Scott Mayers

The problem is, I wouldn't stoop so low as to take advantage of things I am against as a hypocrite. If the world turns out to require us to PLAY this game when or where we get such success, then why can't those who BELIEVE they are being unfairly being called terrorists and haters not just embrace it instead? We hypocritically go all out in formally defining things for laws only to be permitted to call upon 'exception' by future selective reinterpretation ABOUT the past decisions when we could be more accurate if we just kept ONE 'formal' language and lose the 'traditional' crap. You can't have it both ways. But this IS how our system is staged.

None of that matters if I can't have a constitution that deliberately discriminates against me for speaking. When and where the censors have the select power to manipulate HOW the news is presented, how we are moderated by deplatforming measures in secret friends of the 'established' cults and heirs of fortune here, I would easily be buried. And if I spoke louder, I too might be formulated as being some 'conspiracy group thinker' with the means of HOW I am permitted to speak. I'd get a badge with a symbol just as the Jews of WWII did. Only I, just as the Jews then, would be given 'proof' of bad and evil conduct, be called a hater BEFORE the evidence. Those past peoples' are plagues with myth and/or exaggeration. They are heroes 'now' but were NOT often receivers of such glory of notice when they lived. So what does it matter. If I'm being treated as some 'hater' today to be repaired by some posterity, it doesn't mean much to an atheist like myself who wouldn't be there in the future to feel vindicated.

Example: I wouldn't be permitted to speak against the present assertions about the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in public when we are placing statues dedicated to this in our police departments, promoting a PRESUMPTION of indirect innuendo ABOUT what has happened regardless of the fact that the perpetrators are unknown. We are to default a 'faith' THAT there is some perpetrators that are NON-female, NON-Indigenous, and likely 'white' haters, out there stalking these people specifically FOR some 'hate' interest. This ignores that the nature of poverty set up BY the religious establishment IS the cause of any real stage set that makes them vulnerable. And what do we do? We promote this group to assert victimhood WITHOUT actual knowledge of what if anything occurred. We promote hypocritically further means to ISOLATE these very people BY promoting distinct private languages, private rights to OWN one's own 'subspecies' (like how one adopted of some minority is granted some inherent right to their genetically related people's artistic and religious lifestyles, etc. We are promoting and staging a distinct assurance of hate, done by the architects OF the causes, ....like the Catholic French/Anglican Ontarian and other already secretive groups that have demeaning interest to keep outsiders down. There are many others. But not only do I as an individual NOT have a right to say anything, I get penalized MORE FOR complaining should I try. We have false 'freedoms' of thought here. They are all caveated with protective clauses for the select.

Wait. The 'evangelical' Christian of any denomination believes in spreading their word. Most religions con money to send to remote places with a sales tactic of selling of the suffering when the intents are more devious indirectly. WE permit legal lying in almost all of our business oriented behavior that exploit the differences between what one 'knows' over another. Those groups, if they sincerely believe they have a beef, often DO extremes because that is all they have when the 'legit' powers DON'T need to for the fact that they HAVE the power. They just manipulate ways to try to EVOKE those poor sufferers INTO extremism. This censoring precisely does this.

I'm not permitted. You require being first a default supporter in your 'queen', a belief in those SPECIFIC inheritors of past peoples as uniquely protected in 'our' constitution, and have the money as well as some religiously devoted backing cult behind you. Our system only favors the 'group' stereotypes that are passed through the auspices of the select cults. At minimal, I am a 'floater' here presumed to be from some cult based on biology (how does one 'own' ancestral behavior? And why is it okay to take the selective stereotypes over the derogatory ones when BOTH come from the same kind of error in thinking? If it is not okay to inherit your father's evils, why is it okay to assert the inherent benefits. It say, keep the good but distribute the faults on those without association. I'm tired of assholes scapegoating me as thought THEY are the ones 'sacrificing'. As sacrifice has to literally be one's own, not some class member you forcefully assert we are all belonging to.

[I wish the content of the conversations here were automatically quoted or linked. It's hard for others to follow without reading each and every prior post linked to determine what and who said what.] Okay, this was to me in two parts. I already agree AND DO operate well with communicating and diffusing those considered 'trolls' on other sites. It is effective when people voluntarily do this. As to the second part, the kinds of extreme white supremacist is rare, almost always get their 'power' BY the very systems promoting cultural/religious SEGREGATION. As to your specific example, instead of posing a DEROGATORY AND OVERT PSYCHOLOGICAL insult, try what you claim to suggest in the prior paragraph. Those groups are empowered by the very LIKE-minded thinkers who can't fathom that they themselves ARE the problem. Neglectful types of abuses are MORE prevalent, devious, and hard to ever see. It makes those who overtly act out only represent a less intellectually and clumsy 'criminal' who are easily caught. The worst ARE those of the same with 'credulity' of defense of the 'victims'. Calling someone out as though YOU KNOW better is why Trump got elected: a response by the behavior of HYPOCRITES claiming to be 'loving' people are culpable of the same but are able to hold up babies in front of them as armor while they jump into the front lines of war.

I said as much already. Why are you not paying attention?

We do not have a system where we get to participate in development of laws DIRECTLY (like 'proposition' and FORCED petitions that require action in the U.S.). Our 'Constitution' was created without concern of anyone BUT the arrogant 'monarchist' such as yourself, the wealthy EASTERN Ontario and Quebec HISTORICALLY related peoples of those Catholic and Anglican (small catholics) who BELIEVE in AUTHORITATIVE TOP-DOWN dictatorial thinking. [Ironically, this is 'republican' in that the 'republic' concept means only REPRESENTATION FOR the people, as though we were all stupid cattle that should be 'handled' and denigrated into snowflakes that are easier to manipulate. I tried to get involved and this is the best I can get. Even the NDP I originally hoped for turns out to be a fraudulent set of 'conservatives' in sheeps clothing. They represent the 'moderate' religious extremes who WOULD be more 'conservative' and anti-democratic should they have the power. [I at least still have hope for the U.S.'s "Democrats" in their variety.] If you like queens and gods, then why should you ever require a government at all? I think that if politicians can use these as justifications remotely, they are ANTI-people and are manipulators who use these 'beliefs' as means to justify the irrationality of themselves where convenient.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/federal-support-for-innovative-online-initiative-to-prevent-radicalization-to-violence-699803901.html The above is yesterday (or the day before?) topic in the news on this. It presented that Ralph Goodale is presenting powers to have what is considered 'hate' groups online to use what might be called 'triggers' of presumably prototype behavior of 'terrorists'. This is an EXCUSE to GET the power only, not to do what is merely being claimed.This is because it is being done IN SECRET and through political/religious/cultural interests. WE the people will have no means to know when or where we are being monitored AND, from my own researching and experiments, ARE being REDIRECTED away from our intentional searches already! An example relates to forums that are considered neutral non-affiliated political groups. We are being successfully redirected to sites that are only a subset of the actual sites and get blocked out of the actual ones that others may see from different areas. This is noticeable first if you notice more strict country interests rather than the topic. Oddly, for instance, we get a highly unusual redirection to Australia here in Canada for a lot of these (like the skeptic sites I like). I can tell you more but it would expose something about HOW I determined it. Start talking to your computer science friends more to learn. The second topic regarding today can be found at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-hate-elections-canada-canadian-nationalist-party-1.5193358. Please tell me after watching what you see if you think just what the guy of the group they presented was actually saying anything with 'hate' or rationalization based on realistic human behaviors. [conspiracies are not ALL hard to not to be thought of as unreal or we wouldn't have had the 'Nationalist popularity of the past. Note that our 'pride' groups based on specific interests that tie ALL people of the same 'kind' as UNIQUE, whether it be of the Queen, the Catholic or Anglican stronghold of the established families here OR those, like the Jewish-nationalist (Pro-Israeli/Anti-Palestinian) groups, all OPT to promote ISOLATED laws: like to promote one's one distinct language and culture as though they were universal. ....reigniting dead or dying languages or cultures that the traditionalists fear they are losing to the majority PROGRESSIVE 'cultures'.

PLEASE define 'hate'. And if YOU are so much wiser to know, what makes your opinion MORE valid than others? This climate of accusations these days is like watching prosecutors who ADVOCATE blindly to serve the public as though they are robots who are required to do whatever it takes to get any accused/charged to be persecuted (ie 'prosecuted'...same etymology). We don't need ADVOCATES that act as POLICE, PROSECUTORS, JUDGE AND JURY, prior to the actual evidence. And when this censoring is done without a need for DEFENCE, we have BECOME the 'evil' countries we act so arrogantly prima dona about.

The opposite is true: those OTHER groups of similar 'distinct' but competing beliefs of those permitted protection, will have PROOF in action of a system that selectively conspires against them. This also is INTENTIONALLY being used to demonstrate the ABSURD extremes where possible even where they are non-representative of the whole. The WAY of also attempting to show the absurd-ONLY cases, raises concern to whether these groups aren't themselves 'staged' to appear absurd. We have no way to determine HIDDEN censors and when they are also being protected from accountability, the public cannot confirm nor deny the charges. This is NON-democratic AND , because ONLY the devout moralist certainly is linked to some belief in Nature as HAVING 'morality', this means that those who believe specific speech IS 'hate' without particular proof case by case, it is being used BY some real SPECIFIC groups who define themselves by (1) Ethnic roots, (2) and associated religion of their GENETIC ancestors, and (3) IMPOSE these begged 'good' stereotypes as though we have to trust them but ignore the 'bad' ones. This is ANTI-LOGICAL, not to mention religious! People CAN be defused of their beliefs with sincerely listening and participating without the counter abuses. Most who are minority minority who DO trend towards conspiracy questions are themselves being propped up BECAUSE of the accusations of 'hate'. This is the identical effect of one accusing another of being a 'troll' when the accuser is actually originating the trolling by making violent accusations which only end more reasonably with the accused actually ACTING out in the way they are being accused.

The 'freedom of speech' law in the U.S. was originally made to prevent SPECIFIC religious idealists of their own arrogant definitions of 'hate' to be denied as a GROUNDS for making laws. The same kind of thinkers as yourself has actually lead to an erosion or the original intents. 'unacceptable' is defined NOT by the people but by subsets of GROUPS that ARE religious but feigning a secular air as yourself. A belief in a 'queen' as superior here and that WE are 'commoners', suffices to point this out. And the LITERAL facts of these being treated as though they are trivial is just to HIDE these facts. It appears that your first argument is to assert that BECAUSE there are specific groups being 'denied' freedoms of the past that this is what we SHOULD continue to do out of habit. I assure you YOUR habit is non-representative of each and every person. I've never beat up on anyone and have been more of a target by those asserting PROTECTION of these supposed innocent victims. Comparing collections of things where some ARE 'hate' that some agree to but with half of other things that aren't is a form of rhetorical sales tactics that is most functional of those making horoscopes. Not all of us are vulnerable to this con. Most of the TYPES of protections for 'victims' relates merely to very self-styled people who purposely STEREOTYPE the very classes of people they are feigning to represent: like how 'gay'-ness is something about the extreme effeminate types who 'fit' with the very extremes themselves. [not all homosexuals are happy parade loving 'pride' seekers, for instance.] I don't approve of others wearing any garb in civil public spaces that openly demonstrate their own BIAS: What should I expect of getting sincere help of some strong religious person of a SPECIFIC genetic/cultural belief should they be in a position in government that dislikes my NON-religious stance? If being 'uniformed' is a crime for a public office, the different 'freedoms' of those who demand distinction is pure snobbery and always BLEEDS out by how they would use their overt position to deny others the equal help they need in similar circumstances.

I don't have to agree to other group's opinions to know that they should have a right to a freedom to speak. I am extremely pissed at the present laws being PUSHED upon us non-democratically (other than the 'cult' as the minimal individual). Yesterday (June 27, 2019), CBC announced the new internet legislation telling us indirectly that the capacity of the polices here to IMPOSE REDIRECTION of our searches through Google by specifically targeting those who search for 'trigger searches' that tell us they KNOW what 'hate' is. This is VERY DANGEROUS to our DEMOCRACY!! It is itself a VIOLENT LAW and those proposing it ARE NECESSARILY the 'haters' by DEFINING their political counter-opinions they approve of to be treated as extreme criminals. Now while this may be considered 'good' by some, I assure you that when we have increasing 'MODERATION" of our own 'free speech' (like at the CBC's forums that hide and protect their secret censors of their own POLITICAL anti-democratic impositions), we are DOOMED in MORE than any concern of terrorism. In fact, this only AMPLIFIES it as it PROVES to those being 'criminalized' that their IS a 'conspiracy' of 'hate' with specific INTEREST groups. These groups are religious in nature themselves (even under potential denial) because they impose that WE THE PEOPLE should default some FAITH in some specific humans as 'superior' to others. Also, they are giving policing a power here of 'superior' judges by enabling them to decide what OUR rights are of 'privacy' and 'freedom'. Today, the news added more proof of the counter-hate evidence of this behavior by targeting some Nationalist group (Canadian Nationalist Party). What is ironic is THAT the thinking of these arrogant extremists making these laws ARE NATIONALISTS. Just because it is composed of different cults of SOME subset of competing groups, they ALL agree to 'disagree' with individual differences while they are not directly in power. But collectively, these actual HATE groups are constituted here to with such power and momentum that they are doing completely the opposite of the American means at every step of whistleblowers there regarding privacy and anti-free speech.: For every new realization of the American public about abuses of independent powers in policing or present government opportunists, we are CREATING means to spy and harm our 'citizens' here! Like I said, I don't agree with certain views. But the way these laws and behaviors of other issues of our governments are making me concerned about these arrogant idiots in power imposing MORE anti-democratic laws. All parties here are 'conservatives' of just different subsets: so now even the NDP lacks concern for individual democracy. I don't know what we can do...but the way things are, the parties here are acting worse than the very Chinese by our own HIDDEN means to CENSOR our communications. I wish others here would get involved and try to overrule this danger. I already know that what HAS been done already limits us here from seeing much of the Internet we saw only ten years ago. And it IS of a select subset of religiously-propagated groups that operate as though they are 'democratically' shared of us all. We need to redress our Constitution and the SELECT 'supremist' groups being empowered by it to be disempowered if they continue to do this without OUR CONSENT! Is there any hope?

...AND the concept of government social programs.

A government is just a management system that at least should appeal to each member UNLESS the power of that government uses FORCE to impose their arrogant religious beliefs upon others. No country is actually free from the religiously devout powers of influence because unlike the independent beliefs of individuals, the believers collect as 'cults' in some form. This means they have power to influence their 'moral' beliefs beyond the mere function of secular activities. To me, the only function of government is to serve both the individual and the whole but NOT those groups in between except where they relate to sincere inherent factors that prevent a fair distribution of power. AND, I don't mean those groups that appear secular but are intrinsically religious, such as a distinction between sex versus gender, or attributing coinciding logical distinctions, like 'poverty', to some genetic association to some specific culture, as if the problem of poverty were about 'cultural discrimination or genocide'. The 'secular' concern you think is 'bad' is actually religious beliefs that are hidden by altering the excuses of a religious belief as THOUGH it were secular and neutral. These tactics are used to hide the cause of the real problem, redirect it to a relatively simpler type AND with a way that ISOLATES those who disagree. This is where some law about favoring a genetically linked group, like the 'aboriginal native related peoples of ancestors who lived here before settlement' to be treated as though each of these people OWN some essence of their ancestors good qualities (minus the bad) so that the real problem, poverty, get treated as though poverty itself is just a symptom of cultural discrimination. This 'favoring' disfavors those not considered native officially who ARE in identical impoverished conditions by the ABSENCE of equal laws applicable to the class, "impoverished". Then, this gets used to ISOLATE those poor who get favored from those poor who lack it and successfully prevents the whole class from having power collectively. Religion is the non-provable justification for morally embedded laws to both conserve those self-segregating groups in power AND to the collective self-segregated groups who ONLY AGREE to consolidate 'democratically' where the group itself IS treated a the minimal individual. I think our system here is a theocracy pretending to be 'democratic' with the intent to mislead us into thinking this means the individual when it is always to SELECT groups. Our left-wing, centrist and right-wing governments here are all 'conservative' but just differs on WHICH cult or cults are in power.

It's weird to me that most don't realize the Middle East and many Old World places that appear less 'developed' had people there for much much longer than the "newer' worlds. To me I figured they should have solved many of the problems of the world before the new. Think, for instance how when the European society clashed with North American Natives, who were still in a relatively 'newer' state still just not to far from their pyramid building and full settlement phase of civil evolution. As such, I don't think that shuffling people around to better places solves problems. We need to figure out how to help those places they are coming from to develop with better economies. Another oddity is how the same people who demand for MORE immigration ironically also defends the Aboriginal rights to segregate and isolated societies in agreement that 'we' stole their land. Yet isn't this the same kind of argument some here make for fearing the immigrant? ...stealing their jobs, their culture, etc. There's a lot of inconsistency on this. I agree that the problem is economic. It is also a problem of birth-control that 'we' think is some kind of human right to personal choice over the whole. Every birth is a bio-sack of matter that takes up another part of the Earth's limited supply and acts as entities that try to capitalize without limits as though it is alright for us to 'own' without limits. Money as debt is a form of potential stored energy. So we are not only a sack of energy per each person being born, but a vacuum that tries to both steal and store as much of the energy supply of the world for ourselves. And when we run out of that source (money), we have to take it out elsewhere in the form of giving birth. These are our major problems that directly relate to these political issues.

And to me, this is all over the place. My point is that the 'cause' of these terrorist acts are never correct and so bounce back and forth between trading who will be the next predator and victim rather than deal with that real problem. The real problem ORIGINATES and is exacerbated by poverty or some real factor of neglect. And when those who out of starving for necessity can't get the attention they need for trying in the normal whispers they are expected to communicate their concerns with, they BLOW UP. And this IS normal and expected. The media's reaction to which I even opted to open this thread about here in Canada has today a closed mind with common interests and has begun to allow more and more of their reporting staff to be openly expressive with another common in-sync condemnation of acts with CONCLUSIVE language about who is at fault without concern for proof. This is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated interest that you would normally expect to have competitive variation of views. WHEN there are opposing views to this kind of cooperative unproven accusations being presented, the stories are selected in a way that purposely presents the caricature of the most vial an NON-representative average of the people. In this way, the very media presentations (and likely the media owners hidden behind a protected shell of corporate secrecy) are themselves CONSPIRING to shape who they FEEL is the real 'conspirators' with specificity and actually BECOME the cause as they openly LABEL a specific subset of society as a real genetic and ethnic extreme. This last incident let out the emotive conscious thinking of the media reporters (not just who they are opting to favor reporting) that indicated their own personal bias against their perceived enemy CLASS: right-wing extremists. They reported an increase in 'right-wing' extremism that they, with faithful certainty, assures us IS the problem with the counter EXTREME suggestion to counter: MORE CENSORSHIP! How does the media get on board with favoring 'censorship' UNLESS they themselves are being run by some INTEREST in common? Besides the variety of views being presented, the nature of media to be supporting an increase in censorship.....even on their 'forums' against public disapproval, suggests with MORE 'certainty' that their own 'certainty' of what they report is NOT to be challenged, censored, and proof of them being aligned with their own EXTREMISTS behind the scenes. The communications media is not a 'right' of specific people to OWN. That would be like someone dictating whether I can breath the air I do because they claim to OWN it. And that IS TERRORISM! When groups of normally unaffiliated peoples of an abused class are targeted, often more and more hideously and indirect as possible, the idea is to ENTICE segregation, like those settlement walls and barricades in the West Bank of Palestine by Israelis, this forces those victims to BE more extreme to overcome such oppression themselves. The rhetoric of those in power reverse this role and why they NEED those 'apparent' victim-class minorities to BLOW UP. When one blows up, they are reacting in an overtly violent way and APPEARS more violent than the ones who manipulated their intention to make them blow up. This, when reported BY the people holding a targeted class hostage, do it in a way that hides or distributes accountability of themselves but THEN has a JUSTIFICATION to directly RID those they were holding hostage as they can point a finger at them and say, "SEE, THEY are the violent extremists". What do you think will occur WHEN the stereotyped class, out of now having a common reason to conspire themselves for being violated as a class, will do when THEY are possibly the next ones in power? The cycle will not stop. The more OVERTLY violent extremists suggests THEY are the ones NOT IN POWER. But only the hidden extremes IN POWER can be controlled: by preventing them from CENSORING and ISOLATING the 'weak' opposite extremists. The underlying causes cannot be solved by equalizing through FAVORITISM nor HATE of select groups that are NOT relevant to the problem. And when the focus is aimed towards a subset of the victim class with some larger plurality (for or against) based on superficial standards, you don't solve the problem itself. You just trade push the problems onto more isolated individuals who become the next oppressed class based on the defining factors of that superficial classification.

That's my concern.

Then, without the rhetoric, Let X = "One is a terrorist" Let Y = "One is a right-winger (extremist)" Then the assumption that X exists and is caused by Y's existence becomes, (If Y then X) and X Therefore Y Do you see the logical error? [Note that Y implies X existed as a cause; You cannot interpret that "X causes Y " to mean "If X then Y"]

So are you agreeing that IF what I said was correct, the apparent condition of our society is CONTRADICTORY? If you disagree to this as a reality, then which specific case is true and how can you affirm the violation is causally of one specific side AND not the others?

NO, the hatred of assuming the fault uniquely is DUE to 'right-wing' conspirators (as though they ONLY have such power?) while simultaneously enhancing their OWN (yours too?) conspiracy AND doing so with a favor for things like deplatforming, isolating, or penalizing those on the label of "hate criminal" with the expectation that the targeted class must ACCEPT their sacrifice for YOU! Favoring a censor class of people of your own group identity is as equally 'right-wing' in mind but you are clever enough to transfer this upon the disenfranchised poor of your own class (for a discrimination against the poor in general of your own racial and beneficial background.) If you want to sacrifice, sacrifice yourself, not others OF the supposed beneficial RACE/ETHNICITY. I don't need to be treated as a scapegoat for your own families ancestral discrimination or, if non-majority race, your specific ethnically PURE group. I'm saying the left has more numbers BUT the numbers of those not of the majority or of the minority of the majority who benefit by transferring their own debt upon the whole to hide your own recognized fault.

The left AND right (and center?) extremes all contribute to the cause for selfish reasons. The 'group' identity is taking precedence over individual identity. They only differ in tactics. The left: People are numbers only and the future is more significant than the present. The problem with this is that if you are not IN that 'number', you don't merely get sacrificed, you get scapegoated. Also, given the left is more secular, the only common denominator is to that future uniquely, especially if they have lots of kids or family they hope to see fare well in the future. This latter point is also true of the right but the difference is that the left are not run by individuals nor a collection of individuals (democratic) but by the collective religious, and culturally biased, ethnocentric would-be right-wingers if in power. The intention is to destroy the 'weaker' minority GROUPS. One consolidating factor is to find a common target class, usually male and more specifically white with the narrowed feature of being stereotypically treated AS their own 'collective'. The right: People are those most proximate to you (like family) and the present conditions are all that can matter. This to me is also made up of the present groups in the left I just mentioned. But these are those who are more representative of the non-ethnically defined groups or to the unique group identity (variable cultures depending on country, time, or place). This group type (the right) are generally RUN by more wealthy independent individuals or large and strong segregate cultures in power. They argue with less concern to be 'rational' only because there is no moral reality above what we make of it. Thus they tend to appropriate a less logical 'god' but stricter religion. This is to justify without a desire to defend their right of freedom to religious and cultural identity where they are benefactors. BUT the ones who are identified OF this class who aren't successful and are scapegoated as the Number that gets sacrificed by the left become the ones who get propped up as the extreme, are the only ones who actually get targeted by all groups. Thus the poor on this side are being FORCED to associate with the side that at least does not discriminate against them BY racial and ethnic based laws. Th middle: The average moderate desire to preserve family AND their particular group, and favor both the present and future conditions. The error on this majority are about the stupidity to 'feel' by popular trends in their numbers AS individuals or groups with a positive belief that there is still an overall balance if we can only all just be friends. It's a naivete more common in children or to the average who have a disdain against both spectra of wealth. The impoverished classes are where the fighting is all derived from. If you are a minority ethnicity ('minor' by plurality definitions), you are forced to be center or left depending on which external identity all the arrogant cultural supremacists impose upon them. The problem is cyclic and can be stopped but requires redressing Population Controls of some sort, A pro-logical approach to enhance people's understanding (rather than just the empirical-only restricted thinkers who lack logical clarity.) You need both but cannot deem closure on the concept of non-closure. Distribution of wealth needs to be maintained AT SOME minimal and GRADUAL earned process for EACH person regardless of background, and a TOP LIMIT to power and wealth that penalized ONLY those who are directly benefiting (not the CLASS defined by group associations) from their wealth. SACRIFICES should not be distributed to the whole for the debt of those PARTICULAR peoples hiding behind apparent support for 'diversity'. I think these along with technology needs to be attended to are what the general types of solutions that can be used to get change to occur for the better....for ALL. So please you select group-identifiers of culture, stop forcing your own powers to rule FOR the individual. Keep your magical beliefs to your own and stop forcing your kids into the same associations. Culture/ethnicity is the cause of problems, not those allowing their children to CHOOSE their culture and identity. We do not OWN our parent's artistic talents any more than their faults.

That's kind of why I was asking. I don't use those media. But I do use forums that actually have real depth. Yet while I know there are some people who 'troll', for the most part, I find people on these forums relatively non-discriminatory on average. We may disagree to some things, but where is this 'hate' speech online supposedly coming from? AND, if so, who could 'moderate' this without themselves being granted 'supreme' powers over others in ways that even those who act like assholes cannot hide? No, I'm not asking to 'rat' on sites because I think they should be allowed to exist. I'm making point about the problem. Let's say, that you are correct about knowing specific sites that DO invest in these extremes. Are you protecting the views they hold or to their right to freely speak in their own choice of assembly? And IF you were against such sites, you can also CLAIM that YOU KNOW they exist, but can't tell me because you, being in some potential power to 'moderate', have deleted their existence from the internet! Either way, moderation (censorship and censure) are equal means to abuse and why they cannot assert some CAUSE of the terrorism as due to something WE are not privileged to judge the evidence of for ourselves. It's a lose-lose, and in fact WORSENS the problem because such moderation VIOLATES those they want to isolate. THEY are the CAUSE of the abuse, is my theory, NOT some right-wing extremists conspiring out of some preferential initial causation of their own delusions. That is, those who DO become 'extreme' on the right TOO are victims of some potential cause: being continually persecuted for some crimes they don't commit UNTIL they blow up and give in. If you're required to pay the price for a crime you didn't commit, who is better to 'survive' this insanity, the ones who ACCEPT their cages or the ones who EMBRACE the behaviors they are accused of? It is cyclic and never-ending when the REAL causes aren't sought out. The real causes are just to INCONVENIENT to deal with: like poverty, isolation, abuse by neglect, etc. We don't need to authoritatively protect people prior to warranted acts. And interpreting 'warrant' by collective associations is MORE terroristic.

What was the context though? And HOW do we interpret that context in light of just what someone says without the public being allowed access to determine it? My beef is as follows: if we permit censure and censorship of online forums, it requires some 'moderators' who have exclusive political power themselves to discriminate without accountability. Our very own media is literally all agreeing with this here where even the 'reporters' are now expressing their own clear and open biases. Yet if they have the sole power to opine at the extended power to censor (and censure), we are forced to require an unusual degree of faith of some specially divined moderator-class of people. Who are these very SUPREME beings that seem to divine upon who is the REAL enemy of society. This arrogance IS the CAUSE of the 'terrorism'. We have no way to determine if the very people in power to present what examples of 'terrorism' isn't a function of their own universally aligned conspirators themselves of which they are 'wiser' to assert of the others. The news here in Saskatchewan last night, for instance, tells us of a new law that permits police to have absolute powers to investigate WITHOUT WARRANT anyone presumed LINKED to a missing person's case! This example law was derived in relation to an uprising of people asserting the police were ignoring a 'conspiracy' of ignorance to missing aboriginal women en mass. While the FACT of some horrific potential crime may exist by some perpetrator targeting them specifically, this is NOT established. Yet now the kind of PREDETERMINATION of the causes imply that some anti-native hatred is the cause when this is only a correlation without even knowing OF a crime let alone any specific perpetrators. And as you see, now this proposed law is one that is utilizing the PRESUMPTIONS of discrimination to justify a new and worse kind of INTOLERATION: a police-class privileged to be 'moderators' without warrant.

I know this may seem a stupid question for how others may be involved in posting more when this things occur. But I want to know WHAT the supposed "increase in right-wing supremacists" are saying that is so full of hate and WHERE this is occurring? I'm not implying it isn't true but I tend to miss the specific quotes said by some larger plurality. I know that the CBC has used this excuse to justify preventing commenting on any 'minority' issues of contention. To me, the media feeds this as much as anything. |Not being signed up with Facebook or some other places, I can't tell. Can some people inform me. I'm concerned by how the media "reporters" are as much chiming in to lower the bar of counter-discrimination to 'hate speech' to be even anything 'subtle' or inferred. I blame the rise of these groups as coming FROM the very left (of which I share many views on) because of HOW they are arrogantly becoming absurdly sensitive to micro-movements. Talk about walking on broken glass now. If they think that speaking MORE to protect SPECIFIC groups and not INDIVIDUALS OR THE WHOLE, this will be certain to only get worse. I can't believe the stupidity. I won't say anything further as it only ;makes the issue MORE notable in the consciousness of those of any background who becomes more and more isolated.