https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests

Oh okay, thanks!

I read it. It looks like it says there were some clashes between Trump protesters and counter-protesters.

What does this have to do with the alt-left?

Yeah, I'm English. My point though is that when someone in the UK fits the bill of an "alt-righter" that I can point to a source and say that's what I'm referring to. I'm not using a wishy-washy term for some unknown group. I'm saying they espouse the views of a certain ideology.

I have no idea what the "alt-left" ideology is because there are no named people saying "we're the alt-left and here's what we believe". I've got guys like you doing what you did with SJW pointing to a bunch of unrelated groups and saying "guys sort of like that or something". It's not very useful to me because, as happened in the SJW thread, a working definition was never provided and no groups were ever identified as being "SJWs".

I didn't watch it. If he's a legit reporter then maybe we could try pointing to something he's written for once instead of spamming up more utoobz.

Well my whole point is that pointing to such a source to label people is not meaningful, on some level I think you understand that. I get called alt-right here on this forum as a Swede, a country where most people have not even heard of the term.

It is meaningful. The labels people apply to you come about when you fit the profile. And then you're entitled to say "No, this is what the alt-right movement says about this matter and I agree/disagree" but for the "alt-left" that can never happen, because nobody has any idea who the alt-left even are.

People are getting labeled alt right with no connection to any alt right movement, instead it is mostly used by the left as a derogatory term for people you disagree with, this is especially true for non Americans.

From my viewpoint 'alt left' is just as meaningful as 'alt right' when referring to people with no connection to any actual political movements.

Okay, but if people are mislabelled then we can at least point to the group that defined the term and continue to recognise themselves as such and compare and contrast.

We're still waiting for what the "alt-left" even is, let alone who they are.

I think it's fair to sort of define the alt-right. I would say, in general, the alt right is characterized by:

1. Nationalism, especially a nationalism that seeks to exclude certain ethnicities or religions.
2. Dominance. The Alt-right is interested is displays of dominance, including physical force AND rhetorical force. They are confrontational, but usually do not want to initiate violence (at least right now). They are not afraid to use "out of bounds" insults, memes etc. (see "cuck")
3. Identity. One's identity is definitional. They believe in racial and sexual stereotypes and that these stereotypes are almost always unchangeable. If straight white males are the most successful, then (they reason) that this success is a direct result of the straight white male identity. They resent effeminate males because effeminate males dilute the identity of all men. For many on the Alt-right simply being white and male is evidence of victory and success.
3a. Identities are always in conflict.

These points work together. Since identities are always in conflict, we must exclude other identities and dominate them--at least in our own nations if nowhere else.

Obviously there's a question of degree to all of these things as well. Pat Buchanan vs. st0rmfr0nt, for example.

I have a few issues with his definitions. First, while I agree that "alt-right" is a term associated with white nationalists, I'm not convinced much by people who claim to disavow it. Remember that the term "alt-right" was created in the first place to rebrand white nationalism and make it more "acceptable." So it wouldn't surprise me at all to see some people ditch the label even if they still believe the same things. Cernovich still has alt-right connections (his publisher is Vox Day, who is definitely a racist.) Cassandra Fairbanks is borderline, I guess, but definitely has those connections. The fact that she was supposedly a Bernie supporter doesn't mean she can't be alt-right.

The alt-left definition involving free speech is strange. Certainly there are people on the far left who want to limit hate speech, but there are many on the right who want to limit free speech in other ways. And laws against hate speech are pretty mainstream in Europe, so I don't think his definition is helpful at all.

Well, yeah, all those Bible thumpers who wanted to ban Doom are alt-left now.

I have no problem with nationalism. I hate white nationalism, or any other type of racial nationalism.

I think we should distinguish between the two. I don't even know if some self-proclaimed alt right people oppose white nationalism. I suspect yes. So "alt right" probably has multiple meanings, some meanings repulsive to most on the right and everyone on the left, other meanings not repulsive to conservatives.

You can call me (systemically) racist if you think a preference for colorblind policy means I'm a (systemic) racist, but it's clearly massively different from white nationalism. The reasonable people on the left will at least acknowledge this distinction.

All this to say, if alt right includes white nationalism, I'm out. If alt right includes nationalism, tell me more.

Well the term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer, who is definitely a white nationalist. But since the point of the new term was to distance the movement from straight out white nationalism, it's fair to say that the alt right attracted some more moderate nationalists.

So nationalism alone doesn't make alt-right. There needs to be some dose of identity in there.

Sure. I wouldn't call someone who was against affirmative action "alt right." That's a pretty mainstream right wing position. It gets less clear when positions are more aggressive against minorities. Take:

Support of racial profiling.
Limitation of religious freedom for Muslims.
Support for the deportation of dreamers.

Those are approaching the line to alt right. It's sort of diet white nationalism.

All that matters is that he is on the ground reporting in an honest, non partizan and tries to tell both sides of the story . Writing articles does not suddenly give you legitimacy. I mean the bbc reported the berkely free speech rally/protest as a protest about Trumps taxes ffs.

And using your logic the WSJ reporters who tried to paint Pewdiepie as a nazi are legitimate just because they have written articles. Or the Journalists from the daily mail who accused Joerg Sprave of making instructional videos for terrorists. There are numerous examples of reporters who write articles who are not legitimate.

Jordan Charitan of TYT provided the best on the ground coverage of the stnading rock protests. He was there for weeks living with the protesters and streamed every day giving people a much more clear picture of what was happening on the ground than the main stream media did. It is not his writing of articles that suddenly make him legitimate.

Poole is also independent so he has no corporate interests like MSNBC , Fox or CNN. Old Media is dying and youtube is a brilliant way to reach a bigger audience , people like Poole are gaining views and subscribers every day whilst newspapers and traditional tv news shows are on the decline. And they should all be scrutinized as well im sure there are alot of dishonest reporters on youtube as well.

People should be judged on their merits and integrity , not what method they choose to get their message out.

But you know all this. Your just trying to find ways to discredit Poole because he is saying some stuff you dont like and challenging your narrative.

Pool seems okay sometimes, but...



This video is ridiculous. He seems mad that people want an investigation of Russian hacking--but why is that a problem? He also blames Obama's decision to sanction Russia over the hacking on the media and the "fake news" stories. What?

Meanwhile he interviews Cassandra Fairbanks, who helped spread the pizzagate conspiracy and worked for Sputnik news, which has alleged ties to the Kremlin.

He does make some anti-conservative arguments here and there, but he definitely has a right wing slant.

No, no, no. This is all wrong.

The reason I don't watch random utoobz videos posted on here is not because I don't occasionally waste time watching utoobz, it's because I can read articles and check sources much more quickly and easily than listening to a long vlog.

It's not because I think if something's written down then it's definitely true.

I'm not expect the full Harvard referencing system, just something a step up from "This guy has a thirty minute youtube rant".

The guy has covered multiple events on the ground and has interviewed people on both sides and been critical of both sides, his opinions on the matter are a step up from a youtube rant.

He seems more mad that outlets are reporting that the Russians interfered with the election with no proof.

I dont think he is right wing to be honest he has produced documentaries uncovering institutional racism in the police force and also produces videos showing refugees in a good light.

I dont think there is any problem with interviewing Fairbanks unless he gives her softball questions. I couldn't find that interview so cant comment too much on it.

That's great. So can you just point me to something of his that resembles actual journalism rather than his random vlog?

Marn said there's some "basic reading" for me to do on the "alt-left" but it's like getting blood from a stone when I ask for more than a utoobz.

triggered

Yeah, that's a right wing point of view since there is a lot of evidence that Russia interfered with US elections.

I agree he's got some left-wing views as well. He did seem to give Fairbanks a sympathetic interview, but to be fair he could have been biased towards her cleavage rather than her POV.

For starters he broadcasts news and current events so that is what makes it journalism and not a vlog.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/tim-pool

He used to work for for vice news and fusion and mainly covered international events. He actually left fusion because they told him to pander towards their young very liberal audience so he felt compromised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUpKIj7OrqM


He did a two hour live stream from the Berkely event in which he interviews both sides. It is actually more reliable form of journalism than traditional forms of media like newspapers or a 5 minute segment on a news channel as its harder to spin your own narrative. You really cant get a more honest form of journalism than streaming live and interviewing people as you go. It is hard to take people out of context and viewers can get a much more accurate picture of what is going on than they would an article of 5 minute segment on the news

Obviously two hours is a long watch and dont expect you to watch it but im just pointing out that the smaller segments he produces are alot more likely to be accurate because people can always watch the full two hour live stream to see if he is trying to spin his own narrative. Compare that to rebel media who will show you edited clips and will not have the long uncut footage available.

Traditional media has exactly the same problem and doesn't have the same accountability.

Take salon.com , which people on here use all the time as a source , what makes their article on the Berkely riots more credible than Tim Pools journalism?

I dont believe it is an exclusively right wing view as Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski who both worked for TYT and describe themselves as progressives are equally as skeptical about the Russian claims.

I know that some intelligence agencies have claimed there was an interference but they also claimed that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. What is their proof?

I dont think it is impossible for them to have interfered but I havent seen anything concrete.

I couldnt find that interview anywhere btw. They are friends in real life apparently.

See, that wasn't so hard. I don't see an article on Vice about the "alt-left" though, which is the subject I was hoping for.

In answer to your question, I'm not saying that stuff is more credible simply because it's in writing. I'm saying when you want to direct people to info it's a lot easier to point to articles that can be read in moments rather than lengthy videos where it's also tougher to cross reference and fact check.

It's so much quicker and easier for someone to quote a small piece and link an article than when someone says "Here's a good summary" and puts a random link to a youtube video of unknown length.

FWIW, I think they're comparable. Pool has a POV and so does salon.com. And like I said, I like some of the stuff he's doing, but his definition of alt-left doesn't clarify anything for me.

Fair point.

The public evidence for Russia being behind the Podesta phishing attack is pretty strong. The same hackers targeted 4,000 or so addresses, many of them experts on Ukraine or journalists in Russia. It isn't 100% proof, but it's way more than just "maybe" Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta. And it certainly isn't "fake news," as Pool claimed. There's a lot of evidence Russia did it and no evidence that anyone else did. And that's just from evidence that's been made public.