to kill him and just being a good kid and being polite wouldn't have saved him. If that's the case, shouldn't young black kids just join gangs and be ready to gun down cops if they even come close? That was a really sad day for little black kids in America imo. Not because of what actually happened, but because what was reported to have happened was a false narrative which completely robbed them of hope. 

 

Immigrants come to America with hope. They come as optimists. They're happy for their chance to try their best to live the American dream. It pays off according to stats. 

[Michael Hardner]

Hands up if you knew that CTV's first founding CEO was John Bassett, lifelong Conservative and owner of the Toronto Telegram, which became The Sun ?

[Michael Hardner]

Hands up if you think that featuring avowed racists doesn't disqualify your media outlet from general credibility?

[WestCanMan]

Hands up if you think that BLM isn't racist?

[WestCanMan]

Hands up if you think that Antifa isn't actually a fascist organization themselves.

[WestCanMan]

Hands up if you think that telling material lies about inflammatory subject matter doesn't diminish a network broadcaster's credibility.

[WestCanMan]

Hands up if you think that featuring avowed racists doesn't disqualify your media outlet from general credibility?

[Moonbox]

 

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Videos pre-selected for you, with a common theme, designed to cause outrage. Surprise.

Are you trying to say that CNN is combing through video swathes of video footage of police brutality, and saying, "Nah man, nobody cares about the white guy.  Editor says just black victims."   ?

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Why is my argument backwards?

You seem to be arguing that wrongful police killings of white folk somehow weakens or disproves the current environment of protest. I'd argue the opposite - that all of the white people wrongfully killed just serves as further evidence of problems with our police systems.  

On the one hand I agree with some of what you're saying - the part about how much crime is disproportionately caused by black people and how that's reflected in the statistics.  I'd even agree that the media is paying a disproportionate amount of attention to black victims specifically, and perhaps pushing the general picture that police departments are all racist.  

On the other hand, I think that this is arguing around the underlying issue - that there's very little accountability and transparency within the police departments (especially in the US) and that this (along with training and procedures) is in sore need of reform.  

15 hours ago, Argus said:

That's a possibility. Let me tell you another possibility. Police are going to back off, do the minimum they have to, avoid any pro-active activities that might get them into conflict with a minority member. In concert with this their departments in many cities are going to have less money, leading to less training. Fewer people will be willing to be police, knowing that if they make the least mistake their own department will hang them out to dry, knowing that everywhere they go people hostile to them will be waiting with cameras for them to say or do anything the least bit controversial. The people willing to do the job will become those with no real prospects anywhere else. Crime will soar.

Given the current climate of hostility towards police and the positions taken by all sides, I regard my possibility as almost infinitely more likely than yours.

I think your scenario is a disjunctive premise - all black and white.  Either we just accept things as they are, or we enter a cycle of police-bashing, punitive cost-cutting and police disillusionment that eventually leads to limp law-enforcement and anarchy.  In reality, there's a huge gray area in between.  Let's also not forget the attractiveness of a $90,000/y salary, top-shelf benefits, early retirement and a golden pension. 

15 hours ago, Argus said:

It's easy to point to yet you have to point to something which is no longer in existence. So I guess it's not so easy to point to, eh?

Yes, every single person who believes in systemic racism, when pressed for an example, brings up the Indian Act. Because it's pretty much all there is. And it remains because of the impossibility of getting agreement on how to change or eliminate it with 600 chiefs who, for the most part, find life pretty comfortable under the Indian Act.

It seems its even easier to dismiss the implications of these policies.  Redlining held generations of black folk back from home ownership, which ruled out the generation of George Floyd's parents (and their parents before that) from the same sort of economic mobility that most Americans had. 

I don't think I need to say this and you probably already know it, but there's a reason that minorities white-wash their resumes when applying for jobs.  They statistically get more interviews as a result.  There's no better example of "systemic racism" than that.  

As for the Indian Act...that's something that I'd likely fall in line with you on.  

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Within those five minutes he had already pointed out the flaws with the belief in Systemic Racism which would have caused any reasonably receptive individual to reconsider their beliefs in how widespread it is.  Evidently you are not such a person.

Not really.  He pointed out some potential fallacies or double-standards that may exist in the debate, but hardly disqualified the argument.  He's a smart, educated guy and I actually like a lot of what he's saying, but the main point from what I could gather was that it's a much more nuanced topic than people like to believe.  I agree.  

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Are you trying to say that CNN is combing through video swathes of video footage of police brutality, and saying, "Nah man, nobody cares about the white guy.  Editor says just black victims."   ?

Are you trying to say that CNN isn't running with the narrative that this as purely a racism thing and censuring people who dare to suggest the mere possibility that it's a police brutality thing? Are you trying to say that they probably wouldn't send their mobs after you if you suggested that racism wasn't proven to be the reason for George Floyd's murder? 

That's the same as lying, it's just more pathetic and weaselly.

Quote

You seem to be arguing that wrongful police killings of white folk somehow weakens or disproves the current environment of protest. I'd argue the opposite - that all of the white people wrongfully killed just serves as further evidence of problems with our police systems.  

CNN isn't portraying this as a "police brutality" issue. Police brutality isn't sexy enough. It doesn't cause riots that destroy the economy and make Trump look bad. They're covering "systemic racism" and "racism in the PD" and they're intentionally neglecting cases of police killing unarmed white people, unlawfully, because it destroys the Only Black Lives Matter terrorists' narrative. That's not an 'argument', it's just a well-known fact. Worse, it puts a serious damper on the riots that Michelle and Barack Obama are trying to keep going. 

Are the Obamas suggesting that people should be angry about police brutality against white people? Can you find examples of them talking about how great of a person Daniel Shavers was, or trying to incite rioting, looting arson and cop-killing when he was killed by a total dickhead with - OMFG - AN ASSAULT RIFLE!!!!!??????

Why do you think that CNN has shown you the George Floyd murder and the Rayshard Brooks shooting over and over again and you've never heard of Tony "13 minutes" Timpa on their network, or any other white guy that was the victim of murder at the hands of police?

You're not getting up to speed here moonbox, and you've had since 2014 to see wtf is going on. These issues appear to be over your head.  

[Argus]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Hands up if you think that featuring avowed racists doesn't disqualify your media outlet from general credibility?

Not even really sure what this even means. If you interview Communist leaders does that make you lose all general credibility?  If you interview world dictators who are vicious murderers does that make you lose all credibility?

[Shady]

On 6/5/2020 at 2:10 PM, marcus said:

Of course Argus would deny that there is racism in Canada.

This is the same guy who calls a segment of immigrants Goat Herders and he thinks there is nothing wrong with that.

 

 

No one is denying racism in Canada.  But it’s just not that significant of an issue.  I know that that sucks for you.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 

Are you trying to say that CNN is combing through video swathes of video footage of police brutality, and saying, "Nah man, nobody cares about the white guy.  Editor says just black victims."   ?

Yes. I'm also saying your social media feeds direct videos and stories to you based on what you've watched before. I'm also saying that stories or videos of private arguments, abuse and racism are ignored, as they should be, unless the antagonist is white and is hurling racial invective. Also largely ignored are almost all incidents of criminal violence by minorities against whites even where they appear to have a racial context while videos of white violence against blacks which can by any stretch of the imagination be portrayed as racist are given breathless coverage. A story of a vicious gang rape on a white woman by a group of blacks will get almost no coverage. The reverse will hit the national news.

There is a narrative, an agenda which is in line with the political leanings and ideological beliefs of the great majority of the mainstream media, and that is to portray society as almost irredeemably racist by whites towards blacks and other minorities. Note I'm not suggesting any sort of conspiracy. I'm suggesting that when your average reporter sees a story of a brutal racist attack by whites on blacks his eyes bulge out of his head, he is filled with outrage, and he races to get that story out to the world. When his eyes scan across a story featuring brutal attacks by blacks against a white person he purses his lips and pushes it aside, both because it doesn't meet his/her preconceptions of what a good story is, because he/she doesn't instinctively and automatically start thinking "RACISM!" and in many cases because he;/she doesn't want to put out a story which might cause some sort of anger directed at a minority community. This is especially obvious with regard to Muslim violence.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You seem to be arguing that wrongful police killings of white folk somehow weakens or disproves the current environment of protest. I'd argue the opposite - that all of the white people wrongfully killed just serves as further evidence of problems with our police systems.  

I've never denied there are problems with our police systems. I've been arguing this for years, in fact. But the narrative in the media has nothing to do with poorly trained police and everything to do with police and societal racism.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

On the other hand, I think that this is arguing around the underlying issue - that there's very little accountability and transparency within the police departments (especially in the US) and that this (along with training and procedures) is in sore need of reform.  

And I agree entirely with this issue. I've long said north American police need to stop taking aggressive positions so easily, need to be more laid back like British police, need to resort to firearms less, need better training in de-escalating situations, and in how to disarm people with weapons. I will join anyone who argues for such things. But the "Cops are racists! Defund them!" brigade are of no use to anyone.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I think your scenario is a disjunctive premise - all black and white.  Either we just accept things as they are, or we enter a cycle of police-bashing, punitive cost-cutting and police disillusionment that eventually leads to limp law-enforcement and anarchy.  In reality, there's a huge gray area in between.  Let's also not forget the attractiveness of a $90,000/y salary, top-shelf benefits, early retirement and a golden pension. 

My scenario is based on my pessimistic view of government and society, and also premised on what happened in Baltimore and Chicago after outrcries about police racism and violence. And few police in the US make those kinds of salaries. And if changes to the system go through, such as allowing individual police officers to be sued by anyone they might offend while on the job, that salary isn't going to do a lot of good since anything you save can be stripped away by one lawsuit. And police agencies get nuisance suits constantly.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

It seems its even easier to dismiss the implications of these policies.  Redlining held generations of black folk back from home ownership, which ruled out the generation of George Floyd's parents (and their parents before that) from the same sort of economic mobility that most Americans had. 

I have been watching a lot of Thomas Sowell lately. He is a noted Black economist and intellectual, and in his opinion the major reason behind the lack of economic success for black Americans is cultural, and not all is historical. He makes the point, for example, that black inner city schools now are in terrible shape compared to when he went to school decades ago, lacking all discipline, and with a culture which denigrates academic achievement and rewards 'toughness' by boys and sexiness by girls. It is his position that black economic performance has deteriorated in tandem with the collapse of the family unit after welfare changes in the 1960s.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think I need to say this and you probably already know it, but there's a reason that minorities white-wash their resumes when applying for jobs.  They statistically get more interviews as a result.  There's no better example of "systemic racism" than that.  

In the US most blacks have names which are not dissimilar to whites. In Canada, a 'foreign' name is likely to suggest an immigrant (68.8% of visible minorities are immigrants) and thus someone with poor communication skills. I would point out that in many cities where most minorities live whites are barely a majority now, if that, and that while it's never mentioned in polite company almost everyone knows that people of minority communities generally prefer to hire their own kind. Also almost all major organizations now have diversity hiring programs. A friend of mine who works for the government was just telling me yesterday about a member of her staff who she was thankfully getting rid of because he was lazy and emotionally overwrought -  complains about harassment whenever anyone tries to get him to work. While she's glad he's leaving she's indignant that he's getting a promotion as he's indigenous, and being brought in by a new government program designed to give out more benefits to indigenous communities. That seems like pretty systemic racism to me.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Not really.  He pointed out some potential fallacies or double-standards that may exist in the debate, but hardly disqualified the argument.  He's a smart, educated guy and I actually like a lot of what he's saying, but the main point from what I could gather was that it's a much more nuanced topic than people like to believe.  I agree.  

I think he made the point that ascribing the failings of the black community to 'systemic racism' is simply wrong as the whole concept of systemic racism sits on pretty unstable ground.

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, Shady said:

No one is denying racism in Canada.  But it’s just not that significant of an issue.  I know that that sucks for you.

No, but this is how people from the far left argue. If you deny the validity of a term like 'systemic racism' which has little demonstrated evidence behind it, then you're denying racism. There's no room for nuance. It's a 'you're either with us or against us' kind of idea.

[Shady]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hands up if you think that featuring avowed racists doesn't disqualify your media outlet from general credibility?

So like The New York Times right?

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead essayist on New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, wrote a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer stating that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

“The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community,” she writes.