What would you suggest, when it turns out, that even with massive fact checking capabilities, lies just spread faster no mattet your factual accurracy?
Blaming the left for the current upheaval is a right prolaganda message too, so did my broadening reply work on you? No?
It's frustrating when people fake argue with you on the internet and seem like they just aren't quite engaging with what you're saying. Unfortunately, sometimes that's the point since it inherently devalues the conversation as a whole.
Not telling you what to do; just passing by and reminding that you're under no obligation to engage with a convo that isn't good faith because sometimes I forget that myself in the moment.
Please dont reply. You are dwelling deeper and deeper.
The actual problem is the _massive and intentional_ cognitive inability of critical thought.
I'm not saying it is not a problem and the left is not to blame. But I don't see why you explain the situation because of the "all or none" of the left, rather than the "all or none" of everyone in the US: left and right.
I'm not sure about the person whose comment you addressed but, from experience, I can think of these reasons:
1. A Democratic supporter naturally assumes the Democratic party is the smarter one and holds them to a higher standard.
2. Most of us independents have written the GOP off as a total loss sometime after last January. I suspect, many Dem supporters had arrived at the same conclusion a tad earlier. In other words, what's the point of beating a dead horse?
3. follows from the previous two - there is a sense of real urgency as to make the Dem party do something meaningful, so by pointing the criticism only to them we deprive them from their favorite excuse - that the other party is even worse - they've been hysterically eager to use that excuse for many decades.
Otherwise, both parties are very selective about what they do or don't compromise on, but in either case, the public rarely gets something other than the short end of the stick.
It would be journalists' job to actually dig into this, but you know.
Working at an organization owned by a media conglomerate whose majority shareholder is a billionaire with very clear state connections usually qualifies as independent journalism among friends and state propaganda among enemies.
I came to realise that most leftists are idiots who don't think for themselves and need to be spoonfed the latest acceptable opinions, usually from a social media echo chamber. And these opinions change with the wind.
Like why shouldn't I do my own research and try to discuss it with people who supposedly have similar principles? No apparently that's not allowed and you'll get shouted down for it, maybe even banned for wrongthink.
There’s a fascist take over of the government, citizens being executed in broad daylight on the street. But no the real problem is ‘leftists’ talking mean to me.
Ok, 16 minute old account.
Not my government, by the way. I'm in the UK and so the propensity of USians to blast each other away with guns for stupid reasons isn't something that particularly concerns me. You people have a school shooting pretty much every week. Absolute shithole of a country no matter who is in charge.
Also, are you aware you have neo-Nazi numbers in your username? Funny to see such an account complaining about fascism, in an incongruous kind of way.
You are saying your beliefs are so shallow, so little thought through that kids on the internet mocking them are enough for you to become the opposite and join the culture war?
As for the rest of your comment, I advise you work on both your reading comprehension and your sense of nuance. Hint: someone being irritated by exclusionary groupthink in a subset of the left doesn't mean they are right-wing. If you weren't such a cretinous fool, this would be obvious.
The right then took the character and made it their ironic symbol.
I guess the right are too conservative to wear purple hair, makeup and sexy clothing though.
Original matter aside, this Ministry of Truth update is as creepy as anything else in the article.
//
Pathways: Navigating the Internet and Extremism is a simple multiple choice format game with basic animation. Its players are taken on a journey as characters at a college. They are invited to make decisions in scenarios including whether or download potentially extremist content or join an Amelia character on a rally organised by “a small political group” protesting against changes in society and the “erosion in British values”…
However, it is a subversion of the Amelia character that has exploded across social media channels …
Manga-style Amelia, a Wallace and Gromit version and AI-generated “real life” encounters between her and the characters of Father Ted or Harry Potter, accompanied by racist language and far-right messaging.
…We have seen the meme having a remarkable spread and proliferating among the far right and beyond, but what’s also been of note is how it is now international
//
So a bunch of trolls did classic troll things (which is to be expected because you’re on the internet) then the right wingers picked it up and ruined it and then it spread to become a meme coin
The article wants to make this as though there’s a hardcore group of right wing meme-lords in some giant conspiracy
This is keeps happening and it’s super wierd.
Remember the 2007 mooninite panic? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42225609
Is trolling considered right wing now?
real one https://youtu.be/2UI1ZqGpqXk
anti islam one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2K48F71rg
And someone doing a meme coin isn't a "one of the most surreal twists" - people do that for everything these days as the cost of making one is ~$0 and they may may a few bob off suckers.
I, like you, don't believe the phenomenon was the result of an organised action (of course). The phenomenon was started as meme, resonnated with the far-right, and both far-right and people who don't see any problem with far-right ideology just amplified it. After all, the government has made a lot of stupid videos, and yet, the popularity explodes mainly when it's aligned with far-right.
But I don't have a problem with considering that the "bunch of trolls who did classic troll things" are considered as far-right. They indeed totally jumped in the opportunity to make racist things for the lols. How does that not make them racist themselves? If you create stuffs that racists find great and very aligned with their ideology, I'm sorry, even if you think you are not intrinsically racist, just be an adult and accept the consequences of your actions: you are part of the racist community, you are one of their "allies".
So, I'm perfectly fine with trolls being considered as racists. Trolling is a pain on society anyway and each time a kid thinks of themselves as "super smart" because they are trolling, the reality is rather that the world would be a better place if this version of them was not part of it. Why should we care about what trolls are feeling, they choose to put themselves at the top of the list of people who don't deserve any consideration for their feelings.
Not "have said things that far/alt right cheer" but that they actually are more than "right wing"?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/far-right-lead...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/far-right
About 6,735 results for The far right
https://www.theguardian.com/world/far-left
Sorry – we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.You may have followed an outdated link, or have mistyped a URL. If you believe this to be an error please report it.
To me, (far) right means being primarilly focused on some image of an enemy, nowadays conveyed by social media, and without a substancial constructive political vision. Disgust toward some outgroup and an illusion of former greatness as main drivers for political agitation.
IMO, conservatives can be similarly misguided by some bloated group identity but enlarge, its not their primary driver. Conservarism can find common ground with left leaning policies, whereas the far right cannot.
The fact that the system gives them only two opposing, radical polarities, doesn't mean that there isn't nuance.
You and I may agree or not, but there are indeed young woman who, for example, are not pro-choice. They may have varied views on the trans issue, they have different class/economics policy goals.
You don't get to decree what young women interest are, neither me nor anyone else than themselves.
Is that not exactly what pro-choice means.