# How to end racism



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Don't be racist.

That's it.
If you're the bank, and someone comes with a good idea, fund it, if it's a bad idea, don't fund it.
We don't need different banking systems for each race. That's racist and wrong.

Lets treat people like individuals and like, not be racist?


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Agreed. I would say 99.5% of us are doing that.

But there seems to be heavily vested interests on keeping us fighting each other- over nonsense.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

5Lgreenback said:


> Agreed. I would say 99.5% of us are doing that.
> 
> But there seems to be heavily vested interests on keeping us fighting each other- over nonsense.


Thomas Sowell wrote about this.
But I don't think white supremacists would be particularly fond of a Black mans writings on race.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Mr Sowell is great. We need more voices around like him.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

Things are not this simple, there are far more covert racist out there, and many normal people hold racist attitude without knowing about it. 
I have given up on trying to persuade people, so my only hope is that those believe will die with the people that hold them.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

First of all vote down Trudeau!


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I am working on a solution. I am white, Scandinavian background. My wife is from S.E. Asia. Our kid is a mix of those two. We must all do our part by marrying interracially. Well, okay, marriage is perhaps a relic of the past, so let's use the BC Family Law Act term "marriage-like relationship" (which has made "common law" somewhat outmoded). 

So let's get blacks hooking up with whites, with Asians, and so on and get everyone doing same. No more partnering with someone of same race. That should be frowned upon or maybe even criminalized. In time, races will die out and we'll all be the same. Simply the human race.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> I am working on a solution. I am white, Scandinavian background. My wife is from S.E. Asia. Our kid is a mix of those two. We must all do our part by marrying interracially. Well, okay, marriage is perhaps a relic of the past, so let's use the BC Family Law Act term "marriage-like relationship" (which has made "common law" somewhat outmoded).
> 
> So let's get blacks hooking up with whites, with Asians, and so on and get everyone doing same. No more partnering with someone of same race. That should be frowned upon or maybe even criminalized. In time, races will die out and we'll all be the same. Simply the human race.


Yeah, your solution is racist.
I reject it on that grounds.

Also historically eugenics based solutions tend to end poorly.
I reject it on those grounds as well.

Thirdly I don't think the government should be involved in allocating sexual partners.
I reject it on those grounds as well.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

^ Oh dear, another fond hope dashed. The fond hope was not so much that anyone here would take me seriously as it was to inject a little levity, something seldom seen on CMF, more's the pity.

I wonder if we can or should get back to our CMF roots. This forum seems to have become increasingly diverted from the airing of financial issues. The dominant threads now seem to relate to far-removed topics such as diet, racism, residential schools, earwigs, rotten door frames, C-19, electric vehicles, etc., etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Don't get discouraged MP........I still chuckle about a post you made early in the pandemic about being dressed up like Mad Max........

I think that is part of the problem these days. We have forgotten how to laugh at ourselves.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Can someone explain this thread to me?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> ^ Oh dear, another fond hope dashed. The fond hope was not so much that anyone here would take me seriously as it was to inject a little levity, something seldom seen on CMF, more's the pity.
> 
> I wonder if we can or should get back to our CMF roots. This forum seems to have become increasingly diverted from the airing of financial issues. The dominant threads now seem to relate to far-removed topics such as diet, racism, residential schools, earwigs, rotten door frames, C-19, electric vehicles, etc., etc.


My stocks went down >$10,000 today! I am airing my issues! I blame racism...

I'm very racist against earwigs and electric cars though. I want them all dead. So I don't know how to end racism, unfortunately.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

peterk said:


> My stocks went down >$10,000 today! I am airing my issues! I blame racism...
> 
> I'm very racist against earwigs and electric cars though. I want them all dead. So I don't know how to end racism, unfortunately.


Now that's the spirit peterk! 

All you have to do, perhaps, is to get Trudeau to apologize for the racism and that should be a open sesame to compensation for your $10,000 loss. Maybe he'll even pledge an end to earwigs and electric cars.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I'm racist against this thread.
What is this nonsense?

@ Mods, Can we delete this thread?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think we got a better shot at ending earwigs than racism, or climate change. So I'd say give it a shot!

Apparently KAEJS is too mature to solve any of these serious problems... Perhaps he'll go away to think about it quietly for 1-2 years and come back with a solution for us.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

^ It's threads like these that cause people to leave for 1-2 years. =)

But racism isn't solvable. Fact. That's why I don't understand this thread.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

^ Are you unable to simply ignore this thread then?

Sure, it strays from any financial focus, but many threads do that from time to time. Above, I commented that we seemed to be seeing more of that than usual of late. But nothing to get offended about. Very easy to separate the wheat from the chaff and to be selective about what you chose to read/respond to. 

And, while you might see racism as unsolvable, I am not sure that's a proven "fact" as you suggest. Some of us believe humans are capable of change, even changing negative behaviours and traits when motivated to do so. Unlike you, I have not given up or abandoned hope that the world will have eradicated racism, or at least manifest much less racism, when our children are grown.

Do you really want this forum moderated to the extent you suggest? You ask that this rather innocuous thread be struck. Seems a bit of an overreaction.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I mean, I guess the thread is posted in the right place. It just seems like a nonsense thread, that's all. 

OP makes a post that says "Don't be racist. That's it."

Should I make a thread called "How to end homicide" and then post "Don't kill people. That's it."

Just seems silly...


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Look at it this way, what with C-19 and all else, we all have enough serious stuff to occupy our thoughts. Perhaps a bit of silliness won't hurt.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

This thread offends me. 😂


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

The Charter protects your right to be offended, and to express your indignation accordingly, I am sure.

And don't overlook this useful emoji:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

George Jonas had an interesting take on this. When he was a boy in Hungary his family got out of the country just as the Nazis came in. They had no trouble buying train tickets but it took a couple of days to comply with certain formalities, like vaccination certificates, a letter from the tax bureau showing they did not owe any unpaid taxes, passports etc. In the meantime they did not want to go back to their apartment and could not register in a hotel without showing their papers which identified them as Jews. The only safe place to spend the nights was with non Jewish friends but that was not so simple, as anyone who gave them shelter could find themselves in serious trouble.
One afternoon his father made a number of phone calls from a phone booth, and finally stepped out and said "It's all right, we can stay with Herr ------" His mother said "Who is he? Do we know him?" and his father said "He's an anti semite believe it or not".
It was true. The man was an old fashioned middle aged banker and he did not like Jews. But he drew the line at arresting people who had committed no crime, locking people up without a trial, and in fact thought the Nazis were a lot of hooligans and didn't care who knew it.
Jonas said " I will take an anti semite like that any day, over a liberal who runs at the first sign of trouble".


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> ^ It's threads like these that cause people to leave for 1-2 years. =)
> 
> *But racism isn't solvable. Fact. *That's why I don't understand this thread.


True! Racism just became more liberal and political correct 😂


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Look at it this way, what with C-19 and all else, we all have enough serious stuff to occupy our thoughts. Perhaps a bit of silliness won't hurt.


Man am I out of it... Yesterday I thought "C-19" must have meant some controversial federal Bill you were referring to that I'd never heard of. lol

I hope that my brief moment of mental lapse doesn't offend KAEJS


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I mean, I guess the thread is posted in the right place. It just seems like a nonsense thread, that's all.
> 
> OP makes a post that says "Don't be racist. That's it."
> 
> ...



Well actually we have a pretty consistent social agreement that homicide is wrong, and almost everyone across society believes it. 
Sure it happens, but it's very rare.

Lets do the same thing to racism, if everyone was on board that it was bad, and we wouldn't accept it, it would quickly be a much smaller issue.
As it is, our tax dollars are actively funding more racism, making the problem worse.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

peterk said:


> Man am I out of it... Yesterday I thought "C-19" must have meant some controversial federal Bill you were referring to that I'd never heard of. lol
> 
> I hope that my brief moment of mental lapse doesn't offend KAEJS


I think you're onto something there. We need a federal bill. Bill C-19. 
*Preamble: * 
WHEREAS Covid-19 has been messing up the lives of Canadians for far too long;
AND WHEREAS Canadians in every province are getting rather bored and downright annoyed with the whole thing;
AND WHEREAS measures to control that pestilential C-19 virus have heretofore proven woefully ineffective;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

*Short title*
1 This Act may be cited as An Act to Abolish COVID-19.
*Definitions*
2 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.
COVID-19 means the COVID-19 virus and all of its many variations and permutations including Delta, Phi Beta Kappa, Lambda and all those as yet unimagined and unheard of;
*Order designating Minister*
3 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate any federal minister to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act.

That's a start. Let me get back to drafting this important piece of legislation and, of course, the COVID-19 Eradication Regulations, as subordinate legislation.

Ed. note: If the foregoing does not have KAEJS bellowing for the attention and swift, decisive action by the mods, what will?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It will not end. People are always looking for some other group to blame their own misfortunes on-economic, heath, education , aspirations, or unwillingness to work to achieve their goals.

It is why these right wing hate groups seem to flourish in times of economic downturns or pandemics. If it is not skin colour, orgin, faith it will be something else.

Really, how many times have we heard that immigrants and refugees are taking jobs from Canadians? Always the same story from bottom feeder would be politicians aimed at those who feel the county owes them a living. Or from Canadians who have zero ambition/work ethics, are too lazy to apply themselves to reach their goals, or fail to recognize how much opportunity there is in Canada for anyone and everyone.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Well actually we have a pretty consistent social agreement that homicide is wrong, and almost everyone across society believes it.
> Sure it happens, but it's very rare.
> 
> Lets do the same thing to racism, if everyone was on board that it was bad, and we wouldn't accept it, it would quickly be a much smaller issue.
> As it is, our tax dollars are actively funding more racism, making the problem worse.


It sounds like you are talking about affirmative action/positive discrimination.
I don't have problem with them, because the impact of discrimination is intergenerational, however, they MUST have a predetermined termination date that cannot be extended so people don't become addicted to it. 
AA is like walking cane, they are useful if you are injured, but if you rely on them for too long, you will forget how to walk.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> I think you're onto something there. We need a federal bill. Bill C-19.
> *Preamble: *
> WHEREAS Covid-19 has been messing up the lives of Canadians for far too long;
> AND WHEREAS Canadians in every province are getting rather bored and downright annoyed with the whole thing;
> ...


Might I suggest also a sub-section on abolishing earwigs? Though I hope I will not be accused of supporting an omnibus bill that bypasses the spirit of parliamentary debate... It's for the good of the country, afterall.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I have got to the point where I now unfriend any face book friend who ends up with racist nonsense posts-either their own or some other friend's post that they failed to delete.

I have been quite astonished at some of the postings. Surprised at the depth of their respective ignorance and racism. Spouse says I should just ignore them. But...I do not even want to show up on their respective face book pages as being a friend. Not certain how they got to that point in their lives but I feel sorry for them. Must be awful to be filled with so much resentment and hate for others.

A number of years a BIL, when seeing some of children's friends asked if our children had any 'Canadian' friends. We were taken aback by this. DW mentioned to him that my parents came over to Canada on a boat from Scotland. I was first generation. Our good neighbours, of East Indian descent, we fourth generation Canadians. Their children were fifth generation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> It sounds like you are talking about affirmative action/positive discrimination.
> I don't have problem with them, because the impact of discrimination is intergenerational, however, they MUST have a predetermined termination date that cannot be extended so people don't become addicted to it.
> AA is like walking cane, they are useful if you are injured, but if you rely on them for too long, you will forget how to walk.


I do not believe there is a "positive" discrimination.

Do you really think you'll have the same opportunity if enough people think you're a "quota hire".





__





The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action


Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students—and shroud the education system in dishonesty.




www.theatlantic.com





I'll let you in on a secret that racists who support AA etc don't want you to know.
Most people don't care about race.
While things aren't perfect, it's constantly getting easier to move your way up.

The impact of discrimination is intergenerational, but so is almost every other issue.
If your parents were victims of a crime, or an accident or something else there will be impacts.
Why does it matter what the impact was caused by? Why not try to help everyone?

Why are people so focused on looking at everything through the lens of race, it doesnt' matter.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

@MrMatt
The article you select did not rebuke the concept of AA, it only suggest having race base quota for admission is a bad idea. In my opinion, a proper AA policy is to improve education outcome for minority by improving primary and secondary education for minority.

The problem of racism is getting less serious, that's why I mention AA need to have predetermined termination clause after certain time, ot after certain outcome is achieved.

The concept of helping everyone is irrelevant, because I am only talking about people that are injured, this certainly include victims of crime.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If you are paying attention you will see far more anti white racism in the news media than any other kind.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> @MrMatt
> The article you select did not rebuke the concept of AA, it only suggest having race base quota for admission is a bad idea. In my opinion, a proper AA policy is to improve education outcome for minority by improving primary and secondary education for minority.
> 
> The problem of racism is getting less serious, that's why I mention AA need to have predetermined termination clause after certain time, ot after certain outcome is achieved.
> ...


In my opinion we should improve education for EVERYONE.
Why only improve education for minorities? Why not give everyone the same good education?

I think we should help everyone, and if someone is injured of course they might get different supports.
However if you're suggesting treating them differently because of their experiences, I'm ok with that.
As long as it is for things they actually experienced, that's fine, and I've stated before I'm okay with that.
I don't support racist policies however.

lets take person A and person B
If something bad happened to person B, go ahead, give them help.
However i don't support treating person A and B differently because of their relative races.
For actual experiences and problems they face sure, but race, absolutely not.

I think thats the problem with modern racists. This monolithic view of race, like every person in that group is the same with the same experiences.

To be clear, you're not talking about helping only those who are injured, you're talking about discriminating by race, irrespective of if they are injured or not.
Pick one, 
1. Help those who need help (I support this)
2. Treat people differently because of their race. (I categorically reject this)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> The article you select did not rebuke the concept of AA, it only suggest having race base quota for admission is a bad idea.


That's literally the definition of how AA racism is implemented in most jurisdictions.
That's also why I oppose AA, it is harmful. But it's a useful tool to hurt the target group and keep them weak, while pretending to do good.

That's what I find so insidious about this, they're pushing known harmful policies, hurting people for political gain. It's disgusting.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Like every important issue facing humanity today, it all depends on the ability to change the attitudes of the deniers.

This includes
Climate Change and Global Warming,
Covid-19
Systemic Racism
and even the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

There isn't going to be any meaningful progress as long as the deniers continue to trivialize these problems.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The world will progress without the deniers and will manage just fine. Those who struggle to accept the new reality will be left behind.

In fact, given voting preferences......the deniers already remain behind to forever lament the unfairness of it all.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> In my opinion we should improve education for EVERYONE.
> Why only improve education for minorities? Why not give everyone the same good education?
> 
> I think we should help everyone, and if someone is injured of course they might get different supports.
> ...


What happen if people from certain ethnic backgrounds are overwhelmed the victims, should there be a program target for that ethnic background ?

I think quota system is not the way to achieve diversity, this is because it create many frictions between people from different backgrounds, as one group is now geting a certain privilege despite they don't have the ability to normally get that specific privilege. I REFUSE to sacrifice quality for the sake of diversity.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Tostig said:


> Like every important issue facing humanity today, it all depends on the ability to change the attitudes of the deniers.
> 
> This includes
> Climate Change and Global Warming,
> ...


Just have to add another one
Indian Residential School abuses and crimes.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Just because someone disagrees with your solution to the problem doesn't mean they 'deny' the problem.
They just think certain solution to the problem is stupid and counterproductive.
Seeing everything as black and white, 'us' vs 'them' is exactly that - stupid and counterproductive.
Stop propagating such thinking


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> What happen if people from certain ethnic backgrounds are overwhelmed the victims, should there be a program target for that ethnic background ?


No, that would be "racist".
I think it's racist and lazy to assume that a particular racial/ethnic group is a monolith of experiences.

Just to be clear, I am simply arguing for a separation between the experience that we should help.
I am arguing against the racist assumption that the entire race or ethnic group has suffered that experience.

The fact that not everyone in a particular group has had the same experience should be obvious.
For example, The Obamas are black, their children are among the most privileged people in the country.
I think it is hard to suggest that they need additional support to make up for inter generational racism.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> No, that would be "racist".
> I think it's racist and lazy to assume that a particular racial/ethnic group is a monolith of experiences.
> 
> Just to be clear, I am simply arguing for a separation between the experience that we should help.
> ...


You haven't quite answer my question, minority is in more difficult financial and education footing, these things are measurable, in fact, I am currently working with Stat Canada to help gather those information.

We can certainly put clause in AA saying people that are too wealthy, or have too much income are not eligible for assistance.

BTW, I oppose quota system because we strife to be a meritocracy, so anyone that get move to higher ground are suppose to be qualify, so my vision of AA is to improve education for minority in order to increase the amount of qualify candidate for the position of leadership among minorities.

Although I do agree, some of those problems with specific minority are self inflicted. For example, East Asian immigrants are know to be model immigrants because they have massive focus on education. Many other minorities frown at studying, which pave their way for failure in a service base economy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> You haven't quite answer my question, minority is in more difficult financial and education footing, these things are measurable, in fact, I am currently working with Stat Canada to help gather those information.


I don't understand your question then.



> We can certainly put clause in AA saying people that are too wealthy, or have too much income are not eligible for assistance.


Sure, but why don't we remove the racial component, and simply help those who need help?




> Although I do agree, some of those problems with specific minority are self inflicted. For example, East Asian immigrants are know to be model immigrants because they have massive focus on education. Many other minorities frown at studying, which pave their way for failure in a service base economy.


Well that's culture and not race, and some cultures are better than others.
For example I think sexist cultures are inferior.

Really, why not make a system that helps those who need it?
Unless you're a racist, that should be a non factor, it isn't like all people of race X need help.

That's the part I don't get, I can accept all the desire to help people improve, and help people who were injured. I just see no reason to link it to race. Why does race matter so much to people?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

It seems that a lot of people want to assume common characteristics of a race and treat them differently because of that.
This is racism, and this is what I oppose.

Some of the arguments for racism are.
1. lack of education.
I don't dispute that some people have lower quality than others.
I don't dispute that people within a certain demographic group may have different levels of education than others.
In this case I suggest addressing the education differential directly, as opposed to treating the entire demographic group differently.

I simply don't think there is really any justification to treat a racial group differently.
Every time someone comes up with a reason, it seems you can simply look at the issue and address it directly, there really seems to be no reason to bring race into it.

I draw a very strong distinction between race, and the experiences of the people who make up the race, AND the cultures, beliefs and actions of those people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Your theory that racism can be eliminated by treating everyone the same has failed for over 100 years.

Legislation and programs were introduced to compensate for the failure of that theory.

"All men are created equal" was penned 200 years ago and it wasn't until the 1960's that black people obtained some measure of equality.

In Canada our legacy isn't as long or dire......but the history and timeline is much the same.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One thing we can do to eliminate racism is to vote for political candidates who disavow policies that continue racism.

I strategically vote for the candidate best able to defeat the political candidates who don't recognize racism as a systemic problem.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Your theory that racism can be eliminated by treating everyone the same has failed for over 100 years.
> 
> Legislation and programs were introduced to compensate for the failure of that theory.
> 
> ...


It hasn't failed for over 100 years, because it hasn't been tried for over 100 years.
Even today we have white supremacists in government pushing racism (Trudeau)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> One thing we can do to eliminate racism is to vote for political candidates who disavow policies that continue racism.
> 
> I strategically vote for the candidate best able to defeat the political candidates who don't recognize racism as a systemic problem.


Absolutely, I just hope enough people agree with this approach to get Trudeau out of office.
He is the most powerful racist in the country.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Your theory that racism can be eliminated by treating everyone the same has failed for over 100 years.
> 
> Legislation and programs were introduced to compensate for the failure of that theory.
> 
> ...


His theory isn't to treat everyone the same. 
His theory is to provide help for those who need help.
If more people of certain race need help, than more people from that race will receive help.
They will receive help because they need it, not because they are of certain race.

Where is a single issue with that thinking?
Unless you actually believe like our current government does that if you are of a certain race then you are automatically incapable and need help just based on the fact that you are of a certain race?

I personally don't believe that people are inherently inferior because of their race.
Our government seems to believe that. Therefore, our government is racist.
Are you racist as well?


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

I just want to ask how can people effectively separate culture with race ?
Isn't certain culture effectively only have a specific race ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> I just want to ask how can people effectively separate culture with race ?
> Isn't certain culture effectively only have a specific race ?


Culture is beliefs and actions.
Race is genetics.

Lets take "white people" as a race.
There is a big difference in culture between Trailer Trash, and British Royalty, despite the racial similarities.

I do think that there is of course a correlation between race and culture.
Many actually want to mix them, however they are dramatically different.

Some cultures are bad, they simply are, they have crappy values, beliefs and behaviours that lead to poor outcomes. Some have good values that lead to good outcomes.
Also it's politically incorrect to say that some cultures are better.

What gets messy is when you treat someone differently based on the culture or image they project.
But this is WHY people present themselves a certain way.

I wear a suit, or shirt and dress pants to work.
When someone shows up to a professional interview like a slob, you judge that image they're presenting.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Legislation against racism and discrimination has been in place for long time. Individual rights have been legislated for even longer.

And yet, here we are years later and racism and discrimination still exist. Continuing on the same path and expecting to end up in a different place is foolish.

This important work will continue without assistance from the non-progressive types. They are always rowing the boat in the wrong direction anyways.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Legislation against racism and discrimination has been in place for long time. Individual rights have been legislated for even longer.
> 
> And yet, here we are years later and racism and discrimination still exist. Continuing on the same path and expecting to end up in a different place is foolish.
> 
> This important work will continue without assistance from the non-progressive types. They are always rowing the boat in the wrong direction anyways.


You say this, but then you support a regressive racist like Trudeau.
I think if we fix the consitution to actually make racial discrimination illegal, that would be a good start.

We have legal racism, and political leaders encouraging it. Of course racism still exists, our tax dollars are literally funding it.
If the government stopped promoting it, I think it would die out quicker.

Also racial discrimination is not nearly as bad as it was a generation or two ago.
Really it's only the socialists supporting racism.

Also where is all this racism, I'm not racist, I don't actually know anyone who is.
I've run into a few, I've seen people like Trudeau on TV, but in real life, it's just not that common.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Do you expect racists to goose step down the street with torches, shouting....Jews will not replace us ?

That isn't going to hap.....wait a minute......it did happen.

Do you expect police officers to openly kneel on a black person's neck until they die, beat them to death, or shoot them ?

That isn't going to hap......wait a minute....it did happen.

Time to wake from your slumber........Mr. Matt Van Winkle.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Yes. There were racists walking down the street.
Yes, there is racist sitting in prime minister's office.

You will never eliminate all racists, although most of us wish we could.
You can however make racist action unconstitutional and illegal.
So that racists walking down the street and the racist sitting in prime ministers office will not be allowed to legally commit racist acts.

Why do you always distort other people's posts?
Matt is not saying that racists will disappear,
He wants to make racism actions illegal.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Do you expect police officers to openly kneel on a black person's neck until they die, beat them to death, or shoot them ?
> 
> That isn't going to hap......wait a minute....it did happen.
> 
> Time to wake from your slumber........Mr. Matt Van Winkle.


Did you sleep through the part where that behaviour, of an individual person, was widely condemned by everyone?

People generally don't approve of racism. That's the norm.

It's only white supremacists like Trudeau pushing for racism, and deniers like you saying racial discrimination isn't racist.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Yes. There were racists walking down the street.
> Yes, there is racist sitting in prime minister's office.
> 
> You will never eliminate all racists, although most of us wish we could.
> ...


 ... perhaps in a dream or in some la-la-land that doesn't exist on this planet.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... perhaps in a dream or in some la-la-land that doesn't exist on this planet.


What dream that doesn't exist?
damianstar summarized it simply.

I'd like racist acts to be made illegal, and those laws to be enforced. Ideally they should start at the PMO and work their way down.

I know that's a dream, but "I have a dream"


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> What dream that doesn't exist?
> damianstar summarized it simply.
> 
> *I'd like racist acts to be made illegal, and those laws to be enforced. Ideally they should start at the PMO and work their way down.*
> ...


 ... a dream ≠ reality. Spin it however you like.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... a dream ≠ reality. Spin it however you like.


So what you are saying is that expecting racist action to be illegal in Canada is just a dream that has zero chance of ever materializing?
I thought it is very reasonable expectation to have and relatively easy to implement if there was political will


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hate crimes are already illegal in Canada. There are already human rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

Do you think more laws will fix the problem ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Hate crimes are already illegal in Canada. There are already human rights and anti-discrimination legislation.
> 
> Do you think more laws will fix the problem ?


I think the current laws are broken. They don't actually prohibit racial discrimination. They should be fixed.

They are not being used to stop the PM and others from engaging in racial discrimination. 

I do think that if we actually made racial discrimination illegal, and if our government stopped being actively racist, that would result in less racial discrimination.
I would hope that it's obvious if the government provides millions in funding for institutional racism there might be more than there otherwise would be. Cutting government funding for racism is one of the easiest steps to reduce racism.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Hate crimes are already illegal in Canada. There are already human rights and anti-discrimination legislation.
> 
> Do you think more laws will fix the problem ?


No. I think better laws will fix the problem.
Not all racist actions are hate-crime.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> So what you are saying is that expecting racist action to be illegal in Canada is just a dream that has zero chance of ever materializing?


 ... affirmative "YES". Legalization is already in place on just "basic human" rights and how much have we progressed? Little in reality. 


> I thought it is very reasonable expectation to have and relatively easy to implement if there was political will


 ... see above. It takes more than just "political will" to implement laws to stamp out racism but the reality is it can't. Human beings are brought up to be racists. Expectations: yes, Dreams yes, Reality: no.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... affirmative "YES". Legalization is already in place on just "basic human" rights and how much have we progressed? Little in reality.
> ... see above. It takes more than just "political will" to implement laws to stamp out racism but the reality is it can't. Human beings are brought up to be racists. Expectations: yes, Dreams yes, Reality: no.


Because human rights are optional in Canada. If you had constitution that actually protects the people and can't be ignored, then laws would have to adhere to such constitution.
Unfortunately that is not the case, government can ignore human rights, and they are happy to do so.
There is no political will to end racism. Government is actively working to promote racism and itself is engaging in active racism.



And your second reply shows you completely missed the point of my post.
The goal isn't to stamp out racism or racists. It is physically impossible. There will always be racists. In 2021 even PMO is occupied by a racist. They will never disappear.
The goal is to make racist ACTION illegal. So that even though someone is racist, like prime minister, then they can't convert their racism into racist ACTION,
Racist ACTION can and should be made illegal. It is physically impossible to make racism itself as an ideology illegal.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Spin, spin, spin.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Spin, spin, spin.


Not a spin at all. You and sags are the ones spinning and misrepresenting what Mr. Matt said.

Simple explanation.

Can't illegalize racism. Very much the same reasons as you can't make stupidity illegal.
You can however make racist ACTION illegal. And that is what Mr. Matt is advocating for.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada already has a Charter or Rights. We already have Human Right Tribunals.

The problem is that those who practice racism ensure that it isn't obvious.

Systemic racism is evident in many areas. If you don't want to acknowledge it.......that is your problem not societies.

It is the fear of losing your white male privilege that drives your opposition to progress.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

No. The problem is that charter of rights is optional. So it can, has been, is, and will be ignored by those in power.

On the contrary. I believe systemic racism exists. Current government is the biggest proponent of systemic racism and they work to make sure it stays with us for a long time and becomes as prevalent as possible.

I believe 'progress' would be getting rid of systemic racism.
If you believe otherwise then yes, I am in opposition to your definition of 'progress'


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Canada already has a Charter or Rights. We already have Human Right Tribunals.
> 
> The problem is that those who practice racism ensure that it isn't obvious.
> 
> ...


We're the ones who stand against racism.

You're the one refusing to acknowledge systematic racism.








Politics


^ Responding to post #379: ... when was/will be TODAY? ... means racism, abuse of human rights, violations etc. HAS AND ALWAYS WILL exist in Canada. Not just TODAY by your definition plus the notion that I've learned nothing from residential schools. Nothing changes, only better-sounding or...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com





You're literally saying "how is discrimination by race (in this case blacks) racism?"

The problem is with you, not wider society. Most of us aren't racist, and we can actually see it when it's right in front of us.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You still haven't provided any evidence that demonstrates the government is racist, except for a program that helps black business people secure financing.

If that is your proof, it is woefully inadequate to support the unfounded claims you continue to make.

You can't provide any evidence because there isn't any.

It is obvious you have convinced yourself, as many of Trump's rabid followers have, that their life is negatively affected if someone else is given support.

They fear losing control as their white privilege is drained away. That is why they don't like immigrants or programs for marginalized groups.

Psychologists have discussed this phenomena a lot lately. Some call it "Trump derangement syndrome" but I believe it existed long before Trump.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Watch the new Netflix series on how dictators come to power, and there is a playbook for success.

One of the elements is to create a boogeyman, who is responsible for everything that citizens are unhappy about.

Trump did it with Muslims, Mexicans, and immigrants arriving from "shithole" countries.

"Liberals" and "progressives" are also fashioned as the enemy of the people by hard line conservatives and the antidote to it all is for the would be dictator to present himself as "a man of the people" who "solely possesses the ability to fix everything".

What is occurring today has repeated itself over and over in history. We know the game they play and aren't going to let it gain a foothold this time.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Seriously sags.
Can you read?

Noone here avocated not to help people.
We are advocating to help those that need help.
Not to assume someone needs help just because of their race - that is racist. You are literally saying that people of certain race are incapable, so all people of that race need help. That is incredibly racist and if anyone here is a white supremacist - it is a person who believes help programs should be designed by race.

If more black people need help than white people, then more black people will receive help.
Simple as that. Race shouldn't be a factor in this (if it is, that is literally racism).
Those who need help should get it.
Those who do not need help should not get it.
Simple concept.

Don't know how the hell you got
'It is obvious you have convinced yourself, as many of Trump's rabid followers have, that their life is negatively affected if someone else is given support.'
from this. It makes absolutely no sense how you created such conclusion based on a statement that those who need help should receive it.

Again, maybe after reading it 5 times within a single minute it will finally get engrained in your memory:
Those who need help should get it!
Those who don't need help should not get it


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Culture is beliefs and actions.
> Race is genetics.
> 
> Lets take "white people" as a race.
> ...


Now we are talking, there is a reason why race is selected instead of culture by the left. It is selected because it is the most inclusive label that cover the most people, as everyone can unify under a colour and pressure the government to do things. 

But it is undeniable that people do make judgment base on colour of a person's skin, and this is not going to go away by simply telling people don't be racist. (Or by refusing to collect data about race, like what France do).

It is also undeniable that there are more racists in the right, it has always been the underbelly of conservatism.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Programs already exist for those who need help.

The disputed programs provide extra help to people who have been systemically marginalized and require the additional support.

To withdraw that extra support would shove those people back into the queue where they are racially disadvantaged.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Johnny_kar said:


> Now we are talking, there is a reason why race is selected instead of culture by the left. It is selected because it is the most inclusive label that cover the most people, as everyone can unify under a colour and pressure the government to do things.
> 
> But it is undeniable that people do make judgment base on colour of a person's skin, and this is not going to go away by simply telling people don't be racist. (Or by refusing to collect data about race, like what France do).
> 
> It is also undeniable that there are more racists in the right, it has always been the underbelly of conservatism.


It is literally most exclusive label that you can cover. Simply because unless you are born in a specific way you are excluded. It is also the most divisive, because you are attributing certain skills (or lack thereof), social situations to a group with determining factor that is completely outside of control of said group! It is incredibly divisive and discriminatory.

Culture is a bit different as you have a certain control over what culture you belong to, but I don't believe government should differentiate between people based on culture either.

Yes, people make judgement based on color. Making judgement based on color is actively encouraged and in some cases mandated by the government. 
Judging people by color of their skin is not going to go away if government mandates organizations/companies/institutions to judge people by color of their skin. This is literally mandating racism.
That is what is going on.

And this is very deniable. 
I guess it depends on what is your definition of the right. If the definition of the right is libertarianism, then the very idea of it is anti-racist as it focuses on individual and not a group. If the definition of the right is capitalism, then the very idea of it is anti-racist as humans are seen barely as a means to effectively use capital (which causes separate problems, but is anti-racist) and not as a social group.
Ideology focused on social groups and socialism is inherently racist, because it judges people by a group they belong to rather than as individuals.

I still don't understand a single reason why it is wrong to simply help people that need help and not to help people that do not need the help. 
Can anyone explain to me why such concept is wrong?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Programs already exist for those who need help.
> 
> The disputed programs provide extra help to people who have been systemically marginalized and require the additional support.
> 
> To withdraw that extra support would shove those people back into the queue where they are racially disadvantaged.


That is complete bullshit.

If you create a program that a business owner who has an idea with merit will get the funding for that idea, then you make sure that everyone gets help. Then there is no racial disadvantage.
Give me one example of how a program that helps people based on their economical, health, or educational status doesn't help those that actually need it, regardless of their race?

Racist programs create racial disadvantages. 
Do you know how hard it is to be extremely talented person at work, who is a minority, who got position simply because they are brilliant, but now have to face a label of a token or someone who got there only because of affirmative action?
This automatically sets them back in career. And that setback is created by racist programs.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in the US, a failing country with a crumbling society,...... where the ideology is every man for himself.


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

@damian13ster 
What is on the paper is not the same as what is practised, remember those people that want to defend a bunch of statues? 
(I believe removing status are completely useless in helping ethnic minorities out, but precisely because it is useless, I will not mind people removing them.)


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

damian13ster said:


> Do you know how hard it is to be extremely talented person at work, who is a minority, who got position simply because they are brilliant, but now have to face a label of a token or someone who got there only because of affirmative action?
> This automatically sets them back in career. And that setback is created by racist programs.


That's why I completely oppose quota system, as I previously mentioned.


Johnny_kar said:


> BTW, I oppose quota system because we strife to be a meritocracy, so anyone that get move to higher ground are supposed to qualify, so my vision of AA is to improve education for minority in order to increase the amount of qualify candidate for the position of leadership among minorities.


I just wonder why people believe screaming at people in their face will convince anyone.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Johnny_kar said:


> @damian13ster
> What is on the paper is not the same as what is practised, remember those people that want to defend a bunch of statues?
> (I believe removing status are completely useless in helping ethnic minorities out, but precisely because it is useless, I will not mind people removing them.)


Of course. For the reasons mentioned (capitalism treating people as a capital or a resource) the pure capitalism wasn't introduced anywhere, and rightfully so. Even despite capitalism being completely anti-racist.
The labels between left and right are obscure and goalposts often moved. 
By definition though capitalism and individualism are anti-racist, while socialism and social groups are discriminatory.
The morphs of those ideologies can be either, depending how it is structured.

And I am not quite sure what the discussion has with statues, but I agree with you here. 
They are largely irrelevant.
I believe history should be taught, simply to avoid mistakes from the past, but having statues is not necessary for historical education.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in the US, a failing country with a crumbling society,...... where the ideology is every man for himself.


So your advice to people who oppose racism is to leave Canada?
Personally, I would rather have racists and those who vote racism in leave, but I understand you have different opinion


----------



## 307169 (May 24, 2015)

@damian13ster 
People that defend a bunch of statues self-proclaimed to be conservative, and many conservatives didn't reject them out right, as a result, we can conclude conservative are unfortunately, more susceptible to racism.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

As an individual why in the world would I reject actions of different individuals. They aren't doing anything in my name, by my command, under my supervision, etc.

I don't know what group you identify yourself with (nor do I care, labels are for lazy people), but does it mean that you have to actively reject every single idiot who claims to belong to the same group, or you are equivalent of the said idiot?

I am sorry, but that is silly. Even if you spent 24 hours per day actively rejecting idiots, you would still run out of time!

Think majority of other people would prefer to live their lives as normal and simply let idiots from one group fight with idiots from other group over some statues (or any other issue people get extreme about rather than have merit-based conversation)


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Programs already exist for those who need help.


I agree



> The disputed programs provide extra help to people who have been systemically marginalized and require the additional support.


No, the disputed programs discriminate based on race, which is the problem.
If it helped those who were actually systematically marginalized, I'd have no problem with it.

The problem is the racial discrimination.

What part of this do you not understand?
Is it really that hard to accept racism is bad?

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly

Treating people differently because of their situation, or experiences, or differing needs, is ok.
Treating people differently because of the colour of their skin, not ok.

How about "racism bad", but you can't even accept that racial discrimination is racism.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Johnny_kar said:


> @damian13ster
> People that defend a bunch of statues self-proclaimed to be conservative, and many conservatives didn't reject them out right, as a result, we can conclude conservative are unfortunately, more susceptible to racism.


As a liberal, I opposed the removal and defacing of statues and monuments for 2 simple reasons.

1. I don't think terrorism is the correct way to remove a monument.
- Removing the statues was clearly a political act, violence for political purposes is terrorism.
2. I also think we should honour those who did important things, even if they weren't perfect.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> - Removing the statues was clearly a political act, violence for political purposes is terrorism.


Then the MAGA base of the Republican party are terrorists.

They violently attacked the US Capitol, beat up cops and threatened to kill politicians, for political purposes. They even tried to execute politicians and hang the Vice President. Previously, MAGA people sent pipe bombs to political figures.

Sad that domestic terrorism in the US is considered such a normal thing now. And you have written support of these terrorists, MrMatt, multiple times. You said they were harmless protests and covered for their violence.

You should stop endorsing domestic terrorists, MrMatt.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Then the MAGA base of the Republican party are terrorists.
> 
> They violently attacked the US Capitol, beat up cops and threatened to kill politicians, for political purposes. They even tried to execute politicians and hang the Vice President. Previously, MAGA people sent pipe bombs to political figures.
> 
> ...


I said I supported the peaceful protest, until it became violent, then I didn't support it.
Go back, read what I said.

You have continued your pattern of assigning positions to me that I don't hold.
That's not the sign of an honest discussion.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_You have continued your pattern of assigning positions to me that I don't hold.
That's not the sign of an honest discussion._

Like when you refer to yourself as a liberal ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _You have continued your pattern of assigning positions to me that I don't hold.
> That's not the sign of an honest discussion._
> 
> Like when you refer to yourself as a liberal ?


I consider myself a liberal as that is the political philosophy most consistent with my personal philosophy. I think it's a convenient descriptor, if you know what Liberalism is.


*Liberalism* is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy

It's also why racist governmental policies are such a problem, as they violate "equality before the law".


----------

