Column: Canada's immigration crisis : r/canada - "Because our human rights code gives all kids the right to a public education. Due to “full inclusion” models and the complete elimination of special education funding/classes, almost all kids are mainstreamed in the same room. When they are all placed together essentially the special education or esl child’s rights to an education trump all of the other children’s right to a safe school environment because one kid can derail a room. One non verbal autistic kid throwing a stapler in a grade 7 class calls for a class evacuation. This can happen every day. The entire class waits in the hall for the student to finish trashing the class. Then they go back in and clean up. On repeat. Every day. Also An ESL kid takes a ton of the teachers time and often is disruptive because they aren’t used to school, or are bored because they don’t understand. When the teacher is instructing the new student on basic English and behavioural cultural norms what they aren’t doing is instructing the rest of the class. No one fails. Everyone gets pushed to the next grade and no one is learning. I am not blaming the students here. This is not their fault. Quite frankly due to the human rights code schools cannot legally refuse kids in the majority of cases, and there is no funding for ESL or Spec Ed programs. Kids are seldom suspended for the same reason. Parents rely on school as childcare. Parents send their kids to school and there isn’t much the principal can do. Kids know it and no longer respect authority (There are rare cases where the principal can exclude a kid but that is in very extreme cases and so seldom. The school then often needs to suit up for human rights tribunal to battle the parents on the exclusion as it violates rights)
Edit: this is why parents are choosing Catholic school when they can. The majority of immigrants come from non catholic counties and so they aren’t allowed in under grade 8"
Clearly, the problem is not enough money
Amy Hamm: Pride tears itself apart over Israel, existence of gay conservatives - "Around 30 protesters set up a blockade in the centre of the procession route, and shouted at attendees and parade participants alike, with slogans such as, “Free Palestine” and “Pride partners with genocide!” Rather than acquiescing to a list of protester demands on the spot — as was done when Black Lives Matter demonstrators pulled a similar stunt in 2016 — Pride Toronto executive director Kojo Modeste called the whole thing off. Go home, everyone. Pride is over. Wipe those rainbows off your faces. This wasn’t the only fractious moment at Pride Toronto — where outrage over men displaying full-frontal nudity in front of children had been the story of the day, until the Coalition Against Pinkwashing showed up — and it certainly was far from the only example of internal divisions that are shearing the Pride community apart. It’s ironic: every year, the progress Pride flag seems to pick up another stripe, colour or symbol — each signalling some increasingly niche and mysterious aspect of queerdom that I suspect even old-school LGBT members are befuddled over. And yet, rather than achieving a motley utopia, Pride is falling to pieces. Under the guise of “inclusion” — and alongside the infinitely expanding acronym and flag — Pride has become politicized to the extent that it now excludes those who fall outside a narrow set of ideological beliefs. And while the country’s largest Pride organizations are flush with the cash from dozens of corporate sponsors, and even embrace straight people cosplaying as queer, actual members of the community are unceremoniously pushed aside and told they’re no longer welcome. Straight people with rainbows? In. Conservative gay or transgender people? Out. People who support the police or Israel? Also out. The litmus test for inclusion in the alphabet community’s annual festivities now seems to be one’s political views or — failing that — the ability to provide corporate sponsorship (unless you’ve got any investments in Jewish companies, that is). As Toronto’s abruptly ended parade showed, the ideological battles can’t even happen as a side conversation — internal squabbles over political purity can and will derail the entire celebration. That is not something to be proud of. A viral video from this year’s NYC Pride shows a woman, who looks like the victim of a rainbow flag factory explosion, confidently explaining to a YouTube personality — clearly a “gotcha” moment that she failed to see coming — how Pride month “means a big fu–ing deal to us.” “When did you realize that you were gay or queer,” asks the interviewer. “I’m straight,” she responds. Now, compare that straight woman’s inclusion in the annual festivities to the naked hostility shown to famous transwoman Blaire White at a Texas Pride festival this year: White, who is a political conservative, was followed by hostile attendees and security, filmed and sworn at for supporting Donald Trump. On social media, White wrote that this was her first ever experience being “trans-bashed” — at Pride, no less. “This is how a cult operates, not a group of people that represent love and inclusion,” wrote White. She’s right. How is it that a straight woman in rainbow gear has become more welcome at Pride celebrations than a transgender woman?... The Vancouver Pride Society... previously banned the Vancouver Public Library and the Vancouver Lesbian Collective from participating in official events. Why? Because the library rents public spaces to people who express political views that the Vancouver Pride Society disagrees with, and because the Vancouver Lesbian Collective insists that — brace yourself — lesbians are attracted to females (as in, the ones who don’t have penises). The only community members I know of who are still interested in attending Pride festivities do so out of morbid fascination with the fringe elements, or, in the style of Blaire White, to be subversive: a thought criminal amongst one’s would-be persecutors. Pride’s “inclusion” only extends to those who pass a political purity test, which — as the Coalition Against Pinkwashing demonstrated — becomes more rigorous and exacting every year."
"Inclusion" leads to more division
It's not about the Queer community, but the left wing agenda
Adam Zivo: Militant LGBTQ activists ill-equipped to handle backlash - "New polling data shows that support for LGBTQ rights is dropping precipitously in Canada — and while many queer activists will inevitably blame the far right for this development, the fact is that they themselves helped sabotage their own public support. Their abrasiveness and militancy has alienated the public, and though a strategic shift is needed, I fear that community leaders will fail to understand this until it is too late. According to this year’s edition of the Ipsos LGBTQ+ Pride Report, which polled adults in 26 countries, support for queer rights has decreased across the globe since 2021. Several metrics suggest that the starkest changes occurred in Canada. This year, only 49 per cent of Canadian respondents believed that people should be open about their orientation or gender identity (down 12 points from 2021), while support for LGBTQ people publicly kissing or holding hands fell to 40 per cent (down 8 points). Fewer Canadians want to see openly gay or bisexual athletes (50 per cent, down 11 points) or more LGBTQ characters on screens (34 per cent, down 10 points). Canadians have been souring not just on visibility, but legal rights, too. Only 54 per cent of respondents supported LGBTQ-inclusive anti-discrimination laws that guarantee equal employment, housing and educational opportunities. That number was 63 per cent just three years ago. And while same sex marriage and child adoption remains popular — at 75 and 70 per cent, respectively — these rights also saw concerning drops in support (down 7 and 11 points)... Broadly speaking, you can conceptualize activism in two ways: war or public relations. Both approaches can be productive, depending on the context. Radical activism, which tends to be warlike, was useful at the advent of the modern LGBTQ movement. The 1969 Stonewall riots helped queer people burst into the public sphere, for example. Yet the long march towards equality was primarily driven by activists who operated more like publicists or diplomats, and who cleverly built empathy for their cause. Though riots are often romanticized, you cannot build enduring social support by throwing bricks... It helped, too, that this style of activism operated on liberal notions of social justice, wherein individual liberty, neutral civil rights and equality under the law were heavily promoted. Such a framework made it easier for skeptics to accept the LGBTQ community, because it implied that no one was getting special treatment and that mutual non-interference between competing social groups was an end goal. But then same sex marriage was finally legalized across the entire United States in 2015. Having won their ultimate symbol of legitimacy, the more conventional members of the LGBTQ community, including a large part of the professional class, drifted away from activism. The voices left behind were marginalized, militant and resentful of their abandonment. As their influence within the LGBTQ community rapidly grew, they radicalized institutions and supplanted the rhetoric of “love is love” with the more antagonistic “Queer as in f–k you.” Concurrently, western social justice advocacy was, at the macro level, being poisoned by a new moral-political framework, popularly referred to as “woke culture,” which prioritized sanctimony over persuasion. The progressive victories of the 2010s seemingly convinced many activists that their enemies were on the cusp of being permanently vanquished, for they assumed that history irreversibly marches forward. This intoxicated them. Overconfident and arrogant, they decided that there was no need to persuade others — in fact, non-believers should be grateful for the opportunity to join the coming revolution. “It’s not my job to educate you,” was a common refrain of the late 2010s, muttered by activists who harshly policed allies through strict rules and hierarchies, and demanded compensation for the “emotional labour” of advancing their own rights. Why these people felt clever for raising new barriers against the dissemination of LGBTQ-inclusive ideas will forever remain a mystery to me — though I suspect many of them saw their own morality as a kind of social capital which they could hoard. To make a religious comparison, they stopped behaving like humble evangelists preaching in the town square, and instead became high priests who jealously guarded access to the scripture. While their bullying behaviour suppressed public criticism of progressive causes, it did nothing to address people’s underlying beliefs. Denied outlets to ask questions or discuss concerns, public discontent grew more pressurized, like a cyst filling with pus. Even moderate progressives, queer or not, silently bottled themselves... younger Americans grew far less comfortable with the LGBTQ community toward the late 2010s. The 2019 Accelerating Acceptance report found a considerable drop in respondents between the ages of 18 and 35 who could be considered “allies” (meaning that these people expressed very high levels of comfort with LGBTQ interactions). Between 2016 and 2018, the rate of “allies” in this population dropped from 63 to 45 per cent — the collapse was catastrophic among young men, whose “allyship” rate almost halved. But GLAAD never published age breakdowns after that report, making further generational analysis impractical. However, the aforementioned Ipsos polling data showed that male Gen Z respondents were less supportive than their Millennial counterparts with respect to many LGBTQ issues, suggesting that the trends of the late 2010s have only continued. By 2020, the anti-LGBTQ backlash was finally noticed by the mainstream. Faced with a complex problem, progressive voices simplistically blamed the “far right” — an amorphous enemy which they failed to define, and which provided a convenient explanation for seemingly all of society’s ills. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, emphasized the toxicity of the Trump administration — even though the backlash was seemingly more pronounced among younger generations, where Trump was least popular... instead, queer activists only urge more militancy. Their revolutionary theatre is too emotionally satisfying. Their echo chambers, unassailable. Their grandiose pretensions conceal a certain fecklessness — for they claim that they want to secure their rights by any means necessary, but consider conversations with outsiders too exhausting. They take credit for the LGBTQ community’s victories, but accept no blame for its losses... hile there is growing dissent within the LGBTQ community, critics of radical activism are locked out of queer institutions and largely ignored by the mainstream media."
Clearly, this has nothing to do with left wing overreach
Adam Zivo: LGBTQ activists need to tone down the anger - "I was eager to spotlight Ashton-Cirillo because of her capacity to challenge stereotypes about trans people. Articles built around “trans person to do X” are a tired trope, but that’s because they often spotlight individuals who exist in trans-friendly industries and therefore aren’t actually that transgressive or interesting. I yawn at articles about trans fashion models, for example, because it’s unsurprising that that industry is LGBTQ-friendly. But Ashton-Cirillo’s story was something different and wild — she was putting her life on the line to work in Ukraine, a country where trans people aren’t really a thing. My editor at the Washington Examiner, Tom Rogan, said yes to the story without hesitation. Ashton-Cirillo spent months reporting from the front lines, staying in Kharkiv when everyone else fled. She delivered food to starving villages that few were brave enough to visit — all while being inundated with online death threats. Grizzled military men in the city smiled while reminiscing about her earnestness, modesty and commitment — none cared about her being trans. It helps that Ashton-Cirillo tries not to let being trans define her, and frames her work as the affirmation of American values, such as individual freedom and democracy. She’s a conservative-friendly example for trans rights — patriotic, brave and non-identitarian. Though a Democrat, she engages with people of all backgrounds — hence why she was happy to be featured in the Examiner even if she considers some of its content to be hateful. Together, we tried to show that human decency can transcend the culture wars. This shocked some LGBTQ activists — but it’s a lesson in how the culture wars can be cooled down when approached with open-mindedness."
Stereotypes are only bad when they threaten the left wing agenda
Universities Should Promote Rigorous Discourse, Not Stifle It - "The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an advocacy article that attacks academic freedom and urges stifling contentious campus debates. Specifically, Evan Mullen, Eric J. Topol, and Abraham Verghese urge universities to “speak out publicly” and issue official institutional opinions about public controversies involving its professors “when it concludes that a faculty member’s opinion could cause public harm.” The NEJM authors write in the context of Stanford University refusing to institutionally condemn the arguments made by one of its scholars, Dr. Scott Atlas, when he advised the Trump administration on COVID policies in the early days of the pandemic. The authors, one of whom is a physician trainee (Mullen) and another the former vice chair of education (Verghese) at Stanford, are university colleagues of Atlas, as is one of the authors of this essay (Bhattacharya). They claim that Atlas’ publicly expressed skepticism of masking as an effective prophylactic against infection and his belief that lockdowns and school closures would cause more harm than good were so potentially harmful that Stanford itself – as an institution – should have condemned Atlas’ opinions. Why? It wasn’t as if some of his colleagues didn’t criticize Atlas. Indeed, more than a hundred Stanford professors and physicians wrote publicly opposing his advice. The letter’s signatories also pushed a vote through the Stanford Faculty Senate in November 2020 condemning Dr. Atlas, using quasi-religious language to declare his positions “anathema.” But that wasn’t enough, apparently, because “institutional silence may be interpreted as tacit approval.” Controversy between professors is the norm at the frontiers of science. It is utterly unsurprising that there would be discord over the proper policy to follow in the wake of a pandemic featuring a new virus, with great uncertainty about its epidemiological and biological aspects. In the intervening years, Dr. Atlas’ positions in 2020 on school closures and mask mandates have been proven legitimate, demonstrating the wisdom of Stanford not taking a position as an institution. Meanwhile, in another attack on academic freedom, Harvard’s Dean of Social Science issued a call in the Daily Crimson to punish professors who criticize the university, “A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors,” wrote Lawrence D. Bobo, “be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government to intervene in Harvard’s affairs.” In other words, what happens at Harvard should stay at Harvard... First, there is the problem of how the institutional “official” opinions would be determined. The NEJM authors suggest establishing a large committee made up of members with a wide array of expertise and the ability to obtain outside opinions as circumstances warrant. But such committees would quickly turn into ideologically stacked decks, particularly given the overwhelming progressive political dominance among professors and administrators in most major universities. After all, who would decide those selected to be committee members – and perhaps even more importantly, decide who should excluded? Why, the same administrators and faculty department chairs who have crafted the kind of sclerotic homogeneity that typifies contemporary university faculties. The proposal calls to mind an earlier incident in scientific history. In response to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, in 1931, a hundred German professors wrote a book attacking his idea. Einstein’s famous response? If his theory was wrong, it would not take the word of 100 scientists but rather just one fact. Scientific disputes and academic disagreements are properly handled in this way, not by institutional authority but by reason, data, and experimentation. The freedom to speak and disagree is essential to science. Second, if universities took “official positions” on matters of public controversy and on-campus debate, it would stifle the expression of unpopular or heterodox opinions by faculty that disagreed with officially sanctioned opinions and materially chill the free and open exchange of ideas required for academic freedom to thrive. Even tenured faculty with job security would be reluctant to disagree with the university’s institutional position openly. After all, a university can punish a professor in many ways besides losing a position. These include restricting lab time, making professors teach undesired classes, social shunning, and other means to create a hostile work environment. And what chance would there be for untenured faculty or adjunct professors with little job security to contest the university’s institutional opinion? Slim and none... why should university leadership be able to punish their on-campus critics? The only thing accomplished would be to isolate them from institutional and public accountability. That officials at both Stanford and Harvard have publicly advocated unwarranted restrictions in academic discourse points to the distressing possibility that the leadership of our elite universities desires to operate under an opaque shield of unaccountability."
"Harm" is anything that threatens the left wing agenda. Academic freedom is only for the left
i/o on X - "There are rarely simple explanations for complex social and cultural phenomena. The Great Awokening mostly organically formed and then spread from a constellation of ideas, social forces, group interests, and events, including:
— civil rights law
— feminization of institutions
— critical theories
— the rise in social media
— the logical extension of the liberal impulse
— left's dominance of all major opinion-shaping institutions
— reaction to Trump
— social status signaling (especially among the highly-educated)
— demographic change
— late-wave feminism
— 2010s Tumblr
— some strains of PoMo
— emerging forms of modern global capitalism
— the replacement of the class wars with identity wars on the progressive-left as the prog-left became mostly a movement led and populated by the more affluent and educated
— the rise in mental health issues (especially among white females)
— the normalization of therapy culture
— the contradictions in late-stage Christianity and the overall decline of religion and the need to fill the "god hole"
— the culturally-enforced and pathological persistence of white guilt
— the radicalization of curriculum in education degree programs
— spread of administrative DEI
— the psychological effects of "shocks to the system" (e.g., 9/11, 2007 economic collapse) on the young
— the equalitarian ethos of American life (e.g., there can be no innate differences between groups)
— the failure of the intellectual right to produce compelling countervailing ideas
— the rise of social and professional cancellation as a weapon to control dissenting views"
Meme - Rusty @LieutenantRusty: "Now, I'm not gonna tell anyone how to run their RPG, but I will say that of all the disabled folks I've gamed with, not a goddamn one of them fantasized about being disabled. They lived that shit. Every day. If your version of escapism is fantasizing about being handicapped, you're a fetishist, and that's just weird."
"Accepting the existence of magic in a fantasy setting should not be easier than accepting the existence of disabled people in a fantasy setting."
Chase Lees 🇨🇦 on X - "Personally, in every single "fantasy" I have or rpg I play, I don't give my player the disability I have. I (and 99.99% of disabled people) do not want to go through the pain and hassle of disability in a media meant for escapism."
Rusty on X - "Myself, I have a rich inner fantasy life where I have all my bits and pieces back. Why the hell would I escape to a place where I'm *still* fucking broken?"
Meme - "The D&D Differently-Abled Adventurer
Had to wait until 2021 for rules
Suffers no penalties for rules for being disabled, might as well be able-bodied
HP system doesn't even allow for crippling injury
Ridiculous modern-style combat wheelchair
Gets wheelchair accessible dungeons, despite flying wheelchair
Could easily get magical healing
Chooses to be disabled because that's all he has to make him interesting
The GURPS Cripple
Has lots of disabled friends, due to crippling injuries
Rules support since 1986
Crude prosthetics
Supreme grappler due to ground-fighting perk
Harsh penalties for fighting while seated - learns techniques to offset them
Spends points from disabilites on increased Arm ST
Wheelchairs not invented until Tech-Level 5, uses realistic wheeled platform"
Meme - Daddy Warpig @DaddyWarpig: "Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, AND Ranger. 🤦♂️"
"LESSER RESTORATION
2nd level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: A creature
Components: V S
Duration: Instantaneous
Classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it. The condition can be blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned.
paralyzed"
Misa on Wheels @MisaonWheels: "Accepting the existence of magic in a fantasy setting should not be easier than accepting the existence of disabled people in a fantasy setting."
Meme - "Dungeons & Dragons kicks off 2021 with its first wheelchair-accessible dungeon
Candlekeep Adventures includes 17 adventures from 19 different designers"
"Pray tell, why in the ever loving fuck would a labyrinth of traps and monsters wish to be MORE accessible?"
"they dont want to be an ableist trump supporter"
"gotta let the peasants have their shot, adventurers make up 1% of the population yet have 80% of the wealth. it's time to defund the adventurer's guild, how many stories of murderhobos killing peasants do you need before realizing adventurers aren't on your side, bootlicker"
"Dungeons now are haunted house rides instead of, well, dungeons"
"The dungeon is either a trap or an ancient loading dock. Possibly a submerged skatepark."
Incoming human rights chief said 'terror is not an irrational strategy' - "“The attempts to have Mr. Dattani — the first Muslim and racialized person appointed to this position — vacate his seat without due process is deeply concerning,” the group said in an open letter sent to Justice Minister Arif Virani... “While the allegations against Mr. Dattani are concerning, this campaign against him highlights the heightened level of scrutiny he, like many Canadians, faces because of his faith and ethnic background"... Dattani spoke again on a similar theme when he delivered a presentation on “Terrorism and the Targeting of Civilians under International Law” to the Muslim Research Forum. “Contrary to conventional wisdom (which is far more convention than it is wisdom), terror is not an irrational strategy pursued solely by fundamentalists with politically and psychologically warped visions of a new political, religious or ideological order,” Dattani wrote in a description of his talk posted to the forum’s website. “It is a rational and well-calculated strategy that is pursued with surprisingly high success rates.” In August 2014, Dattani also signed an open letter that was drafted by Richard Falk, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. The letter condemned Israel’s military operation against Hamas in 2014 that was sparked after the terror group kidnapped and burned alive three hitchhiking teenagers... Shortly after his public letter, Falk told Democracy Now! that Hamas embodies the “spirit of resistance” and said the group’s “politics have been directed toward long-term peaceful coexistence with Israel.” Dattani told National Post last week that he is the “target of unfounded allegations” and stands “resolutely behind my record.”... a Canadian who attended the University of Calgary at the same time as Dattani, said the incoming CHRC head regularly advocated for the boycott of Israel. “Birju used to be, back in the day, just kind of caustic, a provocateur. Instigating. That’s kind of what he did. I was amazed to discover that he ended up having a career in human rights the way that he has,” said the alumnus, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
The power of intersectionality!
Of course, they need to pretend a white Christian would not be fired already
Eli Steele on X - ".@ChicagoMayor: "Y'all look, white supremacy is real- I'm going to say that one more time." Brandon Johnson launches a hardcore identity politics rant, blaming The Man for his city's miseries. What else to expect from a man who always seeks to exploit race for power."
Meme - "THE CHRISTIANS ARE GONNA TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT AND IMPOSE THEIR RELIGION ON EVERYONE *Public building with rainbow colours for Pride and Black Lives Matter flag*"
Meme - frogwave @____ribbit: "People avoid listening to racist ideas like some religious person will avoid looking at naked women. They fear that they will be tempted to commit sin. Liberalism has unofficially replaced Christianity in the West"
Meme - Wesley Yang @wesyang: "Everyone knows this is moronic. Nobody can stop its propagation through every institution that incubates the American professional class."
Nicki Neily @nickineily: "When doctors who graduated from Duke Medical School show up late to your scheduled surgeries — just know that they’re doing their part to dismantle the white supremacy culture behind “timeliness.”"
"Duke Medical School claims 'timeliness, 'individualism is part of 'White supremacy culture'. 'Race and racism is a regular component of American society; Duke Medical School's strategic plan said"
Meme - Deep Squats, Shallow Thoughts @wolfstrength: "“Why don’t people trust scientists and experts anymore? Do they really think they can ‘do their own research,’ and get it right compared to my medical degree? The scientists and experts:"
"Expecting people to be on time is part of 'white supremacy culture,' Duke Medical School claims"
"Before mocking people for turning to non mainstream sources of info and bemoaning anti-intellectualism, maybe do some reflection on why the scientists, experts, and intellectuals have inserted blatant political activism into their ostensible fields of expertise, and the expected effect that has had on people trusting them to tell the truth.
'Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse'"
If you notice that the left has compromised and corrupted key institutions which are now no longer reliable, you're a dangerous far right conspiracy theorist and spreader of misinformation for noticing
