Quantcast
Locked: Justin Trudeau clashes with eldery lady over illegal immigration: 'you Madame will have no place here'

Forums - Politics Discussion - Justin Trudeau clashes with eldery lady over illegal immigration: 'you Madame will have no place here'

Justin Trudeau

...dresses well 9 23.08%
 
...speaks French 8 20.51%
 
...invented peoplekinds 4 10.26%
 
... is the son of Fidel Castro 18 46.15%
 
Total:39

Ah Canada tell me how tolerant you are, when someone misgenders someone. I believe that is punishable by law nowadays. Or to hold any views which someone could find offensive. These days countries in the Middle East have more freedom of speech than some Western countries, see the link. Also I love how it is intolerant to be against illegal immigration. Especially since the word illegal is in it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/archives/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/amp This is what absolute tolerance looks like, by erasing everything that could be found offensive making people scared to uphold any personal view of the world that doesn't conform by those who are easily triggered. 

Last edited by Qwark - on 02 March 2019

Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network
Qwark said:

Ah Canada tell me how tolerant you are, when someone misgenders someone. I believe that is punishable by law nowadays. Or to hold any views which someone could find offensive. These days countries in the Middle East have more freedom of speech than some Western countries, see the link. Also I love how it is intolerant to be against illegal immigration. Especially since the word illegal is in it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/archives/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po/amp This is what absolute tolerance looks like, by erasing everything that could be found offensive making people scared to uphold any personal view of the world that doesn't conform by those who are easily triggered. 

Which Western country has the death penalty for blasphemy?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Radek said:
Xeon said:

My parents fled Vietnam and claimed refugee status in Hong Kong. I was born there then got sponsored to Canada. So no, it was legal for me. But my parents, not so much.

Vietnamese people are hard working people that easily integrate and don't commit  many crimes.

People really like Vietnamese immigrants and there's plenty of them in my city in Poland.

Now immigrants from Muslim countries are a different thing entirely...

This is one of the most disgustingly racist things I've ever read. It disgusts me that someone can write something like this and come out unscathed.

Last edited by LuccaCardoso1 - on 03 March 2019

G O O D B O I

Every time I glance at this thread’s title I think it says “Justin Timberlake”

You know, that Prime Minister who tried to bring sexy back? But then he cried a river?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

If there is no problem with illegal immigtation then just open the borders to everyone...



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
Hes says hes tolerant to all perspectives, but then says shes not welcomed there because of her perspective. Hmm.

That is called the Paradox of Tolerance.  The tolerant cannot be tolerant of intolerance itself lest the intolerant will take over.  So to maintain tolerance, intolerance cannot be tolerated.

Sounds fancy, but it doesn't work like that. This kind of mindset will inevitably lead to a totalitarian nightmare and thought policing.

In addition to that, there's the irony that we are willing to let into our countries these people who adhere to the most intolerant religion in the world.



vivster said:

So he told some intolerant bitch to stop being intolerant? Seems like a good thing. So standing up against bigots is now a bad thing apparently?

Oh yes. And automatically labeling anyone who has a view you disagree with a "bigot" (or worse), an increasingly common modern practice, is so incredibly intellectual and civilized, yes?


It's one thing if someone is being a blatant racist (which has specific, not vague, criteria), it's something else completely to make the rational argument, whether you agree with it or not, that a nation's resources should be spent on its own citizens, and not on immigrant populations. Especially ones who, from an objective perspective no less, seemingly refuse to integrate into the culture of the nation they've been so graciously allowed to move to.

If people from "The West", for example, wanted to or for some reason HAD to immigrate to, say, China, or India, etc., they would 100% be expected by that nation, rightfully so, to integrate into THEIR culture, to be able to functionally speak the language, to actually participate in the society, to acclimate themselves to their ways, etc. Yet somehow that is not expected by most "Western" nations of most immigrants.

Another case in point: If someone from the United States (of a non-Hispanic background), were to move to Mexico, or another Spanish speaking Central or South American country, they would, again, 100% be expected to be able to speak at least passable conversational Spanish, and to integrate themselves into Mexican (or whatever other) society. Yet immigrants from Mexico and other such nations, at least by many Americans, are treated as if they do NOT have to learn English (the primary language of the country), nor integrate into our general society. Instead, they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in our nation, yet still be able to essentially exist in their own satellite bubbles, not actually integrating into American society at large. Many not ever learning to speak a word of English, etc.

And again, objectively, this is not only accepted in the US, in most states it's even facilitated, especially in California. Yet this is most definitely NOT the case in reverse. Again, a non-Hispanic American, would be 100% expected to both speak Spanish and integrate into Mexican society, rightfully so.


It's an American (or Canadian, or Western) double standard that so-called "Liberals" push pretty hard for, that objectively speaking, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were to move to Japan, I would be expected to speak at least SOME Japanese, and to integrate into Japanese society and "do as they do". It would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "okay" for me to move to Japan, and only speak English, and continue to act and live as if I still lived in America. Not only would that be considered obnoxious and ignorant (even rude and disrespectful) on my part, but I also wouldn't be able to really survive acting like that. And yet, again, immigrants to many Western nations, are able to do exactly this, and not only get away with it, but thrive acting thus.


It's just interesting, and frankly even a bit frustrating, to point out. Everywhere else in the world, you would absolutely be expected to adapt and acclimate, integrate. Yet in Western countries, nope. Makes zero rational sense.



DevilRising said:
vivster said:

So he told some intolerant bitch to stop being intolerant? Seems like a good thing. So standing up against bigots is now a bad thing apparently?

Oh yes. And automatically labeling anyone who has a view you disagree with a "bigot" (or worse), an increasingly common modern practice, is so incredibly intellectual and civilized, yes?


It's one thing if someone is being a blatant racist (which has specific, not vague, criteria), it's something else completely to make the rational argument, whether you agree with it or not, that a nation's resources should be spent on its own citizens, and not on immigrant populations. Especially ones who, from an objective perspective no less, seemingly refuse to integrate into the culture of the nation they've been so graciously allowed to move to.

If people from "The West", for example, wanted to or for some reason HAD to immigrate to, say, China, or India, etc., they would 100% be expected by that nation, rightfully so, to integrate into THEIR culture, to be able to functionally speak the language, to actually participate in the society, to acclimate themselves to their ways, etc. Yet somehow that is not expected by most "Western" nations of most immigrants.

Another case in point: If someone from the United States (of a non-Hispanic background), were to move to Mexico, or another Spanish speaking Central or South American country, they would, again, 100% be expected to be able to speak at least passable conversational Spanish, and to integrate themselves into Mexican (or whatever other) society. Yet immigrants from Mexico and other such nations, at least by many Americans, are treated as if they do NOT have to learn English (the primary language of the country), nor integrate into our general society. Instead, they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in our nation, yet still be able to essentially exist in their own satellite bubbles, not actually integrating into American society at large. Many not ever learning to speak a word of English, etc.

And again, objectively, this is not only accepted in the US, in most states it's even facilitated, especially in California. Yet this is most definitely NOT the case in reverse. Again, a non-Hispanic American, would be 100% expected to both speak Spanish and integrate into Mexican society, rightfully so.


It's an American (or Canadian, or Western) double standard that so-called "Liberals" push pretty hard for, that objectively speaking, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were to move to Japan, I would be expected to speak at least SOME Japanese, and to integrate into Japanese society and "do as they do". It would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "okay" for me to move to Japan, and only speak English, and continue to act and live as if I still lived in America. Not only would that be considered obnoxious and ignorant (even rude and disrespectful) on my part, but I also wouldn't be able to really survive acting like that. And yet, again, immigrants to many Western nations, are able to do exactly this, and not only get away with it, but thrive acting thus.


It's just interesting, and frankly even a bit frustrating, to point out. Everywhere else in the world, you would absolutely be expected to adapt and acclimate, integrate. Yet in Western countries, nope. Makes zero rational sense.

No, being a bigot makes you a bigot. Pre-judging someone's intents based on their gender, sex, race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation is the very definition of bigotry. Muslims are not bad people. Some bad people are muslims. The chain of causality is the key, here. There are also bad white folks and bad gay folks and bad straight folks and bad women and bad men. WHAT you are doesn't define WHO you are; that woman was acting like all muslims were terrorists by stoking the flames of the idea that they were inherently more dangerous than christians. 

Stop trying to deflect the issue. Bigotry is bigotry. As a nation, Canada isn't perfect but we have reasonable immigration policies and, shockingly, there's a world of difference between 'build a wall' and 'open the borders to everyone.' Some factors are circumstantial, some factors are irrelevant, sometimes there are exceptions. 

IT's almost like immigration and refugee status are complicated issues that require more nuance than the binary of 'keep em all out' and 'let em all in'. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

That I ever liked this guy at all shows how very little I actually pay attention to politics. By the time enough information trickles it's way to me through happenstance, it's too late, and I'm in the trenches fighting in a war against the robots started by the person I would have voted for if I participated in elections.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

DevilRising said:
vivster said:

So he told some intolerant bitch to stop being intolerant? Seems like a good thing. So standing up against bigots is now a bad thing apparently?

Oh yes. And automatically labeling anyone who has a view you disagree with a "bigot" (or worse), an increasingly common modern practice, is so incredibly intellectual and civilized, yes?


It's one thing if someone is being a blatant racist (which has specific, not vague, criteria), it's something else completely to make the rational argument, whether you agree with it or not, that a nation's resources should be spent on its own citizens, and not on immigrant populations. Especially ones who, from an objective perspective no less, seemingly refuse to integrate into the culture of the nation they've been so graciously allowed to move to.

If people from "The West", for example, wanted to or for some reason HAD to immigrate to, say, China, or India, etc., they would 100% be expected by that nation, rightfully so, to integrate into THEIR culture, to be able to functionally speak the language, to actually participate in the society, to acclimate themselves to their ways, etc. Yet somehow that is not expected by most "Western" nations of most immigrants.

Another case in point: If someone from the United States (of a non-Hispanic background), were to move to Mexico, or another Spanish speaking Central or South American country, they would, again, 100% be expected to be able to speak at least passable conversational Spanish, and to integrate themselves into Mexican (or whatever other) society. Yet immigrants from Mexico and other such nations, at least by many Americans, are treated as if they do NOT have to learn English (the primary language of the country), nor integrate into our general society. Instead, they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of living in our nation, yet still be able to essentially exist in their own satellite bubbles, not actually integrating into American society at large. Many not ever learning to speak a word of English, etc.

And again, objectively, this is not only accepted in the US, in most states it's even facilitated, especially in California. Yet this is most definitely NOT the case in reverse. Again, a non-Hispanic American, would be 100% expected to both speak Spanish and integrate into Mexican society, rightfully so.


It's an American (or Canadian, or Western) double standard that so-called "Liberals" push pretty hard for, that objectively speaking, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I were to move to Japan, I would be expected to speak at least SOME Japanese, and to integrate into Japanese society and "do as they do". It would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered "okay" for me to move to Japan, and only speak English, and continue to act and live as if I still lived in America. Not only would that be considered obnoxious and ignorant (even rude and disrespectful) on my part, but I also wouldn't be able to really survive acting like that. And yet, again, immigrants to many Western nations, are able to do exactly this, and not only get away with it, but thrive acting thus.


It's just interesting, and frankly even a bit frustrating, to point out. Everywhere else in the world, you would absolutely be expected to adapt and acclimate, integrate. Yet in Western countries, nope. Makes zero rational sense.

Good Summary.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994