Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: BC_cheque on March 16, 2018, 12:10:24 pm
-
I've noticed that SJ and his like-minded cohorts love to throw around SJW as an insult but it's so ineffective as an insult that it's funny.
I'm guessing Libtard is too juvenile and lefty just doesn't sound insulting enough, but is 'Social Justice Warrior' as an insult seriously a thing? Why?!
First off, I love the sound of it. I love social justice and to me warrior denotes showing passion toward something. Given that the terms started off with positive connotations goes to show that there is nothing wrong with the wording itself.
Second, nothing makes me smile more than seeing right-wingers make a distinction between me and themselves. I have very little respect about their opinions so when they draw a line in the sand and put me in a different category than themselves I can't help but feel a sense of achievement. It's like I'm giving myself an internal high-five for NOT being anything like them.
Do you ever get really pissed off at another driver and when you pass them you realize that they were oblivious to your existence? That feeling that you were all alone in your anger and that it wasn't reciprocated perfectly captures the essence of the expression "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."
Being called an SJW is exactly the same to me. You're the angry driver and I'm the other driver oblivious to the veins blowing in your forehead.
You really need to find something else to insult me with because this one has the exact opposite of effect of what you're trying to achieve.
-
Thanks, this is awesome. I shall have to cultivate some of that attitude.
Another thing I don't understand is the need some people have to randomly throw insults at an entire group, either in a thread title, their opening post or any subsequent post. Its hard to believe these people are interested in discussion when they start off by accusing and blaming, then insulting an "identity group" that they happen to disapprove of. Just like some religious zealots, these people seem to be encased in a bubble no amount of logic or evidence could possibly pierce.
-
I've noticed that SJ and his like-minded cohorts love to throw around SJW as an insult but it's so ineffective as an insult that it's funny.
I'm guessing Libtard is too juvenile and lefty just doesn't sound insulting enough, but is 'Social Justice Warrior' as an insult seriously a thing? Why?!
First off, I love the sound of it. I love social justice and to me warrior denotes showing passion toward something. Given that the terms started off with positive connotations goes to show that there is nothing wrong with the wording itself.
Second, nothing makes me smile more than seeing right-wingers make a distinction between me and themselves. I have very little respect about their opinions so when they draw a line in the sand and put me in a different category than themselves I can't help but feel a sense of achievement. It's like I'm giving myself an internal high-five for NOT being anything like them.
Do you ever get really pissed off at another driver and when you pass them you realize that they were oblivious to your existence? That feeling that you were all alone in your anger and that it wasn't reciprocated perfectly captures the essence of the expression "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."
Being called an SJW is exactly the same to me. You're the angry driver and I'm the other driver oblivious to the veins blowing in your forehead.
You really need to find something else to insult me with because this one has the exact opposite of effect of what you're trying to achieve.
Come on, both sides like to throw labels around.
-
I'm guessing Libtard is too juvenile and lefty just doesn't sound insulting enough, but is 'Social Justice Warrior' as an insult seriously a thing? Why?!
Being Left isn't necessarily a bad thing. I support a number of policies and ideas which would probably be considered left of center.
First off, I love the sound of it. I love social justice and to me warrior denotes showing passion toward something. Given that the terms started off with positive connotations goes to show that there is nothing wrong with the wording itself.
Passion, yes. Another word would be zealous, as in zealots, as in violent, ignorant, hate-filled people who know virtually nothing about the things they're so 'passionate' about. SJWs ignore complexity and have a very narrow focus. To them, they're noble and supporting great causes. Anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy, who they seek always to silence and punish. Mao's Red Guards would be the equivalent of the SJWs today, in their mindset and violent 'passion', and their hate for heretics and 'counter revolutionaries'.
So I'm not surprised you identify with such people. You share their disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.
-
Come on, both sides like to throw labels around.
No doubt but my point was something different. The term SJW is NOT an insult even though some are desperately trying to make it out to be.
It'd be like me calling you a conservative as though it's an insult but you don't mind being called a conservative.
It's time to get creative and step up the game. Using SJW as an insult is ridiculously ineffective in what it's trying to achieve.
I personally don't mind it one bit! ;)
-
Being Left isn't necessarily a bad thing. I support a number of policies and ideas which would probably be considered left of center.
Passion, yes. Another word would be zealous, as in zealots, as in violent, ignorant, hate-filled people who know virtually nothing about the things they're so 'passionate' about. SJWs ignore complexity and have a very narrow focus. To them, they're noble and supporting great causes. Anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy, who they seek always to silence and punish. Mao's Red Guards would be the equivalent of the SJWs today, in their mindset and violent 'passion', and their hate for heretics and 'counter revolutionaries'.
So I'm not surprised you identify with such people. You share their disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.
My previous answer to Wilber applies equally to your post here but you're welcome to keep holding on to that coal with the intention to throw it at me, you're the one getting burned.
I'm not sharing your anger on this one.
-
No doubt but my point was something different. The term SJW is NOT an insult even though some are desperately trying to make it out to be.
It'd be like me calling you a conservative as though it's an insult but you don't mind being called a conservative.
It's time to get creative and step up the game. Using SJW as an insult is ridiculously ineffective in what it's trying to achieve.
I personally don't mind it one bit! ;)
I try not to use them although I can't claim I never have. Labels are meant to shut down discussion, not advance it. I think of myself as being fairly liberal socially but I don't mind being called a conservative because I usually am politically and economically, even if I don't support some of their social policies. Probably why I have never joined a political party.
-
My previous answer to Wilber applies equally to your post here but you're welcome to keep holding on to that coal with the intention to throw it at me, you're the one getting burned.
I'm not sharing your anger on this one.
There's a certain familiar whiff of world weary smug whenever a SJW posts. They will say something sneering and contemptuous towards other people, and then when those other people reply in an unflattering manner, they'll pretend to be above the fray. So noble as they walk serenely along, noses aloft. Why, no anger affects them! That is for other people, usually those horrible conservative types. So sad, they think to themselves.
Smug, superior, entitled, dishonest, contemptuous towards others; the hallmark character traits of an SJW
-
violent, ignorant, hate-filled people who know virtually nothing about the things they're so 'passionate' about.
That about sums up the far right.
-
There's a certain familiar whiff of world weary smug whenever a SJW posts. They will say something sneering and contemptuous towards other people, and then when those other people reply in an unflattering manner, they'll pretend to be above the fray. So noble as they walk serenely along, noses aloft. Why, no anger affects them! That is for other people, usually those horrible conservative types. So sad, they think to themselves.
Smug, superior, entitled, dishonest, contemptuous towards others; the hallmark character traits of an SJW
OMG. You would never say something sneering and contemptuous would you?
-
I've noticed that SJ and his like-minded cohorts love to throw around SJW as an insult but it's so ineffective as an insult that it's funny.
SJW is a category used to describe people holding various extremely intolerant views and seek to impose those views on others (by mob or legislation). It is an insult only to people who don't agree with those views. It is not a lot different from the way SJWs use the would 'Christian' or 'Necon'.
It also makes no difference if you are proud of adhering to an intolerant and dogmatic social philosophy: the term is still an insult to people who are repelled by it.
IOW - when you see SJW used as an insult you listening to conversation that is not directed at you. It is directed at people who disagree with you and the term is used to establish group boundaries. It is no different than when an SJW uses the term 'Evangelical Christian' - it is an message sent to fellow SJWs to establish what is not allowed in the group.
-
SJW is a category used to describe people holding various extremely intolerant views and seek to impose those views on others (by mob or legislation). It is an insult only to people who don't agree with those views. It is not a lot different from the way SJWs use the would 'Christian' or 'Necon'.
It also makes no difference if you are proud of adhering to an intolerant and dogmatic social philosophy: the term is still an insult to people who are repelled by it.
IOW - when you see SJW used as an insult you listening to conversation that is not directed at you. It is directed at people who disagree with you and the term is used to establish group boundaries. It is no different than when an SJW uses the term 'Evangelical Christian' - it is an message sent to fellow SJWs to establish what is not allowed in the group.
It's not a "category" it's simply a pejorative term used by people who apparently don't like the concept pf social justice.
-
IOW - when you see SJW used as an insult you listening to conversation that is not directed at you.
How dare someone trespass within a delineated echo chamber
-
How dare someone trespass within a delineated echo chamber
As I said, it is no different than when people on the left use "Evangelical Christian" or "Neocon". It is about setting the boundaries of the echo chamber.
-
It is an insult only to people who don't agree with those views. It is not a lot different from the way SJWs use the would 'Christian' or 'Necon'.
It also makes no difference if you are proud of adhering to an intolerant and dogmatic social philosophy: the term is still an insult to people who are repelled by it.
Interesting comparison with Christianity. So if I think someone is clutching onto Christianity as basis for intolerance, you don't see the irony in throwing out "you Christian" as an insult when the person takes no offense to being called a Christian?
ETA - you're saying that my repugnance of Christianity in this hypothetical scenario is enough for the term Christian to be an insult to someone else? That's not very logical.
-
Interesting comparison with Christianity. So if I think someone is clutching onto Christianity as basis for intolerance, you don't see the irony in throwing out "you Christian" as an insult when the person takes no offense to being called a Christian?
ETA - you're saying that my repugnance of Christianity in this hypothetical scenario is enough for the term Christian to be an insult to someone else? That's not very logical.
Yep, I would say that approach backfired "bigly".
-
Yep, I would say that approach backfired "bigly".
I love when the other team assists in giving me the goal. :D
-
ETA - you're saying that my repugnance of Christianity in this hypothetical scenario is enough for the term Christian to be an insult to someone else?
I am saying the use of the term "Evangelical Christian" in the bubbles that you normally reside is understood to be an insult. The claim that Harper is an "Evangelical Christian" was often put out there as a reason to not vote for him which makes no sense unless it was an insult.
At this point it is clear that you lack any capacity for self awareness (a problem common among SJWs)
-
Interesting comparison with Christianity. So if I think someone is clutching onto Christianity as basis for intolerance, you don't see the irony in throwing out "you Christian" as an insult when the person takes no offense to being called a Christian?
ETA - you're saying that my repugnance of Christianity in this hypothetical scenario is enough for the term Christian to be an insult to someone else? That's not very logical.
I have been chastised for my so called Christian beliefs and I'm not a Christian or any other religious denomination.
-
Fascist is a particular favourite of the left when referring to conservatives.
-
Fascist is a particular favourite of the left when referring to conservatives.
conservative is a label the regressives like to pretend they are. The fact is they are environmentally irresponsible, economically dangerous, financially incompetent and socially awkward.
-
;D
conservative is a label the regressives like to pretend they are. The fact is they are environmentally irresponsible, economically dangerous, financially incompetent and socially awkward.
You sound just like Argus.
-
I am saying the use of the term "Evangelical Christian" in the bubbles that you normally reside is understood to be an insult. The claim that Harper is an "Evangelical Christian" was often put out there as a reason to not vote for him which makes no sense unless it was an insult.
I get what you're saying but I don't think you get what I'm saying. Do you think Harper should take offense with being called an Evangelical Christian, even if it's used pejoratively by someone like me, if he identifies as an Evangelical Christian?
At this point it is clear that you lack any capacity for self awareness (a problem common among SJWs)
Oh that's about as insulting coming from you as being called SJW by Argus.
-
You sound just like Argus.
Will that get my mug on the $10 bill?
-
I have been chastised for my so called Christian beliefs and I'm not a Christian or any other religious denomination.
That's something completely different, I wouldn't want to be called something I don't identify with either. I'm talking about being called something that you do identify with and which doesn't bother you.
Is it really an insult if someone is not insulted by the term?
-
conservative is a label the regressives like to pretend they are. The fact is they are environmentally irresponsible, economically dangerous, financially incompetent and socially awkward.
Sounds like you are projecting your own feelings/failings onto others.
-
That about sums up the far right.
More so the far left - or even just left
-
I get what you're saying but I don't think you get what I'm saying. Do you think Harper should take offense with being called an Evangelical Christian, even if it's used pejoratively by someone like me, if he identifies as an Evangelical Christian?
You are missing point entirely. No one who uses the term "Evangelical Christian" as an insult cares what Harper thinks. It term used to communicate ideas to others. Similarly, no one who uses the term "SJW" as an insult cares what you think about it.
-
Similarly, no one who uses the term "SJW" as an insult cares what you think about it.
So basically it is a pejorative, and too bad I never grew out of grade 4.
-
You are missing point entirely. No one who uses the term "Evangelical Christian" as an insult cares what Harper thinks. It term used to communicate ideas to others. Similarly, no one who uses the term "SJW" as an insult cares what you think about it.
Oh Tim you're such a conservative!
That was my way of insulting you even though you're not really offended. But using your logic, it really was an insult because in my mind conservative is a bad thing. :D
-
Oh Tim you're such a conservative!
That was my way of insulting you even though you're not really offended. But using your logic, it really was an insult because in my mind conservative is a bad thing. :D
And that would be your problem.
-
And that would be your problem.
Or in the case of SJW's, Argus's problem.
Hence, the point of my thread!
-
You are all queer.
-
You are all queer.
Thanks!
-
Or in the case of SJW's, Argus's problem.
I agree, but saying it is just conservative who use labels is nonsense.
-
I agree, but saying it is just conservative who use labels is nonsense.
When did I say that?
-
To me a SJW is a ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s
-
So basically it is a pejorative, and too bad I never grew out of grade 4.
No different than "Evangelical" or "Neocon".
-
No different than "Evangelical" or "Neocon".
Insults are in the hands of the thrower. Just look at how Argus and his ilk (is that you) throw SJW around.
-
SJW is used as a pejorative because that person generally wants to impose their ideology or their own ideas of what politically correct social justice is – their rules – no room for other ideas. They believe in their own unwarranted sense of moral superiority.
-
To me a SJW is a ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s
This was pretty funny and pretty accurate, imo. Clarification; certain people follow those steps, with terms changed depending on topic and whatever ideology.
But what is it called.when a non-SJW such as Argus does it?
And, regardless of who is doing it to whom, what purpose does it serve?
-
No different than "Evangelical" or "Neocon".
Groups self identify as Evangelical so by itself it is not a pejorative.
Neocon also is used in the US for Democrats that crossed the floor (literally and/or philosophically) due to their difference in opinion with the party on foreign policy issues.
SJW is 100% pure pejorative.
-
SJW is used as a pejorative because that person generally wants to impose their ideology or their own ideas of what politically correct social justice is – their it's used as a pejprative because it rules – no room for other ideas. They believe in their own unwarranted sense of moral superiority.
I suggest it's used as a pejorative because the concept ruffles the feathers of right wingers who are comfortable in the status quo and don't want the hassle of dealing with human rights and such.
-
Groups self identify as Evangelical so by itself it is not a pejorative.
Neocon also is used in the US for Democrats that crossed the floor due to their difference in opinion with the party on foreign policy issues.
SJW is 100% pure pejorative.
It didn't always used to be pejorative. It used to have positive connotations but just like the labels 'progressive' and 'feminist', people like Argus started using it as an insult and it evolved to something bad.
There is nothing wrong with issues of social justice and those trying to belittle those values are the ones succeeding by devaluing the term.
That's why I refuse to be insulted by it.
I'm also a proud feminist and progressive.
-
They succeeded in making 'feminist' such a bad thing that we have a whole new generation of young women too embarrassed to call themselves feminist.
I don't want to see them succeed into making 'social justice' a negative issue to shy away from.
-
It didn't always used to be pejorative.
I don't know anyone that self identified as a SJW. There might have been people fighting for social justice, but to the best of my knowledge they are not the ones that created the term.
-
I don't know anyone that self identified as a SJW. There might have been people fighting for social justice, but to the best of my knowledge they are not the ones that created the term.
From Wikipedia:
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one. During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.[1][2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
-
Example of a positive use of it:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/memory-social-justice-warrior-lgbt-rights-champion-carolyn-wagner
-
There is nothing wrong with issues of social justice and those trying to belittle those values are the ones succeeding by devaluing the term.
You mean like belittling people's opinions because they white? Or by calling people racist because they are concerned about current levels of immigration? Or by calling people sexist for suggesting that men and women don't want the same types of jobs and expecting parity in all jobs is unreasonable? Or for calling people "transphobic" for being appalled at idea of promoting sex change operations to vulnerable teens.
SJWs get the derogatory label because all they do is go around belittling the values of people that disagree with them.
It is ironic that you don't like being fed your own medicine.
A little hint: "justice" is in the eye of the beholder. What you call justice is gross injustice to others.
-
From Wikipedia: More than 20 years ago, the term was generally used as a neutral or even complimentary describer. Here’s a clip from a 1991 write-up of a Montreal jazz festival, from the Montreal Gazette:
[Quebec guitarist Rene] Lussier will present the world premiere of his ambitious Quebecois mood piece Le Tresor de la Langue, which juxtaposes the spoken word — including sound bites from Charles de Gaulle and Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior Michel Chartrand — with new- music noodlings.
Michel Chartrand? The Quebec nationalist that supported the FLQ? Not really what I would consider positive.
-
Michel Chartrand? The Quebec nationalist that supported the FLQ? Not really what I would consider positive.
?? Weird response to what was merely some background info. The term has been used since the 1920s and was not generally used as a perjorative until around 2011.
-
Michel Chartrand? The Quebec nationalist that supported the FLQ? Not really what I would consider positive.
Did you see the example I left from ACLU blog?
-
No different than "Evangelical" or "Neocon".
You know those are actual categories that specify a particular kind of religious belief and a particular kind of “conservatism” (which is actually liberalism, but whatever). Neocons aren’t all conservatives and evangelical isn’t all christians. They’re specific believes that are being criticized.
-
I’m not really sure what I expect from people who claim that promoting tolerance is intolerant and criticizing racism is racist.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
-
@dia, @BC Chick
yeah, yeah, I give.
-
Funny, because I was just discussing this with an activist friend in the US.
-
You know those are actual categories that specify a particular kind of religious belief and a particular kind of “conservatism” (which is actually liberalism, but whatever). Neocons aren’t all conservatives and evangelical isn’t all christians. They’re specific believes that are being criticized.
And SJWs are not all people on the left. Only specific beliefs are being criticized...
-
I’m not really sure what I expect from people who claim that promoting tolerance is intolerant and criticizing racism is racist.
A little self awareness can go a long way. The problem is what you define to be "intolerance" or "racist" is not necessarily intolerant or racist. You simply use those labels to justify your actions which makes your definitions of the terms to be extremely self-serving (i.e. you believe you can never be racist because only you are allowed to decide what racism is).
-
Funny, because I was just discussing this with an activist friend in the US.
To me, a snowflake is someone who plays the victim. I see Trump as a snowflake because of his thin skin.
-
A little self awareness can go a long way. The problem is what you define to be "intolerance" or "racist" is not necessarily intolerant or racist. You simply use those labels to justify your actions which makes your definitions of the terms to be extremely self-serving (i.e. you believe you can never be racist because only you are allowed to decide what racism is).
So lets have your definition of racism.
-
I think an accusation of racism is too often used as a tactic to try and shut down an argument.
-
I think an accusation of racism is too often used as a tactic to try and shut down an argument.
I guess the best thing to do when you suspect racism is question it, rather than simply shut down, unless it becomes apparent.
-
So lets have your definition of racism.
The dictionary definition:
racism (rāˈsĭzˌəm)
n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
So saying someone has "white privilege" is racist because the speaker is discriminating against people based on race.
-
I guess the best thing to do when you suspect racism is question it, rather than simply shut down, unless it becomes apparent.
They don't question, they accuse. But I agree.
-
The dictionary definition: So saying someone has "white privilege" is racist because the speaker is discriminating against people based on race.
You seem a bit confused. White privilege is one of the generators of racism. ID'ing that is not racism.
-
That about sums up the far right.
Agreed. SJWs are the opposite side of that ilk.
-
OMG. You would never say something sneering and contemptuous would you?
I have and will, especially when dealing with the likes of you. But I wouldn't claim a virtuous innocence afterward when you replied in kind.
-
It's not a "category" it's simply a pejorative term used by people who apparently don't like the concept pf social justice.
SJWs are not interested in justice and never have been.
-
I suggest it's used as a pejorative because the concept ruffles the feathers of right wingers who are comfortable in the status quo and don't want the hassle of dealing with human rights and such.
The people you refer to as 'right wingers' created human rights - and this country.
-
The dictionary definition: So saying someone has "white privilege" is racist because the speaker is discriminating against people based on race.
Thats weird. Its pretty well known that better-looking people tend to get better gigs (romance, jobs, friends, grades) generally speaking; saying so is not denigrating better looking people, its acknowledging a fact of life. Nor does saying so mean that ugly people never do well or that attractive people never fail.
In Canada, white people also tend to get better gigs. In Muslim majority countries, Muslims tend to get better gigs. In Chinese majority countries, Chinese tend to get better gigs. None of that means Whites in Canada, Muslims in the Middle East or Chinese in Peking are universally successful or that brown people in Canada, Christians in the Middle East or Malaysians in Peking can never get ahead.
The reason for these better gigs for some and not others in the macro sense is due to "isms", sexism, racism, ect. Claiming this kind of discrimination doesn't exist because of individual examples that go against the overall trend is disingenuous.
-
I’m not really sure what I expect from people who claim that promoting tolerance is intolerant and criticizing racism is racist.
You ah, think of yourelf as tolerant, do you? ::)
-
I think an accusation of racism is too often used as a tactic to try and shut down an argument.
Its also used as a form of moral posturing, as the person using it, by definition, is of course displaying how morally superior they are to the 'racist'.
-
I guess the best thing to do when you suspect racism is question it, rather than simply shut down, unless it becomes apparent.
Omni: "Hey, there's dust under my bed... RACISM! RACISM! This dust is racist!!!"
-
Thats weird. Its pretty well known that better-looking people tend to get better gigs (romance, jobs, friends, grades) generally speaking; saying so is not denigrating better looking people, its acknowledging a fact of life. Nor does saying so mean that ugly people never do well or that attractive people never fail.
In Canada, white people also tend to get better gigs.
Asians get even better gigs. Soooo, what happened to that White Privilege...?
-
Asians get even better gigs. Soooo, what happened to that White Privilege...?
Yawn. Please read what I posted: its not just about money you nitwit.
-
Yawn. Please read what I posted: its not just about money you nitwit.
Money is the obvious form of measurement of success in our society, you shrew.
-
Its also used as a form of moral posturing, as the person using it, by definition, is of course displaying how morally superior they are to the 'racist'.
That about sums up the use of all pejoratives. They might be talking about intellectual superiority, athletic superiority, etc. but the jest is the same. It is a way to cover ones insecurities.
-
I've noticed that SJ and his like-minded cohorts love to throw around SJW as an insult but it's so ineffective as an insult that it's funny.
Totally agree. Even though I increasingly disagree with a bunch of the views/actions of "social justice" advocates, especially over the last few years as these views/actions have gone much more towards the far-left spectrum (though on some things I agree with them), I think using an insult to describe these advocates is disrespectful, childish, and just plain rude, so I purposely avoid using the term. I think I used it recently lazily not as an insult but moreso describe these types of folks (SJW is easier than typing "social justice advocate"), shouldn't have done it but oh well. Attack the idea, not the speaker.
Second, nothing makes me smile more than seeing right-wingers make a distinction between me and themselves. I have very little respect about their opinions so when they draw a line in the sand and put me in a different category than themselves I can't help but feel a sense of achievement. It's like I'm giving myself an internal high-five for NOT being anything like them.
Left and right not only have different core value systems, they're exactly opposite like ying and yang, which is why they so often disagree. If you have little respect for rightwing views, rather than simply disagreeing, it doesn't make you much better than conservatives who have little respect for yours and call you a SJW.
Being called an SJW is exactly the same to me. You're the angry driver and I'm the other driver oblivious to the veins blowing in your forehead.
Are you sure you're the other oblivious driver? You did create this thread and are upset at the SJW label.
-
Money is the obvious form of measurement of success in our society, you shrew.
Yes I do know that. And I knew that some people would assume that was the only success measurement that has been studied, so I specified other things as well. Which you skipped right over to make a claim about Asians in Canada. A claim I don't even believe, btw.
-
Left and right not only have different core value systems, they're exactly opposite like ying and yang, which is why they so often disagree.
That's not neccesarily true. We have the same values, but different priorities. As per Haidt's five moral values
Harm/Care
Fairness/reciprocity
Ingroup loyalty.
Authority/Respect
Purity/sanctity.
"liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; want change and justice, even at risk of chaos"
"conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; want order even at the cost to those at the bottom"
"they need each other like yin/yang"
"And now we get to the crux of the disagreement between
liberals and conservatives. Because liberals reject three of these
foundations. They say let’s celebrate diversity, not common and ingroup
loyalty. They say lets question authority. And they say keep your hands off my body."
"to create cooperative groups you need every tool in the toolbox (5 moral values)"
-
Social justice warriors in action. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRBodKsgTA
-
Social justice warriors in action. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRBodKsgTA
And what's your next choice, Willey Coyote of Bugs Bunny? hahaha
-
In Canada, white people also tend to get better gigs.
Used to be true. Today there there is little or no difference between white, east asian or south asian. The idea that simply being "white" confirms advantage has no connection with society as it exists. "Privilege" does exist but it is a function of wealth and connections - not race. Trying to claim it is racial is racism.
The reason for these better gigs for some and not others in the macro sense is due to "isms", sexism, racism, ect. Claiming this kind of discrimination doesn't exist because of individual examples that go against the overall trend is disingenuous.
There is difference between claiming that people without access to wealth and connections face barriers and telling an individual that the things they have are the result of some unfair advantage. Using "white" in place of what matters (wealth and connections) is racism. Attacking an individual because of their skin colour is racism.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRBodKsgTA
One time within a small group of people I mentioned the fact that men are generally better athletes than women and a feminist in the group got so PO'd at me and said this wasn't true LOL. People will get offended with facts that disprove their worldview, it's cognitive dissonance. God did't create Adam and Eve out of mud 4000 years ago either.
-
I think the term "social justice" is terribly self-righteous, as if these ideas of justice for society are the correct and only version. Every single person has their own vision of what social justice is. Justice is completely subjective. Ask Socrates or Plato.
-
men are generally better athletes than women
There are certainly many biological differences that give men advantage at some events like running, swimming, etc. where speed and strength are major factors. Other events like gymnastics where flexibility is more important gives a distinct advantage to women. Events like equestrian and shooting where physical balance and mental concentration are most important there is very little gender differences. While endurance sports like marathons are often won by men, if you look at an average of the top 100-200 finishers they will be very close with a possible slight advantage to women.
-
SJW is to the left what social conservative is to the right. Neither term is an insult... but both are awful political viewpoints.
-
Money is the obvious form of measurement of success in our society, you shrew.
Material success, yes. That means the propensity to obtain saleable goods and services. But you can't trade gold for the most important things.
What I'm writing is immaterial to this discussion I'm sure, and I don't want to drift the thread like dust in the wind but it's important to talk about important things:
Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
-
Aaaaaand....
Just browsing the last page of this argument I find a video of a single individual with an untenable viewpoint, who is being brought into the discussion of "Social Justice Warriors".
As with "Evangelical Christians" to people on the left, the most important function of the political caricature is to comfort someone that their opposition is an unreasonable monster.
Carry on with your entertainment...
-
Material success, yes. That means the propensity to obtain saleable goods and services. But you can't trade gold for the most important things.
But we're talking about the term 'white privilege' in the context of people able to get jobs and promotions, not in the context of who gets the hotter girls or has more friends. Certainly there are all kinds of advantages individuals have such as beauty/handsomeness, wealth, height, health, intelligence, etc., but that's not what the SJWs ever focus on anyway. They focus on race in the context of hiring promotion, and sometimes in terms of the criminal justice system.
-
As with "Evangelical Christians" to people on the left, the most important function of the political caricature is to comfort someone that their opposition is an unreasonable monster.
Not a monster but definitely unreasonable. I think the reason I hold SJWs in contempt is the same reason I have little respect for religious extremists of any variety. Because they're not reasonable, not logical, and cling to their extremist viewpoint with no willingness to compromise or even acknowledge that others might have a right to a different one.
That wasn't a single individual, btw, but a group of them, and they are hardly alone. I could as easily have posted lots of videos of SJWs rioting or being stupid in other contexts. I saw a video the other day of a bunch of moronic SJWs parading around in Ottawa a couple of ears back demanding Stephen Harper be arrested. I mean, seriously. You can pretend its an untrue caricature if it makes you feel better, but it's not.
-
I could as easily have posted lots of videos of SJWs rioting or being stupid in other contexts.
So in your definition, SJWs are only those who what unreasonable opinions and riot? The "good" definition of SJWs is obsolete?
-
Aaaaaand....
Just browsing the last page of this argument I find a video of a single individual with an untenable viewpoint, who is being brought into the discussion of "Social Justice Warriors".
As with "Evangelical Christians" to people on the left, the most important function of the political caricature is to comfort someone that their opposition is an unreasonable monster.
Carry on with your entertainment...
Or just an unreasonable dickhead.
Purple hair does not a monster make.
-
Social justice warriors in action. :D
See, this is exactly your problem. You call me and other posters on this forum SJW's all the time and to defend your position this is the video you post as an example of an SJW.
To compare it back to the Christianity example, that'd be like me calling Christian people Christians with the intention to insult them (when they don't see anything wrong with their faith) and then posting a video of Westboro Church as an example of a 'Christian'.
You're completely misrepresenting the ideology and attempting to malign an otherwise benign term just because you like to paint everyone who adheres to it as an extremist.
-
SJW is to the left what social conservative is to the right. Neither term is an insult... but both are awful political viewpoints.
It never used to be though. I posted a 2011 link from the ACLU where the term was used in a positive way. That's the way the term was historically used.
It's people like Argus that are devaluing it by using it as a pejorative. He tries to do the same with 'progressive' as well. People like him have succeeded in turning 'feminism' into a bad thing and I don't agree.
There is nothing wrong with people who believe in social justice and their version of painting anyone who believes in social justice as a nutty extremist needs to be disregarded and called out.
-
Are you sure you're the other oblivious driver? You did create this thread and are upset at the SJW label.
I've looked over and noticed that the car next to me is flipping me off and shouting obscenities with a crazy angry look on his face.
No, I'm not angry, I'm laughing at him because I have nothing to be ashamed of about the way I was driving.
-
I think the term "social justice" is terribly self-righteous, as if their ideas of justice for society are the correct and only version. Every single person has their own vision of what social justice is. Justice is completely subjective. Ask Socrates or Plato.
You're using the term in a literal sense, whereas the way the term is *used* is an all-encompassing ideology that believes in equality.
If I talk about a watermelon, you can't come back at me and say it's actually a misnomer because there is no water in it.
I'm talking about the fruit.
-
So in your definition, SJWs are only those who what unreasonable opinions and riot? The "good" definition of SJWs is obsolete?
Definition? SJW for me is a category of behavior and beliefs. All of it fanatical and unreasonable.
-
It's people like Argus that are devaluing it by using it as a pejorative.
No it's people who are SJWs devaluing it by acting like ****. I don't like ****. That's why I'm not fond of religious or political fanatics and ideologues, because they're invariably ****. I make no exceptions or allowances.
People like him have succeeded in turning 'feminism' into a bad thing and I don't agree.
No, feminists made feminism into a bad thing. Not all of them, but the extremists who came to be the voice of feminism, the ones who were shrill man-haters, who said all sexual intercourse between men and women was ****, who demanded equality of results, rather than equality of opportunity.
There is nothing wrong with people who believe in social justice
Depending how one defines social justice, of course. That's like saying "I denounce terrorism! Except for the actions of freedom fighters, of course! THAT'S not terrorism!"
The overriding theme in all of my postings for ten years has been a belief in fundamental justice. Yet I loath SJWs for their illiberal and unjust behaviour and beliefs.
-
I've looked over and noticed that the car next to me is flipping me off and shouting obscenities with a crazy angry look on his face.
No, you drove up alongside him, screaming through your closed window and giving him the finger - repeatedly, several days running. And when he gives you the finger back you pretend that this is an example of his anger, rather than your shrill intolerance for people with different viewpoints.
Shrill self-righteous intolerance, btw, is the hallmark of SWJs. Congratulations on being the cliche'.
-
No it's people who are SJWs devaluing it by acting like ****. I don't like ****. That's why I'm not fond of religious or political fanatics and ideologues, because they're invariably ****. I make no exceptions or allowances.
No, feminists made feminism into a bad thing. Not all of them, but the extremists who came to be the voice of feminism, the ones who were shrill man-haters, who said all sexual intercourse between men and women was ****, who demanded equality of results, rather than equality of opportunity.
Depending how one defines social justice, of course. That's like saying "I denounce terrorism! Except for the actions of freedom fighters, of course! THAT'S not terrorism!"
Hey argus, remember that old adage about what to do when you find yourself in a hole? :D
The overriding theme in all of my postings for ten years has been a belief in fundamental justice. Yet I loath SJWs for their illiberal and unjust behaviour and beliefs.
-
There is nothing wrong with people who believe in social justice and their version of painting anyone who believes in social justice as a nutty extremist needs to be disregarded and called out.
Everyone believes in social justice to some degree. I was always under the impression that a SJW was, by definition, the nutty and extremist type.
At least, if I ever use the term, that's what I mean.
-
I've looked over and noticed that the car next to me is flipping me off and shouting obscenities with a crazy angry look on his face.
No, I'm not angry, I'm laughing at him because I have nothing to be ashamed of about the way I was driving.
Zealots aren't known for having shame.
-
Zealots aren't known for having shame.
So you think I’m a zealot?
-
So you think I’m a zealot?
Don’t know. Are you?
-
SJW is to the left what social conservative is to the right. Neither term is an insult... but both are awful political viewpoints.
I think thats far too much of a generalization. There's a vast number of different views/issues within what people would consider "social conservative" or "SJW" views, and not all of them are bad or good from either side.
-
Don’t know. Are you?
1) BC_cheque says she considers herself a SJW
2) You said SJWs are zealots
3) Therefore, transitively you're saying BC_cheque is a zealot
But now you're being coy about it.
-
Just browsing the last page of this argument I find a video of a single individual with an untenable viewpoint, who is being brought into the discussion of "Social Justice Warriors".
It wasn't a single individual, if you watched the video you would see a group of people walk out in protest etc. This isn't a rare viewpoint by feminist social justice activists, especially on campuses.
As with "Evangelical Christians" to people on the left, the most important function of the political caricature is to comfort someone that their opposition is an unreasonable monster.
I completely agree. The truth is, the people in the video aren't monsters, but they are unreasonable.
-
1) BC_cheque says she considers herself a SJW
2) You said SJWs are zealots
3) Therefore, transitively you're saying BC_cheque is a zealot
But now you're being coy about it.
Not really.
I said zealots aren't known for their sense of shame.
I'm like sapper. I see the label of SJW as applying to someone who wishes to impose their view of "social justice" (whatever that means) on others by whatever means they can.
So I'm asking her if she is one of those.
-
You're using the term in a literal sense, whereas the way the term is *used* is an all-encompassing ideology that believes in equality.
The ideology doesn't believe in simply "equality", but a certain kind of equality that more and more advocates inequality, often involving equality of outcomes instead of just equality of opportunity, where ie: racist & sexist policies are used to fix other instances of racism and sexism, ie: arbitrary racial & gender quotas. There are different kinds of equality, not just outcome. So-called "social justice" advocates often don't realize the social injustice inherent in some of their views & actions.
It's a term by activist academics whose creators had a particular ideology and named it "social justice". This term presumes that the definition of social justice is defined within the particular ideological tenets they have outlined, and therefore everything contrary must be social injustice. You yourself said you have little respect for rightwing views, which is an alarmingly generalizing statement.
-
I have noticed that people doubt my liberal credentials when I use the term "SJW." I use the term for people who want to run my life but can't run their own.
-
I said zealots aren't known for their sense of shame.
Yes you did. You did so while directly quoting me saying I'm not ashamed on my views on social justice.
So if I have no shame in my views and zealots aren't known for their self of shame, what was your point exactly about me, other than to imply that I'm a zealot?
-
Yes you did. You did so while directly quoting me saying I'm not ashamed on my views on social justice.
So if I have no shame in my views and zealots aren't known for their self of shame, what was your point exactly about me, other than to imply that I'm a zealot?
You are the one who brought it up. You seemed to be implying that you are so confident in your position that you have no need to consider what others are feeling.
-
The ideology doesn't believe in simply "equality", but a certain kind of equality that more and more advocates inequality, often involving equality of outcomes instead of just equality of opportunity, where ie: racist & sexist policies are used to fix other instances of racism and sexism, ie: arbitrary racial & gender quotas. There are different kinds of equality, not just outcome. So-called "social justice" advocates often don't realize the social injustice inherent in some of their views & actions.
Racism and sexism both fall under the umbrella of social inequality because they imply that there are hierarchies based on sex and race within society.
It's a term by activist academics whose creators had a particular ideology and named it "social justice". This term presumes that the definition of social justice is defined within the particular ideological tenets they have outlined, and therefore everything contrary must be social injustice. You yourself said you have little respect for rightwing views, which is an alarmingly generalizing statement.
Why is that alarming? Fiscally I believe in social programs, progressive taxes and higher taxes on corporations and capital gains. Socially, I believe equality based on gender, sexual orientation, race. I believe in strong environmental protection.
I find little in common with fiscal or social conservatives other than maybe my views on women covering their faces should not be tolerated and that abortion should be practiced more responsibly (I believe in a woman's right to choose but I'm not flippant about the sanctity of life before birth).
I work in finance so I'm well aware of the flip side of things and I can argue endlessly for the other side if need be so I 'respect it' in the sense that I get it; but I don't respect it in the sense that I disagree with it on almost every level.
-
You are the one who brought it up. You seemed to be implying that you are so confident in your position that you have no need to consider what others are feeling.
I'm secure in my position and I don't feel shame about it. That's why I created a thread saying that to me being called an SJW or 'progressive' in a derogatory way doesn't offend me.
How does that make me a zealot as you inferred?
-
Not really.
I said zealots aren't known for their sense of shame.
I'm like sapper. I see the label of SJW as applying to someone who wishes to impose their view of "social justice" (whatever that means) on others by whatever means they can.
So I'm asking her if she is one of those.
What is the purpose of government and political parties if not the “imposition” of views on society?
-
What is the purpose of government and political parties if not the “imposition” of views on society?
I thought they were about reflecting the views of society.
-
But we're talking about the term 'white privilege' in the context of people able to get jobs and promotions, not in the context of who gets the hotter girls or has more friends. Certainly there are all kinds of advantages individuals have such as beauty/handsomeness, wealth, height, health, intelligence, etc., but that's not what the SJWs ever focus on anyway. They focus on race in the context of hiring promotion, and sometimes in terms of the criminal justice system.
I was just passing through, sorry I didn't attend to the context of the comment. I think we said on another thread 'white privilege' is a provable macro thing.
-
I completely agree. The truth is, the people in the video aren't monsters, but they are unreasonable.
So here we are faced with identifiable sub-groups of people in our midst whom we find 'unreasonable'. This process of identifying them and vilifying them doesn't seem to me to go anywhere. It's like criticizing another group across a cultural gap, it only serves to comfort the group that is doing the accusing.
-
I'm secure in my position and I don't feel shame about it. That's why I created a thread saying that to me being called an SJW or 'progressive' in a derogatory way doesn't offend me.
How does that make me a zealot as you inferred?
I asked you if you were. You started this topic and made the analogy. Why bother if you don’t care. Tell you what, you stick to your definition of SJW and I’ll stick to mine. We’ll both be happy.
-
It wasn't a single individual, if you watched the video you would see a group of people walk out in protest etc. This isn't a rare viewpoint by feminist social justice activists, especially on campuses.
My problem with "Look at this unreasonable person" being the root of controversy-earning articles that aim to tar a whole group with one brush. If there is some significant movement, or even a "public" then the mechanics of politics is invoked.
The best way to deal with an identifiable group is to organize them and engage with their leadership.
-
https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/531902291/reality
Bubble Hopping.... seems interesting.
-
I thought they were about reflecting the views of society.
One man’s reflection is apparently another’s imposition.
-
One man’s reflection is apparently another’s imposition.
Democracy is about government serving people.
-
But we're talking about the term 'white privilege' in the context of people able to get jobs and promotions, not in the context of who gets the hotter girls or has more friends. Certainly there are all kinds of advantages individuals have such as beauty/handsomeness, wealth, height, health, intelligence, etc., but that's not what the SJWs ever focus on anyway. They focus on race in the context of hiring promotion, and sometimes in terms of the criminal justice system.
Angela Putnam, a Pennsylvania State University-Brandywine professor thinks college faculty need to do more to undermine their students' belief in "meritocracy" and the value of "hard work" (link) (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9874). Her view is that meritocracy entrenches white power and privilege. See “Working Hard” Is A White Lie, According To Penn State-Brandywine Professor (link to article) (https://www.turningpoint.news/working-hard-white-lie-penn-state-brandywine-professor/) The two articles both come from what some would call right-wing websites. I personally found the rhetoric to be conclusory, and not likely to persuade many people outside the Internet echo chamber. Thus, I visited Ms. Putnam's website (link to main website) (https://www.whiteprivdoc.com/) and associated blog (link to blog) (https://www.whiteprivdoc.com/whiteprivdoc-blog/). I will post a few excerpts and keep them brief enough to stay within posting rules. Excerpts:
They believe that if they don’t think racist thoughts, or say racist things, or commit racist actions, then they must not be racist....In my own work, I define racism as a system of subjugation and oppression that is pervasive throughout U.S. structures and institutions, and that works to privilege some people based on perceived group membership.
However, I must also make clear that I do believe that those of us with more privilege—those whose invisible knapsacks are bursting at the seams with privilege (thank you, Peggy McIntosh, for that invaluable analogy)—bear even more of the brunt because our privilege allows us access to resources and connections that those with less privilege do not often have at their disposal.
An abstract from one of her seminars (link) (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2017.1380068) states "Three ideological discourses emerged before, during, and after the seminar – Liberal Pluralism, Meritocracy, and “Reverse Racism.”"
It is quite difficult for any institution with academic rigor and selective admissions to be other than a meritocracy. That is just common sense. However, not all professors exercise common sense or even coherence. As much as I criticize right-wing websites, I find the so-called "work" of Angela Putnam to border on incoherence. She argues that "every white person—no matter how rich or poor, old or young, educated or uneducated, can and should step up and work toward dismantling systemic racism and fight for equity and social justice." She gives no suggestion as to how that "dismantling" would occur.
Other professors even argue that white civility towards blacks is somehow racist. Two professors at University of Northern Iowa,C. Kyle Rudick (https://commstudies.uni.edu/profiles/c-kyle-rudick) and Kathryn B. Golsan (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathryn_Golsan) "say classroom 'civility' promotes 'white racial power'" (link) (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10270) & (link to paywalled article) (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10646175.2017.1392910).
Perhaps there answer is in a less restrained, even violent and/or chaotic academic environment that prevails in many schools and much of society. I actually believe that the merit system is time proven, works and benefits all.
-
Yikes. Incoherent is being kind.
-
Yikes. Incoherent is being kind.
I hope you mean for Angela Putnam and not JBG? And I wonder what kind of an exam her course would have.
-
I hope you mean for Angela Putnam and not JBG? And I wonder what kind of an exam her course would have.
Of course, you called her incoherent. I agree.
-
Racism and sexism both fall under the umbrella of social inequality because they imply that there are hierarchies based on sex and race within society.
Yes I agree. But when the means to fix these inequalities is more racism and sexism, it becomes injustice. I think most people want to fix these problems, but just have a different view on how to do that, or have different definitions of what exactly constitutes a problem. That said, some people, ie: some conservative white men, don't even want to fix these problems because they fear losing their dominance.
But like I said, I agree with some views/actions of social justice advocates and disagree with others, but I agree with you that advocates should NEVER be insulted with the derogatory term "SJW".
Why is that alarming? Fiscally I believe in social programs, progressive taxes and higher taxes on corporations and capital gains. Socially, I believe equality based on gender, sexual orientation, race. I believe in strong environmental protection.
I find little in common with fiscal or social conservatives other than maybe my views on women covering their faces should not be tolerated and that abortion should be practiced more responsibly (I believe in a woman's right to choose but I'm not flippant about the sanctity of life before birth).
I work in finance so I'm well aware of the flip side of things and I can argue endlessly for the other side if need be so I 'respect it' in the sense that I get it; but I don't respect it in the sense that I disagree with it on almost every level.
Well if you have some conservative views as you stated then that's a different story and means you do actually have respect for some conservative views, which is different than what you stand before.
Btw my general views are virtually identical to yours.
-
So here we are faced with identifiable sub-groups of people in our midst whom we find 'unreasonable'. This process of identifying them and vilifying them doesn't seem to me to go anywhere. It's like criticizing another group across a cultural gap, it only serves to comfort the group that is doing the accusing.
What identifiable subgroup is in the video??? I have no problem with feminists in general, I'm a feminist myself. I'm not vilifying the folks in the video whatsoever, they aren't bad people, I just told you they aren't monsters, but their actions/views in this case are unreasonable. I disagree with their views. Why is this so hard to understand?
-
What identifiable subgroup is in the video???
You said "It wasn't a single individual, if you watched the video you would see a group of people walk out in protest etc. "
...but their actions/views in this case are unreasonable. I disagree with their views. Why is this so hard to understand?
I get that part, but what is the larger point ? Are we just arguing these points or are we saying something about SJWs ?
-
Of course, you called her incoherent. I agree.
Many find incoherence quite profound.
-
Many find incoherence quite profound.
Yes, the incoherent.
-
My problem with "Look at this unreasonable person" being the root of controversy-earning articles that aim to tar a whole group with one brush.
An individual starts a topic which says "SJWs are wonderful, incredible, special people and I'm proud of myself for being one of them! And anyone who thinks otherwise is a cretin!"
Don't you think pointing out a lot of SJWs are complete **** would be a fairly normal conversational reply? Especially when it's clearly true?
-
An individual starts a topic which says "SJWs are wonderful, incredible, special people and I'm proud of myself for being one of them! And anyone who thinks otherwise is a cretin!"
Don't you think pointing out a lot of SJWs are complete **** would be a fairly normal conversational reply? Especially when it's clearly true?
Ha ha ha, speaking of incoherent, show us where you got your "quote" from.
-
An individual starts a topic which says "SJWs are wonderful, incredible, special people and I'm proud of myself for being one of them! And anyone who thinks otherwise is a cretin!"
Don't you think pointing out a lot of SJWs are complete **** would be a fairly normal conversational reply? Especially when it's clearly true?
If some SJWs are ****, then does that make it ok to use that as an insult ?
This thread is about name-calling, so it seems strange to counter that with examples of people who use the term being ****.
But I say it "seems" because I'm not sure. Maybe trying another example would show it out. "SJW" is a slur, what abut a slur or nickname for an ethnic group ? That doesn't seem to apply because this group name applies to a group with political inclination.
What about "alt-right" then ? That doesn't apply because SJW has a manifesto built into the name but "alt-right" is unclear. It means nothing, and has in practice been used to describe neo-Nazis, or has been how they describe themselves.
I was thinking 'redneck' but that's not the same either. If somebody, though, tried to say they 'liked' the term redneck I don't think finding examples of **** rednecks would conclude anything either.
-
I have a problem with the "warrior" part. For me it implies an intolerance of any position but theirs. Advocate might be better.
-
I have a problem with the "warrior" part. For me it implies an intolerance of any position but theirs. Advocate might be better.
That's valid to me. The term 'warrior' is overzealous, esp. considering many of these people consider themselves to be nonviolent. They would point out, though, that warriors commit 'defense' and that those they go to war for are victims who need protection.
-
They would point out, though, that warriors commit 'defense' and that those they go to war for are victims who need protection.
Neither of which is valid in a liberal democracy with rule of law.
-
Neither of which is valid in a liberal democracy with rule of law.
Defending people definitely is. That's the "war" mindset that you see in many groups, such as happened recently:
http://www.macleans.ca/news/no-rural-prairie-dwellers-you-cant-shoot-to-protect-your-property/
-
If some SJWs are ****, then does that make it ok to use that as an insult ?
I haven't run across one yet who ISN'T an assole, nor seen one anywhere, nor heard of one anywhere. I suppose its vaguely possiblel that somewhere there exists a SJW who isn't an ****, but it would likely be a rare specimen.
-
That's valid to me. The term 'warrior' is overzealous, esp. considering many of these people consider themselves to be nonviolent. They would point out, though, that warriors commit 'defense' and that those they go to war for are victims who need protection.
Black people are victims? All of them? All gay people, all women, all racialized people, all Muslims are victims? Really?
And who exactly asked these self-appointed 'warriors' to go to war on their behalf or to protect them? You think the Black community needs prissy little social warriors to protect them from disrespectful discussions?
-
Defending people definitely is. That's the "war" mindset that you see in many groups, such as happened recently:
If it is within the law. The term warrior implies they don't care about the law.
-
I haven't run across one yet who ISN'T an assole, nor seen one anywhere, nor heard of one anywhere. I suppose its vaguely possiblel that somewhere there exists a SJW who isn't an ****, but it would likely be a rare specimen.
So "SJW as an insult" is defensible if one thinks it should be based on their personal experiences ?
It's the kind of insult that says something about you as much or more than the other person. I know a lot of hicks and consider myself a kind of hick. I will also use "hick" as a pejorative as well as a loving compliment. I can't imagine calling somebody a name like "redneck" based on saying "I have met a lot and they're **** so it's ok for me to say that."
-
If it is within the law. The term warrior implies they don't care about the law.
You've done a good job of drilling down to the core meaning here, and I have to acknowledge that you're right, ie. that this term implies they would act outside the law if necessary.
-
Black people are victims? All of them? All gay people, all women, all racialized people, all Muslims are victims? Really?
It's a macro thing.
And who exactly asked these self-appointed 'warriors' to go to war on their behalf or to protect them? You think the Black community needs prissy little social warriors to protect them from disrespectful discussions?
Every bit helps.
-
You've done a good job of drilling down to the core meaning here, and I have to acknowledge that you're right, ie. that this term implies they would act outside the law if necessary.
The rule of law isn’t legitimate because it is the law. Legal legitimacy has to rest outside the law. Nazi Germany had laws. Would you say their oppression of the Jews was legitimate because it was legal? Laws are only laws when they have social and moral legitimacy. Following orders was not a defence in Nuremberg. So it goes with “Social Justice Warriors.” When unarmed black people are being murdered indiscriminately by police, what’s to be done? Does the law still have legitimacy? Have the oppressed throughout history ever freed themselves without violence? Let me tell you this: criticism is enough to combat idea, but only practical action will combat material oppression.
-
The rule of law isn’t legitimate because it is the law. Legal legitimacy has to rest outside the law. Nazi Germany had laws. Would you say their oppression of the Jews was legitimate because it was legal?
Right, so we now are talking about the subjectivity of the laws. I suppose it's up to the individual to decide if today's laws are so unjust as to warrant vigilantism, as may have been justified at other times in history. I don't trust individuals to have an objective enough mindset on that.
-
Let me tell you this: criticism is enough to combat idea, but only practical action will combat material oppression.
Except this only works if the people engaging in breaking the law are the only ones. In particular, the people tasked with enforcing the law still feel bound by the laws strictures so they are not going shoot the law breakers and put an end to the nonsense. In a sense, people engaging in law breaking in a country like Canada are self absorbed freeloaders taking advantage of their fellow citizens who are resistant to using the tactics of the protestors. If that resistance breaks down then you have chaos and the blame rests with the people who thought they could break the law instead of trying to work within the system to change it.
-
The rule of law isn’t legitimate because it is the law. Legal legitimacy has to rest outside the law. Nazi Germany had laws. Would you say their oppression of the Jews was legitimate because it was legal? Laws are only laws when they have social and moral legitimacy. Following orders was not a defence in Nuremberg. So it goes with “Social Justice Warriors.” When unarmed black people are being murdered indiscriminately by police, what’s to be done? Does the law still have legitimacy? Have the oppressed throughout history ever freed themselves without violence? Let me tell you this: criticism is enough to combat idea, but only practical action will combat material oppression.
Seriously, you are equating Canada with Nazi Germany? See Godwin"s Law. That's the problem with crusaders. their righteousness makes them believe laws don't apply to them, they are optional and only apply to others.
-
Much easier to equate Trump's USA with Nazi Germany.
-
Seriously, you are equating Canada with Nazi Germany? See Godwin"s Law. That's the problem with crusaders. their righteousness makes them believe laws don't apply to them, they are optional and only apply to others.
It was a demonstration of the problem with the argument that the rule of law is absolute. It is not and a demonstration of that fact was made clear with the Nuremberg Trials. Laws are not legitimate simply because they are the law. Our mechanism for determining legitimacy is primary order laws (constitution and charter), which define secondary order laws as either legitimate or not. Even then, however, the whole system of jurisprudence had to be consistent with the public’s sense of right and justice. Further still, we cannot have a tyranny of the majority that oppresses a minority of the population. If the constitution and charter were oppressive, then violence would be a valid response for people to free themselves from that oppression.
You’re speaking as though violence is never justified and I’m telling you that nowhere in history has that ever been true. Government holds the only “legitimate” use of force because it needs to in order to maintain its legitimacy as the sole legal authority. However, violence is necessary when a government or a society is oppressive because through that oppression they lose legitimacy by losing the consent of the oppressed.
-
There are plenty of avenues available to Canadians for them to protest within the law. We have courts to test the validity of our laws within the constitution. There is also a tyranny of the minority by those who's beliefs trump anything that conflicts with them.
Violence is not justified in our society.
-
I think the Jews of Warsaw were justified in using violence to try and end their oppression at the hands of the Third Reich. I don't think anyone would be justified in shooting Christie Blatchford because they are irritated by her views.
-
Much easier to equate Trump's USA with Nazi Germany.
Not yet and hopefully not ever.
-
I haven't run across one yet who ISN'T an assole, nor seen one anywhere, nor heard of one anywhere. I suppose its vaguely possiblel that somewhere there exists a SJW who isn't an ****, but it would likely be a rare specimen.
I don't know how many people on this board would even identify themselves as a believer in social justice ideology, but for what it's worth, many people on this board who disagree with you also insult you pretty regularly, and denigrate you personally beyond just your arguments. I can't imagine others you've encountered elsewhere are much different. They think you're such a terrible person, but maybe they should look in the mirror at their own behaviour too. That said, you're not always a saint yourself (nor am I or anyone), but you're personally insulted more than anyone else on this board. So if you personally want to call so-called "SJWs" ****, I think you yourself are pretty justified in saying that.
Me personally, I wouldn't go that far, there's good people among them. I think many (not all) social justice ideological followers tend to be arrogant, self-righteous, close-minded, resentful, spiteful, racist, sexist, intimidating/bullying, childish, often almost completely intolerant of opposing views, and even hateful and sometimes violent. I don't see their behaviour, for the most part, much different than most of the alt-right/far-right who I could say the exact same things about. This is a big reason why politics is so nutty today. Mature, open-minded, rational discussion is much rarer.
-
So "SJW as an insult" is defensible if one thinks it should be based on their personal experiences ?
Everything we do is based upon our personal experience, either with what we have encountered personally, or read about, or seen on TV or in some other medium.
How could it be otherwise?
-
I don't know how many people on this board would even identify themselves as a believer in social justice ideology, but for what it's worth, many people on this board who disagree with you also insult you pretty regularly, and denigrate you personally beyond just your arguments. I can't imagine others you've encountered elsewhere are much different. They think you're such a terrible person, but maybe they should look in the mirror at their own behaviour too. That said, you're not always a saint yourself (nor am I or anyone), but you're personally insulted more than anyone else on this board. So if you personally want to call so-called "SJWs" ****, I think you yourself are pretty justified in saying that.
Me personally, I wouldn't go that far, there's good people among them. I think many (not all) social justice ideological followers tend to be arrogant, self-righteous, close-minded, resentful, spiteful, racist, sexist, intimidating/bullying, childish, often almost completely intolerant of opposing views, and even hateful and sometimes violent. I don't see their behaviour, for the most part, much different than most of the alt-right/far-right who I could say the exact same things about. This is a big reason why politics is so nutty today. Mature, open-minded, rational discussion is much rarer.
Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention. Argus insults more people simply because he is challenged/refuted than anybody else I've noticed. Not only here but on MLW. Famous for it, but let's see what others have to say.
-
It's a macro thing.
It's a made-up thing.
Every bit helps.
I would suggest SJWs do more harm than good. That they are misguided, narrow focused, incapable of seeing complexity or reality, and believe ends justify means.
-
The rule of law isn’t legitimate because it is the law.
Well now THAT's persuasive. ::)
Legal legitimacy has to rest outside the law. Nazi Germany had laws.
We are not a dictatorship run by a crazed lunatic.
When unarmed black people are being murdered indiscriminately by police, what’s to be done?
I would suggest you get back into your time machine and leave the 1950s for the 21st century again.
-
Seriously, you are equating Canada with Nazi Germany? See Godwin"s Law. That's the problem with crusaders. their righteousness makes them believe laws don't apply to them, they are optional and only apply to others.
Ah, but that's because THEIR cause is just (unlike other people's causes).
-
Everything we do is based upon our personal experience, either with what we have encountered personally, or read about, or seen on TV or in some other medium.
Your personal experience, though, should include some wisdom that would preclude insulting people in this way. I can't expect you to think well of people who use the term but unless you encounter a large number of such people I would expect you to reserve judgement a little.
How could it be otherwise?
It should be based on our information and our wisdom.
-
You’re speaking as though violence is never justified and I’m telling you that nowhere in history has that ever been true. Government holds the only “legitimate” use of force because it needs to in order to maintain its legitimacy as the sole legal authority. However, violence is necessary when a government or a society is oppressive because through that oppression they lose legitimacy by losing the consent of the oppressed.
In a democratic society the laws and government largely reflect the will of the majority of the people. Your belief you are uniquely possessed of a higher level of morality and righteous which enables you to see the oppressiveness of a system the main body of the citizenry cannot is a reflection of your narcissism.
We in the West are living in the most liberal and free societies in the history of the world. For you to claim they are oppressive is insane. As for minorities, there is probably not one black man in America who would surrender his or her citizenship for the opportunity to take up the citizenship of some African country instead. Nor one Muslim who would rather go live in a Muslim majority country. Nor any sane woman who wouldn't rather live in our western socities you term oppressive than anywhere else on earth or any time else in history. The same goes for gays and lesbians.
-
It's a made-up thing.
With statistics, I could show that being white has some advantage which would answer whether it's made-up or macro.
I would suggest SJWs do more harm than good. That they are misguided, narrow focused, incapable of seeing complexity or reality, and believe ends justify means.
I believe many conservatives are that way, but I wouldn't think to insult them as they still provide a point of view and keep a watch on their issues dutifully. I have said as much about FOX News also.
-
With statistics, I could show that being white has some advantage which would answer whether it's made-up or macro.
Good. Please demonstrate how whites are better off than Asians. While you're doing that please use statistics to demonstrate the societal oppression towards gays and lesbians. Perhaps you could find a social worker who interviewed them in their rat-infested slums.
I believe many conservatives are that way, but I wouldn't think to insult them as they still provide a point of view and keep a watch on their issues dutifully. I have said as much about FOX News also.
FOX news is not a conservative outlet. And SJWs are not the left version of conservatives. They are the left version of Fascists and Nazis.
-
When unarmed black people are being murdered indiscriminately by police, what’s to be done? Does the law still have legitimacy? Have the oppressed throughout history ever freed themselves without violence? Let me tell you this: criticism is enough to combat idea, but only practical action will combat material oppression.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Rosa Parks
Mahatma Gandhi
LGBT people
Women
Canada from British rule (compared to USA from British rule)
Your last sentence I 100% agree with, however violence to affect change should only be as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted & failed, including non-violent resistance.
"Violence betrays the weak minded. When "justified", betrays us all. And in suggestion is normalized by fools."
https://twitter.com/mattgood/status/841130060295860224
-
Good. Please demonstrate how whites are better off than Asians. While you're doing that please use statistics to demonstrate the societal oppression towards gays and lesbians. Perhaps you could find a social worker who interviewed them in their rat-infested slums.
FOX news is not a conservative outlet. And SJWs are not the left version of conservatives. They are the left version of Fascists and Nazis.
I'd venture a guess you get a lot of your ideas from Fox news.
-
Much easier to equate Trump's USA with Nazi Germany.
Equating Trump's USA with Nazi Germany is fine, there's a few commonalities yes, just as it would be equally apt to compare much social justice mentality to Stalinist USSR since a few commonalities also exist.
The much of the social justice ideology reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.
-
non-violent resistance.
Non-violent resistance is a misnomer. If someone blocks my way and says the only way I will pass is if I use violence against them then they are using violence (i.e. use the use of physical force to compel others to obey them). The fact that they use their body instead of the fists is irrelevant semantics. A proper description would be "passive violence".
-
Martin Luther King Jr.
Rosa Parks
Mahatma Gandhi
LGBT people
Women
Canada from British rule (compared to USA from British rule)
Your last sentence I 100% agree with, however violence to affect change should only be as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted & failed, including non-violent resistance.
"Violence betrays the weak minded. When "justified", betrays us all. And in suggestion is normalized by fools."
https://twitter.com/mattgood/status/841130060295860224
Not just Canada but the great majority of the British Empire.
-
Equating Trump's USA with Nazi Germany is fine, there's a few commonalities yes, just as it would be equally apt to compare much social justice mentality to Stalinist USSR since a few commonalities also exist.
The much of the social justice ideology reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.
I would disagree. SJW insults are generated from the rightists (such as argus) because it's their way of lashing out at people they disagree with. SLW's don't occupy the White House, and never will, but currently it is occupied by someone who is firing everybody who dares to disagree with his racist and various other Nazi like ideas. Build a wall and kick out anybody who isn't white. Sound familiar?
-
Non-violent resistance is a misnomer. If someone blocks my way and says the only way I will pass is if I use violence against them then they are using violence (i.e. use the use of physical force to compel others to obey them). The fact that they use their body instead of the fists is irrelevant semantics. A proper description would be "passive violence".
So I conclude you agree what the swastika clad neo nazi's in Charlottesville were doing was anything but non violent resistance?
-
Good. Please demonstrate how whites are better off than Asians.
The fact that Asians and Jews do better than whites does not disprove prejudice or white privilege.
In a seldom-discussed way, racism can help you in some ways also.
While you're doing that please use statistics to demonstrate the societal oppression towards gays and lesbians. Perhaps you could find a social worker who interviewed them in their rat-infested slums.
White privilege doesn't apply to sexual orientation obviously. Why do you want to colour outside the lines on this ?
FOX news is not a conservative outlet. And SJWs are not the left version of conservatives. They are the left version of Fascists and Nazis.
FOX News seems conservative to most people. I don't think SJWs are the left version of conservatives, nor are they like fascists and Nazis. There's no manifesto so it's hard to say, I suppose.
-
I believe many conservatives are that way, but I wouldn't think to insult them as they still provide a point of view and keep a watch on their issues dutifully. I have said as much about FOX News also.
Seems this is the quote that caused SJ to start talking about LGBT people, Asians and whatnot. I feel like we were just making progress on how to objectively deal with group characterizations and he felt perturbed that he was about to get something taken away from him.
-
I would disagree. SJW insults are generated from the rightists (such as argus) because it's their way of lashing out at people they disagree with. SLW's don't occupy the White House, and never will, but currently it is occupied by someone who is firing everybody who dares to disagree with his racist and various other Nazi like ideas. Build a wall and kick out anybody who isn't white. Sound familiar?
A "SJW" currently occupies 24 Sussex (or would if that house wasn't a dump haha).
I'm not disagreeing about Trump.
-
Non-violent resistance is a misnomer. If someone blocks my way and says the only way I will pass is if I use violence against them then they are using violence (i.e. use the use of physical force to compel others to obey them). The fact that they use their body instead of the fists is irrelevant semantics. A proper description would be "passive violence".
It's not a misnomer, but I don't disagree with your example, I suppose it depends on the type of resistance. Peaceful protests, refusing to sit in the back of the bus or drink from "colored-only" water fountains is non-violent resistance.
-
It's not a misnomer, but I don't disagree with your example, I suppose it depends on the type of resistance. Peaceful protests, refusing to sit in the back of the bus or drink from "colored-only" water fountains is non-violent resistance.
Sit-ins are also regarded as non-violent. Linking arms and blocking access is probably the line upon which disagreement starts to form sharply.
-
Peaceful protests, refusing to sit in the back of the bus or drink from "colored-only" water fountains is non-violent resistance.
I agree those actions are truly non-violent. However, as soon as someone uses their body to compel others to prevent others from doing something then they are engaging in (passive) violence. This is relevant as we see so called 'peaceful protesters" getting arrested at the Kinder Morgan site in Vancouver.
-
Passive violence. I'll have to remember that one. That's good.
-
So I conclude you agree what the swastika clad neo nazi's in Charlottesville were doing was anything but non violent resistance?
The nazis were, in the videos I've seen, either at a park where they had a permit to demonstrate, or on their way to it and being blocked by the ANTIFA types.
-
The fact that Asians and Jews do better than whites does not disprove prejudice or white privilege.
Except every argument that SJWs make about white privilege is predicated upon whites enjoying benefits simply because they'e white and thus exempted from the bigotry of 'racialized' people. And this supposition fails if you point out how well Asians do.
In a seldom-discussed way, racism can help you in some ways also.
And how are Asians benefiting from racism? My understanding is many universities which use racial quotas actually penalize Asians as compared to whites, while benefiting blacks and others. If you want to get into Harvard or CalTech, and are Asian you need a much higher score than a black applicant.
White privilege doesn't apply to sexual orientation obviously. Why do you want to colour outside the lines on this ?
LBGs are one of the SJW's top groups on the victim hierarchy. They're one of the groups SJWs are 'fighting to defend'. Yet LBG people don't evidence any obvious difficulty in obtaining jobs and promotions. They have higher incomes than straight people. How does that fit in with the allegations of societal oppression towards them?
FOX News seems conservative to most people.
Only if they don't know what a conservative is. No doubt most people think the Republican party is conervative too. The're not.
I don't think SJWs are the left version of conservatives, nor are they like fascists and Nazis. There's no manifesto so it's hard to say, I suppose.
You were using them in that way. I regard them as further out on the Left, well beyond the mainstream. Basically the mainstream consists of conservatives and liberals. The progressives are on the left of the liberals and SJWs are even further to the Left.
-
The nazis were, in the videos I've seen, either at a park where they had a permit to demonstrate, or on their way to it and being blocked by the ANTIFA types.
Ignoring the illegal torchlight parade those very fine people were in the first night.
-
Ignoring the illegal torchlight parade those very fine people were in the first night.
I don't recall a lot of violence at that little march of theirs. I thought the line of righteous idiots carrying Tiki torches was actually kind of amusing.
-
Except every argument that SJWs make about white privilege is predicated upon whites enjoying benefits simply because they'e white and thus exempted from the bigotry of 'racialized' people. And this supposition fails if you point out how well Asians do.
On the basis of income, yes. There are plenty of other types of prejudice though.
And how are Asians benefiting from racism? My understanding is many universities which use racial quotas actually penalize Asians as compared to whites, while benefiting blacks and others. If you want to get into Harvard or CalTech, and are Asian you need a much higher score than a black applicant.
I have some theories, but since we're going to be talking anecdotally it's methodologically NOT rigorous. It's the flip side to racist anecdotal arguments so I can give you some ideas but I don't know if they're true or not.
Suffice it to say that there are some aspects of racism that are, perhaps, complimentary. Still wrong, and still insulting. You can think of one or two on your own I am sure.
LBGs are one of the SJW's top groups on the victim hierarchy. They're one of the groups SJWs are 'fighting to defend'. Yet LBG people don't evidence any obvious difficulty in obtaining jobs and promotions. They have higher incomes than straight people. How does that fit in with the allegations of societal oppression towards them?
If I gave you $1000/year more to be afraid to walk the streets would you be ok with that ?
Only if they don't know what a conservative is. No doubt most people think the Republican party is conervative too. The're not.
You need to recognize that your perspective is at odds with the popular view. I'm not saying you're right, but here's an example: I think that Christian atheist is a normal designation of a belief system that most people have. People flip out when I say that, though. It is at odds with the popular view, you see.
I regard them as further out on the Left, well beyond the mainstream. Basically the mainstream consists of conservatives and liberals. The progressives are on the left of the liberals and SJWs are even further to the Left.
Ok, it's a terminology thing. I don't think SJWs are left version of conservatives.
-
The nazis were, in the videos I've seen, either at a park where they had a permit to demonstrate, or on their way to it and being blocked by the ANTIFA types.
I agree with you, but some of the Nazis were doing borderline illegal things too. Carrying KKK-style torches to protest the removal of a confederate statue could be seen as a threat. They were hopefully following gun laws of the state, which could have included open-carry, but many were indeed openly carrying firearms including rifles. Not so peaceful.
Anyways, that whole event was a shitshow with unpeaceful protest (aka violence) from both sides of the spectrum.
-
I don't recall a lot of violence at that little march of theirs. I thought the line of righteous idiots carrying Tiki torches was actually kind of amusing.
Funny in a "let's be the KKK today and intimidate black people and defend the slave-owning confederacy !" kind of way?
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mgrtv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2FKu_Klux_2457182f.jpg&hash=d6f3f50eee11784324bd4e3b671a2395c57a3018)
Hilarious! (well, funny in how dumb they are maybe, so I get your point)
-
I don't recall a lot of violence at that little march of theirs. I thought the line of righteous idiots carrying Tiki torches was actually kind of amusing.
You may not have found it quite so "amusing" to be facing a group of white supremacists wearing swastikas and shouting "no more Jews" if you happened to Jewish, possibly with relatives who died at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII.
-
You may not have found it quite so "amusing" to be facing a group of white supremacists wearing swastikas and shouting "no more Jews" if you happened to Jewish, possibly with relatives who died at the hands of the Nazi's during WWII.
I would not have been there. I have better things to do with my time than go watch a Nazi weenie roast. If they were holding one down the block from me I wouldn't know or care. I sure as **** wouldn't go watch them and listen to them chant.
-
Much easier to equate Trump's USA with Nazi Germany.
How so? Because we want to enforce our borders? Nazi Germany wanted to expand borders and then expel or kill people who are there. Have we sought to invade Canada for "living space"?
-
Have we sought to invade Canada for "living space"?
More likely is all those climate change deniers who justify that Canada will benefit from a more tropical climate anyway will see their aunts farm occupied by foreign forces.
-
I think migration will be a serious consequence of climate change.
-
I think migration will be a serious consequence of climate change.
Unlikely. What will happen is people leaving dysfunctional societies will invent excuses to blame climate change instead of their dysfunctional societies. Nothing of substance will change.
-
Unlikely. What will happen is people leaving dysfunctional societies will invent excuses to blame climate change instead of their dysfunctional societies. Nothing of substance will change.
Historically drought has been a prime cause of migration, so will flooding as sea levels rise.
-
Historically drought has been a prime cause of migration, so will flooding as sea levels rise.
We'll get Mexicans fleeing the drought and Floridians fleeing floods. I think I'll invest in a seniors residential building with a taco shop on the ground floor. ;)
-
We are in southern California right now. There are 35 million people in this state and drought is a big issue here.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, most of that three percent is inaccessible. Over 68 percent of the fresh water on Earth is found in icecaps and glaciers, and just over 30 percent is found in ground water. Only about 0.3 percent of our fresh water is found in the surface water of lakes, rivers, and swamps.Nov 12, 2012
-
SJWs.... it's about the SJWs...
-
How so? Because we want to enforce our borders? Nazi Germany wanted to expand borders and then expel or kill people who are there. Have we sought to invade Canada for "living space"?
Here's a start.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/anne-frank-centre-donald-trump-america-president-hitler-nazi-germany-alarming-parallels-warning-a7884731.html
The Anne Frank Centre for Mutual Respect warned of "alarming parallels" between the President and the Nazi leader, likening the present-day US to the "escalating steps of oppression" that led to Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s.
-
That about sums up the far right.
So, just what sums up the "far right" that upsets you? What are they doing to the alt left that upsets them so much and gets them wanting to go out there and destroy everything conservative or disrupt their meetings? Conservatives are not all far right. The label far right is being used to make conservatives look like they are all members of the KKK and need to be avoided and not listened to at all costs. Well?
-
So, just what sums up the "far right" that upsets you? What are they doing to the alt left that upsets them so much and gets them wanting to go out there and destroy everything conservative or disrupt their meetings? Conservatives are not all far right. The label far right is being used to make conservatives look like they are all members of the KKK and need to be avoided and not listened to at all costs. Well?
Maybe that's because far rights wear swastikas and carry KKK flags and march down streets yelling racial slurs against Jews. You've heard of a place called Charlottesvile have you?
-
Maybe that's because far rights wear swastikas and carry KKK flags and march down streets yelling racial slurs against Jews. You've heard of a place called Charlottesvile have you?
He already posted on the other site that the Jews had it coming... You can't shame everyone with swastikas. Some people like that stuff.
-
He's 'taxme'?
-
We'll get Mexicans fleeing the drought and Floridians fleeing floods. I think I'll invest in a seniors residential building with a taco shop on the ground floor. ;)
I'm not an expert but I'm not sure you can receive refugee status if you can safely move to another part of your country to be free of the harm you're fleeing.
-
I'm not an expert but I'm not sure you can receive refugee status if you can safely move to another part of your country to be free of the harm you're fleeing.
What if they don’t ask? Build a wall?
-
Maybe that's because far rights wear swastikas and carry KKK flags and march down streets yelling racial slurs against Jews. You've heard of a place called Charlottesvile have you?
Why do you respond to fedup as though you’re actually going to have a discussion? It’s weird. He’s clearly a troll. So there’s really no discussion to be had.
-
Why do you respond to fedup as though you’re actually going to have a discussion? It’s weird. He’s clearly a troll. So there’s really no discussion to be had.
No, I don't believe he is a troll. Not if he's the same guy. I think he's just not very smart nor very educated, and has read these conspiracy and white supremacy web sites and been led down the garden path by them.
-
LOL
People become progressives when traditional liberal guilt goes septic and turns into self-hatred and cultural marxism.
Very good. The difference between liberals and progressives, summed up nicely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trAyp5XXQgo&t=188s
-
Made it about 45 seconds in.
Not sure why you feel good watching some middle-aged guy spew insults.
I had a friend of mine post about 'Conserva-pigs' on my timeline and I deleted his comment and told people not to insult.
-
Made it about 45 seconds in.
Not sure why you feel good watching some middle-aged guy spew insults.
I had a friend of mine post about 'Conserva-pigs' on my timeline and I deleted his comment and told people not to insult.
Not sure why you think his age has anything to do with it.
-
Made it about 45 seconds in.
Not sure why you feel good watching some middle-aged guy spew insults.
I had a friend of mine post about 'Conserva-pigs' on my timeline and I deleted his comment and told people not to insult.
I think he was making a point about why he's a liberal and not a progressive, and how it used to be a good thing to be progressive and no longer is. And why.
-
Not sure why you think his age has anything to do with it.
Apparently if you're not 'young' your opinion is worth less. This has been implicit in the comments of a number of people here, very few of whom are much younger than this guy, ironically.
-
Apparently if you're not 'young' your opinion is worth less. This has been implicit in the comments of a number of people here, very few of whom are much younger than this guy, ironically.
I wonder if "white" was considered too.
Anyway, I'm triggered. I'm going to have to lie down...
-
LOL
People become progressives when traditional liberal guilt goes septic and turns into self-hatred and cultural marxism.
Very good. The difference between liberals and progressives, summed up nicely.
"Cultural Marxism" has become an alt-right dumb-guy catch phrase. Somebody who uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" is almost guaranteed to be somebody you can ignore without missing anything of value.
In spite of that I watched the whole thing, and actually agree with much of what he says. Last year when we saw the progressives go off on the feminist who didn't think women should be required to share showers and dressing-rooms with biologically male people, I came to the realization that I'm not on the bandwagon anymore. Pride Parade, same deal-- as angry-guy says, even though I believe in gay rights as much as anyone, I'm not on board with all the unrelated ideologies that have been adopted so I don't think it's "my" movement anymore.
Apparently if you're not 'young' your opinion is worth less. This has been implicit in the comments of a number of people here, very few of whom are much younger than this guy, ironically.
My main complaint against old-people is that so many of them are **** morons. You know who put Trump in office? Old-people.
It's not that old-people's opinions are worth less because they're old. Old-peoples' opinions are worth less because they're usually stupid.
If old-people want people to be taken seriously, they should stop being so **** god-damned ignorant.
-k
-
Not sure why you think his age has anything to do with it.
Because if it were Brittney Spears, I would watch it.
-
Apparently if you're not 'young' your opinion is worth less. This has been implicit in the comments of a number of people here, very few of whom are much younger than this guy, ironically.
I am this guy's age. But he is old and unwise.
-
I am this guy's age. But he is old and unwise.
Also I am way better looking. Cute even.
-
My main complaint against old-people is that so many of them are **** morons. You know who put Trump in office? Old-people.
It's not that old-people's opinions are worth less because they're old. Old-peoples' opinions are worth less because they're usually stupid.
If old-people want people to be taken seriously, they should stop being so **** god-damned ignorant.
-k
Well, that being said... I regret calling him middle-aged. Generalizations aren't useful, and really that's what he did. I was 'othering' him, despite him being like me, and I regret that. All of your points against my doing that are valid.
But here's the thing: generalizing is weak thinking, and sometimes insulting but not inaccurate. When Argus or others point out the attitudes of Muslims or Christians there's really no denying it, if it's backed up with a poll of whatever. But that doesn't mean the information is useful, or helpful to make a bridge.
Unity is our #1 challenge, and that's why I turned this rant off.
-
When Argus or others point out the attitudes of Muslims or Christians there's really no denying it, if it's backed up with a poll of whatever.
no - "a poll of whatever" must still stand the test of scrutiny... we should all be wary of Argus' type poll dropping - look no further than the mileage Argus sought with that failed Pew Center polling on Muslims that he's repeatedly flogged across multiple boards/threads.
-
It's not that old-people's opinions are worth less because they're old. Old-peoples' opinions are worth less because they're usually stupid.
If old-people want people to be taken seriously, they should stop being so **** god-damned ignorant.
no! Hipsters are worse.
-
no - "a poll of whatever" must still stand the test of scrutiny... we should all be wary of Argus' type poll dropping - look no further than the mileage Argus sought with that failed Pew Center polling on Muslims that he's repeatedly flogged across multiple boards/threads.
I myself have used Pew as a source. But that's thread drift anyway.
-
I myself have used Pew as a source. But that's thread drift anyway.
Its not that the source is wrong, its the spin those with an agenda put on the data when they present it. Claiming 90% believe something when its really 45%; claiming survey responses that contradict one's narrative are because the respondents lied on those questions. The data is fine; its the way its used that is suspect.
-
Last year when we saw the progressives go off on the feminist who didn't think women should be required to share showers and dressing-rooms with biologically male people, I came to the realization that I'm not on the bandwagon anymore.
I’ve been reading your posts for 12 years and I don’t recall you ever being ON the bandwagon.
-
My main complaint against old-people is that so many of them are **** morons. You know who put Trump in office? Old-people.
It's not that old-people's opinions are worth less because they're old. Old-peoples' opinions are worth less because they're usually stupid.
If old-people want people to be taken seriously, they should stop being so **** god-damned ignorant.
-k
Yeah, same with the Blacks and the Jews. And the Muslims.
-
Because if it were Brittney Spears, I would watch it.
With the sound off, right?
-
Apparently if you're not 'young' your opinion is worth less. This has been implicit in the comments of a number of people here, very few of whom are much younger than this guy, ironically.
Same goes for people who are young. You and others used to discredit me all the time because BC_chick sounded young when in fact I’d just had the handle for a long time. Other than the fact that I don’t feel it suits me anymore, part of the reason I changed it was because it would constantly be talked down to like I’m a kid.
There is a small window in time between 30-50 where we are apparently smart enough to have opinions.
-
0-30 youthful, inexperienced
30-50 mature
50+ senile
-
With the sound off, right?
I will play with sound on if my wife isn't home.
-
"Cultural Marxism" has become an alt-right dumb-guy catch phrase. Somebody who uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" is almost guaranteed to be somebody you can ignore without missing anything of value.
In spite of that I watched the whole thing, and actually agree with much of what he says.
I don't think it's coincidence that ANTIFA and their ilk generally spout communist flags at their anti-freedom rallies. But as I said once before, while 'fascist' has become an all-purpose pejorative used by many on the Left, the counterpart 'Marxist/communist' has been discredited over the years, so that now when you use it people sneer. Even though there are one whole hell of a lot more Marxists in Canada, North America and the West, than there are Fascists. Many of the people on here evidence beliefs which are clearly oriented in that direction with regard to income redistribution and anti-capitalism, for example. There are many Marxists in our universities and in politics.
And in that the 'all are equal' Marxist theme is certainly applied to all cultures by the Left it's not, I think, an inappropriate phrase.
My main complaint against old-people is that so many of them are **** morons. You know who put Trump in office? Old-people.
And you know who put Trudeau in office, WOMEN! Damn them!
It's not that old-people's opinions are worth less because they're old. Old-peoples' opinions are worth less because they're usually stupid.
Nah. The opinions of old people are generally based on economic issues important to them, and their cultural placement in whatever decade they grew up in. That makes those opinions different based on cultural origin, not stupid. Without a doubt they think your opinions are stupid, too. And as you get older, younger people will think your opinions are stupid.
-
Same goes for people who are young. You and others used to discredit me all the time because BC_chick sounded young when in fact I’d just had the handle for a long time. Other than the fact that I don’t feel it suits me anymore, part of the reason I changed it was because it would constantly be talked down to like I’m a kid.
There is a small window in time between 30-50 where we are apparently smart enough to have opinions.
The priorities of young people are naturally different from the priorities of older people. Younger people have less life experience, tend be a lot more idealistic and naive, and seem to have (in general) little undersanding of government, economics, or where money comes from. Since they usually pay little or no income taxes they're big supporters of big government "helping" EVERYONE with EVERYTHING, and indignant with those who disagree.
People who have lived a few more decades and have more life experience, and have learned something about the perils of goverment 'help' are naturally going to have different priorities and beliefs, especially since they've usually risen in life to the point where all that 'help' is to be paid for through taxes applied to them.
I made the point recently that the Ontario goverment has been increasing spending and increasing taxes (and debt) for fifteen years, but as far as I can tell have not improved the lot of the people of Ontario in any way whatsoever. I've watched it play out. Someone who is in their twenties has not.
-
Younger people have less life experience, tend be a lot more idealistic and naive, and seem to have (in general) little undersanding of government, economics, or where money comes from.
Old people have more life experience, tend to be a lot more idealistic and naive, and seem to have (in general) little understanding of government, economics, or where money comes from.
-
The priorities of young people are naturally different from the priorities of older people. Younger people have less life experience, tend be a lot more idealistic and naive, and seem to have (in general) little undersanding of government, economics, or where money comes from. Since they usually pay little or no income taxes they're big supporters of big government "helping" EVERYONE with EVERYTHING, and indignant with those who disagree.
People who have lived a few more decades and have more life experience, and have learned something about the perils of goverment 'help' are naturally going to have different priorities and beliefs, especially since they've usually risen in life to the point where all that 'help' is to be paid for through taxes applied to them.
I made the point recently that the Ontario goverment has been increasing spending and increasing taxes (and debt) for fifteen years, but as far as I can tell have not improved the lot of the people of Ontario in any way whatsoever. I've watched it play out. Someone who is in their twenties has not.
You just made assumption about young people being inexperienced and naive, but don't you find it offensive when your opinions are disregarded because of your age?
-
Old people have more life experience, tend to be a lot more idealistic and naive, and seem to have (in general) little understanding of government, economics, or where money comes from.
Ha, you said it better than me.
-
You just made assumption about young people being inexperienced and naive, but don't you find it offensive when your opinions are disregarded because of your age?
Young people, in general, ARE inexperienced and naïve. Isn't that damned obvious?
-
Ha, you said it better than me.
That's kinda sad given it makes zero sense.
-
Young people, in general, ARE inexperienced and naïve. Isn't that damned obvious?
It depends on what people did while they were growing old. I find for instance many who spent their working life sitting in a government office are quite naive with regards to what the world has been doing outside their cloistered little hut.
-
That's kinda sad given it makes zero sense.
It made a lot of sense.
[attachimg=1][attachurl=1]
-
I don't think it's coincidence that ANTIFA and their ilk generally spout communist flags at their anti-freedom rallies. But as I said once before, while 'fascist' has become an all-purpose pejorative used by many on the Left, the counterpart 'Marxist/communist' has been discredited over the years, so that now when you use it people sneer. Even though there are one whole hell of a lot more Marxists in Canada, North America and the West, than there are Fascists. Many of the people on here evidence beliefs which are clearly oriented in that direction with regard to income redistribution and anti-capitalism, for example. There are many Marxists in our universities and in politics.
And in that the 'all are equal' Marxist theme is certainly applied to all cultures by the Left it's not, I think, an inappropriate phrase.
And you know who put Trudeau in office, WOMEN! Damn them!
Nah. The opinions of old people are generally based on economic issues important to them, and their cultural placement in whatever decade they grew up in. That makes those opinions different based on cultural origin, not stupid. Without a doubt they think your opinions are stupid, too. And as you get older, younger people will think your opinions are stupid.
If you want to hear some retarded ****, just head down to your local coffee shop. Sit down near a group of old-people talking about how they'd solve the world's problems.
"People talk about how hard things are today. They got i-phones! I never had an i-phone! When I was a kid, I didn't have an i-phone! I had to work my ass off to put food on the table and now kids with i-phones think they have it tough!"
"I don't get all the complaining about student loans! When I was a kid, I had a paper route! I put myself through college using the money I saved from my paper route! Instead of complaining about student loans, why don't they just get a paper route?"
"The chinks are taking over everything! You go to a college nowadays, everybody is Chinese! They don't have room for white kids anymore! Before long we're all gonna be speaking Chinese!"
"The gays want more rights than everybody else! They're taking away our rights and giving themselves more rights! If I was in charge, I'd say: 'you gays don't get any more rights than anybody else! And if you don't like it, tough!'"
"when I was a kid I just went to every business in town and knocked on their door and said 'I want a job and I won't take no for an answer!' and I was the regional VP of sales by the time I was 25! Kids these days don't know how to hustle!"
"kids are bitching about the cost of houses! They expect a 3 bedroom house! They should be looking at starter homes!"
"the gays want to turn everybody gay, you know. They want to make it so they can recruit kids in schools!"
"nowadays people don't learn skills like they used to. They just get everything from computers."
"...and I told him, I said 'you just need to get out there and pound the pavement!'"
-k
-
Overall I think the opinions of old-people are less a result of them being wise and experienced and economically-invested, and more a result of them being senile and coddled and completely out-of-touch with reality.
-k
-
If you want to hear some retarded ****, just head down to your local coffee shop.
Yeah, what's that meme ? Boomer Steve ?
I would say it's "exceedingly difficult" to come up with objective observations on young people vs old people, and impossible to frame those observations outside of environmental factors.
eg. Of course people could pay for college on their own in the past, as tuition was cheaper. Of course older people are less aware of the subtleties of racial issues, orientation and gender issues as they didn't encounter those people in the societies they grew up in.
I would characterize my prime directive as trying to get the most intelligent of us to recognize what we have already learned, and move past it. But, even if I had wide success with that, it wouldn't matter as the young attitudes will prevail. Gay marriage is a fact not because people were convinced, but because those against it are underground at Shady Acres.
As such, the most important thing older people - liberal and conservative - can do is convey the importance of their core values to the young, so that they can keep them in mind for any future debates.
I don't see the resurgence of hard-right or the response by antifa as being significant of anything other than new media giving them attention, but I don't trust my own objectivity on this. Instead, I see real politics converging, but differences being blown up through the new media lens.
-
If you want to hear some retarded ****, just head down to your local coffee shop. Sit down near a group of old-people talking about how they'd solve the world's problems.
And what would I hear from a group of twentysomethings? Endless talk about what they're watching on Netflix or streaming at Spotify or what video games they're playing or endless diet tips or gossip about who is sleeping with whom while they all tap away at their Iphones. You think there's a lot of discussion of national or international issues gonna take place among that set?
When I was 40 I worked among a lot of twentysomethings. They had zero interest in or knowledge of national issues or politics at any level, nor even an understanding of how politics worked and which level of government was responsible for which services. None ever read a newspaper or watched the news on TV. Few ever bothered to vote. They did, of course, have very strong feelings on the environment, but the subtleties of protecting the environment while growing the economy were completely lost on them. I doubt things have gotten any better. Most likely they're even more in their own little worlds than they were before.
-
Overall I think the opinions of old-people are less a result of them being wise and experienced and economically-invested, and more a result of them being senile and coddled and completely out-of-touch with reality.
-k
How man 'old people' do you think read newspapers and watch the news on TV every might vs 'young people'?
How many 'old people' are economically invested, ie, paying lots of tax vs 'young people'?
How many 'old people' regularly vote vs 'young people'?
-
It made a lot of sense.
I've noticed over the years the tendency of people who are humourless to flatter themselves into believing their humour is simply too subtle for others to understand.
And there's nothing more humourless than a zealot from the far left.
-
Well, *I'M* pretty funay.
Seriously, this old vs. young ****... take it to Family Feud...
-
And what would I hear from a group of twentysomethings? Endless talk about what they're watching on Netflix or streaming at Spotify or what video games they're playing or endless diet tips or gossip about who is sleeping with whom while they all tap away at their Iphones. You think there's a lot of discussion of national or international issues gonna take place among that set?
Because 40 year olds sit around talking politics all the time? You've got to be kidding.
This is my life these days:
Hey are you putting little Susie in soccer again?
OMG, can you believe the new principal at the school?
Oh didn't you hear, the Joneses are getting a divorce. No, they were BOTH cheating and he's already moved out.
What a great idea for a birthday party, OMG why didn't I think of it!
Wow, did you highlight your hair, you look 10 years younger!
-
And there's nothing more humourless than a zealot from the far left.
Yeah well, it's not funny if you don't get the joke. [Looking at you there, SJ]
-
Yeah well, it's not funny if you don't get the joke. [Looking at you there, SJ]
Well just think about how many successful comedians do you know who are right wing zealots? Of course there's always Rush Limbaugh who is kinda funny in a right wing demented sort of way.
-
Some old folks think that growing the economy is something to be proud of, they are clueless that the economy is an artificial construct and the environment is real. They only understand inflation, because it has been drilled into their heads and they haven't grown a new brain cell in decades.
-
I know demographics in every election show old people are more conservative but I still don't like to generalize. Maybe because my parents (both in their 70's) are both pro-gay rights, pro-environment and socialist even though they've been successful and well off. My mom's been voting Green well before it was the cool thing to do.
-
even though they've been successful and well off
The funny thing is most liberals are successful. I love listening to the ads on redneck radio, and see just what the deplorables are so into. It is full of ways to scam employers, insurance companies, etc.
-
I know demographics in every election show old people are more conservative but I still don't like to generalize. Maybe because my parents (both in their 70's) are both pro-gay rights, pro-environment and socialist even though they've been successful and well off. My mom's been voting Green well before it was the cool thing to do.
Growing up, I had one of each: my dad.was the 'old guy' bitching about young people today and the downfalling of society, while my mom was the one who was "progressive", ok with gays and minorities.
-
Some old folks think that growing the economy is something to be proud of, they are clueless that the economy is an artificial construct and the environment is real.
People with life experience understand that without a good economy no one cares about the environment and it is pointless to talk about the latter unless you have the former. People with experience also have seen the environmental doom monger script play out over and over (population bomb anyone?). The script always ends the same way: the future unfolds in unexpected ways that make the environmental doom mongers look like fools.
-
People with life experience understand that without a good economy
Just what the frig is a good economy? The problem is too many people think growth, and money going into rich pockets is a good economy. That however is the exact opposite. A good economy is where the vast majority of people can live a healthy and productive life - period.
-
If you don't care about both the environment and the economy there's something wrong with you.
-
Just what the frig is a good economy? The problem is too many people think growth, and money going into rich pockets is a good economy. That however is the exact opposite. A good economy is where the vast majority of people can live a healthy and productive life - period.
I have never said growth is a requirement for a good economy. However, if government policy requires a rapidly increasing population (as it does in Canada with its immigration levels) then the economy has to grow as fast to keep all those new people health and productive. I would prefer we put a cap on the Canadian population and adjust immigration levels to stay within that cap. It would create challenges for the economy but it would also reduce the need for growth and be good for the environment. Unfortunately, the people who whinge the most about the environment are not interested in such a policy which simply demonstrates that they see the environment a virtue signalling exercise rather than a real issue.
-
I would prefer we put a cap on the Canadian population and adjust immigration levels to stay within that cap.
I have been saying for decades that we should not use immigration to run the economy ponzi scheme.
-
I have been saying for decades that we should not use immigration to run the economy ponzi scheme.
Better start having more babies then or you will wind up a nation of pensioners. Canada's birth rate is 188th out of 225 countries and declining.
-
42% of Canadians get their news from social media
http://torontosun.com/news/national/42-of-canadians-get-their-news-through-social-media-study
“In almost all countries surveyed, people who are younger, are more highly educated and have a higher income are more likely than their counterparts to use social networking sites to get news daily,” it added.
-
People with life experience understand that without a good economy no one cares about the environment and it is pointless to talk about the latter unless you have the former. People with experience also have seen the environmental doom monger script play out over and over (population bomb anyone?). The script always ends the same way: the future unfolds in unexpected ways that make the environmental doom mongers look like fools.
Depends what your life experience amounts to I guess. If you haven't been far from your block you might buy that concept, but if you have been around the world, you would see that there are a lot of people who don't have a great economy, but who certainly do care about their environment. Granted though, a good economy helps people improve their environment. What is ironic in certain places I have been is that the economy has improved due to the production of fossil fuels. Good news.bad news.
-
Granted though, a good economy helps people improve their environment. What is ironic in certain places I have been is that the economy has improved due to the production of fossil fuels. Good news.bad news.
This is the point I was getting at. The strength of the economy is a measure of the resources that are available. If more resources are available then people can afford to care more about the environment. When there are fewer resources, basic survival is always priority number one. CO2 is a one of those pure luxury items because reducing CO2 for the sake of CO2 has no impact on the local environment and only the wealthiest can afford to care.
-
This is the point I was getting at. The strength of the economy is a measure of the resources that are available. If more resources are available then people can afford to care more about the environment. When there are fewer resources, basic survival is always priority number one. CO2 is a one of those pure luxury items because reducing CO2 for the sake of CO2 has no impact on the local environment and only the wealthiest can afford to care.
Of course reducing CO2 does have an impact on the environment which brings us back to the irony I pointed out that economies are often enriched by the production of fossil fuels. Hopefully the wealth generated will be used to move toward more intelligent methods of producing energy before we're standing there sucking in exhaust gas while the last barrel is pumped out.
-
Some old folks think that growing the economy is something to be proud of, they are clueless that the economy is an artificial construct and the environment is real. They only understand inflation, because it has been drilled into their heads and they haven't grown a new brain cell in decades.
"Artificial construct" could describe anything humans have created, including language, art, and science. The important thing is that it is a proven tool to deal with human challenges with the physical environment, and scarce goods.
-
The funny thing is most liberals are successful. I love listening to the ads on redneck radio, and see just what the deplorables are so into. It is full of ways to scam employers, insurance companies, etc.
I would challenge that, however I will say that all the successful people I personally know are centre-left for the most part with some centre-right. But you're drifting into generalization and criticizing across the cultural gap if you just talk about problems with "the other side". It's not helpful.
-
People with life experience understand that without a good economy no one cares about the environment and it is pointless to talk about the latter unless you have the former
True, however once the economy covers material needs relatively easily the self-actualization needs become more and more important.
the future unfolds in unexpected ways
That is gold, and we should plan for the future knowing that.
-
Better start having more babies then or you will wind up a nation of pensioners. Canada's birth rate is 188th out of 225 countries and declining.
Immigration does virtually nothing to address an aging population. You might as well complain we're not having enough babies so everyone has to take calligraphy lessons.
-
If you don't care about both the environment and the economy there's something wrong with you.
I think everyone does, but it's what people choose if push comes to shove and they have to choose one over the other.
I go with the one that can't bounce back.
-
Better start having more babies then or you will wind up a nation of pensioners. Canada's birth rate is 188th out of 225 countries and declining.
Babies are fricking EXPENSIVE!!!
Funny though, the same people who are against immigration are against any of kind of minimum wage increase, day-care subsidy or any kind of social assistanace whatsoever.
They are just begging to eat cat food when they're old.
-
Babies are fricking EXPENSIVE!!!
Funny though, the same people who are against immigration are against any of kind of minimum wage increase, day-care subsidy or any kind of social assistanace whatsoever.
They are just begging to eat cat food when they're old.
I think means testing is the way to go. I'm all in favour of a day care subsidy, but not if it just mean an upgrade to the SUV. Same with welfare. I support the government in using my tax dollars to look after those who can't look after themselves, but I also support them in making sure that's the case before doling it out.
-
Babies are fricking EXPENSIVE!!!
Funny though, the same people who are against immigration are against any of kind of minimum wage increase, day-care subsidy or any kind of social assistanace whatsoever.
They are just begging to eat cat food when they're old.
They sure are and it is a big financial decision to have them. Right now our birthrate is 1.6 so we are quite a way from being able to maintain our population without immigration. I agree that if we are to reduce our dependance on immigration, we will have to make having kids more attractive.
-
I think means testing is the way to go. I'm all in favour of a day care subsidy, but not if it just mean an upgrade to the SUV. Same with welfare. I support the government in using my tax dollars to look after those who can't look after themselves, but I also support them in making sure that's the case before doling it out.
And you're very entitled to that opinion, but the fact is, it's very difficult to raise a family on a single income these days and both parents either have to work or want to work.
That's the biggest constraint on people having enough kids to replace the existing population so either it's immigration or spending tax dollars in helping people have more kids.
Choose your poison wisely.
-
And you're very entitled to that opinion, but the fact is, it's very difficult to raise a family on a single income these days and both parents either have to work or want to work.
That's the biggest constraint on people having enough kids to replace the existing population so either it's immigration or spending tax dollars in helping people have more kids.
Choose your poison wisely.
In the case you mention, they would qualify, right? The means testing would see to that. That's the point of it.
-
Right now our birthrate is 1.6 so we are quite a way from being able to maintain our population without immigration.
Birth rate is a misleading figure, but you are actually quoting the births per woman which is an entirely different figure. Our birth rate is about 11.3 - birth rate means live births per 1000 population per year.
-
In the case you mention, they would qualify, right? The means testing would see to that. That's the point of it.
Let's say they don't qualify and they prefer to have one kid and spend their life with a new car and vacations instead.
They're entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't change the reality of modern life that this is who we've become and we don't have enough people to replenish the old generation.
There is no right or wrong answer in all this but it's either immigration or providing an environment where people want to have more kids.
-
Birth rate is a misleading figure, but you are actually quoting the births per woman which is an entirely different figure. Our birth rate is about 11.3 - birth rate means live births per 1000 population per year.
Bottom line
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm
Despite some fluctuations, the total fertility rate in Canada has been below the replacement level for over 40 years. In fact, 1971 was the last year the replacement-level fertility of 2.1 children per woman was reached—meaning that couples, on average, had produced enough children to replace themselves.
-
And you're very entitled to that opinion, but the fact is, it's very difficult to raise a family on a single income these days and both parents either have to work or want to work.
That's the biggest constraint on people having enough kids to replace the existing population
If that WERE the case, we would see a very, very obvious corollary between income and number of children. Those with higher incomes would tend to have more children because they could better afford them. In fact, the reverse is true.
-
Let's say they don't qualify and they prefer to have one kid and spend their life with a new car and vacations instead.
They're entitled to feel that way,
Sure, but they're not entitled to my money. My parents never had a new car, raised three kids in various rented places, and if we had a vacation it was in the car - until we lost it, never anywhere we had to fly to. Somehow, shockingly, we survived such poverty and depredation.
And to repeat, immigration is not going to address an aging population. I think the last study I posted stated pretty clearly that to do so we need to increase immigration to three MILLION per year.
-
If that WERE the case, we would see a very, very obvious corollary between income and number of children. Those with higher incomes would tend to have more children because they could better afford them. In fact, the reverse is true.
Well off people are entitled to spend their money as they wish but if you don't want immigration, you need to provide an environment for people of all incomes to want to have more kids.
Personally I'm not really arguing FOR universal daycare but I'm just pointing out the flaw in logic for being against both immigration and social programs that encourage higher birth rates.
-
It's a conundrum. If immigrants have kids at the same rate as the existing population, immigration won't address the ageing population problem. Especially if they bring their parents with them. What to do?
-
Sure, but they're not entitled to my money. My parents never had a new car, raised three kids in various rented places, and if we had a vacation it was in the car - until we lost it, never anywhere we had to fly to. Somehow, shockingly, we survived such poverty and depredation.
And to repeat, immigration is not going to address an aging population. I think the last study I posted stated pretty clearly that to do so we need to increase immigration to three MILLION per year.
Your parents lived in a different era. My parents also raised me in a reasonably affluent neighbhourhood on my dad's sole income but those days are over.
Now you need to be in the top 5-10% to take care of a family with one income.
No, I agree that we don't need this much immigration but it's either a lot of immigration or encouraging families of all incomes to have more kids.
-
It's a conundrum. If immigrants have kids at the same rate as the existing population, immigration won't address the ageing population problem. Especially if they bring their parents with them. What to do?
I am in the middle of doing something else so I can't find the research but for what's it's worth coming from some random person on the internet, I read a while ago that France had modest success in raising birthrates when they started providing a lot of social assistance to parents, including in-home care, daycare and financial assistance.
-
Let's say they don't qualify and they prefer to have one kid and spend their life with a new car and vacations instead.
They're entitled to feel that way, but it doesn't change the reality of modern life that this is who we've become and we don't have enough people to replenish the old generation.
There is no right or wrong answer in all this but it's either immigration or providing an environment where people want to have more kids.
What I'm saying is that people who want other people's money have to need it. Your example there can pay for their own daycare.
-
What I'm saying is that people who want other people's money have to need it. Your example there can pay for their own daycare.
You're completely entitled to that opinion and I fully respect it but you can't really fault immigration at the same time as having that opinion -- that's my only point.
-
You're completely entitled to that opinion and I fully respect it but you can't really fault immigration at the same time as having that opinion -- that's my only point.
I don't. I'm an immigrant!
-
Sure, but they're not entitled to my money. My parents never had a new car, raised three kids in various rented places, and if we had a vacation it was in the car - until we lost it, never anywhere we had to fly to. Somehow, shockingly, we survived such poverty and depredation.
And to repeat, immigration is not going to address an aging population. I think the last study I posted stated pretty clearly that to do so we need to increase immigration to three MILLION per year.
Three million/year? I'd like to see where you got those figures. Stats Can says it's more like 1 million over 3 years.
-
Well off people are entitled to spend their money as they wish
Sure. Just not mine.
And your acknowledgement appears to do a complete 180 on your statement that we have a low birth rate because people can't afford to have children.
-
Your parents lived in a different era. My parents also raised me in a reasonably affluent neighbhourhood on my dad's sole income but those days are over.
Now you need to be in the top 5-10% to take care of a family with one income.
Try again. Both my parents worked full time.
No, I agree that we don't need this much immigration but it's either a lot of immigration or encouraging families of all incomes to have more kids.
I'm all for programs and policies which encourage families to have kids, even if they cost money. As long as they can be shown to provide real incentives. But immigration is NOT, as I said, going to address an aging work force. That's particularly so given how many older immigrants we bring over. In fact, the Liberals just doubled the number of senior citizen immigrants allowed in. So clearly they don't really think of immigration as something being used to address an aging population so much as to get votes.
-
Sure. Just not mine.
And your acknowledgement appears to do a complete 180 on your statement that we have a low birth rate because people can't afford to have children.
Never said they can't afford it, quite the contrary. Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.
-
Three million/year? I'd like to see where you got those figures. Stats Can says it's more like 1 million over 3 years.
On fighting an aging workforce
Canada would have to take in 2.6 million immigrants a year by 2020 and seven million by 2050 — raising its population to 165.4-million — if it wants to keep its ratio of retirees-toworkers at its current 20%, according to a study from the C.D. Howe Institute.
"Although higher immigration can mitigate the imminent slowing down and reversal in labour force growth, and can certainly meet specific labour market shortages, no conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in ratio of older to working age Canadians."
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20060927/282389804967681
Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.
http://www.diversityintheworkplace.ca/newsletters/feb_2010/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf
-
Never said they can't afford it, quite the contrary.
Ah, so then you believe that even if they can afford it I should pay for it so they can continue to take vacations down south and buy new cars. That's... brainless.
Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.
Not at all. I do blame you for your lack of communication skills and ideological zealotry.
-
Try again. Both my parents worked full time.
I'm all for programs and policies which encourage families to have kids, even if they cost money. As long as they can be shown to provide real incentives. But immigration is NOT, as I said, going to address an aging work force. That's particularly so given how many older immigrants we bring over. In fact, the Liberals just doubled the number of senior citizen immigrants allowed in. So clearly they don't really think of immigration as something being used to address an aging population so much as to get votes.
Of the ~1 million planned immigrant population arriving in Canada over the next 3 years are intended to be 60% economic. You know, people who go to work and pay taxes to support your pension. As has been pointed out to you, we are all getting older and if we ain't having kids, we've got a bunch of old fogies sitting on park benches.
https://moving2canada.com/canada-immigration-plan/
-
Ah, so then you believe that even if they can afford it I should pay for it so they can continue to take vacations down south and buy new cars. That's... brainless.
Not at all. I do blame you for your lack of communication skills and ideological zealotry.
So you don't get what I'm saying even though Wilber and bcsapper did and you're calling ME brainless?? :D
Total Trumpster aren't you. Calling others what you are.
-
Of the ~1 million planned immigrant population arriving in Canada over the next 3 years are intended to be 60% economic. You know, people who go to work and pay taxes to support your pension. As has been pointed out to you, we are all getting older and if we ain't having kids, we've got a bunch of old fogies sitting on park benches.
And as has been pointed out to you, people with lower incomes pay no taxes. In fact, as per my recent post on the US (and things are likely the same here) the top 20% pay 87% of all income taxes. Anyone in the bottom 50% is consuming, not paying. Therefore, if you actually cared about this you'd be urging the government to focus on bringing over the most economically successful of immigrants rather than illiterate desert dwellers with no job skills.
-
So you don't get what I'm saying even though Wilber and bcsapper did and you're calling ME brainless?? :D
I get what you're saying. I just think it's narcissistic, entitled bullshit - speaking of Trump.
-
Check the chart. Even without immigrants our population would continue to grow, though minimally, until 2061. That's 43 years from now, and who knows what would impact our culture by then. Maybe people will start having more kids. Note, I'm not suggesting zero immigration.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm
-
And as has been pointed out to you, people with lower incomes pay no taxes. In fact, as per my recent post on the US (and things are likely the same here) the top 20% pay 87% of all income taxes. Anyone in the bottom 50% is consuming, not paying. Therefore, if you actually cared about this you'd be urging the government to focus on bringing over the most economically successful of immigrants rather than illiterate desert dwellers with no job skills.
And has been pointed out to you, 60% of the intended 1 million immigrants planned over 3 years, (not 3 million over 1 year) are to be economic immigrants. I reckon stats Canada has a better handle on the age of Canadian citizens, how many are heading for retirement, and how many babies they are (not) having than you do.
-
Check the chart. Even without immigrants our population would continue to grow, though minimally, until 2061. That's 43 years from now, and who knows what would impact our culture by then. Maybe people will start having more kids. Note, I'm not suggesting zero immigration.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm
Without a sustained level of immigration, Canada's population growth could be close to zero within 20 years.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm
-
And has been pointed out to you, 60% of the intended 1 million immigrants planned over 3 years, (not 3 million over 1 year)
I didn't say we were bringing over 1 million a year. I said we'd need to bring over 3 million a year to stabilize our aging work force.
are to be economic immigrants. I reckon stats Canada has a better handle on the age of Canadian citizens, how many are heading for retirement, and how many babies they are (not) having than you do.
Unlikely given the chart I posted is FROM stats Canada.
And to repeat again, stuff you can't seem to get through your head, 'economic' immigrants includes both one central sponsor, and their family. So of the 60%, the odds are only about 20-25% are the actual principal sponsor. In other words, only about 15% of our immigrants are brought over because of a presumed economic ability. Further, if they're from countries with traditional low female participation in the workforce - ie, almost all middle eastern countries, including Pakistan - then their wives tend to have a much lower labour force participation rate in Canada than say, people who come over from the Philippines or Europe.
-
Without a sustained level of immigration, Canada's population growth could be close to zero within 20 years.
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014001-eng.htm
Actually, according to the chart - which is the one I already posted above, genius - we would continue to have some small growth up to 2061 without immigration.
And I fail to see why we need to grow anyway. According to their projections we'll have 50 million people. We don't need that many people. I grew up when there were 20 million of us and I don't see how going to 35 has done anything good for me or the country but increase pollution and overcrowding.
According to the various projection scenarios, the Canadian population would continue to increase over the next 50 years, from 35.2 million in 2013 to between 40.0 million (low-growth (L) scenario) and 63.5 million (high-growth (H) scenario) by 2063. Under the medium-growth (M1) scenario, the Canadian population would reach 51.0 million in 2063.
I'm not opposed to some immigration, btw. I simply don't think we need so many, and I think we should only bring over those most likely to be economically successful.
-
I didn't say we were bringing over 1 million a year. I said we'd need to bring over 3 million a year to stabilize our aging work force.
Unlikely given the chart I posted is FROM stats Canada.
And to repeat again, stuff you can't seem to get through your head, 'economic' immigrants includes both one central sponsor, and their family. So of the 60%, the odds are only about 20-25% are the actual principal sponsor. In other words, only about 15% of our immigrants are brought over because of a presumed economic ability. Further, if they're from countries with traditional low female participation in the workforce - ie, almost all middle eastern countries, including Pakistan - then their wives tend to have a much lower labour force participation rate in Canada than say, people who come over from the Philippines or Europe.
What you seem to have a problem inculcating is that when people get old, they retire, they seek pensions, they tend to use more health care assets, all of which cost money. Without natural population growth, which is continuously slowing down, we need immigrants, especially economic ones which the government is aware of and hence set the intended ratios.
-
Actually, according to the chart - which is the one I already posted above, genius - we would continue to have some small growth up to 2061 without immigration.
And I fail to see why we need to grow anyway. According to their projections we'll have 50 million people. We don't need that many people. I grew up when there were 20 million of us and I don't see how going to 35 has done anything good for me or the country but increase pollution and overcrowding.
According to the various projection scenarios, the Canadian population would continue to increase over the next 50 years, from 35.2 million in 2013 to between 40.0 million (low-growth (L) scenario) and 63.5 million (high-growth (H) scenario) by 2063. Under the medium-growth (M1) scenario, the Canadian population would reach 51.0 million in 2063.
I'm not opposed to some immigration, btw. I simply don't think we need so many, and I think we should only bring over those most likely to be economically successful.
Look at the strength of the US economy, then look at the size of the country, then look at the population, then look at the ethnic mix with which they have achieved that strength. You do tend to sound like a Trump supporter though when it comes to wanting a simply pasty white population.
-
I get what you're saying. I just think it's narcissistic, entitled bullshit - speaking of Trump.
Nope, still cold.
-
Birth rate is a misleading figure, but you are actually quoting the births per woman which is an entirely different figure. Our birth rate is about 11.3 - birth rate means live births per 1000 population per year.
If women are roughly 50% of the pop, it means 1.6 births per 2 people.
-
What you seem to have a problem inculcating is that when people get old, they retire, they seek pensions, they tend to use more health care assets, all of which cost money. Without natural population growth, which is continuously slowing down, we need immigrants, especially economic ones which the government is aware of and hence set the intended ratios.
If we have a problem with an aging population then what we need to do is teach everyone caligraphy. Problem solved.
-
Look at the strength of the US economy, then look at the size of the country, then look at the population, then look at the ethnic mix with which they have achieved that strength
Look at the size of the Indian economy, then look at the size of the country, then look at the population, then look at the ethnic mix with which they have achieved that strength. Oh if only we could be just like India!
Or we could be like, I dunno, Switzerland or Denmark, many times smaller than us.
You do tend to sound like a Trump supporter though when it comes to wanting a simply pasty white population.
You tend to sound like a moron who never got past grade six and drools when he writes.
-
Look at the size of the Indian economy, then look at the size of the country, then look at the population, then look at the ethnic mix with which they have achieved that strength. Oh if only we could be just like India!
Or we could be like, I dunno, Switzerland or Denmark, many times smaller than us.
You tend to sound like a moron who never got past grade six and drools when he writes.
There we go, as usual as soon as sirargus gets challenged he reverts to insults. You're predictable I'll give you that.
-
If we have a problem with an aging population then what we need to do is teach everyone caligraphy. Problem solved.
Better to teach you something about demographics I think.
-
How man 'old people' do you think read newspapers and watch the news on TV every might vs 'young people'?
Newspapers? TV news? Hey, I bet more old-people listen to Town Criers for their news too.
I don't think listening to angry-old-people talk-radio for 8 hours a day and sharing bullshit fake-news stories on Facebook makes old-people well-informed. Remember Topaz at the MLW sharing the video about the cheque Barack Obama wrote to the Muslim Brotherhood? The cheque that was a stock image, with a standard Microsoft font written on it? That's old-people. A dumb-ass old-person sharing a video she got sent by some other dumb-ass old-people, sharing the same **** amongst all their friends because they're too god damned stupid to figure anything out for themselves.
Old-people are the biggest victims of scam artists because they're naive, gullible, and poorly-informed.
I know there are exceptions. I know some old-people who are extraordinarily smart. A guy I used to work for is 80 and his mental acuity is as sharp as anyone I know. I know some amazing old-people. But they're the exceptions. As a group, old-people are pretty **** dumb.
Picture a scam or a fake news story, and imagine whether old-people or young-people are more likely to fall for it, and I'll put my money on old-people every time.
How many 'old people' are economically invested, ie, paying lots of tax vs 'young people'?
I have a very hard time taking old-people seriously as the wise stewards of the economy. These are the people who racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt during the most prosperous time in human history with ludicrous spending, on everything from heavily subsidized university tuition to oodles of government jobs to rich pensions to generous social programs. And, once they had made off with everything they could carry, they suddenly realized the need to cut expenditures. Education is unaffordable! Tighten the belts! These social programs are unaffordable! Tighten the belts! Taxes are too high! We need to cut expenditures in all of these areas! Also, we need to spend more money on hip replacements and elder care! Their concerns are limited entirely to their immediate circumstances. Like true psychopaths, they're incapable of being concerned for anyone except themselves.
The phrase you're looking for isn't "economically invested", it's "greedy". This is the "I got mine" generation, pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
The economic acuity of the Baby Boom generation is a gigantic myth. The truth is that these people are criminals, and perpetuated an enormous heist. That's the reality of it.
How many 'old people' regularly vote vs 'young people'?
That's changing. Old-people aren't the biggest voting bloc anymore. Millennials are.
-k
-
I have a very hard time taking old-people seriously as the wise stewards of the economy. These are the people who racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt during the most prosperous time in human history with ludicrous spending, on everything from heavily subsidized university tuition to oodles of government jobs to rich pensions to generous social programs. And, once they had made off with everything they could carry, they suddenly realized the need to cut expenditures. Education is unaffordable! Tighten the belts! These social programs are unaffordable! Tighten the belts! Taxes are too high! We need to cut expenditures in all of these areas! Also, we need to spend more money on hip replacements and elder care! Their concerns are limited entirely to their immediate circumstances. Like true psychopaths, they're incapable of being concerned for anyone except themselves.
The phrase you're looking for isn't "economically invested", it's "greedy". This is the "I got mine" generation, pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
The economic acuity of the Baby Boom generation is a gigantic myth. The truth is that these people are criminals, and perpetuated an enormous heist. That's the reality of it.
That's changing. Old-people aren't the biggest voting bloc anymore. Millennials are.
-k
You young'uns have every right to be pissed at the old fogeys. What you say is one-sided and negative, but not entirely inaccurate.
-
Picture a scam or a fake news story, and imagine whether old-people or young-people are more likely to fall for it, and I'll put my money on old-people every time.
They're slower, some going senile, yes out of touch, but more trusting and generally much friendlier.
The phrase you're looking for isn't "economically invested", it's "greedy". This is the "I got mine" generation, pulling up the ladder behind themselves.
Agreed.
That's changing. Old-people aren't the biggest voting bloc anymore. Millennials are.
Fewer % of millennials vote compared to any other age group. % who vote goes up by age, until that age when people start to really get senile & sick (over 75): http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/eval/pes2015/vtsa&document=table1&lang=e
Old people tend to be more racist, homophobic, kookily religious, and those sorts of things, but generally I like them much, much better than people under 60. Kinder, more polite, much more friendly etc. I love old people, except for some old prejudices they hold onto as I said. So yeah they tend to be more out of touch. They also carry wisdom that people ignore because of how out of touch they seem. I've been guilty of the same but now I listen to them a lot more. Us younger folk think we have it figured out better, and in some ways we do, but in many ways we don't. My grandparents were right, I shouldn't have spent so much time playing videogames because they're a waste of time, and spitting on the sidewalk is gross LOL.
Overall, I think older vs younger people both have their strengths and weaknesses as a generalized group. Except for millenials who are mostly morons politically but ethically mean well (doesn't everybody?).
-
That's old-people. A dumb-ass old-person sharing a video she got sent by some other dumb-ass old-people, sharing the same **** amongst all their friends because they're too god damned stupid to figure anything out for themselves.
I always saw myself as a non-conformist. I hated kids and had no interest in my friends' babies and laughed at any boyfriend who brought up marriage. I was completely commitment phobe and anti-kids.
I still don't really know what happened along the way but by the time my forties came I was living the suburban life with a couple of kids and boring life as an accountant. It's actually surprisingly not that bad, but that's for another thread.
Now, middle-aged, I look at old people and think I'll never be like them, but you know, I know better. I will get old and I will be stupid.
The good thing I've passed that arrogant stage where I think I'm invincible and so edgy and I'll somehow defy the odds and turn out to be some 'cool' old person.
Life doesn't go the way you always plan when you're young and I have nothing but respect for old people. Stupid or smart.
You should count yourself lucky if you ever get to their age.
-
That's changing. Old-people aren't the biggest voting bloc anymore. Millennials are.
-k
Unnnnggggbgggg,,,,,
CITE ???
Young people don't vote and boomers are still a thing, no ?
-
1. I will get old and I will be stupid.
2.You should count yourself lucky if you ever get to their age.
1. Stupid is not "ignorant". I started meeting people in their 60s and 70s who were much wiser and inspiring than me. They couldn't do "email" but they could do life.
2. Gold.
-
We all have our challenges. You wouldn’t believe how easy it is for old people to rip off younguns at a cash register who can’t make change without a machine to tell them how much. But most old people wouldn’t do that because it violates their code of honesty. A trait that makes them easier to scam. I’m not saying they are smarter or more honest, just different.
-
Newspapers? TV news? Hey, I bet more old-people listen to Town Criers for their news too.
I don't think listening to angry-old-people talk-radio for 8 hours a day and sharing bullshit fake-news stories on Facebook makes old-people well-informed.
I'm confused. First you sneer at getting news from the TV or newspapers, then sneer at getting news from social media (which is where young people get their news, such news as they get). Where do you get your news from?
I have a very hard time taking old-people seriously as the wise stewards of the economy. These are the people who racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt during the most prosperous time in human history with ludicrous spending, on everything from heavily subsidized university tuition to oodles of government jobs to rich pensions to generous social programs.
You voted Liberal in the last election, correct? So what makes you different from the boomers who voted for his daddy? I promise you I didn't vote for either.
That's changing. Old-people aren't the biggest voting bloc anymore. Millennials are.
The people who get their news from Facebook, and mostly don't vote...
-
Old people tend to be more racist, homophobic, kookily religious, and those sorts of things,
The racism part simply comes from them growing up at a time when they were the only race around. Everyone else is a newcomer, an interloper. And I'm not even sure it's really a 'race' thing so much as a culture thing. The newcomers don't just look different, but talk different, dress different, eat different and act different, after all. The homophobic thing comes from the religion.
I don't think, though, if you did a questionnaire for a thousand seniors and a thousand immigrants half their age you'd find the old people were more kookily religious, homophobic or racist than the newcomers.
-
The racism part simply comes from them growing up at a time when they were the only race around. Everyone else is a newcomer, an interloper. And I'm not even sure it's really a 'race' thing so much as a culture thing. The newcomers don't just look different, but talk different, dress different, eat different and act different, after all. The homophobic thing comes from the religion.
Yes, people don't realize that. People don't realize that the liberals of only a few decades ago are horrible monsters by today's standards. That people who said "coloured people" were THE liberals of the day, and the term African American didn't exist.
But credit to our economy and open culture (however undefined it is) to persevere and stay together through these changes.
I suggest we replaced didacticism with a new type of common dialogue to deal with such problems.
I don't think, though, if you did a questionnaire for a thousand seniors and a thousand immigrants half their age you'd find the old people were more kookily religious, homophobic or racist than the newcomers.
Yeah, and they are all in the same boat with having to accept the change that is foisted on them now.
-
Being judged by the young is part of growing old and vice versa. Always has, always will. Nothing new here.
-
You wouldn’t believe how easy it is for old people to rip off younguns at a cash register who can’t make change without a machine to tell them how much.
I think most at the cash register are pretty dumb, regardless of age. I have had both young and old cashiers confused when I handed them cash that included change. They far prefer automated forms of payment (credit, debit, etc.), but if you hand them cash then it had better damn well be either exact or just a few big bills.
-
1. Stupid is not "ignorant". I started meeting people in their 60s and 70s who were much wiser and inspiring than me. They couldn't do "email" but they could do life.
2. Gold.
1. I agree. My point was that nobody sets out to age a certain way, we just do. As much as we think old people are 'stupid' there is a good chance we might become exactly the same should we be lucky enough to live that long.
-
My point was that nobody sets out to age a certain way, we just do.
In the majority of cases I disagree. People become way too close minded and not willing to consider other points of view. That is completely voluntary on their part, and it is not limited to the old but certainly more prevalent there.
Yes, there are some old people that are affected by degrading mental capability but that is certainly not the majority and far from the vocal ones.
-
I think most at the cash register are pretty dumb, regardless of age. I have had both young and old cashiers confused when I handed them cash that included change. They far prefer automated forms of payment (credit, debit, etc.), but if you hand them cash then it had better damn well be either exact or just a few big bills.
They aren't dumb, they just haven't lived when doing mental arithmetic was an every day requirement. Even for those who had, it is a skill easily atrophied by technology if not practiced.
-
Unnnnggggbgggg,,,,,
CITE ???
Young people don't vote and boomers are still a thing, no ?
In terms of sheer numbers, millennials are the largest group of potential voters. And the assumption that it doesn't matter because millennials don't vote is an idea that politicians would embrace at their peril.
Millennials will be the biggest cohort of voters in the next federal election, and the party that has the most success in tapping their support will vastly improve its chances of winning in 2019.
But millennials are far from a monolithic voting bloc and the 2015 federal election was the first in which they came out to cast ballots in big numbers. Will they turn out with similar enthusiasm in the next vote and in the ones to come?
For the first time, all Canadian millennials, generally defined as those born between 1980 and 2000, will be eligible to vote in the next federal election.
Youth turnout was up significantly in the 2015 election and all indications are that Justin Trudeau's Liberals won that vote. But the party can't take that support for granted in the next election — particularly now that the Conservatives and NDP are led by leaders who are younger than Trudeau and who are also trying to appeal to younger voters.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-pollcast-coletto-1.4491818
For the first time, millennials will be the dominant voting block in a federal election in 2019. That’s also the case in this June’s Ontario election.
That’s 9.5 million voters, those who will be aged 19-39, when federal ballots are cast next year.
There are signs that political parties understand there’s a revolution underway, one that has the potential to turn Canadian politics on its head.
For years, or so the adage went, parties didn’t court the youth vote, because they didn’t go to the polls. Younger voters said they checked out of the process because politicians had nothing for them.
The dance continued.
That circle is being broken, says David Coletto, the 36-year-old Abacus CEO and author of the study, who says it has been most notable over the past three years at all levels of government.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/04/05/politicians-beware-canadas-millennial-voting-army-is-at-the-gates.html
-k
-
The racism part simply comes from them growing up at a time when they were the only race around. Everyone else is a newcomer, an interloper. And I'm not even sure it's really a 'race' thing so much as a culture thing. The newcomers don't just look different, but talk different, dress different, eat different and act different, after all. The homophobic thing comes from the religion.
I don't think, though, if you did a questionnaire for a thousand seniors and a thousand immigrants half their age you'd find the old people were more kookily religious, homophobic or racist than the newcomers.
Agree on everything you said.
-
Even though we were in our twenties when homosexuality was legalized in Canada, none of my same age friends are homophobic. Neither do they bat an eye at mixed race relationships. People do change their views over time.
-
Even though we were in our twenties when homosexuality was legalized in Canada, none of my same age friends are homophobic. Neither do they bat an eye at mixed race relationships. People do change their views over time.
Depends on how deeply ingrained, and how long you lived with a certain mindset. I posted a video a short time back about New York city a century ago. Every guy was dressed the same. Every person had a hat. If you went outside without your hat and jacket and tie you were some kind of barbarian, and everyone would stare at you like "Who let THAT in here?" Everyone went to church. Everyone believed. No one talked about sex. Period. Let alone 'perverted' sex. We were an extremely homogenous and conservative society up until the sixties. The people who are 75 now grew up in the 1940s. That's how they were raised, and that's how they lived for the next 25 or 30 years or so. Things get pretty much set in during that length of time.
-
Depends on how deeply ingrained, and how long you lived with a certain mindset. I posted a video a short time back about New York city a century ago. Every guy was dressed the same. Every person had a hat. If you went outside without your hat and jacket and tie you were some kind of barbarian, and everyone would stare at you like "Who let THAT in here?" Everyone went to church. Everyone believed. No one talked about sex. Period. Let alone 'perverted' sex. We were an extremely homogenous and conservative society up until the sixties. The people who are 75 now grew up in the 1940s. That's how they were raised, and that's how they lived for the next 25 or 30 years or so. Things get pretty much set in during that length of time.
Seems you have never heard of the Harlem Renaissance. Perhaps that's because it centers around Black people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance#Religion
-
Depends on how deeply ingrained, and how long you lived with a certain mindset. I posted a video a short time back about New York city a century ago. Every guy was dressed the same. Every person had a hat. If you went outside without your hat and jacket and tie you were some kind of barbarian, and everyone would stare at you like "Who let THAT in here?" Everyone went to church. Everyone believed. No one talked about sex. Period. Let alone 'perverted' sex. We were an extremely homogenous and conservative society up until the sixties. The people who are 75 now grew up in the 1940s. That's how they were raised, and that's how they lived for the next 25 or 30 years or so. Things get pretty much set in during that length of time.
One reason they were all wearing the same thing is wartime rationing of fabric. The Depression didn't leave much disposable income for fashion either but the roaring twenties that preceded it did. Same kind of reason no civilian cars were built during the war. Zoot suits were pretty out there but banned during the war supposedly because they used too much fabric.
Kids today aren't much different when it comes to what they wear. What's in is important, they just have more money. My kid drove me nuts when he wore his pants down around his ass but I guess that was part of the reason for doing it. They still do it.
-
SJWs.... it's about the SJWs...
The use of the term "SJW" seems to define someone as a right-winger. I don't know why though.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR_uB3srI_0
:D
-
Yeah, this is as humourless as political comedy can get. Kind of like when they try to produce PC humour.
Bending over too far backwards is as bad as falling forwards.