Are you a globalist or a nationalist? Take the quiz.

[fuji]

I an an ULTRA GLOBALIST which surprised me in that I thought my age would throw me into the old fart conservative hermit group.

I would be interested in the effects of the particular questions such as education - are the well educated tend to be globalist or nationalist ? What is the weighting factor.

As a survey it sucks. I took it four or five times giving different answers to see what it considered an ultra nationalist so I could skewer CM, bluecoat, saxon, etc.

Never trust an online poll.

I'm an ultra globalist as well but I've just voted nationalist to ultra nationalist four times lol

 

[oldjones]

He's taken my comment out of context because he's a troll.

On the original thread I said that fixing the problems with the discrimination blacks face from extra police stops is a two way street that both requires addressing prejudice by the police AND requires a shift in the way specifically young black males dress and behave in public.

I wrote that the police should stop and card anybody behaving in an antisocial manner in public.

The specific "punishment" is the extra police attention that people get from dressing and acting like gangsters. I also criticized the glorification of criminal behavior that leads to that public antisocial behavior.

He's taken that quote totally out of context because he's a vile, dishonest, pathetic troll.

Moreover he refuses to debate that topic either, he runs away every time he pastes it

Total troll.

Until he labels it as a quote, it's his statement, and the entire context is the post by him that it appears in. You and he may recognize it as something more, but the to me and the rest of the world those words are his thinking.

I appreciate your effort to clarify, but it's still canada-man who mis-stated and needs to clear up the false post he made. Especially if he imagines it's some sort of point he's made on you, because until he does straighten it out, and states it accurately, it can only make him look bad. As bad as <gasp> you!!

Interesting to see if he claims the context of his subsequent post has since clarified everything, and he has nothing to fix.

 

[Suprapal]

As a survey it sucks. I took it four or five times giving different answers to see what it considered an ultra nationalist so I could skewer CM, bluecoat, saxon, etc.

Never trust an online poll.

I'm an ultra globalist as well but I've just voted nationalist to ultra nationalist four times lol

Uhm...you're confused. The survey results results for Canadians aren't a product of the quiz you took. The quiz is a shortened version of the actual survey. The quiz is simply a tool that helps respondents situate themselves.
Of course, it isn't a representative survey. It wasn't meant to be.

The representative survey of Canadians was completed in April.

"Our survey was conducted online with 1,500 Canadians aged 18 and over from April 21 to 24, 2017. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a large representative panel of over 500,000 Canadians. - See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/globalism-and-nationalism-in-canada/#sthash.pgkxunJB.dpuf"

"The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and regio - See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/globalism-and-nationalism-in-canada/#sthash.fEoPJ7Gc.dpuf"

http://abacusdata.ca/globalism-and-nationalism-in-canada/

 

[Suprapal]

Let's go through the questions. Some are just factual:

"Globalization has helped raise the standard of living for many poor people around the world"

Around the world it clearly has, eg, China. But you must have answered no...

"Canada should slow immigration for the next several years"

Because you hate immigrants?

"There’s too much diversity in Canada, we’d be better off with fewer different cultures"

Ah, that's why: bigoted and prejudiced.

"Canada would be better off run by someone with strong views and who tells it like it is"

Which is the classic definition it's a Fascist...

And then there's some personal data, based on you:

"Technological change has been good for my own economic well being"

And

"Globalization has been bad for my own economic well being"

My guess is that most members on terb are doing really well, have lots of free cash to blow. But you must have judged YOURSELF a failure...

I stand by my assessment!

A lot of your points are unfair. For example, not everyone around the world has benefitted from globalization. North Americans who lost manufacturing jobs that moved overseas being one example.

And you don't NECESSARILY have to be a bigot to be opposed to nigh immigration levels or diversity. To be sure some ultra-nationalist are bigots, but for other ultra-nationalists their motivation might be fear of job loss due to immigration, a perception that the pace of demographic change is overwhelming, concern that new immigrants aren't integrating well, or cultural insecurity that your country is losing its national identity. Whether these fears are warranted or not is another question. But let's not automatically label all ultra-nationalists as motivated by bigotry.

I say this as osmeone who scored as an ultra-globalist. Sometimes it is important to try to understand the other side rather than dismiss their views outright and demonize them.

 

[oldjones]

A lot of your points are unfair. For example, not everyone around the world has benefitted from globalization. North Americans who lost manufacturing jobs that moved overseas being one example.

And you don't NECESSARILY have to be a bigot to be opposed to nigh immigration levels or diversity. To be sure some ultra-nationalist are bigots, but for other ultra-nationalists their motivation might be fear of job loss due to immigration, a perception that the pace of demographic change is overwhelming, concern that new immigrants aren't integrating well, or cultural insecurity that your country is losing its national identity. Whether these fears are warranted or not is another question. But let's not automatically label all ultra-nationalists as motivated by bigotry.

I say this as osmeone who scored as an ultra-globalist. Sometimes it is important to try to understand the other side rather than dismiss their views outright and demonize them.

That's a praiseworthy attitude to hold yourself and advocate for others. But I also thought the questions were biased and laughably simplistic, and still do after your 'defence'.

That's beside my point however, which is that you are quoting and replying to a TERBian who was not stating his opinion but was countering a post from someone else, and the 'points' in that quote refer to that other person's post, history and survey-assigned rating. It only muddys the waters and is a very large mistake to get between two such guys out to prove each other wrong. Even more so if you are not scrupulously precise, concise, and accurate about who actually said what to whom.

If you want to debate the merits of the actual questions, I'm happy to oblige, FWIW I scored as Globalist, 24% ultra, 34% lean. And somehow 16% of me turned up ultra Nationalist. Not sure how they extrapolated that level of chauvinism from just nine questions (and no Don't know/No opinion option)

 

[metal_aug]

A lot of your points are unfair. For example, not everyone around the world has benefitted from globalization. North Americans who lost manufacturing jobs that moved overseas being one example.

And you don't NECESSARILY have to be a bigot to be opposed to nigh immigration levels or diversity. To be sure some ultra-nationalist are bigots, but for other ultra-nationalists their motivation might be fear of job loss due to immigration, a perception that the pace of demographic change is overwhelming, concern that new immigrants aren't integrating well, or cultural insecurity that your country is losing its national identity. Whether these fears are warranted or not is another question. But let's not automatically label all ultra-nationalists as motivated by bigotry.

I say this as osmeone who scored as an ultra-globalist. Sometimes it is important to try to understand the other side rather than dismiss their views outright and demonize them.

+1 said it way better than i wouldve

i'm an ultra-nationalist but...
i love diversity when it happens naturally not when it's shoved in our faces,
when every group can stand on its own two feet without mooching off other groups,
when the newcomers don't shit all over host's laws and culture.

and i also think economic immigrants with an intent to permanently settle should only be let in based on
1)their abilities
2)the host's need
3)the inability of the host to fill those needs with locals

i give 0 fucks about race/religion, in fact i even took an arab buddy to a whorehouse one time. and i have muslim coworkers with whom i joke about how delicious pork is, and find quite a good number of middle eastern and indian women attractive, would definitely fuck them

 

[fuji]

A lot of your points are unfair. For example, not everyone around the world has benefitted from globalization.

And I've pointed that out too, but the poll question the "ultra nationalists" answered no to asked whether they believe (or more accurately whether they know) that globalization improved the standard of living of "MANY" people. It doesn't say all, certainly some were losers.

And you don't NECESSARILY have to be a bigot to be opposed to high immigration levels or diversity.

To be labeled an ultra nationalist they had to answer strongly agree to "There’s too much diversity in Canada, we’d be better off with fewer different cultures".

That's just racism/bigotry/prejudice. Nothing about rate of immigration or pace of change.

 

[Suprapal]

That's a praiseworthy attitude to hold yourself and advocate for others. But I also thought the questions were biased and laughably simplistic, and still do after your 'defence'.

That's beside my point however, which is that you are quoting and replying to a TERBian who was not stating his opinion but was countering a post from someone else, and the 'points' in that quote refer to that other person's post, history and survey-assigned rating. It only muddys the waters and is a very large mistake to get between two such guys out to prove each other wrong. Even more so if you are not scrupulously precise, concise, and accurate about who actually said what to whom.

If you want to debate the merits of the actual questions, I'm happy to oblige, FWIW I scored as Globalist, 24% ultra, 34% lean. And somehow 16% of me turned up ultra Nationalist. Not sure how they extrapolated that level of chauvinism from just nine questions (and no Don't know/No opinion option)

The percentages refer to the percentage of Canadians who belong to each of the four groups. They don't refer to your results. The quiz will tell you which one of the four groups best describes you.

The questions for the quiz were chosen based on a segmentation analysis that revealed how survey respondents tended to group together. Meaning respondents who answer a question one way will have similar answers on a bunch of other questions. The questions that make up the quiz are the best predictors of which group you belong to.

 

[Suprapal]

And I've pointed that out too, but the poll question the "ultra nationalists" answered no to asked whether they believe (or more accurately whether they know) that globalization improved the standard of living of "MANY" people. It doesn't say all, certainly some were losers.



To be labeled an ultra nationalist they had to answer strongly agree to "There’s too much diversity in Canada, we’d be better off with fewer different cultures".

That's just racism/bigotry/prejudice. Nothing about rate of immigration or pace of change.

They might believe too much diversity is bad because it undermines Canadian identity. I don't happen to share that belief. I think diversity is what makes Canada a special country. It is part of our DNA.

But I do appreciate that other people might have a more monolithic cultural view of a national identity, similar to what you find in more ethnically homogenous nation-states (such as in Europe).

Doesn't make a French person necessarily a bigot if they want to preserve traditional French culture by insulating France from foreign influences. Form their perspectivee, it is a zero-sum game. The more diversity in France, the less "French" it becomes.

I think that applying such logic to Canada is faulty, because Canada (unlike France and other European countries) was built on immigration, is not based on ethnic nationalism, and openly promotes multiculturalism as part of its identity.

So I wouldn't say all Canadian ultra-nationalists are bigoted. I don't question their motives by labeling them as bigots; I question their understanding of Canada which I happen to think is mistaken because it doesn't jive with our history.

 

[K Douglas]

Total bullshit. It labelled me an ultra nationalist. I support globalism and free trade but I sure as hell don't support open borders.

 

[fuji]

They might believe too much diversity is bad because it undermines Canadian identity.

Which is bigoted.

But I do appreciate that other people might have a more monolithic cultural view of a national identity, similar to what you find in more ethnically homogenous nation-states (such as in Europe).

Which is even more bigoted.

Doesn't make a French person necessarily a bigot if they want to preserve traditional French culture by insulating France from foreign influences.

Sure it does. The National Front are racists and bigots.

 

[Suprapal]

Which is bigoted.



Which is even more bigoted.



Sure it does. The National Front are racists and bigots.

Your definition of racism is pretty sweeping.
Are French Socialists racists and bigots too for supporting the ban on Islamic dress in public places???? Even if they do so out of a desire to keep France secular and uphold the equality of men and women?

Note: I am opposed to this ban - I think individual liberty, the cornerstone of a liberal-democracy, includes the right to freedom of dress - but I do recognize that being in favour doesn't automatically make one a racist. The intentions behind such support can be noble rather than bigoted.

France is different. The roots of French political secularism, known as laïcité, go back to the revolution of 1789 and to an anti-clerical campaign in the early 20th century. By 1904 some 10,000 religious schools had been shut; thousands of priests fled France. “We have torn human conscience from the clutches of faith,” declared René Viviani, a Socialist minister.
To France’s current Socialist government, with its strong attachment to laïcité, the row over the burkini was a rematch of 1905. Manuel Valls, then the prime minister and now a run-off candidate in the Socialist presidential primary, said the garment embodied the “enslavement of women”. Its logic, added the women’s minister, Laurence Rossignol, was “to hide women’s bodies in order better to control them”. Many citizens concur. Fully 72% say they would back outlawing the veil from university campuses, and 64% would ban the burkini from beaches.

http://www.economist.com/news/inter...m-womens-attire-helping-nobody-state-and-veil

 

[metal_aug]

Loving your culture above others does not make you a racist or bigot. Nobody should have to love all cultures equally in order to not be called a racist.

Voting to stop granting visas and to stop accepting refugees is not inherently racist, because that's simply stopping pro-immigrant positive actions that are not required to do. Not doing a positive is neutral/indifferent, not negative.

Inherently racist actions would include actively negative anti-immigrant violence and unreasonably oppressive race-based laws.

 

[fuji]

Your definition of racism is pretty sweeping.
Are French Socialists racists and bigots too for supporting the ban on Islamic dress in public places????

Yes, very much so. France is an incredibly racist country. Europe in general is riven with racists.

 

[Butler1000]

Which is bigoted.



Which is even more bigoted.



Sure it does. The National Front are racists and bigots.

All false. It isn't about what's racist. It's about what profitable. At the expense of national security.

 

[fuji]

All false. It isn't about what's racist. It's about what profitable. At the expense of national security.

Believing too much diversity is bad for Canada is just bigoted.

 

[six_pac]

Did not even read all the posts on this topic, but i can see that neither being a nationalist nor globalist is good for canada or canadians in that sense.Since the quiz itself was created too separate ppl, along the ideological lines, of one being better, or worse than the other. while in fact neither being one or the other really benefits the individual taking the quiz in any way or form. Unless you make 8 figures per year these issues are redundant, and will not affect you in any way. Weather something is produced here or in china, or if we accept another 20K syrian refugees or not, and close our borders all together, will not affect the daily life of an average canadian in any way. Taxes were introduced before the refugee crisis, and they are still here, (temporary measure right ). So some say we save money by outsourcing, and others say, those are all jobs lost to canadians, and refugees, are doing stuff so much cheaper than anyone else. But amidst all of that you have Ontario GOV, deregulating gas and hydro ( as if there is something wrong with oversight and regulation) now you pay more for a ficticious delivery charge than for the goods provided. Just so we are clear, delivery charges, dont amount for any physical type of physical delivery to you ( just ppl pushing buttons at the office on their keyboards THOSE KEYS dont turn anything on or off lol.) than we have numerous GOV studies that are never realilsed, still millions are spent. To top it all of in Ontario Oakville Gas hydro plant, over 1/2 billion of tax payers dollars to cancel the contract that was signed, while it was well known that public was against it to begin with, and almost no one got charged for it especially not the premier, and there is no media mention of it. So i am canadian, neither a globalist or a nationalist, since i beleive that being canadaian is to be open to newcomers who have made this country great, but also to keep our elected officers accountable to their actions, one thing no one is doing anymore, and it seems that if you are a politician you can get away with misusing as much of public money as posible without any major consequence.................................

 

[Butler1000]

Believing too much diversity is bad for Canada is just bigoted.

Who said anything about diversity? I'm talking about open borders with lax controls. about lax immigration standards. About allowing trade policy to overstep national security and border sovereignty.

I rather like Canada's point based system for immigration. Judging from recent articles I've read I would de emphasis gov't sponsored refugees over private ones as they are far more successful. Just as I predicted.

Feel free to add people so long as they don't have cultural values that conflict with the social and economic values in our Capitalist, Liberal Democracy.

I don't care what color they are. Where they are from.

I care they want to enhance Canadian Culture. Not transfer there own.

 

[oldjones]

The percentages refer to the percentage of Canadians who belong to each of the four groups. They don't refer to your results. The quiz will tell you which one of the four groups best describes you.

The questions for the quiz were chosen based on a segmentation analysis that revealed how survey respondents tended to group together. Meaning respondents who answer a question one way will have similar answers on a bunch of other questions. The questions that make up the quiz are the best predictors of which group you belong to.

Thanks for pointing that out; my eyes always go for the graphics first, and I overlooked the sentence that actually told me I'm an unadulterated Ultra-Globalist pure, plain and simple. How foolish of me to think the terms were not exclusive, and that a true picture of a person's attitudes would be nuanced.

The arrogant presumption that anyone offers to make such a black/white judgment from a mere seven question survey still astounds me. Particularly when one of the few question-opportunities was wasted on the entirely irrelevant, and far from impartial "Canada would be better off run by someone with strong views and who tells it like it is", which has zero to do with either globalism or nationalism.

Perhaps you could help find a link to the actual report of the poll data and methodology. There was no link to it on the survey-site, and I went through Abacus Data's four page list of various projects without seeing it. I must say they do seem very focused on conservative (big and small C) concerns.

 

[Bud Plug]

Who said anything about diversity? I'm talking about open borders with lax controls. about lax immigration standards. About allowing trade policy to overstep national security and border sovereignty.

I rather like Canada's point based system for immigration. Judging from recent articles I've read I would de emphasis gov't sponsored refugees over private ones as they are far more successful. Just as I predicted.

Feel free to add people so long as they don't have cultural values that conflict with the social and economic values in our Capitalist, Liberal Democracy.

I don't care what color they are. Where they are from.

I care they want to enhance Canadian Culture. Not transfer there own.

The idea that "all opposition to diversity is bigotry" is a textbook example of circular reasoning. It presumes that diversity is always good, instead of seeking to prove it. In my opinion, it seems implausible that diversity must always be good. While diversity may be the heart of evolution, nature rejects and abandons its bad ideas.

Most people would acknowledge that there is such a thing as "progress" that can be applicable to all aspects of life. Since progress requires change, people need to be open to different ideas. However, it is trite to say that not all ideas are valuable, nor an improvement upon what already exists.

It is also illogical to assume that any change that has been adopted and tried represents "progress", and that rolling back such changes must therefore represent "regression". Truth is that people are fallible, and sometimes it takes the observation of an idea in practice to illustrate its flaws. Enlightened thinking would be to reverse errors that had unforeseen negative impacts, not entrench them.

Since Canada is a sovereign nation (although perhaps the debate arises because some take issue with this), Canadians are entitled to determine the ways in which they believe Canadian life could or should be improved, and also determine what means they are prepared to adopt to improving it. Canadians are entitled to choose NOT to change what they perceive to be the values associated with Canadian culture. Since we are a democracy, that choice can be made democratically.

Lastly, the idea that preferring one thing is the same as hating another is also clearly illogical. A man who loves to eat chicken does not despise a man who prefers to eat fish. However, if stocking the supermarket with fish would mean restricting or even eliminating the chicken for purchase, the chicken eating man would be understandably upset. And if he had the political power to prevent the change, he would.

In my opinion, "diversity is strength" belongs on the same shelf as other simplistic dogma.