this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
169 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10789 readers
639 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
169
Tucker Carlson’s Canada Invasion Rhetoric and the MAGA Fracture (primerogueinc.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by NotSteve_@piefed.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On December 12, 2025, American commentator Tucker Carlson delivered a series of explicit, uninterrupted statements during a live interview with Matt Walsh that collectively amount to an open endorsement of coercive action against Canada. In the span of roughly three minutes, Carlson engaged in an unprecedented narrative assault on Canadian sovereignty and legitimacy, asserting that:

  • Canada is “not even a country” – overtly delegitimizing Canada’s status as a sovereign nation.

  • The Canadian government is murdering “tens of thousands” of citizens each year – accusing Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program of essentially mass state murder, including of children, and “harvesting the organs” from those killed.

  • The U.S. should consider invading and occupying Canada on human rights grounds – explicitly framing a hypothetical military intervention as morally justified, and repeatedly insisting “I’m not joking even a tiny bit” to underline the seriousness of his advocacy.

  • Canada is “way worse than Maduro” and even “worse than China” – claiming Canada’s alleged crimes outstrip those of Venezuela’s Maduro regime and the Chinese government, thus positioning Canada among the world’s most egregious human rights violators.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 42 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

YouTube and Twitter platform him.

They don’t just host him: they spread Tucker Carlson algorithmically, preferentially, deliberately, because it’s outrageous and engaging, and make many millions doing it. And people nodding along will never be shown this article in their feeds.

If you want a “root cause” boogeyman here, it’s Big Tech. No one would give a shit about Tucker Carlson if it was a “fair forum for free speech” like they pretend it is, and they’re the ones that will percolate this up to the White House.

So, yeah. It’d be great if y’all could ban those sites in Canada, if they don’t fix that.

And the rest of the world.

Ban us. Please. Thanks.

  • An apologetic American.
[–] NotSteve_@piefed.ca 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I really wish we'd ban or even regulate American tech companies but the minute we try, we end up getting bullied out of it by your country. I'm still mad that we cancelled it but I'm hoping as we fully cut ties, we'll actually be able to go through with things like that.

Though realistically given our geography, our situation is akin to trying to improve things for ourselves while being caged in with a paranoid and cocaine fueled mountain lion so who knows.

I'm just hoping you guys can get yourselves under control whether that be through balkanisation, complete rebuild of government or anything because while I will proudly fight myself into a grave to defend our sovereignty, I really don't fuckin' want to have to

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Honestly, from my perspective, the US is bad.

People act like things will get better here. But our social media has an iron grip on everything, especially leadership, and now we basically have an influencer government that knows how to work it and wants to entrench social media. Corporations love it. Attention spans are short.

I just don’t see a force that wants to get us out of this spiral. Anecdotally, I have smart, postgrad-educated family that’s repeating stuff from Fox News I never thought I’d hear from them, family working jobs where their CEOs are drinking the Kool Aid…

What’s going to happen is US corporate power will increasingly influence the government, fiscally, politically and psychologically. Unfortunately, I think it will stay central, not balkanize. The States have ceded too much power, and there’s too much vested interest.

Other countries I’ve traveled to seem sensible, though. Even with a Big Tech problem.

My hope is you guys band together with the EU, Mexico, the rest of the Americas, Africa, Asia and such. Lean on the British. It’d be much harder for the US to try something if there’s some kind of pact that would complicate it.

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Banning stuff isn't the answer. I believe in actually free speech and discourse. Our media up here is already so saturated with American thinkslop, the CBC is our last stand (and under constant attack by Conservative grifters).

I believe in the right for Tucker to say what he's got on his mind, just as much as I believe in the right to point our fingers and say, "get a load of this fucking idiot." Buddy looks like an absolute tool bag, and obviously is just karma farming. That's how these people like trump and him get so rich, they karma farm this shit. That's true evil by the way.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Twitter/YouTube isn't free speech. It's not open discourse. It is an algorithm that decides what to show people based on how engaging it is, individually.

I can't emphasize this enough; there is nothing fair about it, and it's not a "debate" because it sycophantic by design. Any right to free speech shouldn't be equated with that.

[–] GrindingGears@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ok but banning speech goes both ways, hey!? That means the speech you find acceptable might come into question by others.

It's a slippery slope. Maybe the slipperiest. Freedom of speech also means sometimes you need to hear some stuff that makes you want to vomit.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

As soon as some speech is chosen over another, it's not free. As long as a platform decides what is acceptable, it's not free. YT and Twitter actively vet who is allowed to speak on their platforms, which means it's not free. It also means they are somewhat condoning the speech on their platforms.

It's already not free.