Fox News could soon be banned from Canadian cable

[Anarchic States]

why are they calling you facist?

He is pro-Trump coup, supports Jan 6th, calls for the overturning of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Trump, and look at the test results in his signature.

well thats not facism, thats indoctrination

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I never said that.

I only commented on the Taliban and the Tsar.

And the Tsar was not a fascist, but a proto-fascist. He had similarities with fascists and that is mainly due to the Black Hundreds, who were extremely radical and we start to see where the ideas that would give rise to fascism come together.

What defines Fascism in your view?

Because, based on the folks you have described as fascists or proto-fascists, I don’t get the sense that your definition is particularly rigorous.

Fascism are a totalitarian and nationalist series of far-right ideologies that support rule by an autocrat, defined by the suppression of critics to the point where they're literally dehumanized to an extreme degree, the exclusion of "others," usually predominantly a racial, religious, or ethnic group in addition to critics, Social Darwinism, the idea that the past was glorious and thus we must return to it regardless of who gets harmed in the process, and usually, also has the tendency of fetishistic love of the military and military might.

It should be noted that nationalism is a relatively recent idea. That alone pretty much excludes ancient or medieval states. Fetishistic love for the military may involve imperialism but contemporary fascists are often isolationists. It should go without saying that William the Conqueror (and people like him) are not fascist. Kind of hard for him to be a nationalist when his reign pre-dates the concept of nationalism by centuries. His othering wasn't as extreme as most fascists either, nor did right-wing politics really exist either. Not how we know or understand them.

And yes, the Taliban embraces Sunni Nationalism. A religious form of Nationalism

Edit: I can add more to this, but I don't think I should have to write a novela on my view of what fascism is in a forum thread.

You can claim it's too broad and it may well be, but I can say that your definition is almost certainly too narrow. So narrow that it would be hard to call anyone a fascists until people find themselves in cattle cars.

[El Lazaro]

I will note the Taliban is not really a Sunni nationalist movement as much as Pashtun nationalist one. Beyond pragmatic reasons, that the Taliban excludes other Muslim majority ethnicities while including more interpretations of Islam is a major contention the religiously homogenous yet multiethnic IS-KP has with them. The Taliban wants an Pashtunized nation-state in Afghanistan while the Islamic State wants, as the name implies, a state spanning the entire Islamic world. As funny as it sounds, the former thinks the latter too extreme, and the latter thinks the former is too secular.

The difference between two different forms of racist fundamentalism might not matter to people who are hated by both, but they certainly don’t see themselves as the same.

[Fahran]

I will note the Taliban is not really a Sunni nationalist movement as much as Pashtun nationalist one. Beyond pragmatic reasons, that the Taliban excludes other Muslim majority ethnicities while including more interpretations of Islam is a major contention the religiously homogenous yet multiethnic IS-KP has with them. The Taliban wants an Pashtunized nation-state in Afghanistan while the Islamic State wants, as the name implies, a state spanning the entire Islamic world. As funny as it sounds, the former thinks the latter too extreme, and the latter thinks the former is too secular.

The difference between two different forms of racist fundamentalism might not matter to people who are hated by both, but they certainly don’t see themselves as the same.

I’m not certain that description of the Taliban is terribly apt given they seek to employ Islam to unify Afghanistan, but, beyond that, any description of either group as fascistic ignores that ideologically and aesthetically they have rather little in common with Italian Fascism or National Socialism. Marxism-Leninism and Progressivism would both be closer to Fascism if we made a phylogeny of ideologies.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I will note the Taliban is not really a Sunni nationalist movement as much as Pashtun nationalist one. Beyond pragmatic reasons, that the Taliban excludes other Muslim majority ethnicities while including more interpretations of Islam is a major contention the religiously homogenous yet multiethnic IS-KP has with them. The Taliban wants an Pashtunized nation-state in Afghanistan while the Islamic State wants, as the name implies, a state spanning the entire Islamic world. As funny as it sounds, the former thinks the latter too extreme, and the latter thinks the former is too secular.

The difference between two different forms of racist fundamentalism might not matter to people who are hated by both, but they certainly don’t see themselves as the same.

I’m not certain that description of the Taliban is terribly apt given they seek to employ Islam to unify Afghanistan, but, beyond that, any description of either group as fascistic ignores that ideologically and aesthetically they have rather little in common with Italian Fascism or National Socialism. Marxism-Leninism wand Progressivism would both be closer to Fascism if we made a phylogeny of ideologies.

The Axis powers had little in common. Yet scholars viewed Japan, Germany, and Italy as all fascist states.

"Little in common" doesn't change anything.

Fascism is not going to be a carbon copy of a particular fascist nation either. It differs from nation to nation.

[Fahran]

I’m not certain that description of the Taliban is terribly apt given they seek to employ Islam to unify Afghanistan, but, beyond that, any description of either group as fascistic ignores that ideologically and aesthetically they have rather little in common with Italian Fascism or National Socialism. Marxism-Leninism wand Progressivism would both be closer to Fascism if we made a phylogeny of ideologies.

The Axis powers had little in common. Yet scholars viewed Japan, Germany, and Italy as all fascist states.

"Little in common" doesn't change anything.

Fascism is not going to be a carbon copy of a particular fascist nation either. It differs from nation to nation.

I’ll elaborate in a little bit, but this definition suggests that the term fascism is ultimately a meaningless shibboleth. Especially because the right-left dichotomy you’re employing only really holds up in the West. If there’s no commonality between these movements and ideologies, there’s no particular reason to categorize them under a single name. And, again, you would likely consider every Middle Eastern and Latin American leader, as well as many African and Asian leaders, in the past century fascist.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

The Axis powers had little in common. Yet scholars viewed Japan, Germany, and Italy as all fascist states.

"Little in common" doesn't change anything.

Fascism is not going to be a carbon copy of a particular fascist nation either. It differs from nation to nation.

I’ll elaborate in a little bit, but this definition suggests that the term fascism is ultimately a meaningless shibboleth. Especially because the right-left dichotomy you’re employing only really holds up in the West. If there’s no commonality between these movements and ideologies, there’s no particular reason to categorize them under a single name. And, again, you would likely consider every Middle Eastern and Latin American leader, as well as many African and Asian leaders, in the past century fascist.

The U.S. promoted Fascism in Latin America and Africa during the cold war to oppose the Soviet Union. Of course there will be lots of fascists there.

[Fahran]

I’ll elaborate in a little bit, but this definition suggests that the term fascism is ultimately a meaningless shibboleth. Especially because the right-left dichotomy you’re employing only really holds up in the West. If there’s no commonality between these movements and ideologies, there’s no particular reason to categorize them under a single name. And, again, you would likely consider every Middle Eastern and Latin American leader, as well as many African and Asian leaders, in the past century fascist.

The U.S. promoted Fascism in Latin America and Africa during the cold war to oppose the Soviet Union. Of course there will be lots of fascists there.

Most of the dictators the Soviets supported could arguably be classified as fascists as well, including Gamal Abdul Nasser, Hafez Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Daniel Ortega, etc. If you’re classifying every authoritarian nationalist as fascist, you’re going to rope in a lot of people who just weren’t actually fascist in any meaningful way.

And a lot of the dictators the US supported in Latin America are more accurately described as fairly conventional caudillos who were anti-communist. The most obvious quasi-fascist in Latin America, Juan Perón, was opposed by the dictators the US supported.

[Forsher]

a phylogeny of ideologies.

That'd be quite fun. Counting character states, arguing what is and isn't a synapomorphy...

Though, frankly, if you did have a list of character states, I suspect you'd get most of the way for our purposes just with hierarchical clustering.

[El Lazaro]

I’ll elaborate in a little bit, but this definition suggests that the term fascism is ultimately a meaningless shibboleth. Especially because the right-left dichotomy you’re employing only really holds up in the West. If there’s no commonality between these movements and ideologies, there’s no particular reason to categorize them under a single name. And, again, you would likely consider every Middle Eastern and Latin American leader, as well as many African and Asian leaders, in the past century fascist.

The U.S. promoted Fascism in Latin America and Africa during the cold war to oppose the Soviet Union. Of course there will be lots of fascists there.

African has had a lot of crazy dictators, but which of them were fascist? The ideologically incoherent, fanatically nationalistic, imperial power shill who will do and say whatever keeps him in power is unfortunately not that inaccurate of a stereotype for Africa dictators during the Cold War, but it’s not fascism. The only African dictator I know of that had any clear relationship to fascist ideology was Nguema, who declared himself a “Hitlerian-Marxist” and praised Nazi Germany. He was also, without getting into it, really, really, really crazy, to the point where comparisons to Dachau or the Khmer Rouge undersell the insanity and unusual cruelty of his regime. But, he was still as reliable of an ally to the Eastern Bloc as someone whose veins were probably filled with more drugs than blood and whose idea of a fun Christmas celebration was executing dissidents by burying them with fire ant swarms while blaring folk music on loudspeakers can be.

Unlike Africa, Latin America has had plenty of fascists, but most groups (not counting the resurgence of fascism in the West, which is still comparatively muted) started fading into obscurity in the 40s and 50s and largely drew from European immigrant communities from fascist nations. Some fascists did gain positions of power under right-wing military regimes, but the problem with presuming this means x dictatorship you’re thinking of was fascist is that it also presumes Evo Morales is an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist hardliner.

[Portzania]

I’ll elaborate in a little bit, but this definition suggests that the term fascism is ultimately a meaningless shibboleth. Especially because the right-left dichotomy you’re employing only really holds up in the West. If there’s no commonality between these movements and ideologies, there’s no particular reason to categorize them under a single name. And, again, you would likely consider every Middle Eastern and Latin American leader, as well as many African and Asian leaders, in the past century fascist.

The U.S. promoted Fascism in Latin America and Africa during the cold war to oppose the Soviet Union. Of course there will be lots of fascists there.

The most fascist leaning dictator, Juan Peron was an ideological enemy of the United States, supported cuba, (hell he was even good friends with che guevara) was embargoed by the US, and nearly all of the other South American dictators absolutely despised him. Fascism was already a coherent ideology in Latin America before the US ever even began to really assert its power in the southern hemisphere.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

-snip-

I'm aware the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S. and promoted grotesque regimes as well.

As for them and fascism, there's a reason why the term Red Fascism exists. Also, fascism is often incoherent. That being said, I'm not going to review every dictator in Africa past and present to find out who is fascist and who isn't.

[El Lazaro]

-snip-

I'm aware the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S. and promoted grotesque regimes as well.

As for them and fascism, there's a reason why the term Red Fascism exists. Also, fascism is often incoherent. That being said, I'm not going to review every dictator in Africa past and present to find out who is fascist and who isn't.

Not even one example? Do you not know about any African dictators or are all of the ones you know not fascists?

Here's a list of some notably bad ones if it helps:
Muammar Gaddafi (the UN Trump tent guy)
Idi Amin
Omar Al-Bashir
Mobutu Sese Seko
Siad Barre

If there aren't any fascists on this list, then I think Africa as a whole was pretty much safe from fascism.

[Vassenor]

I'm aware the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S. and promoted grotesque regimes as well.

As for them and fascism, there's a reason why the term Red Fascism exists. Also, fascism is often incoherent. That being said, I'm not going to review every dictator in Africa past and present to find out who is fascist and who isn't.

Not even one example? Do you not know about any African dictators or are all of the ones you know not fascists?

Here's a list of some notably bad ones if it helps:
Muammar Gaddafi (the UN Trump tent guy)
Idi Amin
Omar Al-Bashir
Mobutu Sese Seko
Siad Barre

If there aren't any fascists on this list, then I think Africa as a whole was pretty much safe from fascism.

I'm not sure Gaddafi was really a fascist - his ideology would change at the drop of a hat depending on who he was trying to get support from at any given time.

[Fahran]

Not even one example? Do you not know about any African dictators or are all of the ones you know not fascists?

Here's a list of some notably bad ones if it helps:
Muammar Gaddafi (the UN Trump tent guy)
Idi Amin
Omar Al-Bashir
Mobutu Sese Seko
Siad Barre

If there aren't any fascists on this list, then I think Africa as a whole was pretty much safe from fascism.

I'm not sure Gaddafi was really a fascist - his ideology would change at the drop of a hat depending on who he was trying to get support from at any given time.

That’s the point we’re trying to make at the moment. By the definition that has been provided, all of the above could potentially be categorized as fascists, despite that making next to no sense.

My own view is that there are a handful of uncontestedly fascist governments. The National Socialists of Germany, the Italian Fascists of Italy, and Austro-Fascism in Austria. There were fascist movements and/or sympathies in more countries, most prominently Romania, Hungary, Spain, and Croatia, but it’s difficult to assert that these were fascist states in a strict sense given the fascist elements were subject to intermittent repression, such as under Franco and Horthy, or lacked a concerted vision and platform, such as under Antonescu.

Even more states were influences on or influenced by fascism, but I consider the lack of the fascistic aesthetic, clearly articulated Third Way ideology, planned/command economy, totalitarian state, critique of representative democracy, capitalism, and socialism, and clearly articulated and enforced racial/ethnic friend-enemy dichotomy to be strong indications that a government or movement isn’t actually fascist.

This is the standard I’m using when I say things like “not all right-wing authoritarians are fascists.” By that metric, which isn’t particularly exclusionary, I don’t see how one could consider Trump or FOX fascistic. That’s not necessarily an indication that they’re good. Plenty of non-fascists are wretched too. And, as a reminder, Canada isn’t having a consultation on banning FOX over accusations of fascist content.

[Anarchic States]

fascism, not fascism, how about you all SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP! YAL ARE LIKE BABYS! JUST ACCEPT THAT YOU THINK THE OTHER IS STUPID, AND MOVE ON!

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Anyway, while I can understand why banning Fox News is concerning, I agree with the ban. The damage they did in the U.S. shows that its an unprecedented threat.

[Fahran]

Anyway, while I can understand why banning Fox News is concerning, I agree with the ban. The damage they did in the U.S. shows that its an unprecedented threat.

Should we ban all media that damages the social fabric?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Anyway, while I can understand why banning Fox News is concerning, I agree with the ban. The damage they did in the U.S. shows that its an unprecedented threat.

Should we ban all media that damages the social fabric?

Few have as much of a spotty history and flagrant disregard for the truth than Fox.

They admitted in court they are not news, because they're not.

[Fahran]

Should we ban all media that damages the social fabric?

Few have as much of a spotty history and flagrant disregard for the truth than Fox.

They admitted in court they are not news, because they're not.

I believe you’re misunderstanding both the details of the Dominion case, which FOX had to settle because they blatantly engaged in defamation, and the argument in favor of banning them in Canada. And, honestly, there are plenty of media outlets that have both distorted the truth and created serious social harm. When is it acceptable to ban a media outlet?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

The federal agency tasked with regulating Canada’s broadcasting and television services is mulling a ban on Fox News from Canadian cable packages.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is seeking public comments on whether to remove the right-wing network from its list of stations authorized for distribution in Canada.

The CRTC’s consultation process, running until June 2, follows an open letter issued by the LGBTQ advocacy group Egale Canada, which argued the American channel promotes “hatred and violence against 2SLGBTQI communities.”

The April letter, which called on the federal agency to initiate a public hearing on the issue, came after the Toronto-based organization was featured on Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Egale Canada said the program’s now former host, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, made “false and horrifying claims” about individuals who are Two-Spirit, transgender, non-binary and gender nonconforming.

“During the segment, Carlson made the inflammatory and false claim that trans people are ‘targeting’ Christians. To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer,” read the letter, signed by Egale Canada executive director Helen Kennedy and addressed to Vicky Eatrides, chairperson and CEO of the CRTC.

“This programming is in clear violation of Canadian broadcasting standards and has no place on Canadian broadcasting networks.”

Neither Fox News nor Tucker Carlson immediately responded to the Star’s request for comment.

To this I say good. Hateful media losing another audience is fine by me, and more body blows to this awful, anti-LGBT network can only help weaken its influence further.

But what say you NSG? Would the CRTC be doing the right thing by banning Fox News for incitement of violence (never mind the lies that they told and were confirmed as lies by the court)? If not, what other measures should the regulatory authority pursue if any, to keep the network from spewing such hate?

"Fox News is getting banned? Sure, they're a little cuckoo... but surely-"
"Oh."

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Few have as much of a spotty history and flagrant disregard for the truth than Fox.

They admitted in court they are not news, because they're not.

I believe you’re misunderstanding both the details of the Dominion case, which FOX had to settle because they blatantly engaged in defamation, and the argument in favor of banning them in Canada. And, honestly, there are plenty of media outlets that have both distorted the truth and created serious social harm. When is it acceptable to ban a media outlet?

Well, if they promote lies and those lies place large groups of people or the society itself in danger, it shouldn't be tolerated.

For instance, election lies shouldn't be tolerated, neither should the homophobic groomer conspiracy theory. You spread lies constantly with a complete disregard for the truth, then you should be banned. And if another network does the same thing, then it should be banned too.

[Fahran]

I believe you’re misunderstanding both the details of the Dominion case, which FOX had to settle because they blatantly engaged in defamation, and the argument in favor of banning them in Canada. And, honestly, there are plenty of media outlets that have both distorted the truth and created serious social harm. When is it acceptable to ban a media outlet?

Well, if they promote lies and those lies place large groups of people or the society itself in danger, it shouldn't be tolerated.

For instance, election lies shouldn't be tolerated, neither should the homophobic groomer conspiracy theory. You spread lies constantly with a complete disregard for the truth, then you should be banned. And if another network does the same thing, then it should be banned too.

And what about the lies and the media outlets that have led to increasing social atomization, anxiety, depression, and body image issues? Would you support banning Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, Snapchat, every book proposing the abolition of core principles of conventional society or the means by which our society is perpetuated? FOX has no doubt done quite a bit of harm, but that harm is quite small in relation.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Well, if they promote lies and those lies place large groups of people or the society itself in danger, it shouldn't be tolerated.

For instance, election lies shouldn't be tolerated, neither should the homophobic groomer conspiracy theory. You spread lies constantly with a complete disregard for the truth, then you should be banned. And if another network does the same thing, then it should be banned too.

And what about the lies and the media outlets that have led to increasing social atomization, anxiety, depression, and body image issues? Would you support banning Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, Snapchat, every book proposing the abolition of core principles of conventional society or the means by which our society is perpetuated? FOX has no doubt done quite a bit of harm, but that harm is quite small in relation.

You're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. A logical fallacy.

Not every book that challenges society or everything contrarian causes problems on par with Fox News. In fact, the vast majority does not, and you know that.

As for social media, I believe in breaking them up. They have too much power.

[Fahran]

And what about the lies and the media outlets that have led to increasing social atomization, anxiety, depression, and body image issues? Would you support banning Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, Snapchat, every book proposing the abolition of core principles of conventional society or the means by which our society is perpetuated? FOX has no doubt done quite a bit of harm, but that harm is quite small in relation.

You're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. A logical fallacy.

Not every book that challenges society or everything contrarian causes problems on par with Fox News. In fact, the vast majority does not, and you know that.

As for social media, I believe in breaking them up. They have too much power.

No, I’m actually not. If the cumulative effect of inundation by certain forms of media and messaging is an atomized society where fewer people are having children and rates of depression, loneliness, anxiety, and body image issues have grown far more pronounced in the span of a couple decades, there’s a compelling argument to be made that serious harm has been done and that the media outlets responsible have been both irresponsible and either disingenuous or actively antisocial. I see no reason why we should stop a ban at FOX unless we’re employing more narrow criteria. Especially if we’re not taking free speech for granted.