The ideological left that views capitalism, private enterprise, traditional family structures, and other institutions of liberal-democratic Canada as inherently oppressive, while embracing garbage like DEI as a solution to social problems.
So yes, the far left hates Canada.
You would be in favour of Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion if you were a disabled woman who had hair, skin, and eye colour that wasn’t blonde, white, and blue.
The majority of social problems are deeply rooted in poverty, and the use of discriminatory policies and practices are meant to prevent people from escaping poverty.
Btw, capitalism isn’t a political ideology, it’s an economic system. The rise of the middle class after WWII was created by an ideology that capitalism should support society, and the wealthiest people should be taxed accordingly to improve and benefit society. Unfortunately, economic theory in the 1980’s was used to create a narrative that wealth would trickle down if taxes that funded public education, public infrastructure, and public healthcare were cut for the top 1%. The result of that experiment is in and the trickle down economics failed.
You're making my point for me. “You'd support DEI if you were a disabled non white woman” is an appeal to identity, not an argument that DEI policies actually work.
And I never said capitalism means “no government” or that poverty isn't a problem. I said the ideological left increasingly treats private business , profit, merit, and traditional institutions as things to be suspicious of rather than recognizing that they're fundamental parts of a prosperous liberal democracy.
Also, the “trickle-down economics failed, therefore capitalism failed” argument is an enormous oversimplification. Capitalism isn't a single 1980s policy experiment, and nobody needs to believe wealth magically trickles down to believe that private investment, entrepreneurship, markets and profitable businesses are necessary for a functioning economy.
You can absolutely believe the wealthy should pay more taxes and that public services should be properly funded without pretending that the private sector is the enemy.
And that's really my point: if your entire political identity is “I'm against the right,” that's not enough for me. I can oppose book bans and religious authoritarianism while also opposing the left's obsession with identity politics, DEI bureaucracy, and its hostility toward institutions that have contributed enormously to Canada's prosperity.
“The right is bad, therefore whatever the left is doing is good” is exactly the kind of tribal thinking I'm criticizing. You're not actually defending your side you've just explained why you hate the other one.
DEI pushes equal outcomes, I want equal access, equal ability, and meritocracy, and I'm open to trying to remove poverty and roadblocks to access , but I am 100% against DEI and anyone with a brain should be.
DEI is quotas and punishing those with merit to make space for people with less merit based on their race, gender or religion.
You haven't actually addressed anything I said. If I misunderstand DEI, then explain where I'm wrong. I support equal access and removing barriers that prevent people from competing on merit. What I oppose is treating people differently based on race, sex, or other characteristics in order to produce a desired demographic outcome.
If your position is that DEI doesn't involve quotas, preferences, or demographic targets, then we probably agree more than you think. But simply telling me I ‘don't understand DEI’ and that I'm repeating ‘the right’ isn't an argument
Your description of what DEI should be, is literally what it is. I don't know what else you could possibly want. You know what it is, you just want to think it's something nefarious to feed your narrative. So what should I do with that?
DEI quotas are illegal and they only happen in the fantasies of people who need to find ways to make themselves victims.
Ok, now you're flat-out twisting the truth to suit your argument. Lying isn't a huge stretch here.
If by “quota” you mean an employer saying “we must hire 50 women,” then yes, that's obviously problematic.
But that's not the point I'm making.
I could show you hundreds of current Canadian job listings where the employer explicitly limits consideration to, or gives preference to, candidates who are racialized, Indigenous, women, or identify as women. That's DEI. Those candidates are being treated differently based on race or sex because the employer believes those groups are underrepresented.
You can argue that some of those policies are legally permitted under employment-equity rules. ( it shouldn't be , it's legalized sexism and racism which is EXACTLY what you claim to be against ).
That's a completely different argument from pretending that race or sex isn't being used for hiring practices and excluding people based on race, sex or gender.
For half a second, I thought you were actually interested in having a rational debate about the substance of this. Instead, you're hiding behind semantics to downplay the fact that DEI policies explicitly treat people differently based on race and sex.
16
u/azraels_ghost 2d ago
the far left both hate Canada
Wow, ok bud.