Aliu blackface incident with the Colorado Eagles

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It appears that, even when you have a link to the meaning of the phrase, that you don't know what it means, since it has nothing to do with varying degrees of severity of crimes or torts (and resulting consequences).

Equality of outcomes has many applications in life, not just economics.

In this context, the equality of outcome would be that anyone who commits a racist act (short of criminal) should face the same penalty. The penalty du jour appears to be losing your job. We've eliminated nuance, as such Cherry, Peters and this equipment guy get the same punishment.

Or have we? Guess Trudeau is the one exception who has escaped the equality of outcome proponents. One would hope this is a glimmer of nuance, but the cynic knows better.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Equality of outcomes has many applications in life, not just economics.

In this context, the equality of outcome would be that anyone who commits a racist act (short of criminal) should face the same penalty. The penalty du jour appears to be losing your job. We've eliminated nuance, as such Cherry, Peters and this equipment guy get the same punishment.

Or have we? Guess Trudeau is the one exception who has escaped the equality of outcome proponents. One would hope this is a glimmer of nuance, but the cynic knows better.

You are applying a concept which you believe to be left wing to a situation to which it has never been applied, in order to make some sort of point against a position that no one is actually taking. I defy you to find anyone who has promoted such an idea. And even if you did, it's certainly not something that has ever been accepted.

No one promoting equality of outcome as a concept, especially liberals, has ever said that crimes are identical and thus the punishment should also be identical. The closest you can come is something like the three strikes rule, or minimum sentences, which are certainly not policies that came from the left.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The closest you can come is something like the three strikes rule, or minimum sentences, which are certainly not policies that came from the left.

And we all know how well those turn out.

[GioforPM]

At the end of the day I'm still confused about what exactly people citing Trudeau are asking for. If it's Trudeau's resignation, it didn't happen and isn't going to. If it's some sort of argument that people like this Colorado goofball shouldn't be fired, it's essentially saying because one person "got away" with something, everyone should, which is not a good argument at all.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are applying a concept which you believe to be left wing to a situation to which it has never been applied, in order to make some sort of point against a position that no one is actually taking. I defy you to find anyone who has promoted such an idea. And even if you did, it's certainly not something that has ever been accepted.

No one promoting equality of outcome as a concept, especially liberals, has ever said that crimes are identical and thus the punishment should also be identical. The closest you can come is something like the three strikes rule, or minimum sentences, which are certainly not policies that came from the left.

Sadly, those policies were implemented by Clinton, and Trump is actually implementing long-needed prison reforms despite his rhetoric.

But otherwise I agree with you 100%. It's kind of like those who advocate minimum sentences and want to take sentencing discretion away from judges because they decide in a vacuum that the system is too lenient.

Having said all that, while I agree that it is usually the left arguing nuance and the right generally sees things more black and white, and I abhor buzz phrases like cancel culture, woke, etc., there are clearly many examples of the social media shaming trends obliterating debate and nuance.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

At the end of the day I'm still confused about what exactly people citing Trudeau are asking for. If it's Trudeau's resignation, it didn't happen and isn't going to. If it's some sort of argument that people like this Colorado goofball shouldn't be fired, it's essentially saying because one person "got away" with something, everyone should, which is not a good argument at all.

I can't speak for other posters. But for me, these situations are not equal and thus we should not rush to impose the same punishment. The "off with your head" mentality has sucked all the nuance out of the room. The reason posters bring up Trudeau is because any expression of deliberation gets you labeled a racist or white nationalist. It's this absolute moral certainty that stunts the discussion. Trudeau is just the expression of that finality.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I can't speak for other posters. But for me, these situations are not equal and thus we should not rush to impose the same punishment. The "off with your head" mentality has sucked all the nuance out of the room. The reason posters bring up Trudeau is because any expression of deliberation gets you labeled a racist or white nationalist. It's this absolute moral certainty that stunts the discussion. Trudeau is just the expression of that finality.

This is bullcrap.

Review the thread. There are two posts of deliberation on the first page, and they were actually very thoughtful, seemingly well received, and at NO POINT were these posters labelled as racists:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But everybody on the team was there? They all knew about it all this time and did nothing?

Shouldn't it be more than just him in hot water?

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This goes beyond the equipment manager too. Why does nobody stand up to this crap?

These were followed in the space of three posts by the first drive-by invoking a fairly irrelevant comparison to Trudeau's heinous blackface incident:

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

And our esteemed prime minister is no better.

In actual fact, rather than the supposed motive of injecting "nuance" to counteract "absolute moral certainty," it seems to me that the insistence on the tired regurgitation of this obvious tu quo que is rather prompted by the opposite:

Originally Posted by mdubz

Blackface is blackface

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

The real truth is that people have to pick and choose because they know they voted for Blackface. Why downplay it? Blackface is racist as #### in any context.

What the ham-fisted attempts to equate the Trudeau and Deynzer incidents has managed to do is to detract from some of these legitimate questions about the culpability of other bystanders and participants in Aliu's story. This, despite multiple requests from others to save discussion about the PM for other threads and other forums in an effort to keep our focus set on the important matters in THIS CASE:

Originally Posted by mennoknight

very amped up for more Trudeau talk in here. Christ almighty.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Perhaps we could just start a "But Trudeau..." thread as a safe place where posters could channel their Trudeau anger every time it is triggered in another thread?

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Nothing takes away from the situation (or any situation, FFS) than "but whatabout Trudeau.."

Seriously stupid.

Originally Posted by Itse

I know this is a Canadian forum and all, but sheesh could you take the Trudeau-stuff to offtopic already? It's just a Canadian politics discussion disguised as something else, and as someone who really doesn't care one way or the other about Trudeau it's tiresome and irrelevant.

If for no other reason than to keep this thread relevant to the discussion of this serious incident, then we need to get away from the Trudeau talk. I would like to think that everyone participating in this thread is mature and sensitive enough to recognize that regardless of your feelings about the PM, his past actions are not at all relevant to Aliu's experience, to the culpability of those involved, and to the appropriate outcome.

[vilzeh]

Stop with the Trudeau talk already, PLEASE.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It is nonsense. You got that part right.

Equality of Outcome

Yeah. You’re still talking nonsense. Even your link has nothing to do with what you said.

People post this gibberish and I guess they think they’re being funny? Or they are trying to mock half the ppl in the country with a broad brush? Just makes them look not too bright imo.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is bullcrap.

Review the thread. There are two posts of deliberation on the first page, and they were actually very thoughtful, seemingly well received, and at NO POINT were these posters labelled as racists:





These were followed in the space of three posts by the first drive-by invoking a fairly irrelevant comparison to Trudeau's heinous blackface incident:


In actual fact, rather than the supposed motive of injecting "nuance" to counteract "absolute moral certainty," it seems to me that the insistence on the tired regurgitation of this obvious tu quo que is rather prompted by the opposite:




What the ham-fisted attempts to equate the Trudeau and Deynzer incidents has managed to do is to detract from some of these legitimate questions about the culpability of other bystanders participants in Aliu's story. This, despite multiple requests from others to save discussion about the PM for other threads and other forums in an effort to keep our focus set on the important matters in THIS CASE:









If for no other reason than to keep this thread relevant to the discussion of this serious incident, then we need to get away from the Trudeau talk. I would like to think that everyone participating in this thread is mature and sensitive enough to recognize that regardless of your feelings about the PM, his past actions are not at all relevant to Aliu's experience, to the culpability of those involved, and to the appropriate outcome.

Thank you for setting cannon7 straight. You have far more patience and eloquence than I. You do good work here TC. I know you get attacked a lot but I appreciate what you bring to the discussion.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yeah. You’re still talking nonsense. Even your link has nothing to do with what you said.

People post this gibberish and I guess they think they’re being funny? Or they are trying to mock half the ppl in the country with a broad brush? Just makes them look not too bright imo.

Ok then. I elaborated above. But continue to be your chipper charitable self FDW.

[Badgers Nose]

Since we are going off topic, does anyone have a 2011 17" MacBook Pro they would be willing to part with for a fair price (trade in value online is $130 so I was thinking $300-$400 depending on whether it has the original box).

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Since we are going off topic, does anyone have a 2011 17" MacBook Pro they would be willing to part with for a fair price (trade in value online is $130 so I was thinking $300-$400 depending on whether it has the original box).

I have one just like this but it's appeared in black face.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

Stop with the Trudeau talk already, PLEASE.

Unfortunately it is a direct result of the support that Trudeau received and still receives.

Similar to Trump, (and intended or not) it normalizes and provides excuses for the behavior of blackface and the racism it represents. Nevermind the history of sexual assault and corruption that comes in this same package of a politician.

[Ped]

No, it's a direct result of people continuing to bring it up, even when asked not to. Like, immediately after.^^^


I mean, it's really simple to me. Hockey stuff in here. Non-hockey stuff in the OT. They may have similar topics sometimes, but it's still really easy to keep them separate in their separate forums.


Just stop it already.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Unfortunately it is a direct result of the support that Trudeau received and still receives.

Similar to Trump, (and intended or not) it normalizes and provides excuses for the behavior of blackface and the racism it represents. Nevermind the history of sexual assault and corruption that comes in this same package of a politician.

Whether you feel this is true or not, there have now been several requests by forum members to leave discussion of Trudeau out of this thread. It is irrelevant. Any more insistence on derailing this thread with political discussion that is beside the point of Aliu's experience and its outcome will be penalized. There are other forums on this board to engage in such debates—not here in the FOI.

[PepsiFree]

On the actual topic, one thing that’s made me scratch my head a little bit is the POV that this was some “evil” act, or that it was aggressively malicious, or that (because it was those things) it wasn’t a “hockey culture issue.”

I can’t quite see this being true, and I think this might be a case of people categorising it as evil or isolated because it’s easier to understand and accept. “There are evil people in the world that do evil things and that fits nicely into how I view the world.”

I think what’s more concerning in my mind is that this likely wasn’t malicious or evil. It was probably just profoundly ignorant. It was enabled by hockey culture, being very macho and bro-ey and crass, and an isolated culture in general. I read through the old thread that Oling posted and then looked up the Raffi Torres thread. Both from around the same time as this incident, and there were plenty of posters who genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with blackface. Some posters didn’t even know what blackface was and had no concept of why it even COULD be “wrong.” Do I think those posters are evil or malicious, most definitely not. Some of them I would even call pretty progressive and enlightened in any interactions I’ve had. Surely, they’re not the only people who were ignorant about blackface or even racism in general.

I’m not sure what my point is. Maybe just that I’m glad things have come as far as they have. Being ignorant about it then doesn’t mean it was in any way excusable. But I’m sure a lot of people have done things they would take back, knowing today what they know now, and I’m not sure labelling those people as “evil” addresses the problem. We’re nearly a decade removed from these incidents, and ignorance isn’t gone yet. There are plenty of examples out there today and even on this board from time to time. Not evil people, just people that don’t know. And worse, people that even today don’t really want to know.

We call people snowflakes, or talk about “cancel culture” or whatever, but ten years ago blackface wasn’t a big deal to a lot of people, and eventually people came around. Maybe people could ask themselves instead of getting so upset that visible and invisible minorities are “offended”: can I confidently say I am without ignorance? and would it be easier to seek some understanding instead of calling people names and dismissing them?

Just a thought anyway. In ten years things people do today won’t be looked at favourably. It probably serves us all well to at least try to be good people as much as we can. It never hurts to make others feel good about themselves.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Gotta love censorship. I guess the ignore feature isn't an option anymore. Can't talk about specific blackface incidents because some people don't like it.

Nice.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Gotta love censorship. I guess the ignore feature isn't an option anymore. Can't talk about specific blackface incidents because some people don't like it.

Nice.

Go start a thread about it, and knock yourself out.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Go start a thread about it, and knock yourself out.

Ongoing blackface megathread. On it.