Are people more racist today

[Robert Salyers]

Every time I look at the news 8 see people talking about racism and how bad it is.

Im 64 years old and just do not see it.

Granted it exists in most cultures and nations among all skin colors but I do not see it like liberals make it out to be.

[Scott Mayers]

I'm 'liberal' but agree in part. The vast majority of people on the Left are still from discrete cultures OTHER THAN the caucation 'majority' who are themselves just as biased in their thinking. Racism and Sexism are always defined as belonging to all others but those accusing.

The majority everywhere prefers some right to pass on inheritance to their loved one's which includes their ideals they hope to pass on regarding things most especially surrounding their ethnicity and/or religion. As such, when we do well, we pass on FAVOR to our own children and whichever pool of dominant 'culture' we personally place on a pedestal. This 'nepotism' is the beginning of what BECOMES the biases we do not normally reflect of ourselves. We also oppositely believe in NOT passing on inheritance of DEBT. Instead, this gets passed on to the general population. These two 'heritage' factors set the stage.

When you succeed, you would prefer to pass on your gains to your loved ones' while preventing the passings-on of those things and behaviors not desired (collectively, our 'debts'). So the next generations who have better parental success will repeat the pattern. Eventually, a pool of concentration of wealth will tend to favor some races/sexes over others until some large imbalance of representation exists. 

The same but opposite effect occurs to those who fail. Their children DEFAULT to inherit an ABSENCE of power which then in direct opposition to the wealthy, will eventually concentrate those races or sexes in common to a DEFICIT that will eventually explode if there exists no means for them to get ahead in the same way. As such, those with the strongest 'pride' in their own who excludes things like intermarriage, will become 'racist' and 'sexist' but with an apparent absense of DIRECT abuse towards outsiders because they don't NEED to. On the other end, the impoverished masses who get LEFT OUT will push back but being already on the losing end, they will tend to be NOTICED more for their behaviors given they are going to be inevitably less friendly. 

Since we live in a relatively richer country, it is hard to notice how our nepotism contributes to racism/sexism (systemically) and why I think you may not notice it as existing. To obvious poorer communities who will favor those parties that lean 'left', they will appear to be making a fuss where none exist but often ignore the problem as due to 'poverty' and not necessarily race. As such, they too contribute to being racist and sexist where they suddenly get attention and interpret their condition as having an INTENTIONAL (non-systemic) cause. 

Both contribute but only those at the top have the power to change things IN PEACE. But they want to 'conserve' their right to KEEP what they have with the continuing 'right' to distinctly pass on beneficial inheritance onto their OWN kinds. Some will reflect on their own contributing causes but still do not want to lose their right to pass on their OWN cultures. As such, they will tend to be 'apogetic' for a whole race/sex UNWARRANTED but are doing this so that they do not feel compelled to literally give UP their own inherited power. By extending their own 'wealth' class to the dominant race they have, they conserve their power while the poorer OF their race are the ones' who will take the weight of debt when they get denied the same reparations or government aides that get 'inherited' to all others of the minority of the poor. 

Thus, you get the angry backlash of those whites who also happen to be poor regardless of what they do. Those with the ACTUAL hate there will get the notice of the Left even if they are non-representative of the whole. 

So the real reason is about haves and have-nots, and how we today still believe that we should have the independent right to pass on our beneficial inheritance to those of our choosing while the poor are forced to inherit both their LACK of wealth PLUS any burdens of the 'debts' that even rich people contribute for NOT requiring to pass on those debts.

 

Note that in most times, "inheritance" was assumed to include debts. So if your brother, say, caused a debt, you as his brother might 'inherit' that debt. While unfair, it actually respected the meaning of 'inheritance' fairly by MEANING. Today, we grant the rich an accellerating power where weallth generate multiple powers of wealth. We also permitted means of hiding or passing on debts by the wealth through corporate laws that permit them to never lose anything but their present investment. This 'limits their liability' to the investment.

 

To me, the solution requires creating more limits to corporate protections as well as preventing independent rights of one to pass on benefits to those they personally favor through inheritance. We also need to expose how religion gets used as some virtuous 'right' that enables one to excuse why they have some sovereign right to KEEP their power to selective inheritance. Our "Multiculturalism (TM)" is used this way. While it is a "leftist" ideal, the dominance of the 'conservative' GROUPS, defined in terms of one's ethnicity or heritage, dominates and rules equally on the "right" by default of coinciding rights of inheritance. These clearcut groupings frame the smallest minority as some GROUP and their associated cultures leaving out the independent individuals of all racial backgrounds who don't conform to some steretype. So you get the 'white (and male)' racists on the right, but most of the others hidden within the 'mosaic' groupings dominating the 'left'. 

We need to clearly separate both 'culture' as well as religion in govnernment, abolish rights of personal inheritance beyond sentimentals, provide social supports for those suffering most, and cap wealth. 

 

[I doubt this will occur and it may be impossible given our normal evolutionary instincts to conserve.]

 

[ironstone]

I don't think people are more racist today but in a sense we are now living in a constant state of apprehension because of the fear of being labelled racist for anything and everything. I should point out this state of apprehension applies primarily to white people who get blamed for all the world's problems.

It is  the left that is always using identity politics as a weapon. They don't care about character, it's all about skin colour.

[Robert Salyers]

It seems liberals think people are more racist as its a major issue for them but frankly I dont see it. I find just the opposite to be true. Granted there are people are racist and there there always will be. Also all colors are racist .

11 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

The title of this thread is terrible.  Re-write the title so that it may be descriptive of the subject you wish to discuss. 

 

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/3/2022 at 7:15 AM, Robert Salyers said:

It seems liberals think people are more racist as its a major issue for them but frankly I dont see it. I find just the opposite to be true. Granted there are people are racist and there there always will be. Also all colors are racist .

 

Note that it is the extreme 'conservatives' within the 'liberal' side who controls what gets stereotyped. I am liberal but do not get noticed for being white and non-affliliated with any cult, religion, or culture. The Right has its extreme that IS usually (but not ONLY) 'White' supremacists. So be aware that the very same thinking occurs on both sides but the dominant groups default to the 'conservative' side; the X-supremacists on the Left are more varied and they take over the normal 'democratic' position of independent individuals. Since the plural groups exist more on the Left (for not being 'dominant'), and are collectively 'dominant' in power there. They would refrain from being considered 'Supremacists' but are in meaning. 

BUT, the conservatives on the Right who are extreme would not want to reduce the power of cultural law making. As such, THEY control how the Left reacts most specifically. 

I don't know the solution other than to change all constitutions to an American First Amendment type of decree BUT with clearer and stricter attention to assert that no CULTURE nor RELIGION can be specifically able to alter laws to enhance favor for SPECIFIC favor nor disfavor. I thought the original amendment in the U.S. was good but clearly they have also enabled religion, as a 'cult(ure)' to IMPOSE 'God' at least in general, ...a form of usurping the original intent to EXCLUDE them. But given most people are religious in general, they simply agree to lock out the non-theist. 

For example, the U.S. introduced, "In God we Trust", a clear violation of the original non-theistic intent of the law. Here in Canada, they cleverly hide religion as a function under 'culture'. But the same arrogant religious people (ALL the dominant ones) have co-opted this too and WHY we get the supremacists ruling us. Canada would need to rid the royalty's presence at the very least. We would need the opening religious conserving statements and favoritism to the catholics (Anglican and French/Roman) as well as to any perpetuous protections for any "nations" or "discrete" people based upon its racist identity.

[Robert Salyers]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Note that it is the extreme 'conservatives' within the 'liberal' side who controls what gets stereotyped. I am liberal but do not get noticed for being white and non-affliliated with any cult, religion, or culture. The Right has its extreme that IS usually (but not ONLY) 'White' supremacists. So be aware that the very same thinking occurs on both sides but the dominant groups default to the 'conservative' side; the X-supremacists on the Left are more varied and they take over the normal 'democratic' position of independent individuals. Since the plural groups exist more on the Left (for not being 'dominant'), and are collectively 'dominant' in power there. They would refrain from being considered 'Supremacists' but are in meaning. 

BUT, the conservatives on the Right who are extreme would not want to reduce the power of cultural law making. As such, THEY control how the Left reacts most specifically. 

I don't know the solution other than to change all constitutions to an American First Amendment type of decree BUT with clearer and stricter attention to assert that no CULTURE nor RELIGION can be specifically able to alter laws to enhance favor for SPECIFIC favor nor disfavor. I thought the original amendment in the U.S. was good but clearly they have also enabled religion, as a 'cult(ure)' to IMPOSE 'God' at least in general, ...a form of usurping the original intent to EXCLUDE them. But given most people are religious in general, they simply agree to lock out the non-theist. 

For example, the U.S. introduced, "In God we Trust", a clear violation of the original non-theistic intent of the law. Here in Canada, they cleverly hide religion as a function under 'culture'. But the same arrogant religious people (ALL the dominant ones) have co-opted this too and WHY we get the supremacists ruling us. Canada would need to rid the royalty's presence at the very least. We would need the opening religious conserving statements and favoritism to the catholics (Anglican and French/Roman) as well as to any perpetuous protections for any "nations" or "discrete" people based upon its racist identity.

you seem to think only whites are raciest which is far fro\m the truth

[West]

The fear stoked in our institutions i.e universities and media keeps the masses angry at one another. Easy to control them that way. 

What I find with leftists is the examples they use are anecdotal and subjective in nature. Doesn't mean their argument is valid

Edited June 5, 2022 by West

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/4/2022 at 4:35 PM, Robert Salyers said:

you seem to think only whites are raciest which is far fro\m the truth

Then you can't read correctly.

I complained in that post how the Left tends to be always controlled by the 'racist' non-traditional groups based upon the very KIND of thinking that exists on the traditional groups on the Right. That is, the complaints about the Left falsely presume that those of us who like the 'liberal' ideals support Identity politics when it is only the plurality of those religious ethnic groups that THINK the same as the dominating conservatives of the Right: 

The Right are traditionally 'racist' by majority standards; the Left are non-traditionally 'racist' but by the  collective pluralities of religious-based cults. (I use 'cult' to emphasize how arguments about conserving "culture" are based upon extreme religious segregationists....on any political side...and that terms like "Multiculturalism" (Left) are "Monoculturalists" (as the Right is normally) but are hiding the religiousity under the banner of 'culture'.)

Thus the rhetoric on either side are controlled not by the actual individuals because of the power of dominating cults rule as the largest PLURALITIES dominant on each side. They are predominantly 'racist' equally but differ on their rhetoric. Also, the Left has been increasingly learning FROM the rhetoric normally exclusive to the rich Right wingers who believe in caricaturing people by stereotypes. 

The Left cannot advocate SPECIFIC favor due to the collective agreements among the dominating cults to define the smallest 'minority' BY those cults. They cannot 'agree' to the same conservative views because they come from diverse groups with very distinctly different ideals. So they simply agree to segregate the people into a 'mosaic' of ethnicities and why they are acting as they do. Those Left' OR 'centrist' Whites who still happen to have the larger plurality regardless opt to use the rhetoric of 'virtue signalling' because they TOO have a risk of losing their wealth in distribution ideals FROM the Left. So they act 'woke' by the standards of those like Malcolm-X rather than Martin Luther King. Malcolm-X was a 'segregationist' advocating SPECIFICALLY for his own race where MLK was a 'universalist'; Thus the "Left" is today being overrun by 'segregationists' precisely because ALL the ethnic cults are threatened and are becoming more CONSERVATIVELY protective. 

So the point here is that what those on the Right are complaining about the Left for being 'woke' haters of the "Whites" (and let's not forget, "Male") are nevertheless as racist as the extremes OF the "White" supremacist stereotypes they too point to. The reality is that there are some groups, like the Jewish ethnic segregationists, who like to keep the rhetoric of pointing to the Right-wingers as "White Supremacists" as do other ethnic segregationists on the Left (mostly) because its MEANING is to divert attention away from the WHITES in power among the Left, but are not generally OPEN as the same contingency of the Right. That is, the Left is defining 'white' as particularly the European caucasians and EXCLUDING the non-European whites, like the Semitic, or Arabic, for instances.

Do you get it now?

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/4/2022 at 9:46 PM, West said:

The fear stoked in our institutions i.e universities and media keeps the masses angry at one another. Easy to control them that way. 

What I find with leftists is the examples they use are anecdotal and subjective in nature. Doesn't mean their argument is valid

Most of the media are owned by 'segregationists' of some sort. Those most absurdly over-representative in media and television are Jewish and pro-Israeli to some degree. Outside of the U.S., they are NOT legally considered 'white' regardless of their overrepresentation of 'whites' in media. They learned from the past that the means to prevent their destruction (as from things like the Holocaust) is to capitalize on media. But given the dominant Christianity of the past also despised "usury" (the means of making money from the middle of transactions), the Jews had a background of 'media' control (I'm using 'media' now for its root meaning, "the middle"). 

I'm being matter-of-factly here to point out that those who link being Jewish as Semitic, are to me, just as racist too but can get away with this due to the Holocaust and why their specific constant advocacy to keep it in the minds of everyone. It MASKS their own racist ideal of being 'superior' (God OR Nature's 'chosen' ones implies being 'superior' in kind).  

While we need to point out these facts, it is almost blasphemy to do so and why WOKENESS is so effective to CONSERVE the cults of those pluralities who are unrepresentative as 'majorities' normally. But as you should see, by me pointing this out is what helps justify why the Left tries to tie the Right to "White Supremacists". The reason the Right doesn't point to this specifically is precisely because it would 'justify' the stereotype of the "Neo-Nazi" regardless of any logical point being made. There are pro-Israelis on the Right but given that side's philosophy is about ECONOMIC 'freedoms' versus CULTURAL 'freedoms', they would also not want to directly point out the White group thinking on the Left who have the same views. Instead, misdirection is their means of keeping people confused by promoting 'fake news' mixed with the real so that no one can tell the difference anymore.

I HATE politics. (Is that a 'hate crime'?) But I CAN see what is going on by all sides. We are embracing the 'tribalism' that defines 'fascism' regardless of cultural or economic sides of the spectra. 

[Aristides]

Hard to say, social media has warped everything. Are more people racist or is it just that more people feel licensed to express what was always there.

[ExFlyer]

On 6/3/2022 at 9:15 AM, Robert Salyers said:

It seems liberals think people are more racist as its a major issue for them but frankly I dont see it. I find just the opposite to be true. Granted there are people are racist and there there always will be. Also all colors are racist .

 

I agree.

All colours and races and nationalities are racist to some extent.

The issue as I see it is that social media feeds racism as well as conspiracy theories and falsehoods and sensationalism. Instantly accuse or admonish or demean someone or some group and it flows quicker than shit through a tin goose.

I did a lot of crap when I was younger and fortunately that was in the  80's and there were no cameras recording everyone movements and no social media to make a major issue out of a minor event

 

[Scott Mayers]

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree.

All colours and races and nationalities are racist to some extent.

The issue as I see it is that social media feeds racism as well as conspiracy theories and falsehoods and sensationalism. Instantly accuse or admonish or demean someone or some group and it flows quicker than shit through a tin goose.

I did a lot of crap when I was younger and fortunately that was in the  80's and there were no cameras recording everyone movements and no social media to make a major issue out of a minor event

 

"Racism" is any extreme action that targets some genetically defined subspecie as though their genetics define HOW they will behave where it is NOT actually genetic but 'cultural' and 'economic'. [environment, or 'nurture'] The arguments merely accusing some genetic class as 'owning' some fault (OR virtue) IS itself 'racist' which has to include those asserting it 'conspiratorial' to speak against those presuming "White Privilege" to justify making laws that tend only to penalize those 'whites' who don't conform to accepting any penalty. 

All media 'feeds' POTENTIAL for racism which will inevitably mean that they will exist. But to propose laws that dictate censorship threatens a worse problem. To further assume ONLY OTHERS are suckered into believing in 'false' news is itself CONSPIRATORIAL and WILL remove our capacity to 'free speech'. 

I have been arguing on forums that censor as being inappropriate because ANY 'moderation' beyond SPAM risks the guest's own liability because one can argue in court that their words were tampered with ...and 'legally' so. Once censorship is encouraged and permitted, it violates the faith of its content because it COULD be moderated in ways that alter the intentional meanings of ANY of its content. This is HOW the Eastern bloc countries and dictorships anywhere effectively assure they stay in power. 

So 'racism', even if it remains, CAN be challenged only openly without censorship. The problem as I notice from participating directly is that most of those in open forums do not even consist of those who prefer to collude in CLOSED forums. This specifically favors the wealthier who can afford to travel and meet in those non-public forums. As such, they tend to disapprove of OPEN forums that threaten those most who do not even participate. Participation is what CAN effectively correct misinformation. I find it relatively easy. I can watch anything and determine what is or is not true for myself and don't need some CONSPIRED privileged censorhip class to only JUSTIFY the very 'conspiracy theories charged against them afterthefact. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Scott Mayers
Added "....and 'economic'. [environmental or 'nurture']

[Robert Salyers]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I agree.

All colours and races and nationalities are racist to some extent.

The issue as I see it is that social media feeds racism as well as conspiracy theories and falsehoods and sensationalism. Instantly accuse or admonish or demean someone or some group and it flows quicker than shit through a tin goose.

I did a lot of crap when I was younger and fortunately that was in the  80's and there were no cameras recording everyone movements and no social media to make a major issue out of a minor event

 

Lol I was born in the 50s and grew up in the 60s and 70 dam sure I wouldn't want recording of any off it !

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Racism" is any extreme action that targets some genetically defined subspecie as though their genetics define HOW they will behave where it is NOT actually genetic but 'cultural' and 'economic'. [environment, or 'nurture'] The arguments merely accusing some genetic class as 'owning' some fault (OR virtue) IS itself 'racist' which has to include those asserting it 'conspiratorial' to speak against those presuming "White Privilege" to justify making laws that tend only to penalize those 'whites' who don't conform to accepting any penalty. 

All media 'feeds' POTENTIAL for racism which will inevitably mean that they will exist. But to propose laws that dictate censorship threatens a worse problem. To further assume ONLY OTHERS are suckered into believing in 'false' news is itself CONSPIRATORIAL and WILL remove our capacity to 'free speech'. 

I have been arguing on forums that censor as being inappropriate because ANY 'moderation' beyond SPAM risks the guest's own liability because one can argue in court that their words were tampered with ...and 'legally' so. Once censorship is encouraged and permitted, it violates the faith of its content because it COULD be moderated in ways that alter the intentional meanings of ANY of its content. This is HOW the Eastern bloc countries and dictorships anywhere effectively assure they stay in power. 

So 'racism', even if it remains, CAN be challenged only openly without censorship. The problem as I notice from participating directly is that most of those in open forums do not even consist of those who prefer to collude in CLOSED forums. This specifically favors the wealthier who can afford to travel and meet in those non-public forums. As such, they tend to disapprove of OPEN forums that threaten those most who do not even participate. Participation is what CAN effectively correct misinformation. I find it relatively easy. I can watch anything and determine what is or is not true for myself and don't need some CONSPIRED privileged censorhip class to only JUSTIFY the very 'conspiracy theories charged against them afterthefact. 

Huh????  LOL  TLDNR

I stand by my comment "All colours and races and nationalities are racist to some extent.".

 

[taxme]

On 6/1/2022 at 8:45 PM, Robert Salyers said:

Every time I look at the news 8 see people talking about racism and how bad it is.

Im 64 years old and just do not see it.

Granted it exists in most cultures and nations among all skin colors but I do not see it like liberals make it out to be.

It's all just more leftist liberal bull chit to try and stir up the racism pot, and to try and get more multiculturalism and diversity shoved down old whitey's throat. There is probably just as many racists in other nonwhite societies in Canada as there is in the white societies of Canada. 

But when I read stories about how many white people are being denied government jobs or promotions because they are white, well that is enough to want to make me become a racist. The government tells me that I should not be a racist, but yet, the government practices racism all the time. When the government or some private business has a sign up that says that only nonwhites need apply, well now that is promoting real racism. All governments do have a certain quota system and numbers in effect where they must hire nonwhites only. Even if they are not qualified to do the job. That is racism. 

There is no real racism in Canada at all. The only racism that we are hearing about is the one that the lying government and the lying media keeps trying to push and manufacture on the many gullible stupid Canadians out there who will believe anything that those two liars tell them without question. ?

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/6/2022 at 5:17 PM, ExFlyer said:

Huh????  LOL  TLDNR

I stand by my comment "All colours and races and nationalities are racist to some extent.".

 

TSOCTC (Too shallow of a comment to care) 

Go to Twitter if you don't expect appropriate depth on these topics. If you get annoyed for daring to read something you don't like and can't compete using counterarguments, you are not here for rational discussion. I'm not interested in short quips of opinion that platforms like Twitter is suited for.....especially if you are only acting to appeal to the shallow minded. 

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

TSOCTC (Too shallow of a comment to care) 

Go to Twitter if you don't expect appropriate depth on these topics. If you get annoyed for daring to read something you don't like and can't compete using counterarguments, you are not here for rational discussion. I'm not interested in short quips of opinion that platforms like Twitter is suited for.....especially if you are only acting to appeal to the shallow minded. 

Don't do Twitter but also don't read thesis on a discussion forum

A rational discussion does not have to tire one out and be many paragraphs long.

[Scott Mayers]

On 6/6/2022 at 5:27 PM, taxme said:

It's all just more leftist liberal bull chit to try and stir up the racism pot, and to try and get more multiculturalism and diversity shoved down old whitey's throat. There is probably just as many racists in other nonwhite societies in Canada as there is in the white societies of Canada. 

But when I read stories about how many white people are being denied government jobs or promotions because they are white, well that is enough to want to make me become a racist. The government tells me that I should not be a racist, but yet, the government practices racism all the time. When the government or some private business has a sign up that says that only nonwhites need apply, well now that is promoting real racism. All governments do have a certain quota system and numbers in effect where they must hire nonwhites only. Even if they are not qualified to do the job. That is racism. 

There is no real racism in Canada at all. The only racism that we are hearing about is the one that the lying government and the lying media keeps trying to push and manufacture on the many gullible stupid Canadians out there who will believe anything that those two liars tell them without question. ?

The politics of identity exist on the Left is due ONLY to the conservative religious groups there preferring to have racial/sexual division but lack the power of being the majority. The concept of demanding discrete 'culture' is a normal extreme that exists on the Right.

Compare this to a large ghetto that needs some resolution to poverty. The independent individuals would be normally overrun by some particular gang locally. But when they attempt to challenge them by appealing to the majority among them, the gangs that exist could not compete against the individuals by the numbers. So they get a convention of mutliple gangs who merely agree to divide up the territory and STEAL the 'democratic' power by defining the 'minority' as being based upon those gang's particular domains. That is, the gangs cleverly figured out that if they can't have power as ONE dominant gang in 'supreme' power, they negotiate with the collection of distinct gangs to merely NOT INTERFERE in each other's own 'territory'. 

This means that the kind of problem of 'identity' originates from the same KIND of thinking as the 'White' Supremacist extremes who default to being on the Right precisely because the 'whites' on the Right are the default majority there. If this was a Muslim country, the Muslim extremes among them would exist on the Right while the caricatured "White" Supremacists would be just one among many on the Left. The Leftwing supremacist groups would try to paint themselves as 'democrats' but are NOT. 

What BOTH sides aren't saying is that they do NOT want anyone to notice the difference of politics as being 'economic'. The consevatives among the Left are still 'capitalistic'. [We get ONLY the migrants from places they are most interested in 'capitalism'. They are PRACTICING 'capitalism' when they trick the Left in serving their ends. 

Since independent individuals lack power if they do NOT belong to one of these pluralities and are relatively poorer than the establishment, their political representation is lost to the segregationist cults regardless of which political side they exist on. The Right here are just as 'segregationist' when they promote religion or their own 'culture' (such as those who may literally call themselves 'Supremacists' with PRIDE!) The Right's main cult class are the Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals and non-catholic protestants). This is their 'identity' cult. They actually agree to the 'mosaic' concept too but wholescale; that is, they want the whole country to be of ONE 'cult' rather than multiple ones.

Both extremes couldn't give a shit about democracy and do whatever it takes to dictate the 'platforms' making a mockery of the idea of 'democracy' no longer valid.

[Scott Mayers]

38 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Don't do Twitter but also don't read thesis on a discussion forum

A rational discussion does not have to tire one out and be many paragraphs long.

Actually, I see such intentional DECEPTION on these forums by those promoting 'simplistic' thinking that it calls for more depth. Given you CAN simply SKIP long posts, you are telling me to shut up when you respond to HOW I speak freely. If you are simply annoyed because you use a cell phone to communicate here making it difficult to read and respond, that is YOUR issue. I don't use a smart phone for these forums and have no problem being able to pass over other people's posts and use a full keyboard to type rather than thumbing one 'text'. Dictating that I appeal to your OWN limitations is insulting. Everything is not about YOU! 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Actually, I see such intentional DECEPTION on these forums by those promoting 'simplistic' thinking that it calls for more depth. Given you CAN simply SKIP long posts, you are telling me to shut up when you respond to HOW I speak freely. If you are simply annoyed because you use a cell phone to communicate here making it difficult to read and respond, that is YOUR issue. I don't use a smart phone for these forums and have no problem being able to pass over other people's posts and use a full keyboard to type rather than thumbing one 'text'. Dictating that I appeal to your OWN limitations is insulting. Everything is not about YOU! 

Nope, just saying you blather .

I don't use a phone either, so there LOL

I dictate nothing to no one and you are right, it is in no way about me. I just insinuated that you are long winded. My opinion, I am allowed to have it.

 

[Scott Mayers]

50 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, just saying you blather .

I don't use a phone either, so there LOL

I dictate nothing to no one and you are right, it is in no way about me. I just insinuated that you are long winded. My opinion, I am allowed to have it.

 

It's not news to me. I don't like to be misunderstood and so require more words to express what DOES get misinterpreted when others beleive that shorter symbols suffice. Note that the more popular art is, the less specific its content is because people prefer to read summarily abstract expressions from their own perspective, not the artist's. Thus, being ABLE to reduce one's words to poetry is certainly more appealing but lacks specific meaning. In politics, we need more precision about the author's meanings. The default attraction to favor sound bites due to one's lack of attention span is what has gotten us into trouble: people paying attention only to what entertains their own views. 

I separate the 'art' of communication in politics from the 'logic' and prioritize the logic even if apparently 'longwinded' because I also believe that the artistic expression of serious issues are only 'poetry'. They can enhance a view already understood or shared and add emotional impact; But, they cannot express the logic underlying the emotional reactions about the issues. 

 

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

The politics of identity exist on the Left is due ONLY to the conservative religious groups there preferring to have racial/sexual division but lack the power of being the majority. The concept of demanding discrete 'culture' is a normal extreme that exists on the Right.

Compare this to a large ghetto that needs some resolution to poverty. The independent individuals would be normally overrun by some particular gang locally. But when they attempt to challenge them by appealing to the majority among them, the gangs that exist could not compete against the individuals by the numbers. So they get a convention of mutliple gangs who merely agree to divide up the territory and STEAL the 'democratic' power by defining the 'minority' as being based upon those gang's particular domains. That is, the gangs cleverly figured out that if they can't have power as ONE dominant gang in 'supreme' power, they negotiate with the collection of distinct gangs to merely NOT INTERFERE in each other's own 'territory'. 

This means that the kind of problem of 'identity' originates from the same KIND of thinking as the 'White' Supremacist extremes who default to being on the Right precisely because the 'whites' on the Right are the default majority there. If this was a Muslim country, the Muslim extremes among them would exist on the Right while the caricatured "White" Supremacists would be just one among many on the Left. The Leftwing supremacist groups would try to paint themselves as 'democrats' but are NOT. 

What BOTH sides aren't saying is that they do NOT want anyone to notice the difference of politics as being 'economic'. The consevatives among the Left are still 'capitalistic'. [We get ONLY the migrants from places they are most interested in 'capitalism'. They are PRACTICING 'capitalism' when they trick the Left in serving their ends. 

Since independent individuals lack power if they do NOT belong to one of these pluralities and are relatively poorer than the establishment, their political representation is lost to the segregationist cults regardless of which political side they exist on. The Right here are just as 'segregationist' when they promote religion or their own 'culture' (such as those who may literally call themselves 'Supremacists' with PRIDE!) The Right's main cult class are the Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals and non-catholic protestants). This is their 'identity' cult. They actually agree to the 'mosaic' concept too but wholescale; that is, they want the whole country to be of ONE 'cult' rather than multiple ones.

Both extremes couldn't give a shit about democracy and do whatever it takes to dictate the 'platforms' making a mockery of the idea of 'democracy' no longer valid.

There appears to be more anti white race hatred going on in Canada today than ever before against old whitey. All this talk of white privilege is going too far. When I watch American news, many blacks on those leftist liberal TV stations like CNN and MSNBC are always talking about and saying things anti-white all the time. It's not very hard to maybe one day become a white racist myself when I have to watch and put up with all of this anti-white racism going on in Canada and America today against white people.

Just who the the hell founded, toiled, and built Canada and America up? Not some non-white third world people? It was white people. it seems like this constant promotion of anti white racism is starting to work on new or older non-white immigrants that came to Canada decades ago or yesterday. Many seem to be on this anti-white band wagon. All I can say to those people is that if you have a problem with white people, then get the hell out of our white homeland. Works for me. ?

[WestCanMan]

People are actually way more racist now.

Before Obama mystically determined that Trayvon Martin was shot just for being a cute black 12 yr-old there were no racist riots for about 20 years, to 1992. Before the Rodney King verdict you'd probably have to go back another 20 years.

Between 2014 and now there were probably 36 months which would be characterized by widespread racist riots. Racist comments are common now on shows like The View and "Joy Reid's Racist Screed". 

[OftenWrong]

My opinion- the problem is real and may never be completely eliminated. But perhaps in a way it should not be, it may be too costly to society in other ways. Racism may be a consequence of something else, like nationalism, competitiveness, group-think.

Humans tend to organize themselves into local groups. This might still be true even if we all lived under the glorious banner of red communism.

Just like an a bug’s hive, ya got yer Queens. And those who would die for her.

A good hive thrives and grows, but if it gets too big, it’s not a good thing. Eventually a separation takes place, perhaps not unlike a political schism of sorts. No doubt many an insect empire has fallen in glorious battle, their tails untold...

For what is communism then, if not like the life of these insects?

[OftenWrong]

The problem in Canada is exaggerated - my opinion.

We never had the kind of problems the US had. Don’t get me wrong... lol Black racism is prevalent on both sides of the border, as all groups are by definition inherently identified by race, hence racist.    

But Canada stupidly loves emulating US culture, especially through consumption of US media, such that the poorly informed among us think we have the same problems here.

For me the first eye-popping moment was during the Rodney King trial, when we saw riots breaking out in LA streets, we heard they had gone and done the same things on Yonge street in Toronto.

........

Canadians are not racist because there is no Canada, as a race. Rather, we are an agglomeration of many distinct, racist cultures. Multi-racism.