Wil, "fake news" doesn't mean "news I don't agree with." It means a fake story, meant to get clicks. It is a new form of "click bait." It means the entire story is made up. This includes things like the story that got over a million views about Hillary Clinton's secret service agent dying mysteriously a week before the election. Nobody ever died, but this was the most shared post on facebook the week the story was published. These stories were cultivated largely by eastern european trolls who would earn large advertising revenue from these stories. When interviewed, they explained that they tried "Blue meat" clickbait but it didn't sell.
Here are some links about this you might want to educate yourself on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2cb3b3e401f8

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/14/505547...e-believe-them

Also, the "Anti SJW" existed over 10 years ago. You really seem to know very little about the online communities in which racism is cultivated and has thrived. Perhaps you should also read encyclopedia dramatica. These communities thrived before social media. They were huge on iRC. Again, you are both completely ignorant of the growth of this.

I don't follow "movements" too closely, but from what I understood it seemed like the seeds of it started during the Sarkeesian gamergate nonsense. The rise of Feminism 3.0 started lining up people against this type of weird creation of issues that didn't exist.

Personally, I think the slow response to the idiocy of Feminism 3.0 is what opened the door to the SJW goofballs. They use the same tactics, the same types of arguments. The SJWs saw what was working and adopted those to push their own causes. SJWs are hated, but the people fighting against them are essentially scared to fight back because of the social and professional harm that they can suffer from speaking out. You may disagree with someone at work, but you sure as hell aren't willing to risk getting fired over it.

That opens the door for professional provacateurs like Milo. If it was safe to speak out openly against Feminism 3.0 and the SJW crowd people like Milo really wouldn't exist, as there is no need for them. We can just tell you people to STFU in public. Unfortunately, we can't, unless we risk our jobs or our friendships.

We see this phenomenon occurring everywhere. That is why we have such a large disconnect about what we think is happening and what is actually happening. When people like Fly give his little speech about waking a sleeping giant against the rise of Fascism with the election of Trump, it seems plausible that your side may actually have something to work with, as the media and almost all news sources seem to come down on your side.

What is actually happening is people are rooting for you people to lose. They will not say it publicly yet because it's still dangerous, you morons are still around and in power as far as public perception goes. I was hoping you'd all be gone by now but it will take a little longer than I expected.

I keep repeating myself, but you should take heed when I say it : everyone hates you people. You lost, and you will continue to lose because there truly IS a silent, large group of people that wants to see nothing but the destruction of your idiocy.

Count me among them.

In a shocking twist, virtually everything after the original sentence is easily, easily proven false by visiting the link I asked him to do so in the post I made directly before this. (Encyclopedia Dramatica, to clarify)

He just wrote multiple, multiple completely ignorant and wrong paragraphs rather than doing like 10 minutes of research. This is Wil in a nutshell.

I've spoken out against the idiocy of you people for long before TS ever showed up. Look at my posting history. It's not difficult.

You are constantly wrong about everything. The evidence is literally right there in front of you, just click on my name and search back years ago to my posts and read my posts.

You making these ridiculously stupid claims over and over again doesn't make them true. TS has no influence on my posting back then and he obviously doesn't now. If anything, I'M THE ORIGINAL TS GODDAMNIT! (heh).

I've been speaking out against you nutjob weirdos for years now. TS comes along and now I'm his butt-buddy? Come on now, son. You know better than that.

Wil lies to himself a lot.

These are the two most amazing back to back posts I have ever been involved with on 2p2, for the record.

I have no wish to click on your links or read about your weird take on the history of either sides here. I'm simply telling you what I saw. The vast, vast majority of America doesn't know or care about these websites you think changed the course of the election. I've seen many people switch sides this last election and I assure you none of them have any idea what fake news or breitbart or clickbait is. They can barely use the internet.

I know it makes you feel better to say to yourself you lost because of subterfuge, but the reality is normal people who wake up and go to work ever day to support their families just got sick of your crap. There is no conspiracy, dude. People really, truly despise you.

I gave you my personal views and experiences on it. I wasn't trying to write history. Shrug. If you think there is an online movement of racism going on in this country, I think it makes you sound like a conspiracy theory believing ******.

No, I think it's the reverse. I think you're the ones lying to yourselves to make you feel better. Face it, you are on the losing side here. People are turning against you.

My side WILL win. In fact, I will say it already has. You just don't know it yet.

"My weird take on history" is articles by NPR and The Washington Post, full of evidence, citations and interviews. Somehow, in the mind of Wil, this does not trump his personal anecdotes. This again, is Wil in a nutshell. He has no intellectual curiosity to seek out opposing views when he can rely on personal anecdotes.

Wil, do you honestly not believe 7chan, 4chan, reddit, stormfront and other places have had specific forums that have been lead by white supremacists and advanced their views? Do you not have the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity to back up your claims,when faced with evidence? (This is rhetorical)

Again, we have one side providing facts, evidence and citations. The other side is just personal anecdotes. Yet, people like Wil thinks this is educated discourse.

When are you going to man up and admit you're a Trumpite? Even your cowardly hero TS managed this much.

I believe it is not a coincidence that it started gaining traction under a liberal Democrat as president. I agree with Lord, the rise of it correlated with the rise of social media, but it intensified in the last few years. It didn't get to the point of idiocy until about 4 years ago or so, when the virtue signalling and shaming became wide-spread in media. Once that started it started spiraling out of control.

When you have Justin Timberlake apologizing for cultural appropriation and Michael Keaton apologizing when he doesn't even know what he's apologizing for, I think some normal, rational human beings may take a step back and ask themselves "what the **** is going on here?"

You people ruin everything. It WILL stop.

Kind of like how Clinton was an 85% lock to win?

Personal anecdotes mean something. Obviously it meant a lot in the election, as your side disregarded it and got burned over it.

I have nothing but intellectual curiosity. I just don't feel the need to read your nonsense.

I don't know what 7chan is. Reddit is absolutely not advocating what you are implying, in fact, I think they do the reverse. I've visited Stormfront maybe 3 times in my life, twice by accident. I care nothing about their views, but I did check it out to see why everyone kept bringing them up. 4chan is just weird.

I'm a middle-aged adult with a job and a family. I don't spend my time on those sites.

You keep bringing this up like you have some sort of smoking gun to disregard my views. Do everyone a favor and put me on ignore and simply stop replying to what I post. We are so far apart that we can't have anything close to resembling a normal conversation. So please, just stop engaging me.

Wil, the answer is that none of that is true. Campus culture hasn't changed. "SJW" isn't a new phenomenon. The term first appeared in 2011. It was by twitter/4chan trolls, coined because "feminazi" wasn't exactly earning their side any sympathy. Do you think the "SJW" didn't exist in the first term under Obama? It's literally just a way to attack the opposition from trolls. That's all it ever was!

Wil, so...in your opinion an open ended straight draw never comes in on the river? That's 15%. This is a poker forum. How can you use such bad logic?

Again, you were wrong on reddit. These subreddits stayed up for years.
http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/3/...ing-harassment

Wil, you literally thought "being wrong about the election results" was fake news. It's stunning and pathetic ignorance on the biggest issue of last year. You have no intellectual curiosity.

You really think people were acting like this on campuses all along, and it hasn't gotten a little bit out of control recently?

You're right, they're completely out of control right now. I hope it never gets bad as this really recent picture.

And you are equating what those people were protesting to what they are protesting now?

It wasn't. The 1,000 students who staged an orderly protest were engaged in the legitimate exercise of free speech and assembly. They had every right to protest, since Milo Hanrahan aka Wagner aka Yiannopoulos was billed by his own website, Breitbart, as planning to incite racial and xenophobic hostility against named individual students, which is not a legitimate exercise of free speech, and Berkeley Republicans had no right to extend his invitation after university authorities warned them that that was what he was planning to do.

The 150 possibly Antifa rioters who latched on to the demonstration and then made trouble were, self-evidently, lawbreakers. But, given the element of predictability, the blame for a deliberate provocation of a breach of the peace should be laid against Hanrahan/Wagner/Yiannopoulos and the Berkeley Republicans.

Milo has plenty of speaking opportunities and is engaged in a book-plugging tour. For that commercial purpose of self-publicity, he is trying to incite riots. But he's not being silenced. The man is ubiquitous and anyone can sample his schtick if they want. In Britain he's been banned from speaking, because it's not worth getting heads broken or wasting police officers' time over such juvenile provocation, and nobody gives one. People with Milo shrines in their front rooms can just check him out on YouTube.

yes. in plenty of situations racists have been created. there are many examples of ppl being exposed to crazy ideas and then embracing them and then doing crazy sht.

we just had a recent example up in canadia.

It absolutely has. To deny this is hilarious.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

Some had it higher. Everything pointed to a crushing Clinton victory. To be honest, it wasn't really close at all. She happened to run up the score in certain areas as far as the popular vote goes but she get her clock cleaned in the electoral college.

The general gist of Reddit is a welcoming, nice atmosphere. There very well may be some nasty subreddits but I don't know how to find them. I remember reading about "fatpeoplehate" or something like that being banned. If you want to call Reddit the equivalent of Stormfront, go ahead, but you're wrong.

I think almost everything you read in the MSM is wrong. It's all fake, to me. I don't believe a single headline I read anymore, I have to research each topic a little bit and figure out what's really going on. Trumps "Muslim ban" isn't even a Muslim ban, and every single one of us knows it, yet that's how it's being portrayed. It's not even a ban, it's a pause in the process to review things. Syrians were the only people banned, and all Muslim countries weren't put on the list.

Again, it's all fake to me.

you say this all time. as if it invalidates every single argument by the ppl you disagree with. does it?

anyway, one time I lost to an inside straight draw. actually a bunch of times I did.

We've addressed this. Yes, I agree that some people can be talked into anything. The issue is not wide-spread.

well, trump himself called it a muslim ban. lapsus linguae I suppose. and giuliani went on tv and bragged that trump called him up and asked for a way to legally ban muslims.

but you proly already knew this since you did so much research.

and Im pretty sure there were 7 countries and not just Syria.

its truly amazing. he argues that racist hate speech does not influence and incite ppl despite a ton of evidence to the contrary. hell, an entire alt right movement, multiple violent episodes, and a ton of harassment occurred.

I mean, what about the muslim crazies? I guess since crazy, evil discourse doesnt influence ppl, we shouldnt be worried about them trying to indoctrinate and incite ppl on the internet.

is it widespread in the muslim community?

You're too young to remember 1968-1973, presumably. And therefore too young to remember Kent State. But you should have heard of it anyway.