This sort of proves my point, though: social media has "radicalized" people into believing claims that lack a factual basis and serve a particular narrative. But this is mostly perpetrated by members of the traditional press, not ordinary social media users. If anything, social media has only radicalized people by privileging members of the traditional press at the expense of the random people, no matter how crazy they are.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ro8hkfBDVw&bpctr=1600132912
[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563...
The only "Alt-Right" collaborator I know of is a Joe Biden supporter who perpetrated the Charlottesville massacre.[1] Of course, you could try to refute any of the evidence Ngo supplied in his tweets, but since you have nothing yourself, it's much easier to call him names, slander him and generally resort to FUD tactics, ad hominem and guilt by association. If you could actually refute anything Andy Ngo reported (and for all I know, maybe there's plenty), then go ahead and do it. It would be irrelevant to the particular claims I was citing, but at least it would be informative. What you've given us so far is an over-the-top innuendo narrative that is so sleazy even your average MLM salesperson would cringe.
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-mag...
yeah dude, tell me more about this alleged "slander" of Ngo, no dude he's a grifter, that's not "FUD", that's old news and not really controversial.
It seems to me that carrying a rifle with the intent to apply medical assistance is a military occupation, not a civilian one.
He pretty clearly extinguishes a dumpster fire that several rioters were pushing toward a set of gas pumps. This enraged the mob, leading them to chase him and even start shooting at or around him. He only fired when he was cornered (whether surrounded by the mob or even literally on his back on the ground), and only at those who were actually attacking him.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&t=307s&bpctr=160...
Kenosha has a democrat mayor, so no. Police had to stay well out of the way, and was frobidden from using any kind of force. Just watch the videos of what transpired. Don't rely on misleading, "fiery but mostly peaceful" CNN edits - watch the whole thing just this once. Watch the interview with Kyle before the events, taken by a journalist embedded with the protesters, as well. Your question indicates you've been quite severely gaslit. Bet you don't even know how many people got shot in CHAZ.
I would not go to that area unarmed at that time. The guy Kyle shot in the arm was pointing a Glock pistol at his head at that moment (you can see it on videos from several angles), and later said his only regret was that he didn't kill him.
I only question whether "social media" is some unique bad that has perpetrated this, rather than the traditional media and entertainment establishment or technologies that predated social media. Players have been kneeling at NFL games for years now, every TV news outlet (except for approximately one) has been parroting endless nonsense about various social problems for years (the nonsense has reached a fever pitch these past four years), and our universities have been pushing cultish ideology for a long time as well. (In fact, my personal theory is that a lot of this nonsense is an outgrowth of the Occupy movement in 2012, which seems to have formed long-lasting personal social networks, which social media platforms have made marginally more efficient, but were in no way the only online tool to strengthen bonds.
I'd also add that as horrible as I find Danielson's murder and the treatment of the boy in Kenosha (I try not to even say his name, because the zealots are out in force) by the media and social media, social media was also the tool used to identify Reinoehl as his murderer in less than 24 hours. Social media was also the tool that convinced many of us that the boy in Kenosha was actually innocent and acting in self-defense.
To frame this differently, what social media platforms did Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot use to recruit and radicalize their supporters? How about Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah?
I know (and I knew when I asked) that there were going to be people truly "radicalized" on social media in a way that is unique, though I did not know any instances of it off the top of my head. Even Twitter, which seems like a completely toxic and horrible place these days, seems almost entirely filled with keyboard warriors who just shitpost. (Insofar as certain groups are using it to coordinate violence and mayhem, someone should put a stop to it.)
The dumbass was stupid enough to give a _video_ interview, from which his location could likely be identified. 4chan found Shia LaBeouf's flag from far less, and I can only assume the FBI is better at this than 4chan. If you read more about him (which I'm sure you have), you'll see that this is not a coincidence. The guy has been leaving a trail of chaos behind him for most of his adult life.
> almost entirely filled with keyboard warriors who just shitpost
_Almost_ is the operative word. Quite a few believe the shit the "shitposters" post. Lacking life experience and historical perspective, they're trying to usher a future in which they themselves would be the first to go. This is what happened in Russia a hundred years ago: 6 months before the revolution Vladimir Lenin gave a lecture in Zurich in which he said he was sure the revolution would not happen in his lifetime. So in a way Lenin too was a "shitposter", who, 6 months before, believed shitposting would not have consequences. And then the revolution did happen. And then Lenin eliminated most of the useful idiots, as well as a lot of his higher level comrades - no one wants competition.
This is due to a confluence of economic stress caused by WW1, some foreign cash from Germany, and (illegal) newspapers, printed abroad, then brought over the border and distributed. Interestingly, Lenin was radicalized by the execution of his brother Aleksandr Ulyanov, for the attempted assassination of Tsar Alexander the Third.