• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,039 Gaming the system

About etsen3

  • Rank
    Canucks Second-Line
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Coquitlam, BC
  • Interests
    the Canucks...duh
  1. This story will probably will end up in some form of "meanwhile in Canada" type memes. As for Nickelback, they are obviously a generic rock band past their prime, but not really any different than other generic rock bands. It was just a trendy thing to do to hate on them for a while and to the point where the hate itself became a generic, entry level way to signal your "good" taste in music. Lol @ people hating on Nickelback and then going off to listen to 21 Pilots or whatever.
  2. Name and logo aren't awful, but very generic. Both would easily fit in on NHL 17 as create-a-team motifs.
  3. Don't see how Benning (a guy so obsessed with "character") would go after Kane, who is the poster boy for character issues. Benning contradicts himself constantly though, which puts his short-sightednes on prominent display. Regardless of whether the trade worked out or not, the article is accurate.
  4. Lol @ my multiple accounts conspiracy theory. Lol @ advocating for racial profiling and claiming racism doesn't exist at the same time. It doesn't matter whether you think it's "logical" or not. Individuaps have constitutionally protected rights in the US, rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Innocent people don't deserve to get treated with suspicion just because people who have the same colour skin as them have higher crime rates. That's written into law. That's the definition of racism. It's my belief that stop and frisk should be done away with completely, as no one should be searched on the street, regardless of their race. Anyways, your argument that treating a certain racial group with bias (aka the very definition of racism) is justified speaks for itself.
  5. It's acceptable for owners to have a say in what happens with the franchise and set the overall vision for the team. It's their money after all. What's not ok is when owners don't listen to voices of reason from below them or doesn't give them breathing room to make decisions. We don't have much evidence that says how much ownership is messing with the team, but there seem to be plenty of clues. It's my belief that the first domino fell after the 2011 Cup Final, when the Canucks attempted to chase the Bruins' style of play, attempting to add toughness to the team but instead watering down what made the team great. They should have doubled down on adding skill to the team, while adding youth. Instead they added mediocre players and failed to add youth. Follow was pretty committed to playing a skilled style, so I have to wonder if his sudden change of heart had anything to do with ownership. This team should have been more proactive about adding talented young players, yet it seems ownership continues to sabotage management's efforts to do so. The number of times we've seen this team make moves that seem so obviously counterproductive to both the team's welfare and to the stated goal's and philosophies of management definitely makes me suspicious of excessive owner meddling
  6. You and I are talking about completely different things. I'm not talking about white people who do charity work in black communities, or who fight for civil rights on behalf of black people. These are great people and deserve to be commended. But I'm not talking about this at the level of individual people helping one another, I'm talking about institutional racism and the white hegemon in Western countries. I'm talking about "the Man". If you don't believe it exists despite the mountains of evidence (evidence that does account for has nothing to do with elevated crime rates amongst the black community) out there, I can't help you. Evidence that shows that black people are more likely to be punished for using drugs, despite similar usage rates to white people. Evidence that shows black people receive longer sentences for the exact same crimes. Evidence that shows that black people are more likely to be targeted by "random" stop and frisk searches. The deliberate and targeted suppression of the black vote under the guise of preventing "voter fraud". Freedom from these oppressive tactics absolutely is an expectation and a right. Just because not every person in the US isn't a full blown Klan member who wants to kill all black people doesn't mean there isn't bias in the government and society as a whole. You appear to understand that prejudice perpetrated by whites is generally more damaging than prejudice perpetrated by blacks. This is true, but understand that prejudice on an on an individual level is different than systemic racism. Systemic racism isn't about a cut and dried line that says every white person is personally out to get every black person. Clearly that's not the case. It's about a power structure that (generally) benefits white people over black people. What this all means is that although movements like BLM include assholes, and although you may not always like the "tone" they take, this doesn't negate their message. If someone gets sold a faulty car and finds out, they may be an asshole about it (you could argue that they have a right to be) but that doesn't change the fact that they deserve their money back.
  7. This is actually a reasonable critique of extremism. I do disagree with people that say that extremism has nothing to do with the institution of religion. Religion is what people make it into, it shouldn't be held on a pedestal. I can't speak for Islam specifically, but I am familiar with the Bible and the Old Testament does include many violent and hateful passages. Thankfully, many Christians choose not to emphasize these passages, but many do. It's true that many people would be hateful even if they weren't religious, and gravitate towards negative teachings because that's who they already are as a person. It's equally true, however, that otherwise decent people can be brainwashed (particularly children and the vulnerable) into believing these hateful teachings. I know many heavily religious, bigoted people who are otherwise extremely loving and caring to those around them. I do not think they would be holding these views if they hadn't been raised in fundamentalist households since they were born. So I don't think we should sugarcoat religion or deny the influence it can have generations of young people. Religion can and is often used as a tool to create fear and brainwash innocent people into believing dangerous things. Having said all this, the way Muslims are being treated in the US today is completely unacceptable, especially when many of those critiquing Islamic extremism are religious extremists themselves and are actually more dangerous since they wield a huge amount of political power and make up majorities of the population in certain areas. If these people really cared about fighting extremism, they would do it in their own churches and work to root it out amongst their own circles, not heap hatred on people they don't even know. The double standard sickens me. Mistrust of Muslims (aka normal people) is counterproductive to the goals of successful integration and harmony in society. But more importantly it is a disgusting way to treat your fellow human being. This teacher is right to expose this incident, and if she finds it racist, she's probably correct. She is the one actually familiar with the situation, and she is the one that has to live with it.
  8. My apologies to President Trump. I am so sorry that the media hurt his feelings when he called for a ban on Muslims entering the country and the media called him racist. We must protect him from the hurtful words of those who are on the brink of being forced away from their families.
  9. Why is the mayor of a city insulting the first lady of the United States based on looks in the first place? Plus I would like to know what exactly isn't classy, dignified, or beautiful about Michelle Obama. As far as I'm concerned the Obama's have been a model first family therefore I can't help but assume there's some subconscious racial stuff going even if she denies it. That's the thing about racism these days, it isn't socially acceptable so people will hide. They won't explicitly refer to a person's skin (so they have plausible deniability if they get called out on their actions) but they will still call them names and treat them unfairly.
  10. Keep in mind the premise is my entire argument is based upon the assumption that black people are treated unfairly in the US. There is plenty of evidence to support this, if you choose to disregard it I can't help you. I don't see black people asking for handouts. All they want is the same treatment white people get. All they are asking for is to stop getting screwed over! Why do white people deserve any "gratitude" for merely not screwing black people over? Why is fairness something black people have to earn? Civil rights and equal treatment are guaranteed to everyone in the constitution. The things that black people want for free are things that white people already get for free. They're things that are supposed to be free.
  11. There are plenty of black-led organizations, and black people working very hard to address poverty, crime, and lack of opportunity in the black community. So please don't act like black people are blind to the issues they actually live with every day. These organization aren't making noise, because it's not their job to make noise. The Black Lives Matter movement does make noise, because it's their job to raise awareness and demand justice. Society must stop telling black America to pull itself up by the bootstraps while simultaneously cutting the bootstraps.
  12. Considering what Trump thinks his job involves, I think this is the point. edit: King Jeffy beat me 2 it, so I'll add more. Becoming president doesn't automatically erase everything he said during the campaign, in fact it means he should be scrutinized even more heavily because he has utmost power now. We have to take him at his word and assume he will try to do what he says he will. Personally I'm glad to see Americans finally waking up to the problems that have existed for decades. Also, a strong democracy doesn't mean you elect someone and they just get to do whatever they want for their term because you picked them. It's an ongoing process that involves debate, opposition, protest, etc. Not blind conformity. It doesn't mean you stop voicing your concerns just because the candidate you didn't support is in power. Some protestors are being violent, but that doesn't negate the concerns of the peaceful majority. These protests do serve a purpose. They display unity with each other and send a message that civil rights are still held as important. Also, Trump may be president, but that doesn't mean these people suddenly have no representation in gov't. There are congressmen/women, senators, judges, governors, etc. that are still accountable to them (many of whom share their concerns, and many of whom are even part of their party). So protests send a message to them as well. I say work with Trump on things like healthcare, the economy, social security, foreign policy etc. But if he touches civil rights or suppresses minorities, he must be fought. The notion that "Trump is president now, you guys are screwed now so might as well just join him" is far from the truth.
  13. All the reasons you posted are actually good reasons to protest though. These white supremacist groups only seek to preserve dominance, not fight for equal rights. Groups like Black Lives Matter aren't intended to divide people. They're intended to expose and fight the division that already exists - courtesy of those in power. Yes there are members of these groups that'll trash white people no matter what, and that is counterproductive. The problem lies with "the system", not every single white person on the planet.
  14. It's funny to see the right wing make jokes about "triggering", "the snowflake generation" and "political correctness" about people wanting to simply live normal lives and be included in society but throw a hissy fit the minute they get called out on their $&!#. Apparently any time you say racist things and people point out that you said racist things, it's "censorship" and "fascism". They also act like when they express bigotry, they're saying what everyone else is thinking but is too afraid too say, which is not the case. Non-bigots don't feel censored because they feel no need to say racist and inaccurate things in the first place. No one is being sent to jail or having their books banned by their government, but they are being held accountable to their actions by ordinary citizens that disagree with them, and that's as big a part of free speech as a bigot's (legal) right to say bigoted things.
  15. To be racially progressive is to give true equal opportunity to all, and to also protect people from being subjugated by others. I'll use a sports analogy further to illustrate my point. A ref can make bad calls against one team without disallowing every single goal they score. Or even better, let's pretend there's a North American sports league that includes teams all over North America, but has historically had a bias against Canadian teams. At first Canadian teams weren't allowed to play in the league, but things have improved over the years. Now they allow Canadian teams into the league, and even have Canadian executives on their board of governors. But the refs may be biased against them, or they might bring in rule changes that apply to every team, but are intended to restrict that team's style of play. Players of all teams get suspensions for breaking rules, but Canadian teams are less likely to be let off the hook and receive longer suspensions on average. Perhaps the NHL this league wants to make money off of Canadian teams, but doesn't treat them fairly. Perhaps this league operates under a system where the best teams get the highest draft picks instead of the worst teams, and perhaps Canadian teams weren't allowed to have high draft picks in the past, period. Now they are allowed to ahve high draft picks again, but the league won't give them additional draft picks to compensate them for all the years when they were forced into poor draft picks. Now, there's a new commissioner who wants to keep Albertan teams from travelling to and from games. A flew players on Ontario teams were caught using steroids, so he's making all players on Ontario teams take drug tests. However, none of the American teams have to take drug tests, even though American players have been caught using steroids too. Also, the commissioner has openly talked trash about Canadian teams in the past, but claims he was just joking or that he loves Canada's mountains and trees. Fans of American teams also trash the Canadian teams' equipment and want them to be kicked out of the league completely, but the commissioner says nothing about it. Obviously this is also a simplistic reduction of a complex issue, but I feel like it illustrates how things can appear fair on the surface but be deeply messed up underneath.