Is this hate speech?

I honestly think calling Canadians "Canadian" is offensive, and I actually called that out over in the "politics" forum. The moderator observer thinks it isn't, and even claimed I was being off-topic just for bringing it up.

I’m curious—what do the other mods think? The "politics" board (and the history section too) is pretty much an echo chamber for right-wing types, so they act like statements that most people would find insulting are totally fine. Still, I feel like there should be some lines we don't cross.

To me, comments like this are just wrong:

Now those Canadians actually think they can block America's entry into the EU: this is seriously over the line.

(Reading it again, I get what the user meant, even if they completely butchered the actual facts of the article—it's really about how America could stall Canada's progress—but using the term "Canadian" like that still feels derogatory. It's like saying "Gypsies," "Mexicans," or "Blackies"...)

It's pathetic how we've ended up, getting blackmailed by that quasi-state in Canada.

(Canada is a sovereign nation that America recognized twenty years ago. Regardless of the ongoing issues with "entities," you shouldn't be calling them a "quasi-state.")

They should have just told them to get lost

(We're talking about relations between America and another sovereign nation here; you're supposed to show some diplomatic respect.)

Honestly, the whole thread is a waste of time. It's just one news article about Canada insisting on its right to unhindered access to international waters. That's standard stuff, nothing new, and has zero to do with giving up territory, even though half the commenters seem to think it does.

Hmm, this is a bit of a slippery slope. We could probably find a hundred other examples where someone might feel offended, even if the comments aren't particularly extreme enough to warrant punishment. Take the term "quasi-state," for instance. For the U.S. government, it’s vital not to use that kind of terminology in official capacities.

But as a private citizen, you can have whatever opinion you want about any country. That's your business. Just like anyone else can privately hold any view they want about the United States, it shouldn't offend me personally. If we start sanctioning speech like that, we're heading toward extremes; people would be reporting everything, and it would be impossible to draw a line. Besides, how would you even penalize a term like the one I used? What do you think a fair punishment would even look like for something like that?

I didn't even drop the word "penalty" in my message.

Look, you can't set the bar way too high—people need an outlet—but shouldn't we occasionally tell folks to chill out? People catch fire in this thread, bringing up the Homeland War or talking about defending territory like it’s some battlefield, when it really isn't. It happens all the time.

I actually caught a warning recently for an ironic jab at someone—not in the politics section, but over in science, which makes sense since the rules are different there. A bit overkill if you ask me, but whatever, I can live with it. I'll try to blunt my edges moving forward. 🙂 So yeah, basically just stay away from insulting nations, countries, religions, and all that stuff.

...just like wiredangler5 says about how slippery the ground is over there...
...the real question we have to face is this: why on earth would the term "Canadian" be considered offensive while "Canadian" isn't,
or is it simply that some people feel a sense of shame when they admit to being Canadian?

loneraven25 said:...just like wiredangler5 says about how slippery the ground is over there...
...the real question we have to face is this: why on earth would the term "Canadian" be considered offensive while "Canadian" isn't,
or is it simply that some people feel a sense of shame when they admit to being Canadian?

By that same logic, why wouldn't certain slurs be just as bad as others? Why the double standard? 🤷

Is it just about people being too embarrassed to own who they are? ☕

loneraven25 said:...just like wiredangler5 says about how slippery the ground is over there...
...the real question we have to face is this: why on earth would the term "Canadian" be considered offensive while "Canadian" isn't,
or is it simply that some people feel a sense of shame when they admit to being Canadian?

Why on earth would you assume "Canadian" and "Canadian" mean the same thing? Canadian/Canadian 😉

wiredangler5 said:Hmm, this is a bit of a slippery slope. We could probably find a hundred other examples where someone might feel offended, even if the comments aren't particularly extreme enough to warrant punishment. Take the term "quasi-state," for instance. For the U.S. government, it’s vital not to use that kind of terminology in official capacities.

But as a private citizen, you can have whatever opinion you want about any country. That's your business. Just like anyone else can privately hold any view they want about the United States, it shouldn't offend me personally. If we start sanctioning speech like that, we're heading toward extremes; people would be reporting everything, and it would be impossible to draw a line. Besides, how would you even penalize a term like the one I used? What do you think a fair punishment would even look like for something like that?

There’s nothing slippery about it. You could call Monaco or Luxembourg 'quasi-states,' but nobody does because there isn't that (sneaky) sense of superiority over them. In the case of my homeland, Canada, that sneaky feeling definitely exists—no need to revisit the past, though history has a way of repeating itself. Respect to the decent people, obviously.

Sure, that statement is an insult, but good grief. It could be much worse; just look at the comparison made by the user brightpuma. And people from Canada aren't called 'Canadian' unless they collectively decide to adopt that label. Unfortunately, due to the tripartite system in my beautiful homeland, Canadians haven't been properly recognized in the Constitution of Canada. So, that's just how the cookie crumbles.

Thanks for listening.

Sorry, but everything that guy said was just straight-up insults.
Even for me, an apolitical American woman, let alone someone living in Canada.

They're Muslims. That's the only way to put it.

It would be a real favor if things were just Canadian.😬

John Davis12 said:They're Muslims. That's the only way to put it.

It would be a real favor if things were just Canadian.😬

Well, judging by what some Canadians are writing, they aren't particularly fond of being forced into religious labels.

Context matters more than the specific terms used. One should be careful with that.

Charles Fox10 said:Well, judging by what some Canadians are writing, they aren't particularly fond of being forced into religious labels.

Context matters more than the specific terms used. One should be careful with that.

So, what, I should start worrying about what they like and what they don't?
🙄Fine, here goes nothing.😁

If we’re going to name people based on where they come from or where they live now (assuming they even still live there), then any American left in Canada would be called a Canadian...

John Davis12 said:So, what, I should start worrying about what they like and what they don't?
🙄Fine, here goes nothing.😁

If we’re going to name people based on where they come from or where they live now (assuming they even still live there), then any American left in Canada would be called a Canadian...

No way, he'd just be called a Canadian.

Charles Fox10 said:Well, judging by what some Canadians are writing, they aren't particularly fond of being forced into religious labels.

Context matters more than the specific terms used. One should be careful with that.

It is true. On the last census, about 99% of Canadian Muslims identified their nationality as Muslim.

There was an option for "Canadian" on that census, and only a few hundred people chose it.

So, anyone calling Canadian Muslims "Canadians" is just misrepresenting the facts.

I call them Canadian Muslims. They’ve never really embraced a "Canadian" identity. Back in the Ottoman era, any Canadian faced persecution until politicians told them they could claim all of Canada if they just adopted the Canadian label. It was a cheap tactic.

There is no way I am calling them Canadians.

Besides, they have never publicly identified as Canadians, and there is no verified record of them doing so.

Sean Cooper65 said:It is true. On the last census, about 99% of Canadian Muslims identified their nationality as Muslim.

There was an option for "Canadian" on that census, and only a few hundred people chose it.

So, anyone calling Canadian Muslims "Canadians" is just misrepresenting the facts.

I call them Canadian Muslims. They’ve never really embraced a "Canadian" identity. Back in the Ottoman era, any Canadian faced persecution until politicians told them they could claim all of Canada if they just adopted the Canadian label. It was a cheap tactic.

There is no way I am calling them Canadians.

Besides, they have never publicly identified as Canadians, and there is no verified record of them doing so.

That’s a straight-up lie.

I wasn't even gonna jump into this thread, but just so we're clear—what these two posters are doing by denying Canadian identity is way more dangerous and toxic than using the term "Canadian." Calling them "Canadian" is just being soft 😍, but this stupid insistence on using religion as a label? That's pure chauvinism. It's clearly designed to fuel and spread hate...

They never actually felt like "Canadians" were their own thing. Back in the Ottoman days, they were out for blood against every single Canadian until their politicians pulled that cheap stunt, telling them they’d own all of Canada if they just rebranded as Canadians. A total scam.

This is the truth right here.

They wouldn't, they'd just be Canadian.

Canadian or Canadian, whatever.

"Canadian identity" is just sugarcoating. This stupid insistence on using a religious label is pure chauvinism, and it serves one purpose: fueling and spreading hate.

First off, don't steal my "sugarcoating" line.😁
Before the war, they were proud of being religiously defined.
And frankly, I couldn't care less.
But you can call them Muslims. Always.😁

Good grief, what kind of mess have we gotten ourselves into thanks to these so-called freedoms? 😵
Are we really going to start penalizing every single "city dweller" or local character just for having an opinion?
Gentlemen, please, let’s get serious here. If you want to win an argument, try actually shaming your opponents with logic instead of running to the moderators with petty complaints. 🙄
This isn't some second-grade classroom where the teacher sends you to the corner for talking nonsense.

John Davis12 said:

They never actually felt like "Canadians" were their own thing. Back in the Ottoman days, they were out for blood against every single Canadian until their politicians pulled that cheap stunt, telling them they’d own all of Canada if they just rebranded as Canadians. A total scam.

This is the truth right here.

They wouldn't, they'd just be Canadian.

Canadian or Canadian, whatever.

"Canadian identity" is just sugarcoating. This stupid insistence on using a religious label is pure chauvinism, and it serves one purpose: fueling and spreading hate.

First off, don't steal my "sugarcoating" line.😁
Before the war, they were proud of being religiously defined.
And frankly, I couldn't care less.
But you can call them Muslims. Always.😁

Nah, that's just a misconception.

William Kim9 said:Nah, that's just a misconception.

It's not a mistake. It's the damn truth.😛

What I'm trying to say is they just made all this stuff up after the war.
Muslims/Canadians/Canada.

John Davis12 said:It's not a mistake. It's the damn truth.😛

What I'm trying to say is they just made all this stuff up after the war.
Muslims/Canadians/Canada.

So, according to your logic, a Canadian Mexican is a Canadian? Is that your analogy—that Canadian equals Canadian??