4 ms·

It's so hard to trust anything these days, much less the SPLC... > Mike Peinovich, hosted a poll asking users who their biggest influence was in coming to the

It's so hard to trust anything these days, much less the SPLC... > Mike Peinovich, hosted a poll asking users who their biggest influence was in coming to the alt-right. Multiple respondents named Sargon of Akkad. I can't find the actual poll in question, but from the SPLC's own analysis, Sargon was mentioned a grand total of 3 times in a thread about what brought people to "the movement" on The Right Stuff forum. I guess that counts as "multiple". Regardless it was a very small sample size collected from an explicitly white nationalist (I assume, I'm just taking SPLC's word for that one) message board. Likely most of the people who still follow Sargon have not gone down the racist rabbit hole and just consider themselves skeptics, but hey they found 3 so... But this part is downright slanderous, or liable (not sure which, need to watch the Spiderman movie again...) > And for someone who says he’s not a part of the alt-right, he’s been spending a lot of time with them lately. He’s appeared in videos with alt-right figures like Millennial Woes and Richard Spencer, giving those men a platform to reach his nearly 800,000 subscribers in the process. While factually true the implication is clearly that he appeared with these figures to promote their ideas, not debate them, which is what actually happened. When paired with Spencer Sargon so vehemently disagreed with him that he kinda made a fool of himself, as at least Spencer remained calm throughout. I don't really care to defend Sargon and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content he produces. I do follow the tea leaves though, and from what I've gathered, while certainly anti-PC/feminist/social justice/progressive etc., he's no racist. I mean I could be wrong because as I said I've not listened to much of him, but I'm certainly not going to take the SPLC's word for it.

eesmith 8y ago
You write "he's no racist". The SPLC did not say he is a racist, did they? I didn't see that in the text I mentioned, but perhaps they said it elsewhere? If not, then you don't need to take their word for something they didn't say. They did make an association between him and racism, so let's examine that connection. This thread exists because of an NYT article about an action by Patreon where Patreon, at https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf and mentioned elsewhere in this thread - says he "used racial slurs to insult others and specifically linked those slurs with negative generalizations of behavior, in contrast to how people of other races act." You can confirm that those are some pretty racist statements. Now, I know that some people demur stating that someone is a racist for doing racist things. Are you making that distinction? Even if you don't think he's a racist for making those comment, it is enough to support the SPLC association of him with racism, yes? If not, why not?
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Whether they wrote "he's a racist" or not they are heavily implying it by associating him with racism, as you just did, and the alt-right. I don't see a meaningful difference, especially given the source. Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative. As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits. But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    "Whether they wrote" My point is that you said they did. If they actually did not, then it comes across like you are putting words into their mouth. Do you see how this comes across as part of a criticism which says they themselves are over-interpreting the data? "it seemed to me" And it seemed to me it was an outright racist statement. Even if somehow it was not, it was definitely an own-goal given the heavy scrutiny he faces. I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm. It's like the justification, after someone has made a horribly racist, bigoted, sexist, or otherwise insensitive statement that "it was only a joke" - where is the humor? Furthermore, people do use "jokes" as a way to test the water; a 'trial balloon'. Since you don't think he's racist, then in the context of a thread on his seemingly racist statements, would it not be appropriate to address the topic at hand, rather than simply say that you don't think he's a racist? "I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source." Then you should have said so outright. Your previous statement only said that you didn't think there was enough information to conclude that he is a racist. I agree, the SPLC doesn't provide enough information to make that conclusion. But that wasn't their claim, nor did you say anything beyond their analysis of this one situation. To restate your own words: "I don't really care to defend [the SPLC] and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content [they produce]. I do follow [others who do], and from what I've gathered, while certainly [more sensitive than I am and not immune to error], [they are not unusually dishonest or untrustworthy]."

eesmith 8y ago

You write "he's no racist". The SPLC did not say he is a racist, did they? I didn't see that in the text I mentioned, but perhaps they said it elsewhere? If not, then you don't need to take their word for something they didn't say. They did make an association between him and racism, so let's examine that connection. This thread exists because of an NYT article about an action by Patreon where Patreon, at https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf and mentioned elsewhere in this thread - says he "used racial slurs to insult others and specifically linked those slurs with negative generalizations of behavior, in contrast to how people of other races act." You can confirm that those are some pretty racist statements. Now, I know that some people demur stating that someone is a racist for doing racist things. Are you making that distinction? Even if you don't think he's a racist for making those comment, it is enough to support the SPLC association of him with racism, yes? If not, why not?

furgooswft13 8y ago
Whether they wrote "he's a racist" or not they are heavily implying it by associating him with racism, as you just did, and the alt-right. I don't see a meaningful difference, especially given the source. Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative. As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits. But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "Whether they wrote" My point is that you said they did. If they actually did not, then it comes across like you are putting words into their mouth. Do you see how this comes across as part of a criticism which says they themselves are over-interpreting the data? "it seemed to me" And it seemed to me it was an outright racist statement. Even if somehow it was not, it was definitely an own-goal given the heavy scrutiny he faces. I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm. It's like the justification, after someone has made a horribly racist, bigoted, sexist, or otherwise insensitive statement that "it was only a joke" - where is the humor? Furthermore, people do use "jokes" as a way to test the water; a 'trial balloon'. Since you don't think he's racist, then in the context of a thread on his seemingly racist statements, would it not be appropriate to address the topic at hand, rather than simply say that you don't think he's a racist? "I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source." Then you should have said so outright. Your previous statement only said that you didn't think there was enough information to conclude that he is a racist. I agree, the SPLC doesn't provide enough information to make that conclusion. But that wasn't their claim, nor did you say anything beyond their analysis of this one situation. To restate your own words: "I don't really care to defend [the SPLC] and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content [they produce]. I do follow [others who do], and from what I've gathered, while certainly [more sensitive than I am and not immune to error], [they are not unusually dishonest or untrustworthy]."