What happened to Canada

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course - the first nations had a history of slavery in many parts of what is now Canada but that's a different issue.

Shhhhh! You're not supposed to mention that!

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Okay. But even if we accept that do you believe it's wise to implement similar policies today? I mean, it was dumb to apply to minorities but it's even dumber to apply to the majority.

I thought I had explained it clearly. The vast majority of racialized people in Canada (exempting indigenous people) are immigrants or their children. Why are all our policies designed to benefit them at the expense of white people?

Just a minor point of clarification to say that at the time when slavery was legal there was no Canada. This was British colonialism. The number is roughly  accurate tho

Yes I’m referring to the entire colonial history of the lands now called Canada.  The numbers were in the hundreds, but also, in every jurisdiction set up in those pre-Canada colonies, you could not acquire slaves.  Nova Scotia was perhaps an exception, as it was much like New England and about as old.  Again though, that’s prior to the banning of slavery in the British Empire in 1832.  US slavery, where there were many thousands of slaves, didn’t end until the late 1860’s.  There was never slavery in the nation state of Canada founded in 1867.

Anyway there were worse wars and slaughters throughout Africa, Europe, and the US (of Indians and during the Civil War, for example) than anything that happened in Canada throughout colonial settlement.

Citing the head tax and even Residential Schools against these mass slaughters, they seem pretty small time, which doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have happened, although publicly funded education was the progressive cause of its day, as providing literacy to natives was widely considered noble.  Context is critical.

 

Edited January 26 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

What are you talking about, dummy? Do you think my describing capitalism as a system of exploitation implies that exploitation is exclusive to capitalism?

What an odd comfort to see you here, pummeling the Chuds I put on ignore years ago.

It is something like Abraham Lincoln coming to life and having a great time at an Outkast show...

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Shhhhh! You're not supposed to mention that!

But i'm told it was the 'good' kind of slavery!!! So there's that.

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

What an odd comfort to see you here, pummeling the Chuds I put on ignore years ago.

It is something like Abraham Lincoln coming to life and having a great time at an Outkast show...

And you're a dedicated conservative right?  

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 And you're a dedicated conservative right?  

I'm not casting aspersions here, but 99% of the people who mention communists are just stupid...

[herbie]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

You're free to move out onto the Arctic tundra if you want. But that's not where immigrants are going. They're going to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. This whole nonsense about what a big, empty country we are has always been disingenuous since almost everyone lives in a dozen large, urban centres and virtually all immigrants go to those cities.

As for our 'minimal internal market', which ignores our free trade agreement with the US, as well as one with the EU, forty million puts us among the largest countries in the world, population wise. There are 36 countries with larger populations and about 160 with smaller populations. And among those with smaller populations are nine out of ten of the world's best places to live.

OMG I'm glad you have 0 influence over the economy, you have no concept of what one even is. Not a clue how internal trade affects an economy, eh?
And try a bit of common sense about the 'immigrants' like the big city will get too crowded and expensive (like it already is) and things will spread out. You assume they've got the illusions of some Cdn born kid that they have an aboriginal right to tie their ass to some rock concert or shopping venue and everyone else must guarantee it. They'll move or they'll stop coming. They're bright enough to see Vancouver has 100 Indian restaurants and Dawson Creek doesn't even have one or there's no laundromat in this mining town and open one of those there.
You think my ancestors worked coal mines and hay fields at the corner of Georgia & Granville? Or that I left Burnaby after half my life to earn a stake up north just to go back to an even worse concrete hell hole?

So just stay on the rug throwing a temper tantrum that someone else should make things better all the while claiming the Party with the principal philosophy of 'do it your f*cking self' will do it for you.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not casting aspersions here, but 99% of the people who mention communists are just stupid...

Cite?  

If by that you mean people throw that around far too much to describe anyone on the left without putting a lot of thought into it, perhaps.  IF you mean that most people don't understand the basics of communism of socialist models i think most do.

[Moonlight Graham]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. ok
2. Post-national and woke are related but different concepts.    And again... for the amount of attention wokeness gets... and its subsequent bleeding into the culture wars and griping for griping sakes... I find it counterproductive and a barrier to talking about important things like.... immigration.  So I'm stepping back from my previous questioning to you that implies it's weakly attached to policy.  It is attached to the leader's vision which is pertinent - BUT it applies mostly to immigration and I think that's a topic we can actually (maybe finally) debate on its own merits right now.  If it was truly divisive, then he wouldn't use it but clearly the message appeals to Canadians broadly.
3. Go ahead and guess as to his motives.  There is of course evidence for other motives and we can never answer the question.  You don't like him personally but I feel like likeability is maybe the worst measure of the quality of a leader. 
4. Well, a few things: I changed my mind based on the facts but people were making this argument before Trudeau boostered the numbers sky high.

Your implication that I thought you were racist is more motivation-guessing, and is incorrect and beneath you.  Try to find a single post where I called you a racist. 

5. Stop trying to psychoanalze me, you are terrible at it.  You accuse me of basing my opinions based on being PC, then when I change my mind based on facts you accuse me of following the fashion.  If you don't respect me to make up my mind fairly then stop posting to me, it's simple.  Put me on ignore.

6. Yes, I often think you are most like Galileo and Darwin... I think your ego mirror is broken.

2.  The federal government makes a lot of policy decisions through a "woke" ideological lens.  They discriminate in hiring in federal workplaces based on gender and race as a matter of policy.  I think how our government treats people matters.  There's a difference between being accepting vs self flagellation.  Indigenous peoples and the Quebecois and immigrants are happy to protect, defend, and maintain their culture and heritage.  My identity is "Canadian" so why is my culture and heritage treated like its so worthless by its own leaders?  Our PM making Canada into a blank-slate is extremely insulting to me and everything our families have done to help build this country into what it is.  I'm a Canadian nationalist, which just means that I love this country and its heritage, but "Canadian nationalist" is a boogieman word for progressives because of their guilt-ridden self-loathing.  Their ideology is a disease on this great nation.

3.  If he had good policies I could live with him being a bad person.

4.  No I never said you thought I was a racist, i meant that in the general sense.  But I do think you and many others naturally recoil at opinions/policies that want to reduce immigration because it comes with the "racist" tag, and nobody likes being accused of possibly being a racist.

5.  Ok i'll try to stop.  It's just frustrating to have discussions without someone that is so unwilling to offend when I believe a particular truth that's considered "offensive" needs to be said plainly and action taken.  This is harmful to our society and is rampant amongst the population.

6.  I'm not comparing myself to those people, I'm just using very famous examples to make a point about truth and mainstream resistance to it.  Progress is IMPOSSIBLE without the gadflies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)

Edited January 26 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  The federal government makes a lot of policy decisions through a "woke" ideological lens. 

2. They discriminate in hiring in federal workplaces based on gender and race as a matter of policy.  I think how our government treats people matters.  There's a difference between being accepting vs self flagellation. 

3. Indigenous peoples and the Quebecois and immigrants are happy to protect, defend, and maintain their culture and heritage.  My identity is "Canadian" so why is my culture and heritage treated like its so worthless by its own leaders?  Our PM making Canada into a blank-slate is extremely insulting to me and everything our families have done to help build this country into what it is.  I'm a Canadian nationalist, which just means that I love this country and its heritage, but "Canadian nationalist" is a boogieman word for progressives because of their guilt-ridden self-loathing.  Their ideology is a disease on this great nation.

3.  If he had good policies I could live with him being a bad person.

4.  No I never said you thought I was a racist, i meant that in the general sense. 

5. But I do think you and many others naturally recoil at opinions/policies that want to reduce immigration because it comes with the "racist" tag, and nobody likes being accused of possibly being a racist.

5.  Ok i'll try to stop.  It's just frustrating to have discussions without someone that is so unwilling to offend when I believe a particular truth that's considered "offensive" needs to be said plainly and action taken.  This is harmful to our society and is rampant amongst the population.

6.  I'm not comparing myself to those people,

7. I'm just using very famous examples to make a point about truth and mainstream resistance to it.  Progress is IMPOSSIBLE without the gadflies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)

1. Ok, but that is true of any ideology of ANY elected official.  Doug Ford makes decisions through a 'small businessman' lens.  Olivia Chow makes decisions through a 'social democrat' lens.  Stephen Harper made decisions through a 'religious conservative' lens.  

So... we're talking about criticizing... not someone's religion per se but vision - sure - and more granularly - ideology and values.

Now, to criticize vision or even ideology is fair.  You can say "this ideology doesn't work" and give examples of the application of said ideology and why it doesn't work.  And that applies to religion, creed, left/right... what have you.  That's how the public sphere is supposed to work: criticism of application of said things into the public realm.  That said, we arrive at the table with our separate and distinct values and discuss solutions that are politically tenable for us.  The system isn't designed for us to start debating our ideology from the ground up.

Why do I bring that up ?  Not to say you can't or shouldn't do it.  But ... that type of discussion has limited mileage on a discussion forum.

What I'm talking about is the discussion of certain value systems that a poster doesn't agree with, as though that's :

a) The root of the problem and therefore
b) ...possible to convince big swaths of the population to change the values and therefore...
c) ...make the problem go away

But 'fixing' ideology via a) b) c)  is not possible for conservatism, liberalism or socialism - our big 3.  Again, it's not like we shouldn't complain about big groups of people, or their values, but it's a discussion that's very limited.  Now I do myself talk about group traits, but it's more interesting to me to discuss traits that are common across the obvious groups such as political and religion.  So I'm more interested in talking professional vs 'working' class perspectives, modes of media perception, consumer culture vs civic culture, and especially the public sphere.

I don't like the ideological angle, and criticizing people for their values.  At their worst, these discussions just turn into culture wars which are anti-political and work against the purpose of having a discussion board in the first place. 

Democracy was founded on an understanding that your religion influenced, but was separate from your public voice.  We need to rediscover that.  But if you even use the term "we" on here, people throw up in their mouths a bit... even if on another thread they're moralizing in another area.  This is true for right and left.

If you want to have a separate discussion on the pitfalls of certain values, and how they fail when they're used in policy, that's fine.  But nobody is going to see yours as sacrosanct or better than the others either.

2. This topic used to be a mainstay of these boards 20 years ago.  At that time, we'd try to get examples and they were invalid or scant.  As I recall the closest evidence would be a government-funded 3rd party position for some First Nations position that asked for a First Nations person to be in the role.  Even if it made sense, white people would project this as a mass national oppression of their rights.  But it's worth checking in on this again if you have examples.

Especially examples of how the massive public service machine has been changed in this respect under Trudeau vs Harper.  Or is it just your impression that this is happening and I should just believe you ?

3. Your answer talks past what I said.  You don't actually know what kind of person he is.  We only have the public persona to go on for any of these people, you know that right ?

4. " i'm no longer just an anti-immigrant racist and you're allowed to agree with me " Seemed like you said I used to consider you racist, no ?

5. Ok so you seem to be against the idea that you would be tagged as 'racist' by some because of your views ?  You think it's unfair to have yourself characterized, clearly.  And yet you refer to "someone unwilling to offend", presumably me.  I am generally unwilling to offend but I take exception to the implication that I make impractical suggestions based on that.  Again, you are psychoanalyzing me.  Double standard IMO.

You need to accept that people have different values than you, and that politics is about working through that reality.  I can't see what else is happening here other than that.

6. I know that. But...

7. .. it's pretty facile to state an idea, then ascribe the rejection of said idea to a public blindness to greatness or something.  Yes, it happens that a great idea is rejected sometimes but that's the price of having democracy.  The crowd is wrong sometimes.

[Black Dog]

17 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Describe all systems. ALL. 

What Capitalism brings with it and Socialism fails, is a general level of economic comfort that allows the majority of people to have at least some disposable income and time.

Capitalism only does that when it's excesses are curbed by the state. Without that balance, capitalism would be little different from feudalism.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Capitalism only does that when it's excesses are curbed by the state. Without that balance, capitalism would be little different from feudalism.

That's simply not accurate and we can see examples from history of that.  However -  modern capitalism incorporates regulation sufficient to guarantee a free and fair market, that's part of the whole system.  whether that comes from an external source or from the market itself isn't really relevant.

You're trying to say in a really awkward way that an aboslutely unregulated market tends to lead to monopolies, and that is indeed a risk but historically that's not been all that big a deal. At some point either the market self corrects or there is some regulation passed by the gov't at some point or whatever, but capitalism incorporates that just fine.

Communism on the other hand can't.

[I am Groot]

17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Capitalism only does that when it's excesses are curbed by the state. Without that balance, capitalism would be little different from feudalism.

Granted. But what system do you think would be free of the effects of human greed, ambition, and lust for power?

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG I'm glad you have 0 influence over the economy, you have no concept of what one even is. Not a clue how internal trade affects an economy, eh?ng self' will do it for you.

Nice rant. Of course, it completely fails to address the points I made. But then... you can't, can you?

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Granted. But what system do you think would be free of the effects of human greed, ambition, and lust for power?

the thing is - historically it's not really granted.  Power blocks do develop but anything that gets in the way of business like serious monopolies tends to get taken down by the market anyway.  The markets will tend to regulate a little inherently to prevent that. The market stops working if it's a zero sum game.

Gov't or external regulation just smooths that process over a little more and makes it run smoother. 

The market model and capitalism seeks to incorporate and harness people's inherent greed in a healthy and positive manner. It recognizes inherent human nature and takes that into account. Other models seek to deny human nature or rewrite it and that's why they tend to fail

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Granted. But what system do you think would be free of the effects of human greed, ambition, and lust for power?

A system that doesn't have humans in it. 🤔 

Are you suggesting that the impossibility of eliminating greed, ambition or lust for power means we shouldn't try? What would you have us use instead?  Please don't tell me the fear of God.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Nice rant. Of course, it completely fails to address the points I made. But then... you can't, can you?

You didn't make any points other than to demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You understand how to drive a car, but not what makes it go.

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, but that is true of any ideology of ANY elected official.  Doug Ford makes decisions through a 'small businessman' lens.  Olivia Chow makes decisions through a 'social democrat' lens.  Stephen Harper made decisions through a 'religious conservative' lens.  

So... we're talking about criticizing... not someone's religion per se but vision - sure - and more granularly - ideology and values.

Now, to criticize vision or even ideology is fair.  You can say "this ideology doesn't work" and give examples of the application of said ideology and why it doesn't work.  And that applies to religion, creed, left/right... what have you.  That's how the public sphere is supposed to work: criticism of application of said things into the public realm.  That said, we arrive at the table with our separate and distinct values and discuss solutions that are politically tenable for us.  The system isn't designed for us to start debating our ideology from the ground up.

Why do I bring that up ?  Not to say you can't or shouldn't do it.  But ... that type of discussion has limited mileage on a discussion forum.

What I'm talking about is the discussion of certain value systems that a poster doesn't agree with, as though that's :

a) The root of the problem and therefore
b) ...possible to convince big swaths of the population to change the values and therefore...
c) ...make the problem go away

But 'fixing' ideology via a) b) c)  is not possible for conservatism, liberalism or socialism - our big 3.  Again, it's not like we shouldn't complain about big groups of people, or their values, but it's a discussion that's very limited.  Now I do myself talk about group traits, but it's more interesting to me to discuss traits that are common across the obvious groups such as political and religion.  So I'm more interested in talking professional vs 'working' class perspectives, modes of media perception, consumer culture vs civic culture, and especially the public sphere.

I don't like the ideological angle, and criticizing people for their values.  At their worst, these discussions just turn into culture wars which are anti-political and work against the purpose of having a discussion board in the first place. 

Democracy was founded on an understanding that your religion influenced, but was separate from your public voice.  We need to rediscover that.  But if you even use the term "we" on here, people throw up in their mouths a bit... even if on another thread they're moralizing in another area.  This is true for right and left.

If you want to have a separate discussion on the pitfalls of certain values, and how they fail when they're used in policy, that's fine.  But nobody is going to see yours as sacrosanct or better than the others either.

2. This topic used to be a mainstay of these boards 20 years ago.  At that time, we'd try to get examples and they were invalid or scant.  As I recall the closest evidence would be a government-funded 3rd party position for some First Nations position that asked for a First Nations person to be in the role.  Even if it made sense, white people would project this as a mass national oppression of their rights.  But it's worth checking in on this again if you have examples.

Especially examples of how the massive public service machine has been changed in this respect under Trudeau vs Harper.  Or is it just your impression that this is happening and I should just believe you ?

3. Your answer talks past what I said.  You don't actually know what kind of person he is.  We only have the public persona to go on for any of these people, you know that right ?

4. " i'm no longer just an anti-immigrant racist and you're allowed to agree with me " Seemed like you said I used to consider you racist, no ?

5. Ok so you seem to be against the idea that you would be tagged as 'racist' by some because of your views ?  You think it's unfair to have yourself characterized, clearly.  And yet you refer to "someone unwilling to offend", presumably me.  I am generally unwilling to offend but I take exception to the implication that I make impractical suggestions based on that.  Again, you are psychoanalyzing me.  Double standard IMO.

You need to accept that people have different values than you, and that politics is about working through that reality.  I can't see what else is happening here other than that.

6. I know that. But...

7. .. it's pretty facile to state an idea, then ascribe the rejection of said idea to a public blindness to greatness or something.  Yes, it happens that a great idea is rejected sometimes but that's the price of having democracy.  The crowd is wrong sometimes.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, it's much appreciated.

1, I just don't agree with you on this.  Our values give birth to our actions.  If we have the wrong values as a society then our actions will be poisoned by them and we'll be led astray.  Bad values mean bad actions and policies.  We can criticize policy, but it's even more productive to cut the dragon off at the head.  Bad values that are spread to many others is like a disease and it needs to be cured by better values.  This is the place to discuss both values/ideology and specific policy.  There is a culture war happening and I'm not going to sit by the sidelines as the values I think are harmful spread throughout our governments, education systems, workplaces, media etc just because it causes conflict and makes us uncomfortable.  You say the discussion is "limited".  I very strongly disagree.  The discussion is the very root of many of our problems because, again, bad values give birth to bad actions. 

You said above:  "I don't like the ideological angle, and criticizing people for their values.  At their worst, these discussions just turn into culture wars which are anti-political and work against the purpose of having a discussion board in the first place."  Totally disagree.  I know you don't like it, but we need to talk about it.  Discussion boards aren't just for coldly breaking down policy details.  There's nothing more political than our values.  The culture wars are extremely political because politics is about power, they aren't "anti-political".  The values that win the day shape almost everything in our government, plus our schools, workplaces, media etc.  You want us to put our heads in the sand because it makes you uncomfortable?  I will not comply.  This thread is called "What happened to Canada", and it's not just a bad policy here and there, it's about VALUES, so let's talk about them right here, right now, this is EXACTLY the place to talk about them.  If this makes you uncomfortable you're free not to participate, but please don't tell me what I or anyone else should or shouldn't talk about.  Conflict is often uncomfortable , but avoiding conflict doesn't solve problems.  Politics is about conflict because it's a struggle for power and then implementing a vision (values) through actions (policy) using that power.

2, Our Governor Generals, the Liberal MP candidates, and the cabinet are all chosen through a "woke" lens (gender and race quotas).  The civil service does the same thing in its hiring as a matter of policy.  You're free to research these things if you like.

3, His actions tell me what kind of person he is and what his values are.  Cut the head off the dragon by getting rid of the leader and his government.

4, No i think you think you might be labeled a racist if you agreed with me.  Same with agreeing on point #2.  Am I wrong?  I challenge you to give me the honest truth on this.  We all think this way.  That's why I don't go on Facebook and argue these points, I'm going to use anonymous message boards to avoid the judging stares of people who are offended by uncomfortable facts.

5, Stating what I believe to be the truth sometimes risks becoming offensive.  You're a nice guy whom I like personally and so I don't want to offend you nor do I enjoy it, but i'm also not going to lie or suppress what needs to be said.  These are a part of my values.  I want you to get uncomfortable because I want to hear what you think outside the shackles of the social norms that seek to restrict all of our opinions, myself included in my real life.  I believe truth and free expression of it are very important values for a healthy functioning society.  Accepting the woke culture war values because that's less uncomfortable than the conflict that arises from resisting it is a bad value IMO.  Anonymous message boards might be the only safe space for these conversations we have left.  The universities and media aren't (cancel culture).

7, If the crowd is wrong then the crowd needs to be convinced, through argument, or else society suffers.  We'd still believe that the sun revolved around the earth.  I'm not Socrates or Galileo or Darwin but I embrace their values and the examples they set and we should all do the same.  If you're not willing to take the public whippings then at least get out of the way of the people who are.

[Black Dog]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's simply not accurate and we can see examples from history of that. 

Ok name them.

Quote

However -  modern capitalism incorporates regulation sufficient to guarantee a free and fair market, that's part of the whole system.  whether that comes from an external source or from the market itself isn't really relevant.

The system took to regulation like a kid takes to Buckley's mixture. It had to be forced on it.

Quote

You're trying to say in a really awkward way that an aboslutely unregulated market tends to lead to monopolies, and that is indeed a risk but historically that's not been all that big a deal. At some point either the market self corrects or there is some regulation passed by the gov't at some point or whatever, but capitalism incorporates that just fine.

Absolutely unregulated markets lead to oligarchy.

Quote

Communism on the other hand can't.

No one is arguing for communism here so this is irrelevant.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

You didn't make any points other than to demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You understand how to drive a car, but not what makes it go.

Well now is your chance to enlighten me, oh wise one! Explain how the other 130 odd countries with smaller populations than ours survive. With many of them thriving. 

And yet we can't.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

A system that doesn't have humans in it. 🤔 

Are you suggesting that the impossibility of eliminating greed, ambition or lust for power means we shouldn't try? What would you have us use instead?  Please don't tell me the fear of God.

I'm not the one ranting about Capitalism. If you want specific policies implemented within this flawed Capitalist system, other than having a microphone up the ass of every politician and senior bureaucrat, please let me know and we can discuss how that would work.

 

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

the thing is - historically it's not really granted.  Power blocks do develop but anything that gets in the way of business like serious monopolies tends to get taken down by the market anyway.  The markets will tend to regulate a little inherently to prevent that. The market stops working if it's a zero sum game.

Gov't or external regulation just smooths that process over a little more and makes it run smoother. 

All that is nice in theory. But largely unworkable in reality. A lot of businesses find cooperation better than competition, thus price fixing and oligopolies. Who is going to take down Google anyway, or Microsoft? Who is going to challenge the big banks, either here or in the US? And stop them from doing stupid things. That includes stupid things done by greedy CEOs who know what they're doing will ultimately be bad for their companies in the future but want to maximize their bonuses today.

Way back in the dawn of time, when we still recorded history on stone bl\ocks with chisels, one of my teachers in one of my business courses - I don't even remember which or who - told me that perfect Capitalism would be as dreadful for ordinary people to live under as any other economic system. Thus it has to be tempered by government.

 

[-TSS-]

Too bad that things seem not so good for you these days but Canada is a country alongside with countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia where things will never get so bad that there would be more  emigration than immigration.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

If you want specific policies implemented within this flawed Capitalist system, other than having a microphone up the ass of every politician and senior bureaucrat, please let me know and we can discuss how that would work.

I'm not aware of any other way, are you? Ironically there was a time when people actually did rely on the gods to keep an eye on their leaders, at least that's what the elites told them to believe...as they laughed all the way to the bank.

But as I've said before perhaps the better reason for cameras is to help dispel and prevent the proliferation of misinformation that seems to come with all the secrecy leaders enjoy.

 

Edited January 27 by eyeball

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Too bad that things seem not so good for you these days but Canada is a country alongside with countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia where things will never get so bad that there would be more  emigration than immigration.

you're missing the point

it doesn't matter if you were born here,  or immigrated here

Canada is no more

this is not Canada anymore

a cultural revolution has already overthrown Canada and replaced it with a totalitarian lunatic asylum

it's not going to happen, it has already happened

every institution is overrun, public & private

the vast majority of the population are either naive as to the full extent of the catastrophe

or are simply in denial, because the truth of it is too terrible to contemplate

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, it's much appreciated.

1, I just don't agree with you on this.  Our values give birth to our actions.  If we have the wrong values as a society then our actions will be poisoned by them and we'll be led astray.  Bad values mean bad actions and policies.  We can criticize policy, but it's even more productive to cut the dragon off at the head.  Bad values that are spread to many others is like a disease and it needs to be cured by better values.  This is the place to discuss both values/ideology and specific policy.  There is a culture war happening and I'm not going to sit by the sidelines as the values I think are harmful spread throughout our governments, education systems, workplaces, media etc just because it causes conflict and makes us uncomfortable.  You say the discussion is "limited".  I very strongly disagree.  The discussion is the very root of many of our problems because, again, bad values give birth to bad actions. 

You said above:  "I don't like the ideological angle, and criticizing people for their values.  At their worst, these discussions just turn into culture wars which are anti-political and work against the purpose of having a discussion board in the first place."  Totally disagree.  I know you don't like it, but we need to talk about it.  Discussion boards aren't just for coldly breaking down policy details.  There's nothing more political than our values.  The culture wars are extremely political because politics is about power, they aren't "anti-political".  The values that win the day shape almost everything in our government, plus our schools, workplaces, media etc.  You want us to put our heads in the sand because it makes you uncomfortable?  I will not comply.  This thread is called "What happened to Canada", and it's not just a bad policy here and there, it's about VALUES, so let's talk about them right here, right now, this is EXACTLY the place to talk about them.  If this makes you uncomfortable you're free not to participate, but please don't tell me what I or anyone else should or shouldn't talk about.  Conflict is often uncomfortable , but avoiding conflict doesn't solve problems.  Politics is about conflict because it's a struggle for power and then implementing a vision (values) through actions (policy) using that power.

2, Our Governor Generals, the Liberal MP candidates, and the cabinet are all chosen through a "woke" lens (gender and race quotas).  The civil service does the same thing in its hiring as a matter of policy.  You're free to research these things if you like.

3, His actions tell me what kind of person he is and what his values are.  Cut the head off the dragon by getting rid of the leader and his government.

4, No i think you think you might be labeled a racist if you agreed with me. 

5. Same with agreeing on point #2.  Am I wrong?  I challenge you to give me the honest truth on this.

6, Stating what I believe to be the truth sometimes risks becoming offensive.  You're a nice guy whom I like personally and so I don't want to offend you nor do I enjoy it, but i'm also not going to lie or suppress what needs to be said.  These are a part of my values.  I want you to get uncomfortable because I want to hear what you think outside the shackles of the social norms that seek to restrict all of our opinions, myself included in my real life.  I believe truth and free expression of it are very important values for a healthy functioning society.  Accepting the woke culture war values because that's less uncomfortable than the conflict that arises from resisting it is a bad value IMO.  Anonymous message boards might be the only safe space for these conversations we have left.  The universities and media aren't (cancel culture).

7, If the crowd is wrong then the crowd needs to be convinced, through argument, or else society suffers.  We'd still believe that the sun revolved around the earth.  I'm not Socrates or Galileo or Darwin but I embrace their values and the examples they set and we should all do the same.  If you're not willing to take the public whippings then at least get out of the way of the people who are.

1. Ok, well have at it.  I haven't seen a productive discussion of competing value systems yet.  Stop saying that it makes me uncomfortable.  It doesn't.  I just see it as a giant waste of time and am trying to make you see that.  If you agreed then maybe that would prove me wrong.

Convince me that I'm woke, that my values are bad for Canada.  Should be fun... Lots of effort for you, and me countering every opinion... 

You're already wrong on my motivation, my concerns... What makes you think that you can get inside my head and convince me that my values are wrong?

Would you be open to your values being proven wrong?  Of course not.  You'll never defeat conservative, liberal or socialist values... but go ahead and try.

2. Don't just state something, provide hard evidence.  Because I don't believe it, at least not as you depict it.

3. Ok

4. Bullshit.  

5.  Yeah, you're way wrong.  Justin has a team of advisors that he listens to, deputy ministers and so on.  He fired two women because they wouldn't help him rig the SNC Lavalin case.  Was that woke?  He skipped the first National Day of Reconciliation.  Woke right?

Baffles me that you don't like Trudeau, yet you believe his press releases.

6. I don't get it. We are on an anonymous message board. Right now. We are on one. We are anonymous. What social shackles are binding me and keeping me from saying what I really think?

I don't know how old you are, but maybe you haven't met a wide spectrum of people in your life? Life? I have met hard communists, hard libertarians and everything in between and been very close friends with all stripes. My number one criteria for a friend is that they be a mensh.

People's values are remarkably similar in this country. The only thing that differs is the flavor of organization that you would have to achieve the best systems for the people.

7. When you convince the crowd, you're not changing their ideology, or their values. You're changing their ideas of how to execute on those values.

I don't consider myself woke, I consider myself conservative and pragmatic... I argue the ideas, and even if I wonder about the personalities behind them... I don't try to change them.

 

 

 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Well now is your chance to enlighten me, oh wise one! Explain how the other 130 odd countries with smaller populations than ours survive. With many of them thriving. 

I shouldn't have to explain the obvious and no one can to someone who's already convinced himself Canada isn't. Mr hardcoe Can'tservative... we do okay so why even think of doing even better