What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Alt-Right Movement: a pole (1 Viewer)

What percentage of white folks do you believe at least somewhat support the Alt-Right movement, whet

  • >90%

    Votes: 10 4.1%

  • >75%

    Votes: 18 7.4%

  • >50%

    Votes: 47 19.3%

  • >25%

    Votes: 85 35.0%

  • <25%

    Votes: 83 34.2%
  • Total voters
    243
ilikedwight said:
You guys are being played. Richard Spencer is not the leader of the alt right. There is no leader of the alt right. The alt right isn't about Nazi Larping, which is what you would believe if you think Spencer is the leader of the alt right. Many different people (including minorities) consider themselves part of the alt right for different reasons. An entire movement isn't defined by a few mentally ill larpers within it.
Click to expand...
Great, this guy is still here.  

 
Limp Ditka said:
You'd be stunned by what I see my parent's generation post on Facebook. These aren't 'haha look at this' likes / shares / comments about 'news' stories. They are full fledged buying into it, hook, line and sinker. And it's from both sides of the aisle as well as blue collar and white collar. Hell! One of them was one of my junior high teachers.

its downright scary.
Click to expand...
I've seen people take The Onion seriously a hundred times, and it's not even trying to look un-fake.

 
Man in the yellow hat said:
Nope. I think this is a lot of talk about nothing really. Your average American is Internet savvy enough to know a solid source from a fake one. The idea that Facebook fake news links somehow swayed the election is hard for me to believe. My bigger concern here is platforms like Twitter and Facebook shutting down any ideas that don't conform to their views. Or worse yet, they cave to pressure from people that don't agree with the ideas of others.
Click to expand...
Any thoughts about the contents of this interview?  Fake News guy speaks

 
Judging by the poll results, the story is blown out of proportion = media response driven BS

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe this is a different topic, but it offends my love of free speech to consider regulating fake news.  Is that what people are proposing?

 
Thorn said:
Maybe this is a different topic, but it offends my love of free speech to consider regulating fake news.  Is that what people are proposing?
Click to expand...
I think they are discussing "vetting" real news.  Given their track record I suspect it  will simply further the bias.

 
Thorn said:
Maybe this is a different topic, but it offends my love of free speech to consider regulating fake news.  Is that what people are proposing?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is proposing literal government regulation of fake news (although Trump himself may be contemplating government regulation of real news). I think people are proposing that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter try to weed out fake news stories from being shared on their platforms.

As long as it's limited to fake news that is made up out of whole cloth (but meant to be taken seriously rather than as parody), it seems like a good idea. The implementation will matter.

 
This seems to be a very loosely used term that carriers a different meaning to different user.  When people settle on a meaning of what it stands for, it would be possible to vote.  

 
Man in the yellow hat said:
Nope. I think this is a lot of talk about nothing really. Your average American is Internet savvy enough to know a solid source from a fake one.
Click to expand...
you do realize that the country just voted Trump in as President, right? 

you still sure about this savvy American?

 
I think anyone too removed from the center (left or right) is a maniac. No issues with someone leaning in either direction, but when you wind up so far to one side, you've crossed from rational to maniac, just my .02.

 
PIK95 said:
  Thats B.S. I read tons of articles I am not sure about. I have to go searching around myself to try and find some confirmation that it's real or not.  Many times I can't.  

   Our media has turned into an embarrassment. They need to start doing their jobs instead of being hype machines. If the "liberal" media gave Bernie half the coverage Trump got things probably would have gone a little different.  

  Many average "Savvey" Americans voted for Trump.  We obviously need protecting from ourselves.  It's going to be a hard four years for many of those people now.  I am curious to see if they keep backing him as he takes wages and benefits away from them and their families.
Click to expand...
I will agree with this to an extent. Mainstream media seems to want to be first and big with a story, not accurate. Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax is a prime example. Real media needs an overhaul, across the board. For instance, feeding debate questions to candidates ahead of time.

That said, the people voting for Trump did so for their own reason, and it had nothing to do with 'fake news."

 
Man in the yellow hat said:
I will agree with this to an extent. Mainstream media seems to want to be first and big with a story, not accurate. Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax is a prime example. Real media needs an overhaul, across the board. For instance, feeding debate questions to candidates ahead of time.

That said, the people voting for Trump did so for their own reason, and it had nothing to do with 'fake news."
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can be so certain.  One of the main reasons people voted Trump was because they hated Hillary so much.  That very easily could have been the result of unrelenting negative fake news articles about her.

 
mr. furley said:
you do realize that the country just voted Trump in as President, right? 

you still sure about this savvy American?
Click to expand...
Yep. When faced with Hillary or Trump, they voted Trump. Perhaps if the media and the left stopped vilifying these people, that vote wouldn't have happened in the first place. 

 
Psychopav said:
A better pole question might be whether anyone who voted for Trump had even heard of this so-called movement before Hillary brought it up in that debate.

(My answer:  nope)
Click to expand...
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............what do you think all those avatars of frogs were all about? 

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Trump def had more negative press than Hillary, don't be ridiculous. 
Click to expand...
Yes, it's true that Trump had much more negative press in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc.  But a huge segment of our population does not rely on those sources for news.  Lots of people get their news from Facebook.  And stuff doesn't randomly show up on your facebook feed.  If your friends are all pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, and you tend to click on news (or fake news) that is pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, then your newsfeed will be overwhelmingly pro-Trump/anti-Hillary.  That's the issue we're talking about.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yes, it's true that Trump had much more negative press in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc.  But a huge segment of our population does not rely on those sources for news.  Lots of people get their news from Facebook.  And stuff doesn't randomly show up on your facebook feed.  If your friends are all pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, and you tend to click on news (or fake news) that is pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, then your newsfeed will be overwhelmingly pro-Trump/anti-Hillary.  That's the issue we're talking about.
Click to expand...
Okay, Trump won the election bc of Aunt Carroll's status update. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Yes, it's true that Trump had much more negative press in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc.  But a huge segment of our population does not rely on those sources for news.  Lots of people get their news from Facebook.  And stuff doesn't randomly show up on your facebook feed.  If your friends are all pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, and you tend to click on news (or fake news) that is pro-Trump/anti-Hillary, then your newsfeed will be overwhelmingly pro-Trump/anti-Hillary.  That's the issue we're talking about.
Click to expand...
The opposite is true as well.  I think it's a terrible way to get news, but there isn't a good way to fix it.

 
jonessed said:
The opposite is true as well.  I think it's a terrible way to get news, but there isn't a good way to fix it.
Click to expand...
Well, there are two somewhat overlapping issues, one of which seems easier to fix than the other:

1) Left-leaning people get left-leaning news and right-leaning people get right-leaning news.  I agree with you that this seems incredibly hard to fix.

2) Right-leaning people get right-leaning fake news.  There does not seem to be anywhere even close to this with left-leaning people.  Read the Washington Post interview I linked earlier with the fake news guy.  He actually disliked Trump, but still made up fake pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stories because that was the way he makes money.  Only Trump supporters were the ones routinely clicking on and sharing his links.  These were not reputable right-leaning publications.  They were just flat-out made up stories.  It isn't impossible to believe that Facebook could prevent these types of stories from being circulated on its platform.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Well, there are two somewhat overlapping issues, one of which seems easier to fix than the other:

1) Left-leaning people get left-leaning news and right-leaning people get right-leaning news.  I agree with you that this seems incredibly hard to fix.

2) Right-leaning people get right-leaning fake news.  There does not seem to be anywhere even close to this with left-leaning people. Read the Washington Post interview I linked earlier with the fake news guy.  He actually disliked Trump, but still made up fake pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stories because that was the way he makes money.  Only Trump supporters were the ones routinely clicking on and sharing his links.  These were not reputable right-leaning publications.  They were just flat-out made up stories.  It isn't impossible to believe that Facebook could prevent these types of stories from being circulated on its platform.
Click to expand...
Really?  This one guy was the source of all faux news?  I suspect there was probably more out there or at least will be more out there now.

Facebook already got into hot water because their news filter people were passing through bias.  Now they are going to double-down and go back?  Seems odd.

 
jonessed said:
Really?  This one guy was the source of all faux news?  I suspect there was probably more out there or at least will be more out there now.

Facebook already got into hot water because their news filter people were passing through bias.  Now they are going to double-down and go back?  Seems odd.
Click to expand...
No, that one guy wasn't the source of all fake news.  A lot of the fake news was from Macedonia.  That fake news was also pro-Trump.  There is very little evidence of pro-Hillary news that was just made up out of whole cloth like the stuff in this link or described by the guy in the Washington Post.  It strikes me as very different from the sort of media bias that we're accustomed to and have been discussing forever.

And yes, it's a very delicate issue for Facebook.   Hopefully they will get it right.

 
Sweet J said:
"anti-free speech movements"?  

You mean something other than moderators rejecting what someone posts on the internet?  Do you mean that there is a movement out there of people that support the government quashing free speech?  Because I haven't heard of that from the "left." 
Click to expand...
I definitely have, though it isn't couched in those terms.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Well, there are two somewhat overlapping issues, one of which seems easier to fix than the other:

1) Left-leaning people get left-leaning news and right-leaning people get right-leaning news.  I agree with you that this seems incredibly hard to fix.

2) Right-leaning people get right-leaning fake news.  There does not seem to be anywhere even close to this with left-leaning people.  Read the Washington Post interview I linked earlier with the fake news guy.  He actually disliked Trump, but still made up fake pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stories because that was the way he makes money.  Only Trump supporters were the ones routinely clicking on and sharing his links.  These were not reputable right-leaning publications.  They were just flat-out made up stories.  It isn't impossible to believe that Facebook could prevent these types of stories from being circulated on its platform.
Click to expand...
People will seek and believe the news that confirms their opinions no matter the source.  It is really a small percentage of the population the are looking for facts independently to seek the truth.  Most people look for facts to confirm what they believe.     

 
Sorry, I've been away. Has the whole Bill C-16 (Canada) thing been covered here at all? I'm still trying to parse out who's right and who's wrong among all the rhetoric around it, but there are some who would cite this as a concrete example of the left advancing an anti-free-speech agenda via the criminal code.

 
Smoo said:
Sorry, I've been away. Has the whole Bill C-16 (Canada) thing been covered here at all? I'm still trying to parse out who's right and who's wrong among all the rhetoric around it, but there are some who would cite this as a concrete example of the left advancing an anti-free-speech agenda via the criminal code.
Click to expand...
I think you can assume that Canadian news is not mentioned here unless told otherwise.  I have no idea what you're referencing.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think you can assume that Canadian news is not mentioned here unless told otherwise.  I have no idea what you're referencing.
Click to expand...
I thought there might be an off-chance that one of the others 'Nucks had brought it up. It's a law that adds the phrase "gender identity or expression" to several sections of the criminal code, like hate speech laws and the human rights code. There are some who would have you believe that a consequence (and possibly an intention) of this bill is to be able to prosecute people for not addressing others using their preferred gender pronoun. And, of course, others who would have you believe that it's nonsense.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, I just don't know where yet. Of course, any law about speech is going to get my dander up anyway.

 
Maybe I'm reading that wrong -- but there's two issues at play here.   I would not be surprised to find out there there's a subset of twitter users who are sharing pedo material.   That part could very well be true, I haven't stayed current on the armchair sleuthing surrounding that.  

But the Comet Pizza/Heavy Breathing = pedo thing seems like a bad jokes, except the hundreds of people leaving yelp feedback about Comet being a pedo ring and calling in death threats don't get that it's a joke. 

If Dodds was talking about the former, then he could be right.  If he's talking about the latter, then he's full blown cuckoo and I'm sorry I ever gave FBG one penny of my money in the past.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChiefD
If You Had a Pole on Wheels……
Replies
26
Views
453
belljr
belljr
nirad3
*** Official House/Trance Music Thread
Replies
8
Views
211
Leroy Hoard
Leroy Hoard
Instinctive
Changing jobs - things to do?
Replies
49
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top