Media Bias

[Cunt]

So now I've laid out a description and my reasons for opposing the alt-right, what do you think the alt-right stand for and how might your views differ from my own?

If someone calls themselves 'alt-right', then I'm happy to talk about their alt-right-ness with you.

If, alternately, it is an unwelcome accusation and often a plain and empty insult, then better language might yield better info.

Because you reminded me of a figure often called alt-right, I looked him up. (haven't for awhile)

He gave the best quick description of the 'q' phenomenom I've ever heard. MUCH more useful than anything you or I have said about it.

Here is the rough quote...

q is astrology for MAGA-Moms

So without knowing who said it, can you agree with his statement?

Now the tricky part...are you aligned with the alt-right if you do? Does the accuracy of what he said about it matter? Or must you disagree because he is accused of being 'alt-right'?

If you want to go over his particular case, that's fine. Maybe he IS a racist or something by our assessment. My point is that even if he IS a racist, it doesn't change a thing about what I quoted, or whether or not it was a good, succinct description.

[Cunt]

Rebel media just did a story from Nathan Philips Square in Toronto. It is currently 'occupied' by campers or something, who got weird and violent with a few reporters who tried to report on conditions.

After City Hall security sent the reporters away, the lead reporter came back with a private security detail, multiple cameras and a lawyer, and attempted to do his report from the center of the town square. I'm sure someone would point out that the occupiers are 'no true antifa', but good thing, or they would make antifa look like incoherent, violent fools.

The video is behind the paywall, but the audio...well, lets just say that even antifa won't want to be associated with the actions taken against the reporters that day.

[Brian Peacock]

So now I've laid out a description and my reasons for opposing the alt-right, what do you think the alt-right stand for and how might your views differ from my own?

If someone calls themselves 'alt-right', then I'm happy to talk about their alt-right-ness with you.

If, alternately, it is an unwelcome accusation and often a plain and empty insult, then better language might yield better info.

Applying the label may be unwelcome but also accurate by the common understanding of the word. Same goes for 'racist', 'fascist' and 'neo-Nazi' of course, as well as any other descriptive political label or category. As you pointed out, it's best to look at "the particulars". That way we're not going to take an 'unwelcome' label or categorisation and automatically confuse it for an 'inaccurate' one.

Because you reminded me of a figure often called alt-right, I looked him up. (haven't for awhile)

He gave the best quick description of the 'q' phenomenom I've ever heard. MUCH more useful than anything you or I have said about it.

Here is the rough quote...

q is astrology for MAGA-Moms

So without knowing who said it, can you agree with his statement?

Now the tricky part...are you aligned with the alt-right if you do? Does the accuracy of what he said about it matter? Or must you disagree because he is accused of being 'alt-right'?

You can read my posts again to find the answer to that one. I said that just because a fascist might align with common-or-garden conservatism on something doesn't mean that common-or-garden conservatives are fascists. Similarly it follows that if there's some alignment between a fascist and a communist, say, on something like the necessity of the regime to enforce adherence to ideological doctrine, it doesn't mean those labels aren't still qualitatively distinct or that they suddenly go away. In that case we might call both the fascist and the communist 'authoritarian' or 'totalitarian' for example while still having every reason to call them fascists and communists according to "the particulars" of their politics.

If you want to go over his particular case, that's fine. Maybe he IS a racist or something by our assessment. My point is that even if he IS a racist, it doesn't change a thing about what I quoted, or whether or not it was a good, succinct description.

I think a discussion about whether someone is racist based on a four-word aphorism is pretty much impossible - there's no particular "particulars" to hang the conversation on.

If you look to the top of this comment you'll see the question I'm asking you, and being as you lifted it from the bottom of a longer post I'm pretty sure you understand the context of that question now. So, fancy having a stab at it?

[Cunt]

So now I've laid out a description and my reasons for opposing the alt-right, what do you think the alt-right stand for and how might your views differ from my own?

I don't think you are 'alt-right'.

I don't think I am 'alt-right'.

So if you want to accuse someone of being alt-right, you'll need to get me to agree, or we have a 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of misunderstanding.

I don't think the term adds anything, unless the subject identifies that way.

There are other words.

[Cunt]

So I believe it stands for 'poopyhead', when used as a descriptor by someone trying to characterize someone's views in a shallow, vague way.

[Brian Peacock]

If you want to have serious chat about this stuff try not to post straight after having a spliff. OK?

[Cunt]

If you want to have serious chat about this stuff try not to post straight after having a spliff. OK?

If you want to have a serious chat about this stuff, we will have to agree that an org is 'alt-right', before we can talk about them being alt-right.

Of course, you are welcome to still use it in place of the more obvious insults, like 'poopyhead', but I know that's all it is. So does anyone who thinks about it.

There are plenty of other phrases to use.

You could even change your tune when an org says they are NOT alt-right. I haven't seen you do that though. Maybe you do, but I haven't seen it.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't seen you show an org that says they are not alt-right. I think you just made that up, didn't you?

[Cunt]

Can't disagree with you on that, pErvinalia. You might try the twitterverse.

[Cunt]

It sounds like the media have been accused of bias in their reporting around Antifa.

https://thepostmillennial.com/andy-ngo- ... ifa-monday

I wonder if Mr. Ngo's lawsuit will clarify if they are indeed an organization, and whether they are conducting themseleves as portrayed honestly in the news, or if instead they are 'alt-right-style' violent thugs, mostly wealthy and white, who attacked a gay son of US immigrants for reporting on their anti-social activities.

His lawyers are going after 900,000 Ameribucks...should be enough to pay some security.

[Sean Hayden]

--and about half of those are Tero shouting random insults at Trump.

[Cunt]

If I were a republican, I would purchase a couple large social media platforms, then steer them so they 'censored' my content. In that swift move, I could convince everyone that my political platform was being hidden from them (rather than admitting it didn't really exist)

[rainbow]

If I were a republicussian, I would purchase a couple large social media platforms, then steer them so they 'censored' my content. In that swift move, I could convince everyone that my political platform was being hidden from them (rather than admitting it didn't really exist)

If I were a sock bot,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a Russian Troll.

[Brian Peacock]

[Cunt]

Andy Ngo got invited to explain to a House Committee to share his expertise about extreme-left groups.

It should be good for Congress, who maybe don't know what it is, what with the bias shown so far about covering antifa (for example)

He retweets public police reports and mugshots, and get's accused of somehow 'doxxing' people. Maybe their ire should go after the police instead of a humble reporter.