Trump speaks out on social media ‘censorship’

Unless you can clearly define the boundaries of what qualifies for the arbitrary "far right" label, the question is meaningless.

What gave it away about the Christchurch shooter? His admiration of communist China? Or perhaps his hatred for Trump? no doubt the epitome of right wing in your eyes.

The Jo Cox argument for him being right wing is quite flimsy (some people hearing "Britain first" being shouted from some unknown location). There's a lot of evidence in that arrest that just doesn't add up and honestly stinks of something rather sinister.

Uhuh, so that’s a yes?

Yeah I mean the Christchurch shooter targeted a mosque, donated money and supported nationalist, far right movements across the world and wrote a 74 page manifesto opposing what he called 'white genocide' but yeah he obviously wasn't far right...

And as for the Jo Cox incident, well go on, what are you really saying? I mean because when asked his name in court he stood up and said 'my name is Death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. That's on the record... Certainly seems far right to me...and that's on top of numerous witnesses hearing him say something similar at the time. And that's also on top of the findings that he attended far right gatherings, read and collected far right material, collected and owned Nazi regalia, wrote letters in support of apartheid in South Africa.

But obviously yeah, that's not far right is it?

It's quite telling though that you're trying to deny two of the most obvious and clear cut examples of far right terrorism aren't really 'far right', and even seem to be suggesting that the latter was some sort of stitch up without so much as a scintila of evidence.

There's nothing sinister in the arrest, the evidence is beyond overwhelming. Just it doesn't fit your world view and ideology to accept that there is a far right problem.

I will wait for you to address my point.

Well if you're implying that only the so called "far right" opposes white genocide, does that mean everyone left of them supports it? When you say it like that you make it sound a positive label. But essentially there are reasons to label him far left or far right. So are we just ignoring all evidence that detracts from his far right label and acknowledging every factor that does correlate with far right?

As for Jo Cox. Like I said, many things don't add up with the arrest. I recommend the following video.
https://youtu.be/HEIoLftYYLM

Well if you're implying that only the so called "far right" opposes white genocide, does that mean everyone left of them supports it? When you say it like that you make it sound a positive label. But essentially there are reasons to label him far left or far right. So are we just ignoring all evidence that detracts from his far right label and acknowledging every factor that does correlate with far right?

As for Jo Cox. Like I said, many things don't add up with the arrest. I recommend the following video.
https://youtu.be/HEIoLftYYLM

It's obviously not about opposing white genocide, it's about the believing in the conspiracy theory that there is such thing as white genocide happening, which is a core belief of the far right, white supremacists and neo Nazis.

And the Christchurch shooter was indeed a white supremacist who killed Muslims because they weren't part of the white race and he was part of all sorts of far right networks. He wrote a manifesto endorsing the conspiracy theory that there was such thing as 'white genocide' happening and took violent action. I really can't understand why you have difficulty accepting that as far right. It would be akin to saying ISIS aren't really Muslims.

As for Jo Cox, no there isn't anything that doesn't 'add up' and a conspiracy theorist YouTube video isn't going to cut it.

The killer stood up in open court and said 'my name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain'. Witnesses heard him say the same. In his house they found Nazi regalia and Swastikas. He was known to have attended EDL rallies, and was part of other far right groups. He wrote letters supporting Apartheid South Africa. What exactly doesn't add up?


Again, arguing he wasn't far right really is laughable. Why do certain people on the right have so much trouble condemning the far right?

If you would kindly raise a valid one then I would be more than happy to.
In the mean time if you’d kindly stop defending terrorists that would be fab.

‘White genocide’ - very droll though.

I never defended a terrorist. I am just not allowing the label of far right to be so loosely thrown around. You can't define it and its used to describe anything even loosely resembling conservative beliefs. I assume to try and tarnish people with a wide brush and box them in the same category as Brenton.

Indeed it is however in this case it is bang on the mark, go read his manifesto for confirmation.
To describe him as a garden variety conservative is either willfully ignorant of the incident or you intentionally lying though.
As for your ridiculous comments about calling him 'far left'... come off it. What kind of ginormous crack pipe are you huffing on to get that?

Why are you so attached to this label? Using a label you can't define is intellectually dishonest regardless of who the target is in this instance. If you want to call him white supremacist then fine, you won't slip that silly label past me though.

There is as much reason to call him far left as far right, so if you see an issue with that, you understand r exactly my feelings on it.

He showed also facets of the far left also, so why is he automatically far right? I happily condemn people who commit terrorist acts but I also condemn this useless label which no one is able to define.

If you saw the Jo Cox video then you'd understand that what they said they found at his place means nothing. All of this can be easily falsified. Unless I see a video for myself of him shouting these things with a clear view of his face, I'm not buying it.

I never defended a terrorist. I am just not allowing the label of far right to be so loosely thrown around. You can't define it and its used to describe anything even loosely resembling conservative beliefs. I assume to try and tarnish people with a wide brush and box them in the same category as Brenton.

Why are you so attached to this label? Using a label you can't define is intellectually dishonest regardless of who the target is in this instance. If you want to call him white supremacist then fine, you won't slip that silly label past me though.

There is as much reason to call him far left as far right, so if you see an issue with that, you understand r exactly my feelings on it.

A far-right is a Nazi skinhead basically. Someone who is racist, fascist, very oppressive towards people who are different to them, very oppressive towards people who have different political views to them, very arrogant (Supremacy and stuff) and probably ignorant too.
Any argument that this terrorist was not far-right is laughable, it's clear as black and white if he was far-right or not. He hates non-white people, he hated Muslims, wanted to establish some "master race", wanted to assassinate Angela Merkel etc..because they are all on the left....he ticks all the boxes of being a far-right ****. 10/10 score

He didn't show 'facets of the far left'. He was a White supremacist who believed whites were the master race, murdered Muslims for not being part of that race and wrote a 74 page manifesto endorsing a conspiracy theory that there is a currently a genocide happening to white people.

How on earth is that not far right? It's not a matter of throwing labels loosely. If you were opposing Trump being called far right, I'd agree. But right now you're opposing a white supremacist terrorist who believed in a master race, being called far right. That is quite literally the definition of far right.

Again, it would be just as ridiculous as saying Isis aren't really Muslims.



Now you're just engaging in lunatic conspiracy theories.

He said it in Court, which is on the record. And you think linking to a conspiracy theorists YouTube video somehow demonstrates that this was all a stitch up with the police, CPS, government, Courts, press, jury and perpetrator all involved.

And you're approach here seems to be that unless you personally witness or see video evidence of a crime, that it didn't happen? Right...



Again, ridiculous argument. The overwhelming majority of people on the right who are simply Conservative, clearly aren't far right.

Those on the right who are white supremacists, collect Nazi regalia, support apartheid South Africa and murder Muslims/ political or religious opponents are clearly far right.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

Then why I do hear the same people who say this, also refer to the usual YouTube pundits, TR, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, basically anyone who isn't to the extreme left is branded as far right.

So I reject the label outright, regardless of who it is attached to.

Then why I do hear the same people who say this, also refer to the usual YouTube pundits, TR, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, basically anyone who isn't to the extreme left is branded as far right.

So I reject the label outright, regardless of who it is attached to.

Then why I do hear the same people who say this, also refer to the usual YouTube pundits, TR, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, basically anyone who isn't to the extreme left is branded as far right.

So I reject the label outright, regardless of who it is attached to.

Well for a start robinson is far right... As for the others? I havent heard many sensible people call them far right as opposed to conservative or simple agitators.

What would you call them then? I mean Robinson is evidently right wing and at the extreme end of it, thus, far right.

Now you are being really subjective, in your opinion those people are not far-right but in others they are. I personally have not heard of all those people you mentioned except for Tommy Robinson, I consider Tommy far right purely because he acts as a fascist and is known to have intimidating behaviour towards Muslims and mosques. You don't really need to tick all of the boxes to be a far-right, but this terrorist was a typical far-right, Tommy is just within the boundaries.
Since you say that those people are being mislabelled as far-right, so you reject the term regardless of who it is applied to, then how about we reject the far-left label as well since it is not being used properly? Conservatives are labelled as far-left by some because they allowed "too much immigration", I have been labelled as a far-leftist simply because I was calling out on the EDL and all that for being racist, despite being actually right-wing, anyone who calls out people for having conspiracy theories linking to white supremacy is labelled a far-left, it's not being used properly so shall we reject the label altogether? I don't think so, the same applies to the label far-right.
I will admit it, for Tommy there is a lot of valid arguments that can be put for why he is NOT far-right but this terrorist? The argument you gave is really weak, just because other people were mislabelled does not mean that this guy was also mislabelled, we have far-right in the dictionary for a reason so the label does find the right target eventually.

I don't think TR acts like a fascist, as you haven't pointed out what aspect of his behaviour you're referring to or any specifics in terms of "intimidating behavior".

But yes, I agree with your point that both sides should abandon the labels, I agree. Even though that point appears to be facetious.

This isn't an argument necessarily about the Christchurch guy. The overarching message I'm conveying is that we need to move away from all labels that don't come with a strict set of criteria for membership. That's when it becomes purely subjective and fools who can't read past the headline or think critically start getting hyped up to hit the polls.

Your attempted definition of far right is still too subjective to be rational and simply boils down to "believes white genocide might happen".

So let me ask you. If it turned out to be true, would talking about it still be far right?

I disagree. But I am curious as to where exactly you draw the line between far right and right. I don't find anything TR says to be extreme in that it is untrue, as evidenced by his opposition's lack of a coherent rebuttal to his points. I don't think speech even can be considered extreme unless it is untrue.


I don't think TR acts like a fascist, as you haven't pointed out what aspect of his behaviour you're referring to or any specifics in terms of "intimidating behavior".

But yes, I agree with your point that both sides should abandon the labels, I agree. Even though that point appears to be facetious.

This isn't an argument necessarily about the Christchurch guy. The overarching message I'm conveying is that we need to move away from all labels that don't come with a strict set of criteria for membership. That's when it becomes purely subjective and fools who can't read past the headline or think critically start getting hyped up to hit the polls.

Your attempted definition of far right is still too subjective to be rational and simply boils down to "believes white genocide might happen".

So let me ask you. If it turned out to be true, would talking about it still be far right?