nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

20Cent

What is the alt right?
Been hearing the term used more frequently since Trump has been elected.
I thought it was just milo and Katie Hopkins type trolling but it seems to be something bigger than that.

Mod: There have been a fair few mod warnings on this thread now. Any posts which fall under the standard of discussion of the forum will likely be deleted and will face mod action. These include but are not limited to one-liners, videodumps and insults. Please consult the charter if unsure or contact a mod.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

midnight city

TheOven wrote: »

I don't know why you are struggling so much. Fake news doesn't mean non mainstream. Are you doing this on purpose?

Watch what happens over the coming months to right leaning smaller news sites.

TheOven

midnight city wrote: »

Watch what happens over the coming months to right leaning smaller news sites.

Right, conspiracy theories, got it.

Bannon plans on taking out his competition in some liberal plot to censor people.

demfad

midnight city wrote: »

There is as much if it on the likes of the huff post as there is on right leaning news sites. I get my news from the msm, from right leaning websites and from left leaning sites. I look into a particular story if i am suspicious of it.

What i don't want to see and what i suspect is happening is the liberal elites are using the so called 'fake news' issue to shut down right leaning news sources. Facebook, twitter, google and youtube have already started.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.fhzqZMAly#.gwAWB6G27

Some of the biggest pro Trump stories on Facebook apparently originated in Macedonia. Are you okay with shutting down these right wing news sources?

K-9

midnight city wrote: »

This 'fake news' hysteria is about delegitimising alternative media. The MSM want it all to themselves.

There's a difference between sites like Breitbart or The Daily Beast which people should know are heavily biased and pure outright fake news.

Gullibility is a bad thing whether it is the msm or fake news. Unfortunately just like lots of people believe the msm because it was in the paper, some believe fake news because it is on the Internet.

The difference is the msm can be held accountable in some way, court case, complaints commissions, corrections etc. A fake news website can move on to the next one, like dodgy Chinese consumer good websites.

The problem is there are some excellent independent bloggers and websites out there doing great work, and they are in danger of getting their reputation tarnished by association.

osmiumartist

midnight city wrote: »

The genie is out of the bottle now anyway. Lots of people have lost faith in the mainstream media. Interest in these smaller alternative news outlets is not going to go away. No matter how hard politicians and the likes of twitter try.

The problem now is that the traditional big media is as agenda driven as any neo-Nazi website. Look at the Independent, RTE or The Guardian to name a a few from these parts. These outlets used to have a clear position on things but would report news as it happened while keeping real opinion to the editorials. Now everything is "invited" bubble reinforcement crap. The photos are chosen 100% of the time to show one person in a good or bad light. It's shoddy.
Maybe they were forced into this through the rise of alternative "news" sources on the internet, but they basically sold their souls to compete and are paying the price in the long run.

midnight city

osmiumartist wrote: »

The problem now is that the traditional big media is as agenda driven as any neo-Nazi website. Look at the Independent, RTE or The Guardian to name a a few from these parts. These outlets used to have a clear position on things but would report news as it happened while keeping real opinion to the editorials. Now everything is "invited" bubble reinforcement crap. The photos are chosen 100% of the time to show one person in a good or bad light. It's shoddy.
Maybe they were forced into this through the rise of alternative "news" sources on the internet, but they basically sold their souls to compete and are paying the price in the long run.

You are right and if someone is left leaning and liberal they wouldn't even notice this bias. But I certainly do. Others who aren't interested in current affairs and news at all are getting a daily diet of liberal slanted news from these sort of outlets.

K9 by rights people should read any news these days with a sceptical eye whether that's from breitbart or CNN. It's not even so called fake news I have an issue with. If it's plainly false it shouldn't be there. The real problem for me is the omission of news because it doesn't fit with the organisations editorial line. And cherry picking news that does.

ancapailldorcha

midnight city wrote: »

You are right and if someone is left leaning and liberal they wouldn't even notice this bias. But I certainly do. Others who aren't interested in current affairs and news at all are getting a daily diet of liberal slanted news.

Could the same not be said of someone right-leaning and/or conservative and right-wing publications?

midnight city wrote: »

K9 by rights people should read any news these days with a sceptical eye whether that's from breitbart or CNN. It's not even so called fake news I have an issue with. If it's plainly false it shouldn't be there. The real problem for me is the omission of news because it doesn't fit with the organisations editorial line. And cherry picking news that does.

Of course. The problem is that it is ubiquitous. The left moans about right-wing media while the right moans about biased left-liberal media.

osmiumartist

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. The problem is that it is ubiquitous. The left moans about right-wing media while the right moans about biased left-liberal media.

Well, yes. The only people worth listening to are those who acknowledge that both left and right are at it. Is there any such MSM outlet?

ancapailldorcha

osmiumartist wrote: »

Well, yes. The only people worth listening to are those who acknowledge that both left and right are at it. Is there any such MSM outlet?

The Economist? The FT? Both are quite liberal though. Not left-wing, liberal.

osmiumartist

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Economist? The FT? Both are quite liberal though. Not left-wing, liberal.

That's what I hear. Lefty or righty, everybody cares about the bottom line. They don't have a very broad news coverage is the only problem. Al Jazeera IMO is fairly objective but similarly has it's own sphere of interest.

ancapailldorcha

osmiumartist wrote: »

That's what I hear. Lefty or righty, everybody cares about the bottom line. They don't have a very broad news coverage is the only problem. Al Jazeera IMO is fairly objective but similarly has it's own sphere of interest.

Well, I subscribe to TE and it's very broad. Each issue has a section for each continent plus one each for the UK, the US and China.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, I subscribe to TE and it's very broad. Each issue has a section for each continent plus one each for the UK, the US and China.

Yes, it's excellent despite being self-admittedly biased at times. Worth getting for its Arts section and obituaries alone.

Amazingfun

Stop dumping videos here.

Count Dooku

demfad wrote: »

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.fhzqZMAly#.gwAWB6G27

Some of the biggest pro Trump stories on Facebook apparently originated in Macedonia. Are you okay with shutting down these right wing news sources?

I personally don't see any problem with shutting down any fake news sources, especially when the main suppliers of fake news are liberal MSM, such as NYT, WaPo, Times, CNN, NBC etc
Everybody should remember "Hillary health" and "polls don't give a chance for Trump"
And it stll continue - yesterday NYT and Time claimed that Ben Carson once lived in public housing, which is obviously fake.
Alex Jones and Breitbart are now very busy debunking liberal lies, so shutting down liberal MSM for their lies will significantly help them

Yourself isit

TheOven wrote: »

It is simple. Did the event being reported happen? If not it is fake. If yes then it is not.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this for people. It isn't code, fake means not real. I don't know what you are attempting to achieve by trying to cover it up.

Yes but you see the MSM also reports fake news. Along with standard propaganda produced by government. WMD in Iraq for instance. Supposed Russian interference in the US elections (hacking non connected electric voting machines for instance). Links between Saddam and Al Queda, the monstering of corbyn etc.

In fact this control of opinion used to be what the left worried about.

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Economist? The FT? Both are quite liberal though. Not left-wing, liberal.

That is, right wing.

If you think the Economist isn't ideological you need to expand your reading list.

20Cent

From Richard Spencer's speech.

“Trump was the first step toward white identity politics in the United States. He is not going to be the last. The alt-right is a new beginning.”

Can stop using alt right and start using white supremacists.

Yourself isit

20Cent wrote: »

From Richard Spencer's speech.

“Trump was the first step toward white identity politics in the United States. He is not going to be the last. The alt-right is a new beginning.”

Can stop using alt right and start using white supremacists.

He's not the entire group though. Others are just anti PC, or whatever. Not all of the supporters are white, and not all anti semetic.

Spencer is. Nobody doubted that.

ancapailldorcha

Yourself isit wrote: »

That is, right wing.

If you think the Economist isn't ideological you need to expand your reading list.

I never said that it wasn't ideological. TE itself is very open about its agenda.

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes but you see the MSM also reports fake news. Along with standard propaganda produced by government. WMD in Iraq for instance. Supposed Russian interference in the US elections (hacking non connected electric voting machines for instance). Links between Saddam and Al Queda, the monstering of corbyn etc.

In fact this control of opinion used to be what the left worried about.

Can you give examples of media reporting WMD as truth?
The US government accused Russia of hacking into the DNC servers.
Are you saying this is fake news? This is not true?

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes but you see the MSM also reports fake news. Along with standard propaganda produced by government. WMD in Iraq for instance. Supposed Russian interference in the US elections (hacking non connected electric voting machines for instance). Links between Saddam and Al Queda, the monstering of corbyn etc.

In fact this control of opinion used to be what the left worried about.

That is a bit of a stretch really , when does the MSM knowingly report fake news ?

And in those case where a story turns out to be incorrect retractions and apologies even resignations follow , can you say the same for those other siites ?

It really is like comparing John Keegan to Robert Harris when it comes to history . At least Harris makes no bones that he is writing fiction

demfad

marienbad wrote: »

That is a bit of a stretch really , when does the MSM knowingly report fake news ?

And in those case where a story turns out to be incorrect retractions and apologies even resignations follow , can you say the same for those other siites ?

It really is like comparing John Keegan to Robert Harris when it comes to history . At least Harris makes no bones that he is writing fiction

here's a good example of fake news in the US election and it's unlikley origins:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.opVaObQpj#.kcZKxV51z

TheOven

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes but you see the MSM also reports fake news. Along with standard propaganda produced by government. WMD in Iraq for instance. Supposed Russian interference in the US elections (hacking non connected electric voting machines for instance). Links between Saddam and Al Queda, the monstering of corbyn etc.

In fact this control of opinion used to be what the left worried about.

No.

Christ sake, people here are really taking the piss.

Billy86

demfad wrote: »

here's a good example of fake news in the US election and it's unlikley origins:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.opVaObQpj#.kcZKxV51z

Using it for the wrong reasons, but smart kids none the less - they spotted a market gullible enough to never once question the quality of the product they are being sold, and whole will stop at no end (going so far as to make things up out of thin air themselves) to justify buying into it despite it being proven beyond doubt to be a worthless product.

If a car manufacturer could find a market who would happily purchase their cars over and over again, in full knowledge that they literally don't even have an engine fitted, and would defend said manufacturer against criticisms by saying other cars with actual engines sometimes suffer from faults... would you blame them for selling them as hard and often as possible?

Amazingfun

One of the worst fake reporting (by pretty much all MSM outlets ) was the infamous "hands up, don't shoot" re: Micheal Brown (a LIE ) that has resulted in not only a much more hostile attitude towards law enforcement, but motivated actual violence against them as well.

On a lighter note, the year long "Trump has no chance of winning" campaign by all of them is now the source of much merriment for many

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Can you give examples of media reporting WMD as truth?
The US government accused Russia of hacking into the DNC servers.
Are you saying this is fake news? This is not true?

I mean I could trawl the Internet for 2003 but so could you. To be fair they were only reporting government propaganda, but you would think that a proper media would investigate.

I said there were reports of hacking into the election devices not the DNC servers although I am dubious about that too.

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

I mean I could trawl the Internet for 2003 but so could you.

That'll be a no then. Because the person making the claim is the one that needs to back it up.

Yourself isit

Billy86 wrote: »

That'll be a no then. Because the person making the claim is the one that needs to back it up.

Only in extraordinary circumstances. Claiming that the US went to war based on a tissue of lies about WMD is fairly well understood to anybody who was adult then, or even who examined it later.

That the media by and large followed that line is another trivial statement. Although sites like anti-war.com did a good debunking. You can't trust the mainstream media, in most democracies, they are purveyors of elites opinion.

I would recommend manufacturing consent by Chomsky

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Only in extraordinary circumstances. Claiming that the US went to war based on a tissue of lies about WMD is fairly well understood to anybody who was adult then, or even who examined it later.

That the media by and large followed that line is another trivial statement. Although sites like anti-war.com did a good debunking. You can't trust the mainstream media, in most democracies, they are purveyors of elites opinion.

I would recommend manufacturing consent by Chomsky

That is nothing like fake news stories . And the media by and large didn't buy into the US line . Some did some didn't

Reporting the Bush/Blair line is not endorsing it

Tony EH

Being an adult in 2003, I can recall many reports within the, so called, mainstream media questioning the vailidity of the WMD claim. I remember Jon Snow of Channel 4 News reporting clearly about it and interviewing the likes of Scott Ritter about how untrustworthy Bush and Blair's lies were. They also intervewed rebel Labour backbenchers too.

Even RTE news outlets had programmes about just how dodgy everything was about Bush's push for his oil war.