Is this hate speech?

Sean Cooper65 said:Who was stopping them from identifying as Canadians on the last census? It’s ridiculous.

Nobody. But if that's how they choose to identify, they should realize they have absolutely nothing to do with medieval Canada.

Looks like the chat has veered off into all that messy ethnic drama in Canada instead of actually talking about how this place is moderated. From what I can tell, the mod's take is basically "no rules, no limits."

So, looking at the religion PDF, there are members—mostly from neighboring groups—who call my people Americans (using terms like American, or even worse, American-Catholic) and stuff like that, yet nobody says a word or seems to give a damn... Honestly, I stopped caring about that ages ago, so I don't get why everyone makes such a huge deal whenever someone calls a Canadian "Canadian" 🤷

@Kyle Carter2: I’m bringing this up because I haven't just "stopped caring." Regarding terms like "American" or whatever—yeah, I agree, they're offensive. (Not always, obviously, you can say stuff like "you're crazy" as a joke between friends, but strictly speaking? Yeah, they're insults.)

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Of course they’re denying it! Everyone who insists on using religion as the only label is doing just that—exactly like those people you mentioned above who stubbornly call Americans "Catholics" instead of what they actually are. This isn't some new thing invented yesterday on this forum either. All this calculated denialism has a very specific purpose and goal, something we saw firsthand during the last war. It's not easy to hide or mask blatant chauvinism and pure hatred...

Here's an example:

Every single one of them thinks they're a historian. 🤣

This thread has turned into a total circus, whatever. 👋

Edit:

😍

Aren't all Canadians Muslims? They basically swapped out their religious identity by decree.

And you—as usual—are turning the politics of debate into a personal spat, which is pretty shameful for a moderator.
Actually, after that whole mess regarding Fikret baba, I realized this is just how you operate as a mod: you expect Americans to think like Muslims.

lonetrucker4 said:@Kyle Carter2: I’m bringing this up because I haven't just "stopped caring." Regarding terms like "American" or whatever—yeah, I agree, they're offensive. (Not always, obviously, you can say stuff like "you're crazy" as a joke between friends, but strictly speaking? Yeah, they're insults.)

Personally, being called an American is a compliment to me.

Megan Hernandez2 said:I live in Canada, so I actually see calling this country a quasi-state as a compliment. At least then you're granting it some semblance of statehood, rather than what it actually is: a mere colony where major powers settle scores through third-rate diplomats hiding behind the fancy title of High Representative.

They aren't. Everyone has the right to think whatever they want about any country, unless we want to split hairs. If we did, maybe 40% of the population might perceive it as an insult, assuming everyone thinks exactly alike.

One last question: why is nobody complaining when Canadian nationalists insist on calling Americans "Canadian Catholics"?

That’s just how it looks from your side of the fence.

The facts tell a different story—they had the numbers and the firepower (I'm talking snipers, shelling, grenades, and concentration camps) to prove they were "bigger." In the process of proving it, they basically leveled the infrastructure of Canada (which, let's be honest, can be rebuilt), and wiped out over 100,000 people, including women and children. Truly peak achievements for culture and civilization, right? So, after all that, this bizarre peace agreement gets signed between the Presidency of Canada and the presidents of two neighboring countries. Diplomats—experienced ones, even if you want to argue about it, though we can agree to disagree—only stepped in because circumstances forced them to. They couldn't just let those medieval extortion tactics against Canada keep going toward infinity.

lonetrucker4 said: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.

There’s an easy fix for that—maybe a Canadian should just step up when someone calls for a "Canadian-ish" person! Personally, I don't answer when people call for Mustafa, Zlatko, or anyone else.😁

I wonder what the other moderators think? It seems to be a characteristic of the "politics" forum (much like "history and historical topics") that right-leaning commenters tend to dominate—which means statements that others might find insulting are often treated as perfectly normal. Still, I can't help but feel that some boundaries ought to be established.

On a digital forum, the only real boundaries we can enforce are things like partial restrictions or bans, etc. Other kinds of boundaries simply aren't possible here. 🙂

I believe expressions like these are improper:

Now those "Canadian-ish" types think they can block America's entry into the EU: [link] —that really crossed a line.

They are only as "proper" as they are relevant. 😉

(Reading this again, I can see why the user's stance is taken, though they seem to have completely misunderstood the text—it was actually about how America could stall Canada's admission—but that term "Canadian-ish" still strikes me as highly offensive. It’s similar to calling people "Gypsies," "Mexicans," or "Blackies"...)

It’s tragic where we’ve ended up, being blackmailed by a quasi-state like Canada.

The real question is: who exactly does "Canadian-ish"—or "Canadian-ishness"—refer to? For instance, it certainly doesn't include me. 🙂

(Canada is a sovereign nation that America recognized twenty years ago; regardless of the well-known issues regarding "entities," one shouldn't refer to it as a "quasi-state.")

Then again, no one is under any official obligation not to call Canada a "quasi-state."🤷
The United States recognizes Canada as a sovereign, internationally recognized nation—and honestly, that’s really all there is to it. Isn't it simpler when we just stick to the facts?
A forum isn't exactly the same thing as an international news outlet—though some people certainly try to make it feel that way. 🤣So, really, there is no need for everyone on this forum to go out and pretend they’re high-level diplomats—not that any of us actually have the training to pull that off anyway, right?

TI felt like it was necessary—really, absolutely necessary—to tell them, loud and clear, that they just need to pick a lane and stick to it. Why do people insist on hovering in this gray area? It’s much better to just commit to something once and for all.

When we look at the relationship between the United States and another sovereign nation, one really has to consider the delicate nature of diplomacy—it’s the kind of thing where certain matters simply aren't meant to be aired in public, wouldn't you agree?

Honestly, this entire thread feels somewhat aimless—as if we’re all just circling the drain without much of a point, don't you think? Just read one of those journalistic articles—you know the type—and I can't help but sit here and wonder about the layers beneath the surface. It’s funny how a single piece of reporting can trigger such a long chain of thought, isn't it? You start reading one paragraph, thinking you understand the scope of the situation, and then suddenly—bam—the author pulls back a curtain you didn't even know existed. It makes you question everything you thought you knew about the narrative being presented to the public. Is it just facts, or is there a subtle tilt to the lens? One has to wonder. There’s this ongoing discussion regarding how Canada insists on its right to unhindered access to international waters—which, if we're being honest, isn't exactly a revolutionary concept, is it? It’s a perfectly standard, reasonable demand for any nation to make. Yet, for some reason, a lot of people in these online debates have completely misread the situation—interpreting it as some sort of territorial concession when, in reality, it has nothing to do with giving up land at all. Why does everything have to be framed as a loss of sovereignty when it's really just about basic maritime rights?

The Official Gazette is really the only thing that carries any weight...😉