Are we that weak?

[Steelheader]

Almost every week I pass a gathering of flag-wavers in pickup trucks while walking my dog past a local parking lot, and I have no impression of impending violence.

Yes, I believe you. But that's kind of my point. These stories are mostly anecdotal. In your example, you walk past them and feel no threat of harm. In the news article example I've given, the occupants of the vehicle are now being investigated by the Hate Crimes unit for using physical violence.
The original post/question in this thread asks if Canadians are thin-skinned for being "triggered" at the sight of the flag on a pick-up truck. Well, in most cases we certainly shouldn't be. Yet in other cases, when our neighbours are subject to harassment and violence, I'm willing to accept that those concerns may be valid. I don't see anyone rolling up into the "fetal position" or acting "weak", they're just observant enough to recognize that a pick-up truck covered in FREEDOM signs with our flag flying circling their event is a better threat indicator than a vehicle not doing that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The biggest threats don't advertise.

I agree that there are indicators people might reasonably look to. But neurotic responses to very low odds risks are unhealthy. And it is reasonable to suppose that some - perhaps many - people aren't really "triggered"; they're just using that as an acceptable lever for social/political harassment. (Most times people claim to be "triggered", I assume they're acting out.)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes, I believe you. But that's kind of my point. These stories are mostly anecdotal. In your example, you walk past them and feel no threat of harm. In the news article example I've given, the occupants of the vehicle are now being investigated by the Hate Crimes unit for using physical violence.
The original post/question in this thread asks if Canadians are thin-skinned for being "triggered" at the sight of the flag on a pick-up truck. Well, in most cases we certainly shouldn't be. Yet in other cases, when our neighbours are subject to harassment and violence, I'm willing to accept that those concerns may be valid. I don't see anyone rolling up into the "fetal position" or acting "weak", they're just observant enough to recognize that a pick-up truck covered in FREEDOM signs with our flag flying circling their event is a better threat indicator than a vehicle not doing that.

I used to assume anyone with tattoos and hoodie was a potentiel threat

 

[OldSolduer]

I used to assume anyone with tattoos and hoodie was a potentiel threat

I resemble that remark.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I resemble that remark.

That's the issue, it used to be a valid marker, now it's everyday at Tim Hortans.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Yeah! Fuck freedom and Canadian flags! Just get in line, tovarish.

 

[Steelheader]

The biggest threats don't advertise.

I agree that there are indicators people might reasonably look to. But neurotic responses to very low odds risks are unhealthy. And it is reasonable to suppose that some - perhaps many - people aren't really "triggered"; they're just using that as an acceptable lever for social/political harassment. (Most times people claim to be "triggered", I assume they're acting out.)

I guess my view is that if some Canadians now see our flag on a truck as something negative, or even threatening, I would point my finger towards the people flying it while doing some very unpopular and unsafe activities as the reason for that reaction, and not consider the (over)reaction as the real problem in this situation.

 

[brihard]

The biggest threats don't advertise.

Not necessarily accurate. In the context of ideologically motivated violent extremism, by the time someone becomes truly dangerous they have probably been very open about some pretty concerning views. They may not outright advertise once they've crossed a line into violent extremism, but they may still telegraph their actions and intent. This is pretty much a discussion around 'left of bang' tactical intelligence at this point.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Not necessarily accurate. In the context of ideologically motivated violent extremism, by the time someone becomes truly dangerous they have probably been very open about some pretty concerning views. They may not outright advertise once they've crossed a line into violent extremism, but they may still telegraph their actions and intent. This is pretty much a discussion around 'left of bang' tactical intelligence at this point.

So they don't advertise

Advertising is different from telegraphing their actions and intent.

 

[Booter]

My threat cues are “bedazzled jeans” and “I’m going to promote”

 

[Brad Sallows]

Suppose people are more candid while they are less radicalized. That suggests people on the path to radicalization can be more easily identified in early stages. Suppose also that it's easier to de-radicalize someone who is less radicalized to start with. I conclude that treating people showing visible signs of early radicalization harshly - intemperate censorship, detention, punishment, etc - is counter-productive.

 

[brihard]

So they don't advertise

Advertising is different from telegraphing their actions and intent.

You highlighted selectively. Continue with the ‘once they…’ I also qualified it with ‘May not’ and ‘outright’. Sometimes the bad guy will tell you what they intend to do. You also ignored the predicate I wrote immediately before that.

Proper intelligence work should be identifying emergent threats while they’re still more naive to detection and disruption. This remains true in the overlapping criminal and extremism worlds.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I guess my view is that if some Canadians now see our flag on a truck as something negative, or even threatening, I would point my finger towards the people flying it while doing some very unpopular and unsafe activities as the reason for that reaction, and not consider the (over)reaction as the real problem in this situation.

If I keep seeing black people shooting people in Toronto is it okay for me to be triggered by black people?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Would depend on the neighbourhood, age, gender, etc wouldn't it?

 

[btrudy]

If I keep seeing black people shooting people in Toronto is it okay for me to be triggered by black people?

No, it is not reasonable to react in that manner to what someone is. As opposed to the topic of discussion here, where people are reacting to the messages that people are displaying.

When someone is actively trying to communicate something, figuring out what they're trying to say and reacting accordingly is reasonable. Expected even.

And, as we've seen, it's quite frequent now-a-days where the thing they're trying to communicate is "I am a white nationalist" and one of the methods they're using to communicate that is "flying lots of Canadian flags".

 

[OldSolduer]

Would depend on the neighbourhood, age, gender, etc wouldn't it?

Yes I think that’s a good assessment. You don’t wander in the North End of Winnipeg after dark, especially if you’re average white people.

 

[mariomike]

For those keeping score of Canada's municipal homicide rankings,

Homicide rate by metro area in Canada 2022 | Statista

This statistic shows the homicide rate in Canada in 2022, distinguished by metropolitan areas.

www.statista.com

Canada's Most Dangerous Places 2020 - Macleans.ca

Use this interactive tool to see the full ranking of Canada's most dangerous places. Rank cities by type of crime or see all the statistics for one city.

www.macleans.ca

 

[OldSolduer]

Stabby Winnipeg - people at the Forks on Canada Day got stabbed for accidently bumping into some idiot who then decided to stab a Ukrainian refugee in the neck. In my crayon eating mind no one should go to the Forks - let it wither and die. Its a haven for ne'er do wells.

 

[Steelheader]

If I keep seeing black people shooting people in Toronto is it okay for me to be triggered by black people?

No.

As others here have expressed, this is about symbolism in context. That is, some Canadians choose purposefully to use an overt symbol (our national flag) in the context of representing some kind of active political expression of their beliefs. That symbolism, in that context, is becoming distasteful for some other Canadians, which is why we're talking about it.

In your example, the context of a person walking around waving a gun in public as a symbol of the threat they pose or some other kind of symbolic expression would be something to avoid of course, but just as automatically bemoaning the sight of any Canadian flag in any context is ridiculous, so too is using this extremely simplistic example.

 

[ueo]

The way CBC worded that my money is that someone hit the driver. If the driver had hit someone they would not be so vauge!

News report on Wed interviewed this guy and the other person (his wife), all of a sudden the position changed to what might be one of "pity me my wife(?) is bi and we, therefore, are members of that community". Opinions seem firmly etched in Jello. Think this is on the CTV station in London. Some one looking for their minute of fame?