[Serious] Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem

[The Grand Nudger]

White people are not being constantly shit on. Full stop. If you recall beginning to strongly identify as white at some point where this narrative (and so much more) was sold to you - you're neatly describing the process of radicalization. You might want to reexamine alot of positions that you began to hold at this time.

I don't think that anyone is crying out for an end to free speech, most places already have hate speech laws and ofc incitement is not a protected form of speech. The US has many problems, but no list of those problems will form an argument for poor governance in any other particular. As far as speech and extremism goes, the us is remarkably permissive. Most of your comments in this regard are a literal conspiracy theory. Of shadowy elites in the media conspiring to distract us from what our overlords may be up to at a given moment. I have to ask, what would be the point of that? We're perfectly fine cheering them on out in the open.

It's unclear how your civil liberties or my civil liberties are harmed...and indeed unclear how an extremists civil liberties are harmed, when we decide that we do not want their products in our communities. When we decide that they will not be allowed to profit off of the misery of others. When we decide that pursuant to our treaties with ally nations, some law enforcement act on their behalf triggers the relevant law in our own. Unclear, but..it is another apparently compelling plank of white supremacist ideology. Rights abrogation. Especially frozen peaches. There's no real danger that white supremacy is going to be silenced in a white majority country under majority white rule. It would be ludicrous to imagine as much before we acknowledge that white supremacy has many allies in law enforcement and government. You're listening to them go on tv to wine about being canceled. The irony there doesn't just immediately jump out at you? Is anyone handing you a mic? Are you being silenced? Are they -not- mounting a credible primary challenge to establishment republicans in elections all over the country, and are we not now being held hostage by those same people who loudly promise, while loudly complaining about being canceled, to be even worse if we don't give them what they want?

It's clear that how the US and (I suspect) Canada have handled this doesn't endanger the speech, it endangers the mortgage payments and credit ratings of extremists. It endangers their plans to use those resources to harm others. If you want some cabal of peole conspiring to shit on you and deprive you of your rights..there they are, but they're right out in the open about it. Personally, I share your misgivings about a world with less free speech - I love it when people blurt out great replacement theory as a fact. We do have to respect that a right to free speech is not the only right that our government is bound to respect or safeguard, and that no right you hold is a suicide pact with another, though...don't we?

(There's no requirement to think the way that I think just because you no longer believe in great replacement propaganda. I'm sure that there just have to be other ways to completely disagree with whatever it is you think that I think.)

[Irreligious Atheist]

If I've been radicalized by anyone, it's CNN itself and organizations like that that did it.

Why would I believe that a news network would push propaganda? Ask yourself this. Why would FOX News want to push propaganda? Remember that it's the left that coined the term fake news (or Faux News as FOX has been nicknamed). It wasn't Hillary Clinton or the former POTUS that coined the term. Why does FOX push propaganda? Maybe because that's what billion dollar corporations do. It makes zero sense that you would think that one billion dollar corporation has an agenda, but that the other billion dollar corporations are just fair and balanced and just care about the truth, like the ones who own CNN, and those billion dollar corporations have no agenda and just tell the truth without distorting it. I just don't have trust in billion dollar corporations like you might.

It's called divide and conquer. Same thing FOX does. People are easier to conquer when they're divided and fighting amongst each other. You don't need some secret child sacrificing, devil worshiping cabal for that to be obviously true. The powers that be obviously will want to take heat off of themselves, and divide and conquer is the easiest way to do that. No Illuminati conspiracy theory is necessary to see the obvious. The powerful want to cover their own asses.

No one needed to sell me a conspiracy for me come to the conclusion that power corrupts, and that powerful people are likely going to want to become more powerful. Do powerful people want to become less powerful? Obviously not. Are powerful people usually content with being as powerful as they are and no more? Powerful people don't have goals and ambition? If you say so. I used to suffer from cognitive dissonance and I thought that CNN and MSNBC and the like were doing a fairly good job reporting on the truth of the matter, but then I realized the most obvious thing in the history of obvious things. Billion dollar corporations are not benign truth tellers. They are billion dollar corporations, and billion dollar corporations will do what billion dollar corporations do. It's even worse in Canada because we have government funded media.

[Irreligious Atheist]

And if I have blood on my hands for being a free speech absolutist, I'm absolutely fine with that. It's collateral damage. Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood. Like the saying goes, if you are willing to give up freedom for security, you deserve neither.

[The Grand Nudger]

I strongly doubt that cnn radicalized you with the victimization complex of white supremacy. You understand how absurd that is, on it's face, correct?

Just whose blood do you intend to pay for this freedom that you do not possess? You sound like a stone cold fucking groundpounder buddy. How many have you killed? How much blood have you seen?

I can only tell you that the position you've been freely advocating for isn't free speech, and it isn't worth a single human life, a single drop of blood, white or otherwise. I have no personal objections to spilling buckets of the shit, but I'm certain that you can find a better cause.

[Deesse23]

Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood. 

Yeah, but your fundamental misunderstaning is that your freedoms should be paid with others´blood. 
You know, when we say that things come at a price, we never mean that others should pay for stuff you will get.

When "we" as a society are saying that freedom has a cost, it means that "we" as a society have to pay. That does not mean that you decide that others have to pay for your freedoms.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the context of right wing extremism, it's a bit of performative fiction. The notion that some group of people doesn't deserve freedom (or any number of other things) is more important than the truth of the statement in a vacuum.

I wonder if he's considered that white supremacy is pleading with us to provide them with security at the expense of others freedom. That he and they may be the undeserving lot, if we're to legitimately entertain this as relevant to a discussion about right wing extremism in the US or N.A.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood. 

Yeah, but your fundamental misunderstaning is that your freedoms should be paid with others´blood. 
You know, when we say that things come at a price, we never mean that others should pay for stuff you will get.

When "we" as a society are saying that freedom has a cost, it means that "we" as a society have to pay. That does not mean that you decide that others have to pay for your freedoms.

We are not talking about my freedoms. Everyone in society would have those same freedoms. Everyone shares in them. If my whole family was wiped out by someone who was radicalized online or whatever, that still wouldn't change my mind on free speech absolutism.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is unclear how making it illegal to profit off of domestic or international terror is a danger to free speech. As I mentioned before, it's pointless to argue rights abrogation in this, because there is no rights abrogation here.

Your position on free speech can be whatever you want it to be, but terrorism isn't speech, free or otherwise. This has been a common misperception of right wing extremists around the globe. They believe that, somehow, they possess rights they do not possess, rights which inherently harm others, rights which must be granted as the compelling interest regardless of that harm or of others rights....and they possess them through means and arguments which never address or approach them. A fantasy of rights, supplied to a fantasy of whiteness, supporting a fantasy of rights abrogation by genocide, a position which you have abandoned. Rights abrogation by free speech, as is explicitly the case in your current comments. Or by unequal representation under law, which is implicit to your constant complaints about blacks, antifa, the boogeyman, and whoever else.

None of this is happening. Absolutely none of it. To your credit, you feel that it would be concerning if it were. That leaves you between a rock and a hard place. You are either well intentioned but profoundly wrong due to the consumption of propaganda, or you are not genuinely committed to the facts of any position you hold on any matter you've raised. States are, themselves, between exactly that rock and hard place when it comes to enforcement. Thankfully, despite your wild suggestions to the contrary, there is not only guidance on this subject - but a process of appeals available to you and to them.

[Irreligious Atheist]

It is unclear how making it illegal to profit off of domestic or international terror is a danger to free speech.  As I mentioned before, it's pointless to argue rights abrogation in this, because there is no rights abrogation here.  

Your position on free speech can be whatever you want it to be, but terrorism isn't speech, free or otherwise.  This has been a common misperception of right wing extremists around the globe.  They believe that, somehow, they possess rights they do not possess, and they possess them through means and arguments which never address or approach them.  A fantasy of rights, supplied to a fantasy of whiteness, supporting a fantasy of abrogation by free speech, as is explicitly the case in your comments.  Or by unequal representation under law, which is implicit to the constant both siderism.

I never claimed that terrorism is free speech. Terrorism should be punished under the law.

My parents go to a church where the pastor is a Jewish follower of Christ. I go with them sometimes. Some anti-semite could show up and shoot up the place, but I will advocate for anti-semites to be able to express their views out loud or online. We don't have free speech here, but I'd be willing to take that risk if we could have free speech. That's not me being ok with people profiting off of terrorism or anything like that. I am ok with people funding anti-semites, but I'm not ok with people funding terrorists and terrorists should be locked away.

[The Grand Nudger]

Section 2 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms suggests otherwise.

Profoundly wrong, or bad faith?

If what you intended to express was that your country's standing with free speech could be improved - then..sure, so could ours? That could only be relevant to the item in question if the item in question is a good example of exactly that - which...frankly, it's not. Our domestics are your internationals. Ours fund yours... and yours are affiliated with ours. You could more easily argue the case that the us is a state sponsor of terror in canada than enacting financial penalties for terrorist acts is an abrogation of free speech in either of our countries.

Designating the proud boys a terrorist organization does not and cannot prevent a white supremacist from speaking, or white supremacy as an ideology from being spread. That costs no money, and is not predicated on a persons membership or financial support for an organization which was involved in an attempted insurrection in an ally state, among other itsy bitsy quibbles.

Here is a short list from wiki, I'm sure that you can find others, of white nationalist organizations active in canada. You may notice that it's not interchangeable with your list of designated terrorist organizations. From this, I can only conclude that it's well within the realm of legality to be and say white supremacist shit in canada...some guys just can't get their shit together. It's almost as if each of these terrorist organizations has been designated as such by their calls to violence against the people of a state and the overthrow of it's government, and history of then making such attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wh...ons#Canada
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-...ts-en.aspx