CPC Facebook page encourages assassination of PM

[The_Squid]

The CPC finally took down some comments that encourage the death and/or assassination of PM Trudeau. Of course, this only occurred after The Walrus wrote an article about it.

http://thewalrus.ca/wanting-justin-trudeau-dead/

Here we have individuals wishing and calling for the death of a man, our prime minister, for the sole reason that they disagree with his policies. What this says about the culture of the Conservative Party today is reflected by the fact that these comments are rarely challenged by others, while the party itself maintains a silence. And so we find a remarkable situation in which Her Majestys Loyal Opposition allows calls for the prime ministers assassination from its Facebook page.

Negligent or lazy Facebook editors? Hardly... The CPC Facebook page is apparently updated several times per day. They simply left them up.

[dialamah]

During the election, I "followed" the CPC page. I made a couple relatively minor critical comments, and suddenly I could no longer post. On the Liberal pages, I've seen some particularly nasty comments taken down, but I see the same anti-liberal, pro-conservative people continue to post. To me, it looks like the Liberal party is ok with criticism, but keep a lid on the really extreme comments. The Conservatives (at least when Harper was still PM) didn't seem able to cope with any criticism; I don't look at the comments on the Conservative pages often any more, but haven't noticed much change. Reading their FB comments section is rather like attending a sales conference for Herbalife: over-the-top accolades repeated ad-nauseum, no room for dissent; along with hatred and name-calling spewed toward the Liberals and JT. Liberal supporters can be just as over-the-top when gushing about JT, but at least it's balanced out by the regular appearance of pro-conservative supporters. And there is a lot less name-calling of Rona and Conservatives in general on the Liberal page. I keep having to remind myself that people posting on the internet are (probably) not indicative of the Conservative mindset as a whole. Then again, when the page administrators allow that over-the-top rhetoric and silence dissenting views .... maybe it is the internet voices who fairly represent Conservatives.

(I actually attended an Herbalife sales-training conference, and this whole "we can do wrong" message is what turned me off. I was equally turned off of 'neuro-linguistic programming', after attending a similar event hosted by Tony Robbins).

Edited August 27, 2016 by dialamah

[cybercoma]

The alt-right is full of sociopathic babies. Welcome to the era of post-truth politics. The longer politicians appeal to base emotions instead of reason and public policy, the worse it will get.

Edited August 27, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The alt-right is full of sociopathic babies. Welcome to the era of post-truth politics. The longer politicians appeal to base emotions instead of reason and public policy, the worse it will get.

You can say the same of the alt-left with their overt racism/sexism, hatred of free speech and their belief in the guilty until proven innocent standard for crimes. Edited August 27, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

The difference TimG», is the far right wing is represented by the mainstream politicians (Harper, Trump, etc.) and their direct supporters and the far left wing is the fringe.

[Bryan]

The difference TimG», is the far right wing is represented by the mainstream politicians (Harper, Trump, etc.) and their direct supporters and the far left wing is the fringe.

Harper was never even close to "far-right".

[TimG]

The difference TimG», is the far right wing is represented by the mainstream politicians (Harper, Trump, etc.) and their direct supporters and the far left wing is the fringe.

There is no difference between Harper's rhetoric on crime or drugs and Trudeau's rhetoric on climate change or "diversity". Both exploit wedge issues that are popular with a subset of the population and pretend it is about "principles". The extremism that Trump or the Greens appeal to are in a different class altogether. Edited August 27, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

To me, it looks like the Liberal party is ok with criticism, but keep a lid on the really extreme comments. The Conservatives (at least when Harper was still PM) didn't seem able to cope with any criticism;

This is a bizarre statement that makes no sense given how the left generally hates criticism and seeks to outlaw it by defining anything that disagrees with their world view as 'hate speech' or 'disinformation'. Nothing from the right even approaches the level of attack on free speech. Edited August 27, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Another climate change denier with his head stuck in the sand. I guess clean water is also a wedge issue.

[TimG]

Another climate change denier with his head stuck in the sand. I guess clean water is also a wedge issue.

q.e.d. You really have no business commenting on extremism in others when you can't recognize your own biases.

[Big Guy]

We get a thread about some tasteless anonymous comments on a political board. We also have a few of the intelligent posters on the board pointing fingers and trading demeaning insults. Surely folks, all of you have something positive to add but you waste your time in this sandbox tossing zingers at each other. You have all contributed positively to discussions here in the past so why do you have to back into the cesspool of far-right, far-left accusations as if a political position makes a person good or bad?

I know you are all capable of intelligent and civil discourse - I have seen it here.

Must be a full moon.

[cybercoma]

You can say the same of the alt-left with their overt racism/sexism, hatred of free speech and their belief in the guilty until proven innocent standard for crimes.

You mad? I didn't think anyone here considered themselves part of the Breitbart-fuelled alt-right. Then again, I guess if anyone has abandoned reality for emotional partisan fantasy, it's you and your blatant disregard for academic peer reviewed research. Sorry for hurting your feelings by pointing out the obvious fact that anyone who calls for he murder of their political opponents is a sociopath.

[cybercoma]

I mean, this is just perfect, considering I said in the past that you would defend Harper and the CPC even if they murdered someone. They enhaven't murderd anyone but you sure don't seem to give a toss about their lackadaisical approach to condemning calls for assassination. Close enough.

[Argus]

During the election, I "followed" the CPC page. I made a couple relatively minor critical comments, and suddenly I could no longer post. On the Liberal pages, I've seen some particularly nasty comments taken down, but I see the same anti-liberal, pro-conservative people continue to post. To me, it looks like the Liberal party is ok with criticism, but keep a lid on the really extreme comments.

To you. Yet we see, time and time again, online, that it is the progressive element most intolerant of criticism.

What was your 'minor critical comment'? Calling them all bigots and racists?

[Argus]

Harper was never even close to "far-right".

But to the 'fringe left' which is mostly what you have on this site, everyone conservative is "far right'.

[eyeball]

You can say the same of the alt-left with their overt racism/sexism, hatred of free speech and their belief in the guilty until proven innocent standard for crimes.

No you can't. You can't even come close to the nonsense you just wrote.

[TimG]

You mad? I didn't think anyone here considered themselves part of the Breitbart-fuelled alt-right.

Since when is pointing out another group is just as bad constitute a "defense". My point was to illustrate the rank hypocrisy of people complaining about the 'alt-right' while they are completely blind to the equally nasty and delusional rhetoric coming from the 'alt-left'.

it's you and your blatant disregard for academic peer reviewed research.

You keep saying this as if it is represents the truth. Except it is not. Unlike you, I actually look at the literature to figure out the nuance. You don't care about nuance in science. You just find a bunch of ideologues that call themselves "scientists" and declare that their opinion and only their opinion represents the state of the literature. When confronted with people who point out the nuance, caveats and limitations of the science you call them names. This is typical of the delusional rhetoric coming from the 'alt-left'.

[BC_chick]

Since when is pointing out another group is just as bad constitute a "defense". My point was to illustrate the rank hypocrisy of people complaining about the 'alt-right' while they are completely blind to the equally nasty and delusional rhetoric coming from the 'alt-left'.

Right, because calling for the assassination of a sitting PM is on par with agreeing with the vast majority of the world's scientists.

[TimG]

Right, because calling for the assassination of a sitting PM is on par with agreeing with the vast majority of the world's scientists.

That is not what I said. If you read my post I said that differing climate change opinions were middle of the road views. If you want the alt-left equivalent look to the BLM activists who actually murder cops.

[cybercoma]

BLM activists murder cops now. This is what happens when someone takes Breitbart, a rag on par with The National Enquirer, as the gospel truth.

Tim, you're either making crap up or you're a liar.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7314/black-lives-matter-leaders-denounce-dallas-police-aaron-bandler

http://www.nytimes.com/live/police-shooting-in-baton-rouge/black-lives-matter-leader-calls-for-peace/

http://time.com/4400330/st-paul-protests-philando-castile-black-lives-matter/

Edited August 27, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

When you lie to make a point, you lose all credibility because it calls into question how many other times you've lied.

[TimG]

BLM activists murder cops now.

The Dallas shooter sought out and killed cops. He was specifically targeting white cops yet you want to insist it had absolutely nothing to do with the BLM movement. I would argue that the shooters association with BLM is greater than the association between a poster on the CPC FB page the CPC party. If you want to argue that poster on a FB page represent conservatives you can hardly argue that the Dallas shooter does not represent BLM. Edited August 27, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

The CPC represents that poster.

As evidenced by the length of time his views were left to stand.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Did the party even denounce the post yet or did they just remove it?

[cybercoma]

The Dallas shooter sought out and killed cops. He was specifically targeting white cops yet you want to insist it had absolutely nothing to do with the BLM movement. I would argue that the shooters association with BLM is greater than the association between a poster on the CPC FB page the CPC party. If you want to argue that poster on a FB page represent conservatives you can hardly argue that the Dallas shooter does not represent BLM.

You're a liar. Full stop. The leadership of BLM denounced the shootings as soon as they happened. The movement is about ending violence and always has been.