Previous  1 ... 9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

I wondered why Canada has not placed priority on translating French to English and vice verse on television subtitles or voice dubs? They do this voluntarily in the U.S. for areas that have significant population differences but we are the ones who oddly still do not have this. And of course Google is American!

This major factor made me question our own government's sincerity. If they wanted us to at least be willing to learn both, we'd have it. Yet oddly, we have the description service more specifically designed for the blind?? (What percentage of the blind exist relative to the French or English in Canada?)

   

French people rarely watch English programming, and vice versa. There are many French language channels and such available these days. Cycle through your Rogers (or Bell) menu on your TV box and see for yourself. I didn't even know how many there actually were, until I looked over the winter one day (Was very bored!).



What exactly do you have against blind people? What the hell could they possibly have done to you all of a sudden? Unless you have Stevie Wonder on your front lawn yelling, "TODAY BRAILLE TOMORROW THE WORLD!!" I don't see the issue.

-J.

   

I see what you did there...

   

Huh?? How did you extract that I'm against the blind from the context above?

My point was that the Blind are granted extended programming necessity that I too can claim is NOT a medium to which blind people even have a significant quantity of interest over all. And yet given our country treats our 'official' languages as Bilingual to both French and English, this factor alone should require the same necessity granted to the even the smaller minority of the Blind.

I'm not suggesting removing descriptive content for the blind but to add all official language access all the time if the intent of this government is sincere. And my point about the U.S. is that they DO add other languages to all communication services even though they have only ONE official language and voluntarily. This proves that they have a relatively more favorable respect to all cultures while our own government is being deceptive for their LACK of such volition!!

Note too that I have had three proprietary DVRs of our cable providers that here in Canada actually both have some lack of Closed Captions universally to all Canadian channels and the owners that are Canadian versus all the American-owned channels. For one device, the Closed captioning looks as though scrambled or being interpreted by someone who speaks neither French nor English!!

If our country was sincerely concerned about 'diversity' without actual intent to segregate, we'd have had these universal minimal capacities to watch French or English AND with translations through the Closed captioning for this as well as to the deaf, who would certainly have more use of this media.

   

Did Helen Keller run over your cat or something? Personally, I think it's great the blind are finally getting taken care of properly. Even things like the textured sidewalk ends at crosswalks and audible signals are a step in the right direction.



No. This 'proves' that you missed a step. Yes, Canada is bilingual, so to speak. But, there is also the provincial stance to take into consideration. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province, and has the most bilingual adaptations, where as Quebec is officially a francophone province, and has things mainly in French. All other provinces are officially English, BTW.



Did you call said providers and inquire about this? Perhaps usher in some change to help others, or did you just come on here to drone on about how bad things are without doing anything about it? Asking for a friend.



PM Socks awaits your personal input, but.... good luck with that.

-J.

   

Sorry. For me, that's kind of soaked in gobbledygook and lost in generality.

Try giving me some examples to show me what you're talking about.

Here, I'll offer up a few possibilities:

* There was the anti-Islamophobia motion passed through the Canadian parliament.

* The court ruling that niqabs could not be disallowed at citizenship ceremonies.

* Yesterday a court decided that Christian colleges couldn't train lawyers. They decided this on the grounds the court sees an anti-LGBTQ bias.

* There's Canada’s Federal Bill C-16 which outlines rules on how you're allowed to refer to gender.

* America's legal conflicts over how the law can be interpreted as to who must serve whom, under what circumstances. A Christian baker must bake a gay a wedding cake celebrating his gay lifestyle and such.

* Affirmative action that decides which identity groups get a foot up in the education and employment arenas.

Do any of those fit in with what you're talking about? Can you pick one and show me what you approve or disapprove of and what you think should or can be done to improve the problem if there is one?

   

Two of those three are not our history. And the residential thing has already resulted in billions in compensation to anyone with any native blood who can even place himself in the same province as a residential school. No proof of damage required.

   

Then you make amends from the copious funds you have left over after you spend most of your welfare cheque on crack.

My parents didn't commit any wrongs. I guess you're talking about yours (presuming you even know who they were). So send some of your crack to the nearest reserve. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

   

Seriously?!?! I had no idea things were THIS bad

-J.

   

I shouldn't have to repeat this: I have nothing against disability provisions. I was using the fact that the blind are a trivial minority who are served APPROPRIATELY with respect but that the larger plurality of those who are deaf or to those who speak one of English or French distinctly make up a super majority by contrast. And given our supposed system is "Multicultural", I'm calling out our apparent compassion for diversity as a bluff because sincerity to this would be proven had they ALSO provided French and English translation services VOLUNTARILY through the Closed Captioning system or through dubbing to draw in all people of Canada. The fact that this isn't being done proves that our Constitution is not intended to INTEGRATE each other but to SEGREGATE us (similar to the old American South). This is intended to divide us by veiling this as providing a false 'democratic' stance but with the segregated cultures being the ONLY minority accepted as a qualified VOTER. The collective CULT is considered the 'individual' here, not the actual individual.



No I haven't. The 'official' status is a means to guarantee THAT the two languages and the 'cultures' associated to the Canadian historical French Catholics and English Anglicans, Christianity in general, and those who INHERIT wealth of those associations are protected specifically wherever they are in Canada.

The fact that they try to play this low-key in the West is moot. IF one is French and Catholic, for instance, they CAN and DO have unique protected CONSTITUTIONAL privilege to set up systems anywhere with minimal limitations in contrast to other groups. It is also used as a formal 'legal' means to assure that IF there is trouble in the future, they can use the Constitution to DO harm to those who may challenge them in the future. The 'benevolence' of these particular protected groups NOW is only a way to hide their actual arrogant 'supremacy' thinking. They also CONTROL WHICH other cultures are permitted through their auspices!


Yes. I actually DO play a role in trying to change this and have affect. Part of this is speaking like this so that others hear the arguments needed to change things. But when they change this NOW should people complain, it only raises question whether they are doing so to placate the masses and NOT out of sincerity. That is why some of these things must be voluntary.

If you are with a spouse whom you cannot tell if they love you or not for not 'sending you flowers', so to speak, by the time you require even having to state the problem, it is too late because should they then 'send you flowers' after expressing this problem, you can't trust their sincerity. They could be just learning how to hide their disinterest in you better. The language point here is SO obvious to those who put so much care in writing the Constitution that you can't interpret them as missing these points. Either they are very dumb or naive or deceptive. The intellectual way the text is written says they are not dumb nor naive about their approach. So what does that leave?


"PM Socks"?

   

My background is to philosophy and logic. While I know speaking from particulars to the general is what adds value and clarity, when you DO speak with specifics, it tends to be interpreted that you have some particular bias to some extreme. If one speaks of how wearing a hijab may be unfair, for instance, what others will likely interpret this as is that the person speaking is biased against Muslims. It doesn't help when people who ARE actually discriminatory with purpose use these kinds of arguments hiding behind apparent approval of those who would disagree to both or neither, when they are just as bad.

   

Why are they 'trivial'? You're generalizing them because in your eyes they're an unimportant minority? Wow. That's not nice at all.



Do tell. I would love to know what you have going on in regards to this.



Seriously? You've never heard this???



-J.

   

See the note in the last post to N_Fiddledog. You just help prove my point there! You're damned if you have to speak with specifics when it is sure to be either misinterpreted or, as it appears you may be doing, redirecting attention away from the point by focusing on someone else's false interpretation of my context when using specifics.


No. It would also help to have your own interpretation of memes from your environment.

[Are you east of Manitoba? Sometimes the Ontario, Quebec, and Maritime provinces think that they are all that Canada is. Local culture there would be like expecting all of the post-13 colony States of America to have ONLY cultural wisdom of those original States.]

   

I think I get it. You seem to be saying you're against something but you can't tell us exactly what that is or what you would like to see done about it. Apparently, you see clarity as being the enemy of your argument - whatever that might be. You seem to be worried that if you get pinned down on the specifics of what you're talking about it will hurt your argument by revealing bias.

But how persuasive are you hoping to be if nobody knows exactly what you're talking about?

There's an irony to all this. If you don't spell out specifically what you're talking about and the generalities you do speak of are too vague to make sense of, all that's left to the reader is a suspicion of some sort of bias.

It's like, 'What's he hiding then?'

   

Oh, and I'm from west of Manitoba yet I know what the Trudeau sock meme was all about.

It's kind of last year though. The current one is PM Eyebrows. (I think they caught him using fake eyebrows or something like that.)

   

Previous  1 ... 9  10  11  12  13  14  Next