Ontario Liberal Party Goes Full Sexist

You are either extremely naive, wear triple-thick blinders or something else is happening within you if you are under the impression that non-white people, non-heterosexual people and women are not passed over constantly in every industry, field, organization, etc. in this country. So, your denial is your barrier, not mine.

I'm not racist or sexist but you are welcome to hold whatever you want about me. It doesn't matter to me.

 

It amazes me that you get the above from me stating "It IS NOT acceptable to be blatantly discriminatory against ANYONE based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. ".

That is a serious case of projection on your part. I never wrote anything even close to denying that racism and sexism are real problems. I just don't want even more of it, and don't find it acceptable, and if you endorse this policy, then you do.

You are if you endorse banning people based on their gender from nomination for office. That couldn't be more blatantly sexist.

 

It would be helpful if you would focus.

This is not about condoning discriminatory practices AGAINST men. This is about correcting discriminatory practices AGAINST women.

It's not my problem that you can't differentiate the two.

 

Really? The Ontario Liberal Party banning men from being nominated is not about condoning discriminatory practices against men?

That's EXACTLY what it is. I'm shocked if you can't see it. Take the blinders off. It doesn't matter what you think the motivation is, the actual action is a ban on people by gender.

Are you really going to tell people they are not allowed to be considered because of their genitals, a physical trait beyond their control, and then tell them it isn't about them? Really?

No it isn't. There is no party ban on women being nominated in these ridings. If you feel they are discouraged, then fix that discouragement. That doesn't mean banning others. The previous leader of the party (a lesbian woman btw since that seems to matter to you) didn't enact such a ban. This is new, sexist, and troubling.

 

Pay attention please. Can you at least try to pretend that you're processing my comments?

It is irrelevant if there are no *written* rules that discriminate against minorities, including women and religion or sexuality. Everything is already calibrated to choose them LAST in every facet of our society. The exceptions are pregnancy and that's only because white men can't compete there and priesthood because there are no females priests outside Christianity. Yes, I know they exist in some offshoots but they are in no way outpacing male priests).

So, this WHOLE time since Columbus "discovered" (one can't discover a place where people already live but, again, only white, heterosexual men's accomplishments were the only history that was written) all heterosexual white males have had top billing. That discriminatory process automatically excluded everybody else.

Righting that wrong doesn't exclude white heterosexual males because they already dominate the pool.

And, if you are clutching your pearls because this specific rule exclude men and that has you all up in your feelings about exclusion. That's the same damn feeling ALL non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christians have been enduring for CENTURIES.

I'm sure you didn't care when black and brown people weren't hired, women weren't promoted and earn less money than men in the same industry with the same qualifications or anything else that wasn't in YOUR backyard.

 

You have this upside down.

We're going to continue to FAIL at opposing discrimination as long as we fail to have adequate representation from the communities being discriminated against.

Look at it this way - we have discrimination in who can BE leaders today. That has to change before we see real change in any other area. Today, those in leadership positions do not even understand the issues and their impact.

Yes, the Ontario political party's direction is not in line with the demographics of the community being represented. However, the status quo isn't, either.

In the US, we have made no steps against discrimination that haven't REQUIRED leaders who were aware of this problem and who were willing to take action - even highly unpopular action.

Do you think Alabama WANTED their schools integrated?

Do you think the legislature and governor of Alabama would have integrated their schools?

That IS the effect that exists across the nation - there is nothing unique about people living in Alabama.

 

Show me the law in canada that says woman CAN'T be political leaders...

 

We KNOW what causes change, because we can look at our history.

We can look at the statements of the Republicans that America has elected. We KNOW that direction is PRO DISCRIMINATION.

We're not going to reduce discrimination in America by being presented with a choice of old white men who hate minorities and have no clue about women when we go to the voting booth.

North Carolina is going to continue to have hugely disproportionate representation by having leaders who gerrymander minorities into nonexistence.

GOVERNMENT has to change. And, they are not going to change willingly any more than Georgia willingly integrated their schools.

 

The assault of Jan 6 absolutely was an insurrection. That is not in question.

And, that has never been done before.

 

That's not how discrimination works.

This is one of the problems. Those in power don't even have to care what discrimination IS, let alone do anything about it.

 

I understood your comments perfectly, quoted them, and responded to them. You entered a thread about an outright ban on people from being nominated, because they have a particular gender. And you then tried to tell me this isn't about discrimination against them. That's ridiculous. It is blatant and explicit discrimination against them. You also tried to tell me that I don't see that there is discrimination against women, minorities, etc, which I did NOT write anywhere and absolutely is not true of me. I have fought against bigotry for decades, and I'm not stopping just because the target is one you prefer.

Why do you think you are righting anything by discriminating against some individuals and ushering in others so that statistics even out when looking at group averages? Do you realize that people are not group averages? Do you not see that the discrimination minorities face doesn't cease to exist just because you've swept it under the rug with group statistics? Its still there. Its just being better hidden, so you can feel better about yourself. This is not acceptable. We need to actually DO something about it, and that something should not be MORE race based or gender based discrimination, pushing for a race or gender war.

Also, the racism and sexism in your statement is extreme. You speak of "white heterosexual males" as if they are all the same; as if one white male who is included somehow means another who is now banned from being included isn't excluded. Do you think that giving a rich black kid an easy ride into a fancy school does anything whatsoever for a poor black kid living in the ghetto? Group race statistics averages are not people. Group gender statistics are not people.

To see people by race or gender and snap to judgments that "all of X are Y" is pure bigotry, and it the exact same basis that white supremacists base their thoughts upon. I instead see people as individuals. Yes, many individuals who aren't white and male face barriers that most white men don't. No, we are not all helpless and underprivileged and in need of your paternalistic tokenism. Instead, how about identifying and undoing these barriers? How about joining together and making allies of the white men who want fair and just society, and working to make it happen?

Yes. And that doesn't make it good. That doesn't make it acceptable. It remains bad, regardless of who it is directed at. The whole point of overcoming sexism and racism is that it is NOT acceptable. You are pushing sexist policy and pretending to oppose sexist policy. That is Orwellian.

That's just pure baseless libel. I am a brown person.

It saddens me that you display such blatant bigotry, making assumptions about me because I don't agree with your support for sexist policy so long as it is aimed at people who are the same gender as people who you feel have wronged people who look like me.

It doubly saddens me that this mindset has been taking over the left. I'm Liberal, and I would like to support he Liberal Party of Ontario, as I have in the past. I would like them to stand for free speech, and stand against racism and sexism, and stand for inclusion rather than exclusion. I would also like to see them push policy to better support those who need it with better social programs instead of playing identity politics to win votes. It is scary that they are leaning towards the other direction.

 

And you want to do that not by encouraging inclusion, but by supporting exclusion. Brilliant.

There is nothing stopping women from becoming leaders. We've had a female prime minister. The leader of this very party prior to this one was Kathleen Wynne, who led the party from 2013 to 2018. The current and former leaders of the Green Party are also women.

This reminds me of Trudeau in forming his first cabinet. He came at it with an identity politics shopping list, saying he "wanted cabinet to look like Canada", and appointed people not on merit but on race and gender and religion. It wasn't about good government. It was about optics. Yes, he put in a few highly competent people (Chrystia Freeland comes to mind) and some very incompetent ones who were clearly tokens. This did a disservice to the nation and he later had to juggle cabinet. He himself, by the way, is a privileged white man, more privileged than 99% of the population, the celebrity son of a former popular Prime Minister. He plays identity politics to try to look good. But it is notable that he himself doesn't step aside. Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NDP made this observation once, and it was hilarious.

Of course. People have to be aware of problems to fix problems. People don't have to be particular races or genders to be aware of problems. To say they do is explicit bigotry.

 

Right and that goes back to my assumption that clearly the men's 100m Olympic event is ABSOLUTELY racist as there should have been at least ONE ****ing white gold medalist in 60 years. There is no ****ing way in hell that happens unless racism.

Get it now? Or do I need sock puppets?

 

And of course, all white men hate minorities and have no clue about women according to you, right? And that's not bigoted at all, eh? lol Come on, look in the mirror.

So do something about it. Get people in who oppose jury rigging. Get people in who oppose discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation. Your racist and sexist "they must not be white men" mantra doesn't do that. Women are fully capable of being sexist, including against other women. People who are minorities are fully capable of being racist, including against other minorities, and including against their own minority so long as they've got what they themselves want. Not all women think the same, as I showed when you tried to bring up abortion. Not all minorities think the same, as seen by so many voting for your Trump dumpster fire. Not all white men think the same either. Pretending that they all do, is the basis of prejudice and bigotry, and the same base the white supremacists start from.

 

You mean that's not the only way discrimination works. It can and has worked exactly like that. It is working exactly like that in this case, only against individuals who are male, so you think its good.

You've convinced me that you don't know what discrimination is. Discrimination is treating individuals differently based on a particular criteria or trait that they hold. Basing it on race or gender is race or gender discrimination, and is immoral and counter-productive to society. It doesn't become ok just because the particular individual now under consideration happens to be the same race as others who you have identified as overprivileged, or who have discriminated against others.

 

What 'rules' are they?

 

Different is not always better. This will lead to less understanding and more resentment because the best person for the job is the right answer, not the one who some idiot thought deserved a turn.

 

No, it's to ensure that any change actually improves the human condition. In other words actual progress.

Progressives just cycle around in an old holding pattern, lacking the insight to know whether their archaic 'change for the sake of change' trope is even beneficial, and not caring to gain the insight. Guided by the ideology, instead of the utility. That's arch conservatism.

 

Yes it is. Every riot is not an insurrection.

 

My fear is that this trend will continue and small L liberals like myself will lose the party completely and have no political home as the party morphs into one of woke prejudice, racism, sexism, and one that continues to spin these identity politics, and sweep racism and sexism under the rug, and while neglecting the push for liberal policies such as increased minimum wage, UBI, etc. And it isn't like the NDP is much better with this, but at least they do some actual work on labour issues. Perhaps I'll wind up having to join the Green Party after its next reformation.

 

Nope, they resist change whenever possible. Especially if it might cost them money.

 

They've completely missed their own slide into conservatism. Because once upon a time they were the non-conservatives, they think that's true forever - not even realising that idea itself is a result of conservatism. They can't even progress sufficiently to grasp what's happened to them.

 

It is only an "insurection" if the other side does it (snicker). If your side does it then its a Freedom March. Its similar to "Freedom Fighters" vs "Terrorists".

 

Are you genuinely unaware of why? Or are you just p!ssed off that you might not be able to keep feeding the monster?

 

Bullsh!t. It's Progressives who can't accept changes unless they're 100% in line with their outdated ideology. Try suggesting to a Progressive that Welfare diminishes the human condition. Or that capitalism is the best possible model for the First World human condition. Or that Western-centric sex education is quantifiably a bad idea. See how progressive they really are.