OntarioRacism2021 Posted July 1, 2021 Report Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) The theory of White supremacy/privilege is that the structure and systems of Canadian/American society are built to serve the interests of White people of European descent at the expense of non-Whites. I am reviewing the important structures/systems of Ontario society looking to find the racism. I know that this privilege exists. I know it is harmful. It needs to be stopped. However, I am looking to find where it is. Please help me out... Law The Ontario Human Rights Code makes it illegal to treat someone different because of race. or colour or ethnicity in housing, employment and services, like education. Therefore, any privilege based on race would be illegal. It seems odd that a system designed to be racist would create the legislation making discrimination illegal. Legal Services Established in 2017, the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) is an independent not-for-profit community legal clinic that combats individual and systemic anti-Black racism by conducting research, engaging in structural transformation, and providing legal services to members of Ontario’s Black communities. BLAC engages in advocacy, community development, law reform, test case litigation, and public legal education. BLAC is funded by Legal Aid Ontario and governed by a volunteer Board of Directors. The racist system also provides funding to prevent racial discrimination which is counter-intuitive. https://www.blacklegalactioncentre.ca/ Employment Ontario Government: Anti Racism Unit The Ontario government has an anti-racism unit that seeks to actively fight against discrimination in Ontario. This is another publicly funded mechanism within the system designed to keep the system discrimination-free despite being a system designed to maintain a discriminatory imbalance amongst people. The Anti-Racism's data reveals the following 4 points about discrimination in employment: 1. Racialized females have a higher “standard employment relationships” ( SER) than White females. (51 to 48%). Report: “Figure 1 shows the prevalence of SER for men and women from white and racialized groups. We limit the analysis to white and non-white or racialized groups. Only the results for men from racialized groups are statistically significant, with white men more likely to report being in SER than men from racialized groups. While there is a historical legacy of SER as the norm for white men, that advantage appears to have diminished. “ 2.” Education (sic: not race/colour) is the best indicator for having job security. “ 3. The employment rate- from 2005 statistics- for racialized people is 61.9% and for non-racialized people is 63%. This is a marginal difference that is not indicative of any “systemic issues”. 4.There are many racialized groups with a higher employment rate than Whites. This counters the “White privilege” narrative: Black 63.8 to 63% Filipino 71.6 to 63% Latin American 66.3 to 63% Visible Minority 65.4 to 63% Multiple Visible Minority 65.9 to 63% *(similar) South East Asian 62.2 to 63% Source : “Ontario‟s Growing Gap. The Role of Race”-2005 data. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/reports/docs/The%20Role%20of%20Race%20Ontario%20Growing%20Gap.pdf 2021: Presence of Systemic Racism in Employment The evidence above demonstrates no systemic racism in employment against racialized people; however, there is recent evidence of discriminatory practices against White [people based on their race. This article shows that a job duty for Durham Police Officers was offered exclusively to a Black Police Officer. White Officers were not eligible for this duty because of their "race". https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-asking-for-a-cop-who-identifies-as-black-upsets-drps-members The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto does not allow able-bodied, straight White males to apply for certain jobs such as Human Resources Advisors. This is not to protect a certain group facing systemic barriers, this is to exclude Whites from applying. https://erecruitment.torontocas.ca/default.aspx The City of London requires "lived, Black experiences" for some of their positions. This excludes "Whites" and non-Blacks from applying and being eligible for publicly funded positions. https://www.municipalworld.com/careers/black-community-liaison-advisor/ Education Queens University has a special program for medical students. This excludes White people. https://meds.queensu.ca/academics/undergraduate/black-medical-students-queens-university The U of T has the Black Student Application Program (BSAP) is an optional application stream for Black applicants who self-identify as Black African, Black Caribbean, Black North American, multi-racial students who have and identify with their Black ancestry, etc. The aim of this application program is to increase and support Black medical student representation at the University of Toronto. Through BSAP, we hope to break down some of the barriers that might impede Black students from applying, and nurture an inclusive environment that is welcoming to all. White students are not eligible and are excluded from this program. https://applymd.utoronto.ca/black-student-application-program Toronto District School Board (TDSB) The TDSB has chosen to not discipline Black students in response to allegations of systemic racism. Their reports also show that White students constitute about 30% of the population and are represented in about 33% of the suspensions. This is not indicative of any privilege. Caring and safe Schools Report: 2018-2019 “We have seen substantial positive change through our improved understanding of systemic racism, resolving conflict through more cooperative ways and removing barriers for students. Specifically, there has been an overall decrease in student discipline measures as well as a narrowing of the gap of the overrepresentation of certain groups of students who are suspended and expelled” https://globalnews.ca/news/7458424/tdsb-suspensions-expunged/ The Africentric Alternative School began operating in September 2009 in response to an initial community request for such a school in June 2007 to address a high dropout rate and achievement gap affecting students of African descent. TDSB initiated a consultation process with stakeholders. In January 2008, a report titled Improving Success For Black Students was presented to the Board of Trustees with a number of recommendations. Ultimately, the Board approved a recommendation to establish the Africentric Alternative School to open in September 2009 at Sheppard Public School. Since this time, the school has expanded to grade 8 as of September 2015 serves 120 students. Obviously, there are no White-centric schools. https://www.tdsb.on.ca/Find-your/Schools/schno/3949 Government Policies The City of Toronto commits more than $1.2 million in cultural and economic investments to confront anti-Black racism. The City is making multiple investments in Toronto’s Black arts and culture community and business sector to address the systemic economic, social and cultural exclusion facing Black communities in Toronto. The City actually has an entire unit dedicated and funded with public funds- i.e, the system- to stop anti-Black racism. A system that is designed to ensure racial dominance also has, within the same system, units to prevent the very purpose of the system. Isn't that diametrically opposed to the system's core purpose- like a braking system designed to accelerate when activated?? https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/community/confronting-anti-black-racism/ The Black Entrepreneurship Program (BEP) is a partnership between the Government of Canada, Black-led business organizations, and financial institutions. With an investment of up to $350.8 million over four years, it will help Black Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs grow their businesses and succeed now and into the future. This opportunity discriminates based on race- against White people. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/150.nsf/eng/home Anti-Black Racism: Toronto As per the Anti-Black racism unit in Toronto, there are biases against Black people in everyday judgments and decisions. A system designed to keep one group oppressive over another would not logically create a sub-unit to promote a different group over the Dominant/oppressor" group, would it? Anthony Morgan, the Director, is a Black Canadian with parents of Jamaican heritage is a lawyer now earning over $160,000/year by the systemically racist to fight Anti-Black racism. I don’t know any who earns that much money personally, so Mr. Morgan would be the richest person that I knew, if I knew him. In my part of Toronto, we don’t make that kind of money. I am sure he worked hard and I wish him the best. He followed the system and got a degree that pays well and became a lawyer, good on ya mate! I didn’t graduate college so I have nothing to complain about. Policing The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released a report that disproves any inherent, structural advantages to people based on their race in Toronto policing. The report looked at set of nine criminal charges. Interestingly, the data was divided into three groups: White, Black and “other racial minority” despite the data actually being prepared by the Toronto Police to reflect six racial groups: White, Black, Asian, Aboriginal, Brown, Unknown. The three group data format showed that for all 9 set of charges, Whites were more represented than “other racial minority”. If the system is designed to favour Whites over non-Whites, this comparison against “other racialized minority” does not support that theory. As per the report, Whites constitute 48% of the population and represent 45.5% of all criminal charges. This would be objectively seen as neutral: neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. The “other racial minority” group represents 42.8% of the population and 22.2% of total charges. This shows that racialized people are significantly less likely than Whites to be charged criminally. Furthermore, the data indicates that the system of Toronto Policing demonstrates zero evidence of systemic racism against “other racialized minorities” and neutral to Whites as opposed to any “privilege”. Over Policing There were 460 shootings in Toronto in 2020. Halfway through 2021, there are 30 murders in Toronto. The city was on lockdown for almost all of this time. Malls and parks and apartments are being shot up. We should all be concerned for every life. The Police should be supported. You will frequently hear “over Policing” is an example of racism and white privilege. The Police, or the system, does not control who decides to become a murderer. There are other variables for that and none of them are related to systemic racism. The Police investigate serious crimes. If murder victims are disproportionately related to one demographic, this demographic will be the greater focus of the police. Anything contrary would be racist. The police should be focusing on the areas and the people involved in murder and other serious crimes based on their investigations. Who these people are has nothing to do with the police. The police should never let race determine who gets protection and who deserves justice. All murders/crimes should be investigated and anyone suggesting otherwise is placing people’s lives at risk. That is wrong. Racist Police Killings Since 2012, zero unarmed people, of any race, have been shot fatally, or killed, by the Toronto Police. The key variables in “use of force” during all police interactions in Canada are: 1) armed or unarmed, 2) cooperative or resisting, 3) sober or intoxicated, and 4) presenting with mental health issues or not. These elements, not race, are what determine the probability of “use of force” when interacting with police in Canada. The next instance in which you are told that the Police in Canada harmed/injured/killed a suspect during an “interaction” run through these variables and give appropriate weight to each of the applicable factors before turning your mind to race then ask yourself, if race was a factor. Police Accountability The OIPRD and the HRTO both hold police in Ontario accountable for their actions. There is Zero tolerance for discriminatory practices. The system has these checks and balances in place to ensure the laws protecting people from discrimination are enforced. Slavery Ontario never had slavery. In 1798, Upper Canada (Ontario) passed legislation to abolish slavery. Slaves had been of many races and many races owned slaves. In 1833, slavery was abolished across all English colonies and Canada became a country in 1867. England actually was the world leader in ending slavery and fought slavers for decades and are responsible for ending the slave trade which still exists today in some non-Western countries. Racist Stereotype The definition of a racial stereotype is grouping people, based on the characteristic of their race, as the same and assigning a negative association to all people in that group based on sharing that single characteristic. Is the term white privileged a racial stereotype? It assumes all white people have an easier life and have not earned their accomplishments. It asserts that white people have no disadvantages due to their "race". There would be no issue with someone telling a person to “check their privileged”. People also freely use the term “Whiteness” in a pejorative sense. Teachers also teach these concepts in classrooms to children. Since when is it okay for schools to teach children to dislike their physical traits? Fruits of the Tree/System It is said that one can judge a fruit by its tree, lets apply that principle to the quantifiable actions of a system. Foreign Aid: Non-Western Countries/People Please also place in context the structural principles of Canada/Ontario being fundamentally unjust. Canada donated over 6 billion dollars in foreign aid in 2019. Canada’s international assistance spending increased by 4.9% to CAD$6.4 billion in 2019, up from CAD$6.1 billion in 2018.International assistance accounts for approx. 1.8% of 2019 federal budget spending – unchanged from last years 1.8% budget expenditure in 2018. Canada’s ODA/gross national income (GNI) ratio now stands at 0.28% — unchanged from last year (0.28%). Who are the largest recipients? The largest recipient in 2019 was Ethiopia (CAD$203 million), followed by Bangladesh (CAD$199 million), Afghanistan (CAD$197 million), Syria (CAD$150 million), and Mali (CAD$140 million). Where were the sharpest increases and declines? The most notable changes in year-over-year international assistance levels were to: Afghanstan (-22%), Bangladesh (+51%), Syria (+21%), DRC (+20%), and Haiti (-21%). Bangladesh received the largest year-over-year dollar increase; up CAD$67.3 million from last year. Income Groups and Regions 32.6% of aid went to Least Developed (or poorest) Countries, another 0.5% went to Other Low Income Countries, and 20.6% went to Lower Middle Income countries (36.9% is not coded by income group). African countries received the largest regional share of Canada’s international assistance at 39.0%, followed by Asia (30.7%), the Americas (13.9%), Europe (2.7%) and Oceania (0.8%). This is only international assistance that has been coded to a region (87.0% of total). This seems to contradict the notion that the system supports one group over others and that this system does not care for or serve to support non-Western people. If so, please explain. https://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/ Ontario Services: Regardless of Race/Colour/Ethnicity OW: Ontario has Ontario Works to ensure that every poor person has money for food and essential needs ODSP: People with disabilities are taken care of the government in Ontario OHIP: All people have the same level of health care. OAS: Old people are given additional funding. Soup Kitchens/Food Banks/Homeless Shelters: All across Ontario, one can find support for those in need as a result of publicly funded and driven programs. One should reasonably examine how a system, systemically evil and racist, would produce such amazing programs to take care of people. Help I would very much like to learn of specific, empirical, factual evidence to support white privilege. Can people please help me out? I find a lot of facts to support White people are treated differently because of their "race" in a disadvantageous way and I see lots of support for not being White. I want to prove to my friends who need learning where to see and find white privilege. My friends are not white and dont believe that Whites have privilege. Please give me some facts for them! Sincerely, Big Jim from Cabbagetown Edited July 3, 2021 by OntarioRacism2021 added new info to address some great comments. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) If the white people are so advantaged relative to others in Canada and America through structural oppression of non-whites then how come many East Asian and South Asian groups in those countries are more successful than those of White European descent? riddle me that if all disparities are evidence of systemic discrimination, then Canada and America must be Asian Supremacist countries who are oppressing White Europeans and other groups, by that logic or perhaps disparity is not necessarily evidence of discrimination and disparity in outcome is the norm, especially in countries with the most equality of opportunity Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said: ...or perhaps disparity is not necessarily evidence of discrimination and disparity in outcome is the norm, especially in countries with the most equality of opportunity I agree with this, but disparity can still be an indicator of racism and oppression. I believe in having open conversations, but the purpose of the discussion should be clear. Just as economic disadvantage isn't necessarily proof of racism, so does economic advantage not prove the absence of racism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I agree with this, but disparity can still be an indicator of racism and oppression. I believe in having open conversations, but the purpose of the discussion should be clear. Just as economic disadvantage isn't necessarily proof of racism, so does economic advantage not prove the absence of racism. could be an indicator of systemic racism but most people crying systemic racism can't actually point to any and simply assume that disparity alone is proof of it so at this point with all the boy who cried wolfitis about racism that claim needs to be backed up with actual evidence upon assertion or at least upon request for clarification otherwise the claim is spurious on the face of it racism is not actually hiding under every rock as the woke like to claim Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: 1. Racism is not actually hiding under every rock as the woke like to claim 1. I'm a big fan of evidence. A good benchmark for the long-term effects of racism might be in examination of the economic disparity that the Irish experienced, and how long it took for them to catch up. Of course, people of color would like to have it worse than them but it would be something to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I'm a big fan of evidence. A good benchmark for the long-term effects of racism might be in examination of the economic disparity that the Irish experienced, and how long it took for them to catch up. Of course, people of color would like to have it worse than them but it would be something to start with. the Irish closing the gap is evidence that current disadvantage can be overcome despite xenophobic attitudes as is the upward mobility of many immigrant groups who started from the bottom but are now even more successful than the supposedly white privileged WASPs systemic racist effects on disparity in economic outcomes especially in the long run particularly in North America is vastly overrated Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) in aggregate Black folks in America as a group are wealthier than any other group of Black folks in any other nation in the world if America is systemically racist at any meaningful level it's doing a piss poor job of holding people back Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: 1. the Irish closing the gap is evidence that current disadvantage can be overcome despite xenophobic attitudes 1. agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) The bottom line is that no policies should exist that advantage any race over any other. Such policies are racist and discriminatory. When there are no systemic barriers to “racialized” groups, the only remaining barriers that might exist are personal biases, but policies that advantage “visible minorities” over white people are unlikely to remove any personal biases that any white people might have against “racialized” groups. In fact, such policies are likely to heighten them. Edited July 2, 2021 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: 1. The bottom line is that no policies should exist that advantage any race over any other. 2. In fact, such policies are likely to heighten them. 1. I disagree with that. If people are having a problem as a group - whether it's race, gender, or some other group - then it makes sense to target that group with policies. Every single policy is meant to help some subset of Canadians somehow. 2. Only heightened by people who have no interest in helping other people, and would rather just leave them without assistance. How many posts on here do I see about helping "ordinary Canadians" ? What exactly does that mean ? That is a targeted policy suggestion based on ... some criteria ... that calls for government intervention. Why not do it for a disadvantaged group ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I disagree with that. If people are having a problem as a group - whether it's race, gender, or some other group - then it makes sense to target that group with policies. Every single policy is meant to help some subset of Canadians somehow. 2. Only heightened by people who have no interest in helping other people, and would rather just leave them without assistance. How many posts on here do I see about helping "ordinary Canadians" ? What exactly does that mean ? That is a targeted policy suggestion based on ... some criteria ... that calls for government intervention. Why not do it for a disadvantaged group ? when that "help" hurts the disadvantaged group more than it helps them clearly it isn't the people who object to that "help" that don't care about that disadvantaged group these people care more about results for the disadvantaged than the intentions of misguided do gooders with their counter-productive suggestions those who cling to government intervention as the only acceptable means of "helping" the disadvantaged group they are the ones who don't care about helping them these people care more how much counter-productive government intervention is supported to "help" them than the actual results of those policies the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that's what the woke central planners do not seem to grasp Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I disagree with that. If people are having a problem as a group - whether it's race, gender, or some other group - then it makes sense to target that group with policies. Every single policy is meant to help some subset of Canadians somehow. 2. Only heightened by people who have no interest in helping other people, and would rather just leave them without assistance. How many posts on here do I see about helping "ordinary Canadians" ? What exactly does that mean ? That is a targeted policy suggestion based on ... some criteria ... that calls for government intervention. Why not do it for a disadvantaged group ? How do you discern advantaged? If we could form consensus over such criteria in 2021, then we’d need data to illustrate how that criteria is or is not being met by certain groups. As the creator of this thread has quite convincingly illustrated, the data doesn’t indicate systemic racism against non-whites. From a policy perspective, however, the system is using a disproportionately high amount of public money and discriminatory policies to advantage “racialized” or “visible minority” groups. In terms of improving social cohesion and eliminating personal bias (conscious or unconscious), do you think such policies and expenditures are helpful or unhelpful? After all, if the “system” isn’t biased against “visible minority” groups through policy, then attitudes are all that remain. Enforcing equality of outcome is a very dangerous form of intervention because it purports to know how hard someone works, how talented someone is, and what that person “deserves” based on perceptions of levels of advantage or disadvantage. Of course there’s more to people than “intersectionslities”. Reducing people to markers like racial differences and setting policies to advantage or disadvantage one or more races is discriminatory plain and simple. It creates inquisitors of fairness whose arbitrations are dubious at best. The Bolsheviks and Pol Pot tried stunts like this to level the playing field using superficial markers. The outcomes were bad for those societies. Edited July 2, 2021 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: the data doesn’t indicate systemic racism against non-whites. From a policy perspective, however, the system is using a disproportionately high amount of public money and discriminatory policies to advantage “racialized” or “visible minority” groups. In terms of improving social cohesion and eliminating personal bias (conscious or unconscious), do you think such policies and expenditures are helpful or unhelpful? unhelpful af I used to be on the economic left because I thought central planning was the best way to help the disadvantaged and I thought the only reason people didn't support central planning to help the disadvantaged, was because they didn't care about them just like MH thinks is the case in this thread but once it was pointed out to me that the data shows the central planning is counter-productive to helping the disadvantaged that the best way to help them was to level the playing field and maximize equality of opportunity the countries who did this the best had the most well off disadvantaged groups the economic right did in fact care about the disadvantaged but merely disagreed on the best way to help them and proposed more helpful solutions then I flipped to the economic right Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 21 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: 1. when that "help" hurts the disadvantaged group more than it helps them. clearly it isn't the people who object to that "help" that don't care about that disadvantaged group. 2. these people care more about results for the disadvantaged than the intentions of misguided do gooders with their counter-productive suggestions 3. those who cling to government intervention as the only acceptable means of "helping" the disadvantaged 1. 2. maybe. In that case, they may have to pony-up to pay more for actual help/treatment/remediation. I also believe that "cutting a check" isn't the host helpful solution to problems, but it's probably the cheapest. 3. I have only ever heard of government intervention, cutting programs or status quo suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I have only ever heard of government intervention, cutting programs or status quo suggested. look harder Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: 1. How do you discern advantaged? 2. As the creator of this thread has quite convincingly illustrated, the data doesn’t indicate systemic racism against non-whites. 3. From a policy perspective, however, the system is using a disproportionately high amount of public money and discriminatory policies to advantage “racialized” or “visible minority” groups. In terms of improving social cohesion and eliminating personal bias (conscious or unconscious), do you think such policies and expenditures are helpful or unhelpful? 4. Enforcing equality of outcome is a very dangerous form of intervention because it purports to know how hard someone works, how talented someone is, and what that person “deserves” based on perceptions of levels of advantage or disadvantage. 1. Income, life expectancy... like that. 2. Perhaps not as a prevalent current factor, but the group isn't doing as well. 3. They aren't helpful enough, that's clear. 4. It's a strange turn to say "enforcing equality of outcome". You could turn that around as evidence against doing anything for someone who needs help. And bringing other factors into it is only done to discourage helping, in my experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 Just now, Yzermandius19 said: look harder Well, why wouldn't you post something if you knew about it ? Or is it a secret ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Well, why wouldn't you post something if you knew about it ? Or is it a secret ? look to the countries who have the most well off disadvantaged groups they ain't the countries who most heavily rely on central planning via high tax rates to give handouts to the disadvantaged they are the countries with the freest markets and less government intervention that way that taxes that are collected are taken from a much larger pie and result in better funded safety nets that is not a coincidence Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) the best way to help the disadvantaged is not punish the advantaged Robinhood economics for the fail no taxes isn't the way to go, that's going too far but low taxes on those who can most afford to pay them works quite well Milton Friedman's Hong Kong, this is the best model I have encountered they are the shining city on the hill to emulate no tariffs, free markets, rule of law, low taxes and minimal regulation this results in well funded safety nets without the need for heavy handed government to do so best of both worlds the left are great at identifying problems but are terrible at finding solutions to those problems the right are much better at finding solutions, but are weaker on identifying the problems believing that one side cares about the disadvantaged while the other doesn't care is not only false, but leads to shitty analysis and solutions it's a strawman used to try and claim the undeserved moral high ground without having to think critically Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Income, life expectancy... like that. 2. Perhaps not as a prevalent current factor, but the group isn't doing as well. 3. They aren't helpful enough, that's clear. 4. It's a strange turn to say "enforcing equality of outcome". You could turn that around as evidence against doing anything for someone who needs help. And bringing other factors into it is only done to discourage helping, in my experience. In my opinion you rely on government to decide what people deserve, which is actually very disempowering because it takes the possibility of self-determination, let alone self-actualization, away from people. Using government policy and public money to advantage one or more groups breeds contempt, disempowers people, creates winners and losers, and makes assumptions about what some people deserve or should have over others based on immeasurable data. One only needs to look at the Indian Act and Indigenous Affairs to see how such policies play with people’s self-determination and sense of self-worth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 The government of Canada and other modern governments have done a fair job at eliminating systemic racism. This has already been poured over decades ago, and by continual refinements of the system. It is not like we all just woke up yesterday to find a racist system that has been neglected and where people of colour are systemically disadvantaged. That is a bare-faced lie. Racism surely exists and always will to an extent, at the individual level. It's not a perfect world, but were doing a pretty good job systemically. This is not an urgent problem that the state should be dealing with. The state has already cleaned up its act in terms of official state policies, training of workers, and general education of the public. The state has no right to intervene beyond this level. What you see is a message presented in the guise of virtue, a signal being used as lever to further extend government outreach. This must be stopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) Zeitgeist and OftenWrong make some very good points in this thread particularly in the last two posts mad dap to both Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: 1. In my opinion you rely on government to decide what people deserve, 2. which is actually very disempowering because it takes the possibility of self-determination, let alone self-actualization, away from people. 3. Using government policy and public money to advantage one or more groups breeds contempt, disempowers people, creates winners and losers, and makes assumptions about what some people deserve or should have over others based on immeasurable data. 4. One only needs to look at the Indian Act and Indigenous Affairs to see how such policies play with people’s self-determination and sense of self-worth. 1. Interesting take. I think I agree. 2. Maybe, but 'deserve' is a low bar right ? You deserve... water... food... a shelter bed... and basic medical. I doubt anybody with a minimal amount of ability would feel their self-actualization would be diminished knowing that that existed if they needed it. 3. And yet, here we are. Government policy is all about giving a boost to some group or another. Suggest something better, and we can look at it. 4. For sure, but policy improves - or even is removed - through good-faith dialogue. Let's replace it if it's no good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 30 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: 1. the best way to help the disadvantaged is not punish the advantaged 2. no tariffs, free markets, rule of law, low taxes and minimal regulation this results in well funded safety nets without the need for heavy handed government to do so best of both worlds 3. the left are great at identifying problems 4. but are terrible at finding solutions to those problems 5. the right are much better at finding solutions, but are weaker on identifying the problems 6. believing that one side cares about the disadvantaged while the other doesn't care, is not only false, but leads to shitty analysis and solutions, it's a strawman used to try and claim the undeserved moral high ground without having to think critically 1. So let's not tax the wealthy ? Globalists and billionaires - do you like them ? They can use their advantages to starve out the disadvantaged, no problem. 2. Idealogues are great to read. I like idealogues of the left and the right both. But there is this thing called a political economy, built on our culture. If you are ok with farmers being starved out and bought pennies on the dollar by corporate farms, by Gates and Zuckerberg controlling what you say, and by Pharma companies cornering the market on necessary vaccines then your paradise is my hell... Of course everyone wants "minimal" regulation. I do too. The phrase is nonsense until you put it into real terms. 3. Really ? Sounds like this thread has some right people pointing out problems too. 4. This is word salad. I'm pretty sure a lot of people find the WTO and international trade agreements "left" too. Liberal political economy has proven to be the best system, and it slowly but surely defeats the other. 5. Yes, you are being fair here. 6. Agreed, and that's why people need to build trust for wholistic political solutions. My faith in liberal institutions, have moved me to identify as conservative. To me, this means we can work out solutions as you say. But the key is discussion in good faith. #1 task is for people who are interested in talking about solutions to lose the rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted July 2, 2021 Report Share Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. So let's not tax the wealthy ? Globalists and billionaires - do you like them ? They can use their advantages to starve out the disadvantaged, no problem. 2. Idealogues are great to read. I like idealogues of the left and the right both. But there is this thing called a political economy, built on our culture. If you are ok with farmers being starved out and bought pennies on the dollar by corporate farms, by Gates and Zuckerberg controlling what you say, and by Pharma companies cornering the market on necessary vaccines then your paradise is my hell... Of course everyone wants "minimal" regulation. I do too. The phrase is nonsense until you put it into real terms. 3. Really ? Sounds like this thread has some right people pointing out problems too. 4. This is word salad. I'm pretty sure a lot of people find the WTO and international trade agreements "left" too. Liberal political economy has proven to be the best system, and it slowly but surely defeats the other. 5. Yes, you are being fair here. 6. Agreed, and that's why people need to build trust for wholistic political solutions. My faith in liberal institutions, have moved me to identify as conservative. To me, this means we can work out solutions as you say. But the key is discussion in good faith. #1 task is for people who are interested in talking about solutions to lose the rhetoric. 1) low taxes on the wealthy the rich get rich by providing products and services to those less well off they help the poor far more than they hurt them the idea that the only or main way to be successful is to exploit the unsuccessful and keep them down is a myth free market capitalism exploits the fact that best way to get rich is by helping others and rewarding them for doing so it's is not a coincidence that places with lots of wealthy people have more well off disadvantaged people living in those places than the places that have much less wealthy people living there 3) and 4) it's not word salad it's a generalization that the right is good at solutions to problems and bad at finding problems and the left is good at finding problems but bad at solutions to problems there are outliers, of course, but it's a good generalization of both wings of the spectrum Edited July 2, 2021 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.