Frankly, the weather in Puget Sound is much better than the locals make it out to be. I've been living here for 3 years, and have gotten way more sunshine than July-September.
It is very different - as in, the difference between being factually correct or not. ANC was undeniably a terrorist organization, one only needs to look at some of the cases in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to see that. Mandela personally is a different thing.
The Assad regime was a brutal dictatorship. The opposition to Assad is made up primarily of people who are not at all jihadists.
If that is the case, then why is it considered common knowledge by now that the core of the actual armed resistance are jihadists?
Yes, some in the FSA are not happy about it, and are fighting back. And losing, because they are the minority, at least among those willing to fight.
Thing is, ANC did deliberately target civilians. Churches, that kind of thing. A lot of that came up in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
So yes, ANC were definitely terrorists. Fighting for a just cause, perhaps, but the definition is about the means, not the ends.
Well, sometimes they do, sometimes even explicitly so - there are many states that explicitly self-declare as nation-states, for example, and which practice jus sanguinis.
But, more importantly, nowhere did I say that only speech that goes "against the state" is important. It is certainly a subcategory of political speech in general, but not all political speech is in opposition. As for Nazis, they are certainly in opposition - not because the racial groups "don't represent the state", but because most modern liberal democracies espouse multiculturalism and similar policies, and Nazi are basically the ones who are most vitriolically opposed to that.
It's only acceptable to limit speech that turns people into a stampede if stampede is the direct, immediate and obvious result of that speech. In this particular case, the speech is generally far removed from the action, if there is any action at all.
The other reason is that censoring political speech of any kind is a very dangerous slippery slope, since once you begin, it's hard to say where it might stop. For example, one could argue that US Republican party espouses an ideology hostile to human rights solely on the grounds of their opposition to public healthcare (which, objectively, does considerably increase human suffering and results in many unnecessary deaths, thousands if not quite millions). Does this mean that we should consider their platform as "hate speech" and ban it?
Nazism (and many other totalitarian ideologies) are very good at making powerful emotional arguments, which are complete and utter bullshit when you try to analyze them rationally, but the whole point (as far as they are concerned) is that you're not supposed to.
Protect the white children! (picture of a cute blue-eyed little girl) Stand up for your race! Your blood kin are being slaughtered in their homes, and your sisters and daughters are raped by the filthy Xs! (picture of a typical gangsta rapper in a hoodie with a gun) Take up the banner and the weapon and fight for your ideals! Think of your proud ancestors! (picture of a grim looking Nordic warrior in armor with a ship and a flag in the background) Even if you die, you will be a martyr to the cause, and your name shall forever be remembered! (another warrior picture)
All that kind of stuff can get to the head of the more emotional people, especially when they are young. Depending on how masterful the propaganda is, the barrier of entry can get lower - Hitler, for example, was a master orator who could convince your average middle aged family guy of all the things above.
Really, go to YouTube and watch Triumph of the Will. You'll see what I mean.
Freedom of speech should be absolute when it comes to voicing political opinions. Otherwise, you don't have a true democracy, since opponents may not be able to argue their point.
Freedom of speech, as a political right, does protect you from consequences from the state. Of course it does not apply to other private entities, as those don't have any political power over you.
Totalitarianism is quite often opposed to rigid law systems ("rule of law" etc), because it likes to arrange an occasional extrajudicial disappearance and such. It doesn't mean that it's anti-authority, of course, it means that it's about authority being above law.
As far as fascism goes, it is certainly inherently totalitarian (seeing how the term was invented by fascists to describe themselves), but it's much more specific than that. Every fascist regime is totalitarian, but not every totalitarian regime is fascist.
What he is saying is that there is no state which bans pistols outright. DC used to be one place where you couldn't even keep them at home, but Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional. With respect to the link that you have posted and the quote from it, what it says is that the New York State license is not sufficient in New York City on its own, and you need another one from the latter to possess and carry. But they still issue them, and, for possession at least, they are constitutionally bound to.
With respect to assault rifles, it depends on how you define the term. If it's the proper definition (rifle in intermediate caliber capable of firing in full automatic), then you're correct, as many states ban all full auto firearms. If you mean the popular definition of "it's black and scary", then that again depends on what exactly you do and don't count as one (as that definition is inherently vague). Many states do have laws titled "Assault Weapon Ban" and such - California being a prime example - but they don't outright ban semi-autos, only specific, mostly cosmetic features on them. So even in California, you can own an AR which fires in semi-auto, though you'll be restricted in magazine capacity and certain other things, or you'll have to work around them by various means (e.g. "hi-cap" mags are legal in Cali if your gun doesn't have a pistol grip, so people have made ARs which don't have one).
Just write Muslim hate speeches on some forum and see what will happen.
And what will happen? I see those posted on YouTube all the time, and if you challenge the guy, he replies back - so clearly they didn't ship him to Gitmo.
Hell, YouTube has helmet cam videos from Taliban. I remember one where they have shelled an American base (with mortars). It was still around when I went to see it several months later.
Nazis are right wing. Historically and currently, right wing does not mean "guys who like freedom" or "non-authoritarian". You can consult your dictionary for further details.
Nazis were also not anti-gun. They took guns away from people whom they oppressed, like Jews, but they did promote gun ownership among "Aryans". Which is not exactly surprising, given that it was an organization that was originally based on extrajudicial violence, and has used it for its goals until the very end.
It's not really about countries. Nazism has historically been considered "far right" in America same as everywhere, and it still is, save for some fringe cooks.
The nice thing about getting into nazism, fascism, communism, anarcho-capitalism etc while you're young is that you grow up eventually, and then you get immunity to that crap for life.