Yzermandius19

That's not the left anymore, the left thinks left-leaning liberals are white supremacists, they support Islam and hate on Christianity. Many of left-leaning liberals are moving to the right these days, because the far left wants to censor everyone they disagree with. Not all those on the right are fundamental/non-free thinking types, plenty of free thinkers on the right, more than on the left these days. Used to be the right wanted to censor people they disagreed with more than the left, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and the left are more anti-free speech than the right ever was back when they were calling to censor music they didn't like. Clearly you view the left-right divide through an anti-religious filter, and think that is the main distinction between the two, but that is not the case. Plenty of free thinking atheists on the right, don't let any lefties tell you there isn't. More libertarians on the right than on the left these days, mostly because the far left doesn't want the support of left libertarians, and see them as no different from far-right extremists.

If you think the country will be torn apart if free speech is allowed, it's no wonder your views are so crazy.

You people have far too much faith in politicians to draw the line on just what should be considered hateful, and that they could never screw it up. Crazy people, these free speech haters, straight loony tunes.

I would say no. Pitching a legally sanctioned war to the public isn't inciting violence, and it's protected free speech.

1. It's not a step, plenty of people read that and don't go out and do what Bisonette did, it's not inciting violence. 2. You said utility, which is irrelevant, and you disagree, which is doubly irrelevant. 3. Wishful thinking 4. I have thought this through before, it is you who haven't thought your reasons for wanting people censored through, captain projection.

1. Just because Andre Bissonette believed some dumb stuff doesn't mean that dumb stuff should be censored. 2. It's so obvious to you, you can't say why it's so obvious, you just know that it's obvious, even though you can't articulate why that is the case, and yet you still want to censor people if they can't meet that standard. 3. Name calling shows that I don't think highly of people who want to censor others for dubious reasons. Child pornography is not illegal because it's offensive speech, it's illegal for very different reasons, and you shouldn't get to apply those reasons to ban "hate speech", when you are comparing apples and oranges, and are pretending they are the same thing.

Inciting violence is already illegal, no need for hate speech laws, that's already covered when it actually incites violence. Saying that hate speech incites violence and so it needs to be made illegal, just shows that these free speech haters don't even know the laws, and want new laws to cover things that are already covered by older laws.

It does not cause people to be targeted, there are already laws against targeting people, regardless of hate speech, don't need anti-hate speech laws. Don't need to provide any utility to it, the burden is on you to prove it should be censored regardless of utility. Some people saying it's harmful isn't good enough, especially when they are idiotic free speech haters who never have a good argument to censor people.

Irrelevant. Whether or not free speech has utility does not determine whether it should be censored, you can disagree all you want, but you have no good reason for that disagreement and want to restrict people's rights simply because you don't see any utility in the way that some people use those rights. Not good enough, if you want restrict people's rights, you need better than "it has no utility" and "I disagree", step your game up, those arguments are terrible, especially when you are pushing for restricting human rights.

You go way too far. Hate speech should not be censored, offensive speech is not actually damaging, hurting someone's feelings doesn't count as inciting violence. Saying things that people are offended by isn't libel or slander either. Good manners should not be enforced by legislating against free speech.

Slander, libel, inciting violence are not protected speech. Simply lying or saying things you don't like is not damaging, if you think it's damaging, call it out as such, if you want to censor people because of that, that's on you to come up with a good reason to do that. Free speech is a right, you don't get to restrict rights without a good reason, just because you don't agree with my argument doesn't mean it's okay to censor people if I don't come up with a reason you like not to censor people. The burden of proof is on the side of those demanding censorship of human rights, not those demanding human rights be respected, whether you find someone's use of their rights offensive or not.

Whether or not you think the utility of the speech is positive or negative does not impact whether it should be censored or not, your judgement is garbage, don't trust you to draw the line properly. You air on the side of censorship not free speech, because you are afraid that you cannot rebut bad ideas. Lying is superior to censorship, because lying is protected free speech, unless slander or libel. What language you consider to be dehumanizing is irrelevant, that should not be grounds for censorship. Whether or not you find something offensive is irrelevant. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Free speech is not a vice, whether you find the speech of utility or not, and censoring hate speech in the name of good manners is not a virtue.

Nah. America ain't gonna do that, just dissolve Confederation, and then the independent Dominions can cut their own deals with America without Confederation holding them back. No need to keep the Americans out anymore, time to let them in, if you want to live in an American state, just move to America, no need to replace one form of Confederation with another. The whole point of breaking up Canada is not having to be in the same fake country with other provinces with different interests anymore, America buying up all of Canada to annex it, that would just be adding Canada's problems to America, and we'd still be stuck with all the Eskimo Communists. I just want an Australia of my very own in Upper Canada, no need to actually become an American state.

It stays afloat because America is propping it up, but eventually Confederation will destroy itself via the Clarity Act, the Queen protects the right. Quebec will go first, Ontario and the rest of Canada won't be that far behind.

Can fight the battle better from a more comfortable locale, no need to subject yourself to living in a big city, if you have the means not to. Canada is not worth preserving, fake country. Confederation is an abomination, Vive le Quebec libre.

Big cities suck. If you like them, that's just bad taste. If you want to live in a lilly white community, that's your only option, you ain't winding the clock back and whites ain't taking back the big cities, lost cause. There's a reason tons of white folks are moving away from the big cities instead of flocking to them. Live near a big city is good enough, no need to actually live anywhere near the downtown of a major city, if you have the means to do so. That way you get all the upsides of the big city and a lot less of the downsides.

Don't live in a big city, problem solved.

2. No it's not weighted, censorship is not acceptable, manners be damned. You are the one wanting those you disagree with censored because of poor manners, free speech hater. I want no one censored because of bad manners, that's all you.

No, it's not. It's a term for people who think the world simply boils down to oppressor vs. oppressed, moving the goalposts from economics after the Soviet Union discredited that marxist gobblty gook, to the realm of social issues, thinking no one would notice. Free speech is more important than manners, anyone who says otherwise and believes only the oppressed should be allowed to speak freely while oppressors check their privilege and listen to enlightened oppressed folk , is clearly a Cultural Marxist.They have infected academia, and the media in particular, trying to control the narrative with their anti-freedom propaganda because political correctness trumps all in the eyes of the social justice warriors who are really just Communists without the balls to call themselves what they actually are. To cultural marxists individuality is irrelevant, all that matters is group identity, and anyone whose opinion differs from the consensus of the "oppressed" groups who the cultural marxists agree with, is to be punished for wrongspeak.

Canada will bring itself down, but it won't be the non-white immigrants, it will be Quebec via the Clarity Act. Vive le Quebec libre, though Quebec will probably blame immigrants as part of it's Quebexit campaign, I can totally see that.

If you think the Republicans are worse, and Trump is guilty until proven innocent, then you drink Demohack kool-aid, by the gallon. You have Trump Derangement Syndrome from all the kool-aid you drink, don't snow.

Eskimo Communists gonna Eskimo Communist, who knew? Of course they call for censorship of opinions they don't like, that's par for the course, brace yourself, welcome to Canada.

Same goes for the Democrat Kool-Aid, and you chug double digit gallons of it a day.

This forum loves censorship, not sure why you didn't expect this place to be that place, I would have.

Well played.