Thats fair enough. Its good to be skeptical of information but you should be aware that media is changing and there are youtube commentators and journalists who are far more credible than alot of journalists working for traditional media.

For example alot of the traditional media in the US are compromised in that they are wined and dined at diners in the white house and flown around in private jets during the presidential campaign and these same journalists are the ones meant to be holding the administration to account?


Take this article from salon.com on the Berkely riots. What makes it credible and how would you go about cross referencing and fact checking it? http://www.salon.com/2017/04/18/pro-...nt-stop-there/


As for his definition of the alt left im not so sure either. But I do know that there is a section of the left who are ok with using violence to silence their opponents and justify it by otherising them. And this may be a small section but there is a much larger section who are acting as apologists for them and in the long run it will hurt the left.

They are no where near comparable , Salon is as objective as Breitbart , both push agendas and are disingenuous a large amount of the time.

As for the Russian connection im still not sold, although I will try to read up on it more. I do find it funny that they apparently rigged the election not by lying and making up fake news but by merely exposing truth about Clinton.

Also ironic that the US has interfered with more countries democracys (including Russia) than any other nation in its short history.

Sure, but my point is that there are a **** ton of nobodies giving political commentary too and it's really not very helpful to a forum discussion when people use lengthy youtube videos without so much as a summary of what's inside or where the info's coming from.

You seem really eager to make this about whether something's more credible because it's either written down or from a mainstream media source. That's not really what I'm arguing about. All I'm trying to explain is the advantages of the written word when sourcing an argument on a forum e.g. it's quicker, easier to dissect, quote and so on.

Well, without reading it out or knowing the story well, you could start with the **** ton of hyperlinks to the sources the article is using. Seems pretty obvious.


I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "alt-left" is before I comment.

My twitter prefers dirtbag left to alt-left fwiw

I got to 1:13 of your video and had to stop. It's dumb as a box of hammer heads.

Are said disagreements about fascism and the superiority of the white race?

Also, this is enough Poe's Law to last one a lifetime:

I seriously don't know what poes law is. Please explain or else.

On the internet no parody can be so obvious that it's easily distinguishable from sincerity. The idea being that since you can always find someone on the internet that's at least stupid and/or crazy enough to honestly espouse such beliefs, you can never be certain whether it's a troll or not.

Thanks bladesman that is not my guess of what it was but makes total sense. Thanks for your contribution.

Hate crime investigation underway in University of Maryland murder

Black army recruit gets murdered at U. of Maryland.

Clearly a lot of the racist rhetoric from the alt-right is inspiring some violence.

> taking memes on the internet seriously

Alt Right "thought" leader Vox Day has some "thoughts" on Anders Breivik, mass murderer of young people:
The Alt Right is more violent, more despicable, more dangerous and unhinged than anything on the left. This statement from a leader in the Alt Right is no different than the people who support ISIS. They are planning to kill innocent people. There can be no doubt about that.

"memes on the internet" my ass.

OP: Hey guys let's have a conversation about the alt right.

Trump supporters: But what about the alt left?

Politards then discuss alt left for 95% of thread.


nice forum yo

To be fair, we didn't really discuss the alt-left. Nobody's even pointed out who that refers to.

The actual alt right are despicable and dangerous yes. The vast amount majority of people accused of being alt right are not alt right though.

Doesnt really matter what you call them labels are always misused and misapplied anyway. What does matter is that there are people on the left who will use violence against people they disagree with and other people on the left who apologize and make excuses for these people.

I didn't call anyone anything.

All this **** about the alt-left and utoobz and we get to "it's a silly label and doesn't matter anyway".

Nice.

All that would happen is we would bicker about who belongs to this group and we will get bogged down in semantics so at the end of the day the label doesnt matter for now at least.

All that matters is that there are a section of people on the left who are ok with committing violence to try and shut down people free speech.

I don't know if we were going to "bicker" about who belongs to this group because we never got as far as a definition.

Although I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect it was a poorly conceived word supposed to mean "people Marn dislikes". So instead of "semantics" we just had you circle round the houses about why youtube isn't a good reference and finish with "well, it's a ****ing meaningless term anyway". Cheers for that.

My argument was that Tim Pools account of what happened that day was accurate and in general he can be trusted as a source.



Oh your welcome.

Great. So what's Tim Pools' definition of "alt-left"?

I'm sure some people called Alt-Right aren't, although it is a loose group.

Milo wrote the introduction to Vox Day's book and Day is Cernovitch's publisher/editor. They both claim not to be Alt-Right.

Tim Pool is now treating the Seth Rich conspiracy as worthy of considering.

I believe it was the people on the left that are ok with violence to shut down opponents.