I am not even going to read your nonsense. You said you studied social inequality ?, please cite sociological sources that confirm your statements because as it stands you just appear ignorant. What sociological thinkers or paradigms are you even relying on for your analysis? It seems like Trumpism?
Gerald Butts stokes the fires of racism
- Thread starter Metaxa
- Start date
LOL. You haven't read my post and it appears ignorant - seems logical! Citing "sociological thinkers" are not required to have a personal opinion on a concept - like equality of condition. Sling mud when others disagree with you - how surprising!
Ah, so Trumpism it is! You believe that you can overlook the generations of study into the topic and that your good old logic trumps all! That is the definition of being ignorant.
Canine Cowboy's post #23 reminds me of a high school friend.
His grandfather was a German POW in WW1. The Canadian government gave him and many others land to farm to encourage them to stay in Canada post-war.
The land was sold off piecemeal over two generations to residential developers netting millions.
He currently owns a popular bar and harasses the hell out of all his female employees. In fact it is so bad that I can't be friends with him. He genuinely believes it is his "right", he says if they want to work "they know what they have to do".
He absolutely believes he worked hard for his money despite his mom funding his bar and keeping it afloat when he loses money. He will tell you that everyone has the same opportunity even though his mommy wrote cheques for him all the time.
Rich people really are different.
His grandfather was a German POW in WW1. The Canadian government gave him and many others land to farm to encourage them to stay in Canada post-war.
The land was sold off piecemeal over two generations to residential developers netting millions.
He currently owns a popular bar and harasses the hell out of all his female employees. In fact it is so bad that I can't be friends with him. He genuinely believes it is his "right", he says if they want to work "they know what they have to do".
He absolutely believes he worked hard for his money despite his mom funding his bar and keeping it afloat when he loses money. He will tell you that everyone has the same opportunity even though his mommy wrote cheques for him all the time.
Rich people really are different.
Further to "social equality": I did volunteer tutoring for elementary kids in downtown Winnipeg for years.
Many of these kids have no hope, no matter how hard they try.
Anyone who thinks different is fucking ignorant and is living a sheltered life.
"Level playing field" is a myth that successful people use to feel good about themselves and rationalise shitting on others.
Many of these kids have no hope, no matter how hard they try.
Anyone who thinks different is fucking ignorant and is living a sheltered life.
"Level playing field" is a myth that successful people use to feel good about themselves and rationalise shitting on others.
Hate to break it to you, but copying and pasting something from a textbook which merely repeats what you have been saying (which you did) is not logic. You are fixated on the fact that someone (i.e. me) does not 100% agree with your world view about equality - what you fail to see is that my critique is not in your belief (as you can believe whatever you want to); rather, it is that you have not demonstrated your own ability to logically explain your belief with facts. On the contrary, you have taken one fact (i.e. the existence of unequal outcomes) as the "proof" for all the injustices you see in the world. In other words, you actually haven't done any research other than to find things (like a passage from a textbook) to "confirm" what you already have concluded without looking into why a situation exists or persists.
Case in point, in one post you bought up people of colour being incarcerated longer for the same crimes. Other than simply repeating that one data point, what other research have you done to confirm that this is in fact due to racist judges and/or juries??? Let's assume this is the case, people of colour get harsher sentences in Canada. Did you know that upwards of 90% of criminal cases in Canada never go to trial but are concluded via plea agreements. A fundamental part of the plea agreement is that a sentence is agreed to by the accused and crown counsel and they jointly recommend said sentence to the judge. Now let's say this 90% statistic holds true for those currently incarcerated. That would mean 90% of those incarcerated were a result not of a "racist" judge but by their own agreement and consent. Do you know what a Gladue Report or a Gladue Analysis is (I suspect you don't). It's been around for almost a generation, it's tied to Criminal Code Section 718.2(e) - that section of the Criminal Code reads...
"All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders."
Criminal Code Section 718.2(d) reads...
"An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances"
Hate to break it to you, but the criminal justice system in this country (and it's codified in the Criminal Code) basically instructs judges to use incarceration basically as the last resort where possible. Now, crime rates have been falling for at least a generation. And yes, the highest proportion of incarcerated persons in this country are still First Nations/Indigenous people. Based on what I've just shown you, is it more or less likely that the criminal justice system is racist?
Interestingly enough, if you are a believer that all outcomes should be equal and we are seeing "unequal" outcomes in sentencing do you support mandatory minimums to eliminate all of these "unequal" outcomes in sentencing? I suspect you do not. And I suspect you do not because it's something the Harper Government tried to accomplish - and if anything, you have demonstrated you are more interested in being on a particular "political side." And before you go casting more aspersions on me, I do not support mandatory minimums for all crimes - judicial discretion is fundamentally important in sentencing as it brings context into consideration - something mandatory minimums would eliminate. Interestingly enough, it's the same reason why I was opposed to US states enacting 3 strikes legislation.
The criminal justice system in this country is far from perfect, but when a system instructs judges to use incarceration as a last resort, when First Nations/Indigenous considerations are specifically codified in the Criminal Code and even now cultural assessments can be used by judges in this country - the system may be far from perfect but it is (and has been) progressive long before you discovered it was trendy to be woke!
I'm not going to sling mud at you, but it's clear you hold onto one single data point, repeat it ad nauseam and then revert to insulting others when they do not agree with your interpretation of that one data point. You're not reading the tea leaves (i.e. taking things into consideration), you are simply reading a tea leaf (i.e. your ad nauseam repeating of a single data point) and basing your conclusion on that one tea leaf!
Last edited:
Good on you for taking your own time to tutor - I hope to gawd you didn't tutor those kids into believing that they "have no hope, no matter how hard they try."
No apple, I copied and pasted from an introductory text book because it would give you a very basic and rudimentary starting point to start to understand social inequality - Eureka! Knowledge!
I am already well schooled in social theory, economic theory, statistics, discrimination, ethnocentrism and racism. I also believe in knowledge and accumulated knowledge.
You my friend disregard alestablished knowledge and try to make sense of the world relying on hubris - hence my use of the term 'trumpism'. That is why you are challenged and repeatedly fall in to basic traps like citing a pink ghettoized occupation to try and make your point, when it only confirms the opposite of your argument.
Hopefully you will start to educate yourself so that you avoid thinking that your rationalizations outweigh generations of accumulated knowledge.
I am not disputing the existence of inequality - something you cannot seem to understand. I disagree that all inequality seen in society is somehow a morally "wrong." You point to harsher sentencing as an inequality and therefore evidence (of what I am assuming) is a racist or discriminatory criminal justice system. I do not deny differences in sentencing - I take exception with what you conclude from that without considering, you know, the actual criminal justice system or the criminal courts or how judicial independence works. Can you honestly say you have looked into those things before you suggested racism? I don't think you have - instead of stopping and challenging your own assumptions/conclusions you decide to name call and sling mud!
My point about nurses (which you clearly cannot comprehend) is that not all things in life involving people have to fall neatly into proportions seen in the population. This is observed over and over and over again in life and each and every time, it is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. And given that fact, can you not see how perhaps people in prison also do not need to fall neatly into proportions seen in the general population. You claim to be schooled in statistics - statistics does NOT state that a sub-population (i.e. prisoners, NBA players, nurses, etc., etc., etc.) always comport proportionally to what is observed in the general population. And if you are truly "schooled" in statistics you would quickly know why. But what the heck, I'll give you the answer, true and perfect continuous random sampling - over time with true/perfect and continuous random sampling will a sub-population comport closely with the proportions found in the general population. Guess what, occupations, going to prison, etc., etc., etc. are not done by random sampling from the general population.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? This was obviously in the context of Western culture. "Nice try though."
Bro, what you still stubbornly don't understand is that there is an explanation to why a disproportionate number of nurses, teachers, early education educators, nannies, food service workers and cleaners are women ... It is that they are pink ghetto jobs. So yes, numbers do tell a story.
And there is plethora of studies that identify the systemic racism in our criminal justice system, it isn't even debated in legal academia. If you are actually really interested, you have shown you can navigate yourself to perb, so surely you can use a search engine. Better yet, go to a university library and read legitimate journal articles. It is not my responsibility to educate you.
I can confirm that legal academia these days do teach us that systemic racism exists. The area of psychology that I'm focused in involves me also learning about Canadian Law and the Canadian criminal justice system.
In Canada indigenous people are overrepresented https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2019/may01.html
But when you dig a bit deeper, there are many other factors coming into play. Brushing it all off as systemic racism is a generalization that doesn't address the root of the issue. On one hand there is a high proportion of indigenous people who deal with longer and more severe punishments for petty crime, BUT... There is also a very a high proportion of indigenous on indigenous violent crime. Similar to what goes on in the US with black on black violent crime.
If one is just fixated on equalizing social/economic inequality...How do we actually accomplish this?
Who decides who owes who? Are we supposed to steal from hard working citizens? From my perspective, coming from almost 40 years on this planet, is that it's the middle class who finance bailouts for both the super-rich, and
who also finance assistance to the poor.
Look at the Covid-19 crisis. There were alot of hands getting financial benefits from BOTH extremes of socio-economic status. But most of the middle citizens got pounded up their asses...with no lube.
What will happen once the middle class is completely annihilated? We're already walking down this road...
Who decides who owes who? Are we supposed to steal from hard working citizens? From my perspective, coming from almost 40 years on this planet, is that it's the middle class who finance bailouts for both the super-rich, and
who also finance assistance to the poor.
Look at the Covid-19 crisis. There were alot of hands getting financial benefits from BOTH extremes of socio-economic status. But most of the middle citizens got pounded up their asses...with no lube.
What will happen once the middle class is completely annihilated? We're already walking down this road...
IMO corruption in capitalism is the problem. The lower class and the middle class should come together and focus their anger towards where anger is due. But instead the educated and financially resourceful elite class are setting us up to fight with each other. And their latest game is trying to fuel a race/ethnicity war... While they continue to obtain an increasing amount of power and wealth.
Real authentic capitalism scares the elite. Because allowing simple exchange for goods and services takes their power away. REAL capitalism allows average citizens to rise up.
Real authentic capitalism scares the elite. Because allowing simple exchange for goods and services takes their power away. REAL capitalism allows average citizens to rise up.
For example... the Catholic Church got how many dollars in welfare covid money that was supposed to go to small businesses?! I forget the exact amount but I remember almost puking when I read it...
Corruption is the REAL issue here.
Corruption is the REAL issue here.
Considering there is no agreed upon quantified definition of "middle class"; exactly what do you consider to be "middle class"?
Simple exchange of goods and services is not capitalism, it's called the barter system. And, technically speaking, there is nothing stopping any individual from bartering - you only need a willing counter-party. If the gas station won't take your watch for a tank of gas - that's actually not a problem with capitalism. It's that the gas station owner doesn't want your watch. That said, it's possible they may agree to your watch for a tank of gas - but again, even if the station owner agrees to that, that's not "real authentic capitalism" at work, that's bartering at work!
If exchange for goods isn't capitalism, what, by your definition, is capitalism?
