Issue with Online Proselytizing (Trigger Warning)

Are you OK with a Black Lives Matter climbing group seeking (posting) like-minded people on Mountain Project? Like Climbers for Christ.

Yurywrote:

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth… :
the commission had shown "indifference to robust evidence gathering, comparative or contextual data, and cause-effect relationships," which resulted in the commission's report telling "a skewed and partial story."

Not terribly surprising that the National Post found someone who doesn't like it, is it? Just like a bunch of other people thought it was lilly-livered and pro-government. But you'd agree that the eyewitness testimony exists, right? And even though they decided not to name names or press charges, the first-hand accounts are still first hand accounts, right?

The Truth and Reconciliation Report did not compare its findings with rates and causes of mortality among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children attending public schools. 

And again, children mortality back there was much higher than today:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/

And infant mortality rates have nothing to do with school-age deaths. But, as I'm sure you noticed, fatality rates in residential schools were half again as much as in the general populace for 1-20 year olds.

Jamila W wrote:

What I dislike a lot is that some pinpoint requested for parters get praised and some get trashed.  That’s just people doing the anti establishment activist theater thing.

Boy that would be frustrating. Course, folks have talked many times in this thread about how plug-n-play linguistics doesn't work. About how there are specific reasons some groups are 'getting trashed.' If it weren't for those reasons though, I'd dislike it too. Good thing that's not the case! 

FrankPSwrote:

Are you OK with a Black Lives Matter climbing group seeking (posting) like-minded people on Mountain Project? Like Climbers for Christ.

Who are you asking, Frank?

Bill Lawrywrote:

Who are you asking, Frank?

Primarily those opposed to Climbers for Christ posting on MP, and anyone else who wants to weigh in!

FrankPSwrote:

Primarily those opposed to Climbers for Christ posting on MP, and anyone else who wants to weigh in!

Well, look at my post #2. I think I qualify.  

Yeah, I’d include BLM if C4C were onboard. What interesting bookends, by the way, now that you bring it up.  

Anyway, I have plenty of other venues for promoting my ideologic proclivities: Facebook, Twitter, Parlor, Reddit, my front lawn, what my t-shirt has on it, etc..

Anyway, let activity focused websites focus on the activity. 

Bill Lawrywrote:

Personally, my participation in this thread was not just about you or just your recent post. I suspect the OP feels the same. There, a judgment seems to have been made to not clutter up your thread which seems respectful to me. Others may wish the “Christ” titled thread to have been used; there are perspectives here that would not want that to happen.

Let’s try here to take that in-person path by getting off the internet so to speak: Imagine a dozen folks climbing at some crag. A party arrives and announces to everyone that they climb for Christ and are looking to climb with like-minded people.

After not much discussion, a couple pairs of the earlier folks walk out to the parking lot. And there  the discussion turns to the C4C announcement at the crag and their preference to climb without ideological interruptions / disturbances.

The C4C announcer walks in on the discussion, introduces themselves, and offers justification.

If I were there in person in that parking lot discussion, I would pretty much say what I have said here as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.  In other words, if I knew your heart and understood your intentions - my response is the same. Because it comes not from an ephemeral emotion like hate.

Yes, let's all IMAGINE. It is an approach to life. Why should it restricted? Doesn't seem like your input on this site is, other than post limits. 

Still climbing, she is just looking for like minded folks to do so. 

Damn bro, lately you have alot of problems with the site. I don't like this, I don't like that. Chill. 

Parachute Adamswrote:

Yes, let's all IMAGINE. It is an approach to life. Why should it restricted? Doesn't seem like your input on this site is, other than post limits. 

Still climbing, she is just looking for like minded folks to do so. 

Damn bro, lately you have alot of problems with the site. I don't like this, I don't like that. Chill.

It is my preference, that is so. Not surprised you don’t like. Oh well.

Bill Lawrywrote:

It is my preference, that is so. Not surprised you don’t like. Oh well.

The key word there is MY. 

Jamila W wrote:

If you’d defend a BLM meetup then ask yourself if you’d be as accommodating to a B(lue)LM or an ALM event.  If not then that’s not true equality.

Do you think I'd be against a Blue Lives Mater climbing event? It seems like you do think that. Now read the bit where I say I'd be for a Manson Family climbing event. How do those square in your mind? 

Circling back to my other post and your response about how there’s a “specific reason” some groups get trashed and some don’t: If you’re not going to trash every single attribute based meetup (and we know you don’t because you’re a very vocal defender of some other ones on other thread) then why trash CFC?

See, now that is a very important question. And one I have specifically answered. So after you go back and read that, why don't you tell me why I trash on CFC. 

Now that we're on the same page, why did it take us this long to get on the same page? 

Anyone saying they support a religion filter is also signaling being ok with being shielded from other attributes they don’t like.  

Nope. For the reason I've written previously. 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure you could have lots of interesting things to say to address the points lots of folks in this thread made about how plug-n-play is logically nonsense. I'd like to hear em. I suspect lots of folks would like to hear em. Actual points won't get as many upvotes as the performative 'political' nonsense above, so I get if it's not what you're here to do. But if you want to read and respond, I think it'd be great and I'd be happy to respond back.

Jamila W wrote:

If you’d defend a BLM meetup then ask yourself if you’d be as accommodating to a B(lue)LM or an ALM event. If not then that’s not true equality.

Yeah that'd make sense if blue lives haven't always mattered more in the public sphere, or if "all lives matter" wasn't more than a dog whistle phrase meant to keep people in their place. But you do you and keep playing the contrarian for the system.

Jamila W wrote:

Anyone saying they support a religion filter is also signaling being ok with being shielded from other attributes they don’t like.  You want a POC filter as well?  Because both filters are just hiding away people you’re not comfortable being exposed and that’s a tad cowardly in my opinion.

Nah.  I’ve had - indeed choose to have - plenty of exposure to followers of Christ over the years.  And probably will for the rest of my life.  Far from hidden. I suspect that is true for many

And Social-media filters are not quite so black and white as above. Occasionally I turn off the “for sale” filter. And “off” could be the default for a new users if we worry that people are being sheltered on social media from life experiences. 

Lol - “sheltered on social media from life.” We spend too much time here already.

By the way, many here are arguing that the C4C posts are not about proselytization.  If true, how does a filter shield someone from being exposed to something uncomfortable?

JonasMRwrote:

Not terribly surprising that the National Post found someone who doesn't like it, is it? Just like a bunch of other people thought it was lilly-livered and pro-government. 

Does it mean that you could not refute my main point about lack of data in a report of this commission and resorted to "blame the messenger" tactic?

But you'd agree that the eyewitness testimony exists, right? And even though they decided not to name names or press charges, the first-hand accounts are still first hand accounts, right?

You can find anecdotal evidence to support any point of view.
It's not a substitution for statistical analysis of reliable data.

But, as I'm sure you noticed, fatality rates in residential schools were half again as much as in the general populace for 1-20 year olds.

I do not have access to this article.
Are you saying that in Canadian residential schools mortality rates were 150% as compared to general population for all ages between 1 and 20 y.o.?
Have they kept students in these schools to 20 y.o.?

Do you also have a comparison to fatality on a reserve?
It will be more relevant.

Purportedly these data were available in an article published in 2000.
Why in this case these data are missing in a report published in 2015?
Does it mean that such data would not have supported a preferred narrative of this commission? 

Yurywrote:

Does it mean that you could not refute my main point about lack of data in a report of this commission and resorted to "blame the messenger" tactic?

Your point that some people have an issue with what was published? I'd never try to refute that. Of course people have issues with it. Lots of issues from lots of sides, all claiming it was biased against them or some group they like. But that's hardly surprising is it?

You can find anecdotal evidence to support any point of view.
It's not a substitution for statistical analysis of reliable data.

Which statistical analysis is appropriate in the reporting of a crime? Or is it the case that the reporting of crimes has a whole different set of methods for determining the "truth?" If a large number of witnesses come forward and report crimes, isn't the relevant number how many reports were made? Especially if there isn't going to be additional follow-up from law enforcement?

I do not have access to this article.

Weird. Did you try copying the DOI into SciHub?

Are you saying that in Canadian residential schools mortality rates were 150% as compared to general population for all ages between 1 and 20 y.o.?
Have they kept students in these schools to 20 y.o.?

They did not. Nor at 1. Thus the 1-to-20 statistic drastically overestimates the mortality rate of the general populace compared to the school-age populace. And still, residential schools were way deadlier.

Do you also have a comparison to fatality on a reserve?
It will be more relevant.

I did not find that. Have you? Seems like it would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would necessarily be more relevant. Surely the goal was to provide at least "average" conditions for the abducted children, not necessarily match the impoverished conditions foisted upon their parents. Right?

Purportedly these data were available in an article published in 2000.
Why in this case these data are missing in a report published in 2015?
Does it mean that such data would not have supported a preferred narrative of this commission? 

Or did an alien come down and zap everyone's brains, making the data disappear? Maybe someone's cat walked on a keyboard and erased the data? We don't know, and rumors and innuendo are just guesses. But if you have that data, please do share!

JonasMRwrote:

Your point that some people have an issue with what was published?

I believe that I understand the difference between my and your approaches to this subject.
I believe in evidence based policies when we need hard data as a foundation, while it seems to me that you believe in slogan based policies.
With such different approaches I do not believe that there is a chance that we can come to common understanding.

Again, I was triggered by the use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".
To call actions of an institution as murder/killing/genocide, you need to actually count the number of people who has died and assess its significance. This never was a purpose of this commission. So I speculated about motives of the people who used these words.
I never commented on whether these schools were good or bad.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_of_Canada:

The mandate of IRSSA required the TRC to gather testimonies from the residential school's survivors.[19] The testimonies were claimed to be necessary in order for the mandate to create a historical record of the legacy and impacts of the residential schools.[19] The historical record was also important in educating the public on "the truth of what happened" in Canada. The records of the testimonies and documents of the residential schools are open to the public in a National Research Centre.[19]

Between 2008 and 2014 the TRC gathered what is estimated to be around 7000 testimonies from the survivors,[20] most from those who had attended the schools after the 1940s.[21] The testimonies were gathered in both public and private settings, such as community hearings, sharing circles, Commissioners Sharing Panels, etc.[19] The Commissioners Panels often brought large audiences, drawing hundreds of audience members and reporters with testimonies regularly being recorded and posted online. During the public testimonies, survivors detailed their experiences surrounding the residential schools.[22] These regularly consisted of memories of being stripped of their language and culture[23] as well as experiences of abuse, sexual assault and malnutrition.[22]

Yury, this is a pretty extreme ideology you espouse in defending the schools. You think these children were better off? Have you read the apology?

On Wednesday June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, made a Statement of Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada.

11 June 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

The treatment of children in Indian Residential Schools is a sad chapter in our history.

For more than a century, Indian Residential Schools separated over 150,000 Aboriginal children from their families and communities. In the 1870's, the federal government, partly in order to meet its obligation to educate Aboriginal children, began to play a role in the development and administration of these schools.  Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.  These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, "to kill the Indian in the child".  Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

One hundred and thirty-two federally-supported schools were located in every province and territory, except Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.  Most schools were operated as "joint ventures" with Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian or United Churches.  The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken far from their communities.  Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed.  All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.  First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.  Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools and others never returned home.

The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential Schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language.  While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children, and their separation from powerless families and communities.

The legacy of Indian Residential Schools has contributed to social problems that continue to exist in many communities today. 

It has taken extraordinary courage for the thousands of survivors that have come forward to speak publicly about the abuse they suffered.  It is a testament to their resilience as individuals and to the strength of their cultures.  Regrettably, many former students are not with us today and died never having received a full apology from the Government of Canada.

The government recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation.  Therefore, on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this Chamber so central to our life as a country, to apologize to Aboriginal peoples for Canada's role in the Indian Residential Schools system.

To the approximately 80,000 living former students, and all family members and communities, the Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this.  We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this.  We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this.  We now recognize that, far too often, these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled, and we apologize for failing to protect you.  Not only did you suffer these abuses as children, but as you became parents, you were powerless to protect your own children from suffering the same experience, and for this we are sorry.

The burden of this experience has been on your shoulders for far too long.  The burden is properly ours as a Government, and as a country.  There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian Residential Schools system to ever prevail again. You have been working on recovering from this experience for a long time and in a very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey. The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.

petzl logicwrote:

Yury, this is a pretty extreme ideology you espouse in defending the schools. You think these children were better off? Have you read the apology?

petzl logic, please do not put your words into my mouth.

My comments were about use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".
I never commented on whether these schools were good or bad.

Yurywrote: My comments were about use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".
I never commented on whether these schools were good or bad.

Then where are you on the subject? Uncertain?

Yurywrote:

I believe in evidence based policies when we need hard data as a foundation, while it seems to me that you believe in slogan based policies.

I mean, that's demonstrably not the case. You wanted to know if the numbers of school aged dead were abnormal, we found they were, that changed nothing for you. But I take your point, we won't be seeing eye to eye any time soon.

Again, I was triggered by the use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".

Sorry you were triggered. "Genocide" is the correct word, however. Compare even Wikipedia's ultra-lite version of what was found with the legal meaning of the word "genocide," found here. Using abduction, malnutrition, sexual abuse, are all standard genocide practice. 

I appreciate your sharing that those words hurt your feelings, though.

Yurywrote:

petzl logic, please do not put your words into my mouth.

My comments were about use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".
I never commented on whether these schools were good or bad.

i’m not putting words in your mouth, you were literally equivocating about whether the children would have been better off with their parents given various stats about child mortality. 

Bill Lawrywrote:

My comments were about use of words "murder", "killing" and "genocide".
Then where are you on the subject? Uncertain?

I do not believe that the use of these words is justified.