Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Baggins

Members
  • Posts

    11,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Baggins

  1. I agree it's in the realm of the ridiculous. But in some cases claims of appropriation fall in the ridiculous like the Cardi B video or dreadlocks or rap music. But such claims do beg the question of where the line is. When the line is pushed, is it reasonable to say it should in turn be a two way street? I completely agree with changing the names of the Eskimos, Redskins, and Indians as they are all terms those ethnicities find offensive. Those are completely valid complaints. But when you push it to an animal print or hair style it is certainly heading into the ridiculous.
  2. It does raise the question of where the line is drawn. Do Chinese restaurants have to take burger and fries off their menu? Do pubs and restaurants have to stick to a single cuisine based on the owners ethnicity? I remember somebody claiming caucasian's with dreadlocks were guilty of cultural appropriation. Would that not in turn rule out African Americans from straightening their hair and dying it blond? Then there's Cardi B's video where Kardashian was being called out for cultural appropriation for wearing a leopard print while Cardi B was wearing a tiger print. Well tigers aren't native to Africa so Cardi B would also be guilty of appropriation. Do whites have to stop rapping? Do you need to be white to play classical or country? Do Asians need to stop wearing and manufacturing western style clothing and stick to their own ancestral clothing style? If the Orca is appropriation do Haida artists need to restrict themselves to that style of art alone? Meaning native artists cannot do European style paintings of people or landscapes. I believe in the two way street. The truth is when it comes to art, music, and clothing styles various cultures and ethnicities have influenced each other for centuries.
  3. The biggest problem with the three teams mentioned is their very names are offensive to indigenous people.
  4. I wonder if it's dumb to think there is any difference between a stream of pee and miniscule droplets exhaled that are invisible to the naked eye? This is a head scratcher. Let me think about it.... Yup, that's dumb. But what the illustration in question demonstrates is the pants keep your pee from directly hitting the other person. You know, protecting others from you. Which I've pointed out several times is the most effective aspect of wearing a mask.
  5. You skipped some parts.... Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group. In lower-income settings, it is more likely that reusable cloth masks will be used rather than disposable medical masks because of cost and availability (38). There are still few uncertainties in the practice of face mask use, such as who should wear the mask and how long it should be used for. In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem (12,34). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed.
  6. Once in you you're sick and you won't get any sicker by protecting others. While preventing it from landing on others doesn't make you any sicker it does help protect others from you making them sick. OR staff don't wear masks to avoid catching heart or liver disease, or cancer, they wear them to protect the patient from what they may exhale on the patient. A century of doing so should be sufficient evidence wearing masks to protect others is highly effective without personal ramifications. Once again, the most effective purpose of a mask is protecting others. Unlike OR staff, you would prefer to cough your infection on others because wearing a mask is just too inconvenient for you. Does that about sum it up? Well if you ever need surgery be sure to tell the OR staff you don't want them wearing their nasty useless masks in the OR (for their own protection of course). If you have no interest or desire to protect others you certainly shouldn't demand or expect others to protect you.
  7. I don't think it was as much a case of people being offended as it was returning it to being more inclusive. But for those offended by the change I'll point out "in all thy sons command" wasn't in the original version, which was actually a gender neutral "us", and it was also shortened considerably. Here's the original lyrics: O Canada! Our home and native land!True patriot love thou dost in us command. (Changed to In all thy sons command in 1913)We see thee rising fair, dear land,The True North, strong and free;And stand on guard, O Canada,We stand on guard for thee.(Refrain)O Canada! O Canada!O Canada! We stand on guard for thee,O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.O Canada! Where pines and maples grow,Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow,How dear to us thy broad domain,From East to Western sea!Thou land of hope for all who toil!Thou True North, strong and free!(Refrain)O Canada! Beneath thy shining skiesMay stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,To keep thee steadfast through the yearsFrom East to Western sea,Our own beloved native land,Our True North, strong and free!(Refrain)Ruler Supreme, Who hearest humble prayer,Hold our dominion within Thy loving care.Help us to find, O God, in TheeA lasting, rich reward,As waiting for the Better Day,We ever stand on guard.
  8. Stating the obvious here: if they don't believe masks work why would they wear one in the ward? Either it's "proper protection" rejecting their own claim. or they are better of without it despite being in the ward as that's what they seem to believe.
  9. The Canucks were already phasing out anthem singer Mark Donnelly Mark Donnelly has been associated with the Vancouver Canucks for nearly two decades. The longtime anthem singer, best known for letting the crowd take over singing part of O Canada, quickly became a fan favourite. While he didn’t sing before every game, he was often picked for big games and most certainly was given the microphone during the playoffs. But, lost in the hoopla of Donnelly’s public dismissal for his anti-mask stance is the fact that the team was already growing increasingly tired of his antics. A source with knowledge of Donnelly’s part-time employment with the team told Daily Hive that the singer was effectively being phased out. He used to sing at approximately half of Canucks regular-season home games and was moved to just 5-6 games per season in the last two years. Donnelly was the only anthem singer the Canucks paid on a regular basis, but the phase-out was not motivated by money. While fans liked his schtick, Donnelly’s far-right views have been creeping into the public domain for a while now. Donnelly sang at an anti-abortion rally back in 2012, telling a crowd of people outside the Vancouver Art Gallery: “There’s a lot of Canadians, both born and unborn, and this is for all of us, for everyone out here too and all of Canada.” “Remember, if we can’t discuss things rationally, then we’re not Canadians. We have to be able to talk,” he added. Donnelly tried delving into politics in 2018, as he unsuccessfully pursued the Conservative Party nomination for South Surrey-White Rock in the federal election. “I believe our federal government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is running Canada off a cliff,” Donnelly said at the time. The last two years have seen Donnelly’s political views subtly spill out onto the ice, as he has refused to sing O Canada’s new gender-neutral lyrics. On January 31, 2018, Canada officially changed the lyrics of the national anthem to replace “in all thy sons command” to the more gender-neutral “in all of us command.” Donnelly didn’t change with it. Before the change in lyrics, the last words Donnelly consistently sang before letting the crowd take over were “in all thy sons command.” After the change, Donnelly stopped singing after “true patriot love.” At the anti-mask rally on Saturday, Donnelly’s version of O Canada included the outdated “all thy sons command” lyrics. The 50th anniversary season was part of the reason why Donnelly was kept around last year, though he wasn’t being picked for every big game. And when the playoffs began, it was Marie Hui who was asked to sing for pre-recorded videos that played before Canucks “home” games in the Edmonton bubble. So while his dangerous anti-mask rhetoric was enough to get him fired, this wasn’t Donnelly’s first offence. Given that the team was already phasing him out and hardly anyone noticed, the decision to cut ties should have been an easy one to make. The Canucks were already phasing out anthem singer Mark Donnelly | Offside (dailyhive.com)
  10. Plus it doesn't look good if the crowd starts booing the anthem singer...
  11. H1N1 actually originated in the US and only has 12,469 deaths attributed to it over the first year within that country. H1N1 was more contagious (estimated at 60.8 million cases in the US first year) than standard influenza and was harder on the young rather than the elderly. For perspective, in 2019 influenza resulted in 34k deaths. So H1N1 resulted in more cases and hospitalizations than standard influenza but fewer deaths. So it's a rather poor comparison considering the US is approaching 300k Covid deaths in less than a year.
  12. One of the issues is anti maskers keep saying they are unlikely to save you or I'm willing to take the risk as I'm likely survive. It's all about themselves and they view mask as being purely about themselves. The simple truth is masks are most effective at protecting others from the wearer rather than protecting the wearer from others. The anti masker isn't just putting self at risk, they are putting everybody they come in contact with at risk even those wearing masks. Unlike a seatbelt, wearing a mask is more about others than self. If it was only about self, like wearing a hard hat in construction or a seatbelt driving, I'd say go ahead as your only putting yourself at risk. But wearing a mask is not just about self, it's about protecting others and in turn their loved ones. Actually more so, as that's where masks are most effective - protecting others. What anti masker says to me is not only do you not give a rats tush about strangers and their families, but it also says you have absolutely nobody in your life, family, friends, or coworkers, you care about at all. That's about as self centered and selfish as you can get. Donnelly said he knew his actions could put his job at risk as he has a high profile association with the Canucks. He made his choice. The owner then made his choice. There's your freedom of choice and it's a two way street.
  13. Again, masks are far more effective at protecting others than they are yourself. You wear a mask to protect others from you and they wear a mask to protect you from them. That's where the greatest effect is. I'll put what you're saying in perspective: You're stuck in place and I'm going to fire an arrow at you from 20 feet. You can have a 12" round shield or nothing at all. You'd prefer nothing because you think you'll probably get hit anyway. Me I'll take that 12" shield and increase my odds every time.
  14. Only if the streak turns red on slap shots....
  15. Periwinkle. I'm definitely thinking periwinkle....
  16. Disclaimers are nice but will they actually prevent people from turning away from your business, or disparaging it, over a controversial employee. As in my racist example, would you lose business because you willingly employ a known racist? I believe employers have the right to protect their business from controversy. Particularly when it comes to high profile employees. You're absolutely entitled to your opinions. But when those opinions are highly controversial and you make them a public spectacle they can, and often do, reflect on an employer who may want no part of it. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want, when you want, where you want without consequences. Your behavior off the job can affect your employment just as much as behavior on the job. You have the freedom to choose which is more important to you.
  17. For the average employee I agree, unless of course they make their employer is known in their activities. Then they are dragging their employer into their views. But when it's a high profile employee it's a little different. It's the difference between the anchorman and the cue card boy, or the celebrity chef and the dishwasher. One is high profile and identified with where they work while the other is an anonymous nobody. Thus high profile personalities put their job at risk if they create public controversy as it reflects on their employer. Freedom of speech can and does carry consequences. I fully agree that if an employee publicly reflects poorly on your business you have the right to terminate them. Hockey teams have expectations of the players, coaches, and staff on and off the ice and can they face fines, suspensions, and even contract termination. Should the anthem singer be any different? Here's an example. An employee shows on their social media what they do for living and where they work. They are constantly posting and sharing posts promoting racism. The next thing you know your business is trending that it promotes or condones racism. Which obviously can have a rather negative effect not only on your business but reflect on you personally. Should you have the right to fire that person? I believe reflecting poorly on your employer away from work is no different then reflecting poorly while on the job. If your employer is known you're behavior, on the job or off, can affect their business and how the public views it.
  18. And what does this have to do with masks and Donnelly being fired? You're a two wrongs makes it right kind of guy aren't you. There will always be those who are opportunistic using bravery in numbers for destruction and looting because they believe they can get away with it. I don't care which side it is - wrong is wrong. I'm a democracy kind of person and I've said for decades politicians are often too worried about losing votes to do anything about something controversial. If you want confederate monuments removed, petition to have it on the next municipal or state ballot depending on whose land the monument is on. Let the majority rule and accept their choice and that decision stands for the next decade when it can be petitioned again. For myself I don't see commemorating those who fought for slavery as a particularly good thing. In Germany they have no monuments or statues of Nazi leaders and it's against the law to display any form of Nazi symbolism because they are not proud of what they stood for. History doesn't cease to exist from a lack of statues and monuments but there's no need to memorialize an evil cause or those who fought for it.
  19. Wearing any kind of mask doesn't eliminate the need for social distancing or washing hands. Again, cloth masks do help protect others from the wearer. Meaning two people wearing cloth masks are much safer than just one wearing a mask or neither wearing one. For those financially affected a cloth mask is a more affordable option than single use masks. This is why it's about protecting each other. It seems you're viewing it purely as self protecting and ignoring the protecting others part. Cloth masks help protect each other. Medical masks are far more effective at protecting others than self protection but do provide much better self protection than cloth. Regardless of mask type the highest protection is to each other rather than self. Anti maskers say they aren't concerned about getting the virus as they are highly likely to survive. What this tells me about them is they are self centered selfish butt holes. Because who will they pass it on to during those infectious days before showing symptoms and who will those pass it on to in turn?
  20. That study concerned self protection, protecting health care workers from infected patients, as opposed to use to protect others from the wearer. Cloth masks are effective in reducing you spreading the virus but are far less effective protecting you from those not wearing masks. This always seems to be the part anti maskers ignore - protecting others. So wearing a cloth mask around those who aren't wearing masks is unlikely to protect you. But wearing a cloth mask around others wearing a cloth mask is likely to protect all of you from each other. Even the medical masks are considerably more effective at protecting others than protecting the wearer. Multilayer cloth masks are also far more effective than single layer. And I have to add, wearing any mask type on your chin is not effective at all.
  21. Just to point out the obvious, if it came out of your body you already have it and won't get any sicker than you already are by wearing a mask. It prevents you spraying it on others and making them sick though.
  22. Neither do masks. If you ever need a surgery be sure to tell the doctors you don't want them wearing their nasty masks in the operating room. The guinea pigs have spoken - medical staff and researchers have been wearing masks for decades. Which should be an obvious indication they do far more good than harm.
  23. At the start less was known and there was concern if 340m Americans started panic buying medical masks it would put medicals services at high risk. "When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," Fauci said. "And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing." Fauci says he doesn't regret telling Americans not to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic (msn.com) Do you have a choice in wearing a seatbelt in a car? How about a hard hat in a construction site or steel toe boots in industrial settings? Permanently mandated by the government because there will always be those who choose not to protect themselves. In a pandemic masks aren't just personal protection they also help protect others. And it's temporary. Oh, the hardship.
  24. Do you know where the Georgia Straight is? Do you know what an "area" is? Orcas are common to the area. Even swimming into Burrard inlet. Do they need to buy condos in Vancouver for you to acknowledge they are around?
×
×
  • Create New...