What evidence is there to support Canada being 'systemically racist'?

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Note where I said if you believe your own tripe.  I acknowledge the back-peddling in your tone now but you've nonetheless illustrated how it is that systemic racism and colonialism still persists to this day - it's exactly why I said the best evidence of its existence is in the attitude of bemused disgust you folks typically bring to issues that smack of social justice.  While you may think you're just being sarcastic with someone you don't particularly like on the internet to do so you've basically appropriated and belittled the suffering of people to do so.  By the same token you see Zeitgeist conflating centuries old history with people today as if doing so makes the present seem as distant.  It's like the old question, would you debase yourself like this around the Thanksgiving table to make the same point?  I suspect judges and negotiators stopped putting up with it eons ago. 

The only point I've made is that we are in fact liable for abuses at the hands of governments and institutions that people have proven happened to them in court and through negotiation.  I suspect you understand this on some level but choose to make an issue of it anyway.  Rinse and repeat enough and it does add up like gunk that fouls up a mechanism and slows it down.

Good job, on some level you must be proud of yourself.

You set no statute of limitations on the injustices of the distant past and pretend that they persist today to an extent that people are still widely held back because of skin colour and ethnicity.  Given all the current examples of “building representation” through hiring and the attempts by management programs to see racism lurking everywhere, I just don’t believe the hype.  The only codified discrimination today is in racialized job postings or EDI point schemes that determine what someone deserves based on superficial markers or intersectionalities.  I understand what the initial intent of these programs was, but we’ve just created more discrimination.  We’re creating new forms of victim-state-dependents whom government can save.

I know that people’s views about such programs depend very much on their politics and how interventionist they believe government should be.  I find it sadly ironic that the non-Indigenous who are most critical of Canada’s creation of residential schools tend to have the kinds of interventionist political views that create paternalistic institutions like residential schools.  There’s an inability to connect that impulse across time.  I really see it now.  It’s the willful blindness of the elites.  It’s the one-eyed Horus trying to control everything but missing the importance of freedom and self-determination.

The Covid measures demonstrate the same need to control how people live and think.  It’s happening with the internet too.  Government needs to back off because the authorities can’t help but create new forms of oppression over and over.  It’s why I’m for small government and stronger individual rights.

Racism is no longer systemic in Canada in the sense of policy.  Attitudes persist but creating new forms of discrimination to counter old ones isn’t going to improve people’s attitudes.  

Edited October 20, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

You set no statute of limitations on the injustices of the distant past and pretend that they persist today to an extent that people are still widely held back because of skin colour and ethnicity.  

Says the guy who whatabouts wars between people centuries ago to argue against accountability for crimes committed to people still alive today.

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Racism is no longer systemic in Canada in the sense of policy.  Attitudes persist but creating new forms of discrimination to counter old ones isn’t going to improve people’s attitudes.

I support the government simply telling you people to just STFU and mind your own business but how do you think that would go over?  About as well as you could expect things to go if the government told abused people to get over it.

[I am Groot]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Note where I said if you believe your own tripe. 

Ah, I see. So you disbelieve something I've said? Well, how grownups deal with that in discussion is to question what was said they disbelief. Or at least point it out. But you've done neither. Just kind of... sulked.

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

I acknowledge the back-peddling in your tone now but you've nonetheless illustrated how it is that systemic racism and colonialism still persists to this day - it's exactly why I said the best evidence of its existence is in the attitude of bemused disgust you folks typically bring to issues that smack of social justice. 

That'd an interesting paragraph. You invent a position for me, then suggest it's some sort of broad based behavioural pattern among 'you folks', whoever that might be, towards what you regard as social justice but many others regard as unfair and paternalistic racial quotas and regulations.

If you detect 'bemused disgust' in people regarding your beliefs you can ask some of the more ardent Trump supporters to sympathize as I'm sure their own odd beliefs generate similar attitudes on a regular basis.

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

While you may think you're just being sarcastic with someone you don't particularly like on the internet to do so you've basically appropriated and belittled the suffering of people to do so. 

You're not going to convince me you have any sort of sense to your arguments by such nonsensical accusations, you know. In fact, that's the sort of language that really only signals to like-minded people that you're one of them. It doesn't communicate anything else nor convince anyone your beliefs have any coherent logic or reality to them.

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

The only point I've made is that we are in fact liable for abuses at the hands of governments and institutions that people have proven happened to them in court

Just like to point out virtually none of the abuses you speak of were ever proven in court. It was considered rude to ask for such things as evidence. Not to mention colonialist in not 'believing' the victims, or alleged victims. Or whatever. A few people said things happened. The government offered billions of dollars in compensation to victims. Astonishingly, many, many, many more victims came forward to tell stories and claim their money. Proof? Not needed.

Anyone asking for proof, or even evidence would have drawn outrage, much as I have for asking for evidence of systemic racism.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Ah, I see. So you disbelieve something I've said?

What I believe is that you don't really give a shit about systemic racism.  You seem more amused than outraged.   A sign of your conviction or lack thereof and how little it's costing you perhaps - is being a hard-boiled right-winger just your hobby or something?

As for me I'm content knowing most Canadians are willing to do better than just wash their hands of the past.  If a few billion get sent out for no clear reason chalk it up to usual government incompetence - a different topic entirely.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

What I believe is that you don't really give a shit about systemic racism.  You seem more amused than outraged.   A sign of your conviction or lack thereof and how little it's costing you perhaps - is being a hard-boiled right-winger just your hobby or something?

Well, if I didn't really believe it existed it would be kind of odd for me to be outraged by it. And what is a 'hard-boiled right-winger"? I don't really think I qualify. This may be a case of you presuming those who don't agree with you must be the evil and nefarious people way out there who are deplorable and bad and immoral and all that sort of thing.

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

As for me I'm content knowing most Canadians are willing to do better than just wash their hands of the past.

As long as they're threatened enough. But I have a feeling this sort of thing is going to cease having as much influence as our Asian population grows. I have yet to meet one who does more than roll his or her eyes in contempt at all the woke stuff and the endless claims of victimhood by other groups. I sense a profound lack of sympathy and growing antipathy towards such 'victim' groups among both whites and asians.

Edited October 20, 2022 by I am Groot

[herbie]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

As for me I'm content knowing most Canadians are willing to do better than just wash their hands of the past.  If a few billion get sent out for no clear reason

Actually the reasons have been pretty clear, the implementation incompetent. Saw far too much of survivors payouts being ripped off by undeserving grandkids, etc. Another story altogether...

I know more people (non natives) bitch on the principle that the survivors got something that they didn't get themselves from "their tax money". Greed wins again over recompense.

[Zeitgeist]

49 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Well, if I didn't really believe it existed it would be kind of odd for me to be outraged by it. And what is a 'hard-boiled right-winger"? I don't really think I qualify. This may be a case of you presuming those who don't agree with you must be the evil and nefarious people way out there who are deplorable and bad and immoral and all that sort of thing.

As long as they're threatened enough. But I have a feeling this sort of thing is going to cease having as much influence as our Asian population grows. I have yet to meet one who does more than roll his or her eyes in contempt at all the woke stuff and the endless claims of victimhood by other groups. I sense a profound lack of sympathy and growing antipathy towards such 'victim' groups among both whites and asians.

Actually a lot of Blacks and other “non-Black racialized” people roll their eyes at the woke victim point scheme.  Don’t think for a second that racial groups line up along political lines with Blacks always on the left.  Far from it.  It’s like the myth that all Blacks want to defund the police.  That’s a lot of white liberal saviour BS.  

Edited October 20, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

This is not directly on systemic racism but it is related in that what we have here is a government funded 'anti racism' group which depicts Canada as wildly racist and warns of all kinds of white supremacy goings on in Canadian schools with little or no evidence. It's part of what some have called the racism industry. And the thing about the racism industry you have to remember is it's mainly funded by government, at least in Canada, and has every financial incentive to 'find' racism everywhere it looks.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-anti-hate-materials-saskatchewan-is-trying-to-banish-from-schools

[Iteration]

Let's stack on this and ask "what evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?"

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Iteration said:

Let's stack on this and ask "what evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?"

People who keep asking where the evidence is are the evidence.

It's not about you so stop taking it so personally.

[Iteration]

@eyeball

Okay so the question was: "What evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?" 

Your answer was "[p]eople who keep asking where the evidence is are the evidence."

• This answer will lead you to many different problems. For instance, If you believe that anyone who asks for evidence of x is evidence of x, that would suggest that if someone asks for evidence of the election being stolen from Donald Trump, he/she is evidence of the election being stolen from Donald Trump.
  • Is the latter statement something you agree with?

Edited October 27, 2022 by Iteration

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Iteration said:

@eyeball

Okay so the question was: "What evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?" 

Your answer was "[p]eople who keep asking where the evidence is are the evidence."

• This answer will lead you to many different problems. For instance, If you believe that anyone who asks for evidence of x is evidence of x, that would suggest that if someone asks for evidence of the election being stolen from Donald Trump, he/she is evidence of the election being stolen by Donald Trump.
  • Is the latter statement something you agree with?

No, my logic is more fluid and contextual. In the case you suggest it's evidence of pigheaded ignorance and I have little sympathy for it.  In the context I use surrounding a real issue like systemic racism it's just ignorance and a little more forgivable.

I mean it when I say people's angst is associated with their attachment to things and directions that veer away from the attachment hurts, like a scab coming off to soon.  I don't know why it's so hard for people to be more detached from institutions that made racism systemic without also acknowledging their liability for it where compensation or changes in our system are called for either by courts or thru negotiation.

Government institutions are by design intended to carry and transmit societies values beyond the lifespans of the individuals governed by them so it stands to reason institutions should also keep carrying societies liabilities forward as well.   

Edited October 26, 2022 by eyeball

[Iteration]

@eyeball

Okay, so your answer was no - you would not agree with the proposition "if someone asks for evidence of the election being stolen from Donald Trump, he/she becomes evidence of the election being stolen by Donald Trump." 

Now, we have two similar claims. You reject one, but accept the other. You need to either:

       A. Drop this as your previous response to the systemic racism question and provide evidence
       B. Provide a difference between your claim and my sample claim. 

If you do not do A, and you fail to do B, you are special pleading.

Quote

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} It is the application of a double standard.^[6][7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

Is this understood? 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Iteration
Clairty

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Iteration said:

Let's stack on this and ask "what evidence is there to support Canada or the United States being 'systemically racist'?"

In our case the continued attitude toward natives is obvious to anyone with a working brain.

Or try "Driving while black"

hell give the GOP enough time "voting while black" will be a crime

[Iteration]

@herbie

Okay, lets label each proposition/statement with A, B, and C

A = In our case the continued attitude toward natives is obvious to anyone with a working brain.
B = Or try "Driving while black"
C = hell give the GOP enough time "voting while black" will be a crime

I will be defining systemic racism as demonstrated in my first results: 

Quote

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization.

And racism as follows: 

Quote

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized

A is an alleged certainty or assuming the conclusion fallacy, and will be ignored. 
C is a slippery slope fallacy and will be ignored. 

What is the argument for statement B? 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Iteration

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, Iteration said:

@eyeball

Okay, so your answer was no - you would not agree with the proposition "if someone asks for evidence of the election being stolen from Donald Trump, he/she becomes evidence of the election being stolen by Donald Trump." 

Now, we have two similar claims. You reject one, but accept the other. You need to either:

       A. Drop this as your previous response to the systemic racism question and provide evidence
       B. Provide a difference between your claim and my sample claim. 

If you do not do A, and you fail to do B, you are special pleading.

Is this understood? 

I understand what you're saying but I completely disagree with it because you're not addressing the issue of context.

[Iteration]

@eyeball

Okay, so if you understand what I am saying, which option are you taking:
A or B? 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

People who keep asking where the evidence is are the evidence.

It's not about you so stop taking it so personally.

 

If I have to pay for it it's about me.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

.  I don't know why it's so hard for people to be more detached from institutions that made racism systemic without also acknowledging their liability for it where compensation or changes in our system are called for either by courts or thru negotiation.

Compensation for no demonstrated harm is something completely different. It is basically compensation for the failure of a group to thrive, and taking on the responsibility, taking it away from the group which does nothing to improve its own fortunes but whine about the past and demand preferential treatment.

[Iteration]

Is it just me, or has no one actually made an argument for the existence of systemic racism? I am confused. 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

In our case the continued attitude toward natives is obvious to anyone with a working brain.

Or try "Driving while black"

What attitude would that be? A disapproval of criminality, of special treatment? Of a system designed in another era which is supposed to have the rest of us support a perpetual non-working population living in completely uneconomic regions of the country?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

If I have to pay for it it's about me.

Only to the extent it is any of us - pennies on the dollar...if that.

Oh look, the system has set aside a decision to compensate again.

Good job, your side's still winning.  I guess the cost of stalling must be a real deal in comparison, like 10% maybe, another 10% that is?

Edited October 27, 2022 by eyeball

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Compensation for no demonstrated harm is something completely different. It is basically compensation for the failure of a group to thrive, and taking on the responsibility, taking it away from the group which does nothing to improve its own fortunes but whine about the past and demand preferential treatment.

I doubt the SCC will spend a moment's time considering this as an argument when it comes to them finally having to settle things in the case of 1st Nations.

Eventually it'll be indigenous aspirations that guide our government and institution's stance toward everyone.  The process will even be systemic in nature but it'll still take a few generations.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Iteration said:

@eyeball

Okay, so if you understand what I am saying, which option are you taking:
A or B? 

Neither without context. Understand?  

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Iteration said:

Is it just me, or has no one actually made an argument for the existence of systemic racism? I am confused. 

It's you Groot and Zeitgeist mostly at the moment.

In the meantime try exploring why you identify so closely with our institutions to the extent you take it so personally when they're called to account for their behaviour.