"Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[BarnettNewman]

Those damn pointy-headed (no doubt leftist) scientists are tracking the migration patters of the bros. As with many scientific studies, significant parts of their findings align with what had previously been observed in a less rigorous manner. I don't have a pop-science write-up on this, but the paper is open-access. I've added paragraph breaks to the abstract. The last sentence should raise some hackles.

'Are Anti-Feminist Communities Gateways to the Far Right? Evidence from Reddit and YouTube'

Researchers have suggested that "the Manosphere," a conglomerate of men-centered online communities, may serve as a gateway to far right movements. In that context, this paper quantitatively studies the migratory patterns between a variety of groups within the Manosphere and the Alt-right, a loosely connected far right movement that has been particularly active in mainstream social networks.

Our analysis leverages over 300 million comments spread through Reddit (in 115 subreddits) and YouTube (in 526 channels) to investigate whether the audiences of channels and subreddits associated with these communities have converged between 2006 and 2018. In addition to subreddits related to the communities of interest, we also collect data on counterparts: other groups of users which we use for comparison (e.g., for YouTube we use a set of media channels).

Besides measuring the similarity in the commenting user bases of these communities, we perform a migration study, calculating to which extent users in the Manosphere gradually engage with Alt-right content. Our results suggest that there is a large overlap between the user bases of the Alt-right and of the Manosphere and that members of the Manosphere have a bigger chance to engage with far right content than carefully chosen counterparts.

However, our analysis also shows that migration and user base overlap varies substantially across different platforms and within the Manosphere. Members of some communities (e.g., Men's Rights Activists) gradually engage with the Alt-right significantly more than counterparts on both Reddit and YouTube, whereas for other communities, this engagement happens mostly on Reddit (e.g., Pick Up Artists). Overall, our work paints a nuanced picture of the pipeline between the Manosphere and the Alt-right, which may inform platforms' policies and moderation decisions regarding these communities.

This vid is a good companion to that paper

https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cunt]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

[Brian Peacock]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

Pick one of his views. Any one of them.

[L'Emmerdeur]

This vid is a good companion to that paper

I agree. It's been a long year--seems longer than that since I first watched the story of Gabe.

[Cunt]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

Pick one of his views. Any one of them.

I didn't think you had any more than a vague sense of 'rightness'. Good for you! I value your opinion based on backing like this.

[Cunt]

Pick one of his views. Any one of them.

He just said one of his views plainly and succintly (not something he does often lol)

He said that Stephen Molineux was judgmental. I will simply assume your disagreement, unless of course you want to focus on one of his other views.

I don't want to ask about race stuff (with which you might also disagree) because it doesn't make much sense to me, the way it is pitched.

For example, someone poor at explaining themself tried to pitch the idea, that the fact that the prison population has more of one race, this proves racism.

If that were true, said explainer would also support the idea that the prison population being one sex, proves sexism.

[Cunt]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

Pick one of his views. Any one of them.

His view on the murder of Samual Paty is one you might disagree with. Of course, you can check what he said first, or just tell us what you think of the case, and later check if you oppose Benjamin.

Or you could hide from particulars, and write that he is a racism.

[Brian Peacock]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

Pick one of his views. Any one of them.

I didn't think you had any more than a vague sense of 'rightness'. Good for you! I value your opinion based on backing like this.

Nope. I asked you to pick any of his views - it doesn't matter which - and post it here. Then we can find out what we think about it together.

[Brian Peacock]

Oh, I see. You had three stabs at it. Which one would you like to go with?

[Cunt]

Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.

Oh, which view?

I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him. I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about, if it is important though. If it is just you disliking a view of his, I'm sure you'll detail it here, honestly. Or just do this drive-by ad-hom on him. Either is equally informative.

I asked first.

But you have answered, by having no answer.

[Brian Peacock]

I think Carl is probably honest about all his view - or at least the vast majority of them.

Your turn.

[Cunt]

As I said, I'm sure you'll describe what he was wrong about.

Or just do a courageous drive-by ad-hom.

It kind of makes me want to watch the latest 'Lotus Eaters', though it seems to be about the Royals, who aren't usually that interesting.

[JimC]

Cunt, repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting others, as in these examples (out of many):

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1899297
viewtopic.php?p=1899017#p1899017
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 8#p1899398

is malicious trolling. This is a warning that any further such posts will incur a suspension.

[Brian Peacock]

u wrong about.

Or just do a courageous drive-by ad-hom.

It kind of makes me want to watch the latest 'Lotus Eaters', though it seems to be about the Royals, who aren't usually that interesting.

Before you get distracted by other bright, shiny things... It seems to me that you're not only mistaken about what I said (I haven't ad-hommed Carl Benjamin for example) but you're also confused about what you actually said. So let's have a little review...

YOU: We all know Carl Benjamin is vilified mostly for his honesty. There may be other, better reasons to vilify or dislike him, but the most popular reason is for saying true things in an ugly or uncouth way.
ME: Oh sure, Carl is honest about his views, but it's his views not his honesty which most reasonable people take issue with.
YOU: Oh, which view? I haven't heard a dishonest view out of him... [... snipped some irrelevant bad mouthing ...]
ME: Pick one of his views. Any one of them.
YOU: I didn't think you had any more than a vague sense of 'rightness'. Good for you! I value your opinion based on backing like this.
ME: Nope. I asked you to pick any of his views - it doesn't matter which - and post it here. Then we can find out what we think about it together. [...] Oh, I see. You had three stabs at it. Which one would you like to go with?
YOU: I asked first. But you have answered, by having no answer.
ME: I think Carl is probably honest about all his view - or at least the vast majority of them.

So.

You claim Carl Benjamin is "vilified for his honesty" and observe that you "haven't heard a dishonest view out of him".

I suggest that people don't take issue with Carl's views because they think he's dishonest - I actually think he really and sincerely believes in his own views - but it is the views themselves which people take issue with. I'm clearly not thinking that he's dishonest about any of his view in particular, because I don't think he's dishonest about any of his views in particular, "or at least [not] the vast majority of them." By which I mean, he could be lying about what his views really ate, but on the whole I don't think he is.

So I asked you to pick any of his (as we agree) honest views - it doesn't matter which one - to test whether I would disagree (as you claim I will) because he's being honest about his views or because I think his view is misguided, wrong, errant, etc, or not.

You made two addition suggestions.

His view about Stefan Molyneux (correct spelling, unless you mean someone else entirely) as being judgemental is pretty uncontroversial. Molyneux is a moral philosopher - being judgemental is kind of in the job description.

I don't know his views on the murder of Samual Paty, so this is probably the one you should go with.

So, what part or aspect of Carl Benjamin's views on the murder of Samual Paty do you think I'll disagree with based on his honesty - or, presumably, the lack thereof? You're obviously familiar enough with his views to make some guesses about what I might think - so pony up.

[Cunt]

So, what part or aspect of Carl Benjamin's views on the murder of Samual Paty do you think I'll disagree with based on his honesty - or, presumably, the lack thereof? You're obviously familiar enough with his views to make some guesses about what I might think - so pony up.

No thanks. It is too easy to be misunderstood.

If you haven't listened, there is no point talking about it, as I couldn't guess what you think.