68% of the top links on Facebook since September are in support of Donald Trump
businessofbusiness.com
businessofbusiness.com
He also claims he is not alt right, not homophobic, and not racist. So there is that.
If the left orthodoxy means treating people equally, sign me up.
> very smart
This is the guy who endorsed Trump in October 2020 for another four year term because “he’s already done all the damage he can, he can’t do anything more”. Genius.
If we all understand that this is actually (under the law) what MOST people want we'll be able to get along.
>What’s valuable about homophobia? What’s intellectually honest about hating people for their sexual orientation and advocating for discrimination against them?
I just started looking this up to write this comment. I was curious about it and I wanted to be as correct as I can. Ben Shapiro believes that contractually, under the law, homosexuality should be allowed. Full Stop. This is a very libertarian perspective. It's the idea that no matter what I personally believe due to my religion, you can and should be able to legally do what you want as long as it doesn't affect others (throwing that in for the abortion argument).
Personally, Ben Shapiro is a homophobe. Politically, he is not. He's pro-equality of opportunity and recognition under the law.
As someone who grew up really religious, I can understand how he justifies this idea. You are indoctrinated to hate the sin and love the sinner. This does not always come out the way it's supposed to, and leads to homophobia which I believe is evil and a reason I left religion. However, this dualism allows for one to strive for political equality, while still spouting homophobic ideas.
This is a very fine line to draw on a topic like this, but I think it's important for us to recognize if we're ever going to get less divided hateful towards each other. Most people, even bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. want equality. They want the government to give them the same rights as anyone else and to be left alone. They want their rallies, protests, sermons, etc. In order to get that they recognize (at least people like Shapiro do) that they need to fight a cultural war instead of a political one on this stuff.
It doesn't mean that those ideas are ok for people to personally have, but it does mean that we can work together to agree on a lot of shit, make progress.
tl;dr; Don't hate people on the other side of politics, talk to them.
Can you provide any evidence he does any of these things?
What % of people on the right would you consider alt-right? What % of people on the left would you consider alt-left?
Not the GP, but the 'alt' prefix to me seems to invoke the similar usage in the term 'alternative' music like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc, which were an 'alternative' to pop music from the 80s and 90s. The prefix suggests a change of type and not just a change of degree. They aren't just "more conservative Republicans".
This is why it applies more to the right than the left in today's social discourse, since the spectrum on the left is still more a matter of degree than kind.
In the context of the right, this change of type means abandonment of traditional establishment Republican stances like free trade and foreign interventionism in near totality, and the promotion of previously fringe movements within the right like ethnic nationalism (often under the guise of 'economic nationalism').
I do disagree about a change of type not happening on the left. I see a very large rift developing on the left around whether to honor classically liberal values or not.
I do think the trends in 'alt' usage are predominately aimed at the right as more of a pejorative towards the outgroup, and less of a descriptive term. You can see a snapshot of the vast disparity in usage here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Alt-right,...
If I were to wager a guess, I'd guess that the targets of the term 'alt-right' would rarely accept that description of their politics. Whereas 'right' or 'conservative' or 'social conservative' or similar terms would have a high acceptance rate for those that are being called it. 'Alt' has become a pejorative in everyday use (at least in the liberal circles that I run in).
I am a proponent of aiming for accuracy when trying to describe other people's politics, and being charitable whenever possible.
If I see a group of people using words to describe another group of people in a way that purposely misrepresents them, particularly in a negative way, I think that's something worth calling out.
I don't have the nihilistic take that "if you can't 100% accurately describe something, then it's okay to not even try".
My personal take would be that alt right is a rightwing suberversion of traditional american conservatism. In addition to largely white identity politics, there's also a strong push for anti-establishment, and indifference to traditional norms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
> The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, antifeminism, homophobia, and Islamophobia.
The core underlying theme is that 'alt' gets used as a pejorative towards your outgroup. Your descriptions of the right here are quite uncharitable, which is a strong signal of your biased thinking.
You also conveniently didn't answer my question about % of the right you'd classify as 'alt-right' and the % of the left that you'd classify as 'alt-left'. I suspect the reason you chose not to is because of that same bias. It would make clear that you use 'alt' as a pejorative selectively towards your outgroup.
You lack perspective.
Sounds like a classic case of the "flat-earth society that has members all around the globe".
In any case, it doesn't get much more fact free and hypocritical than that.
What the hell is alt-right anyways? As in, what are the fundamental principles of its ideology?
I think he has apologised for that one but it still shows some genuine racism.
Do you take into account any counter-evidence when making such a deduction?
*edit: Responding to a comment below,
> I very much doubt he even won the election
We have to be extremely careful when alleging election fraud. I think that may be perceived to be divisive. It would be more fruitful to directly link to the individual allegations instead:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/12/what-youve-been-asking-f...
In 2 days, SCOTUS will hear some of these cases:
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
If this were a sports game there would be yellow and red flags all over this incident.
-No talking politics
-No overuse of anonymous accounts
-Be Kind,
-Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive
I really like that last one.
As I'm not a moderator please just consider this a friendly reminder that there is always a human on the other side of the keyboard, even the anonymous ones.
> The United States Supreme Court will be looking into election fraud lawsuits during its Feb. 19 conference. These lawsuits include two cases filed by the Trump campaign and one case, each filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Republican Representative Mike Kelly.
https://visiontimes.com/2021/02/17/the-supreme-court-will-lo...
It's time to read up on sociopathic personality traits because clearly something pertinent is being missed here.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-lette...
As we've seen repeatedly over the last year, the "science" follows whatever is convenient for democrats. Why should anyone listen to it?
And I don't think I need to state the obvious, but maybe I do: an open letter signed by 1200 healthcare professionals does not speak for the entire medical profession, in any way whatsoever. Healthcare is one of the largest employers in the US. And it certainly doesn't speak for scientific objectivity.
Yeah, the most hated man on the planet lost the election, how completely shocking.
There's a two party system in the US. Like every presidential election literally ever, both parties attract a lot of popular attention because.... there's only two parties.
So someone writes an alarming story that 68% of the kernel code is in such a broken state it actually doesn't even compile correctly. Ok, but what would that mean for such a weirdo, broken piece of software? That most users download, tinker, get frustrated and never come back? That Linus is incompetent? That there's one troll out there continually cloning master and breaking it to write a story about? That there's N such trolls?
To me, the only information to glean from that would be that this alt-git would be a massive pile of garbage.
The difference with Facebook is that its userbase doesn't have the competency or necessary source/data access to, say, leverage a hash to grab the goods and fork the thing into a non-stupid, workable piece of software. A non-negligible number of their users keep using it as a source of news.
The Qanon bullshit is basically a pentest that shows the content of this headline could literally be anything at all when it comes to Facebook. It'd be absurd to spend time discussing what exactly it is about Tom Hanks that makes people think he eats babies. The topic should be how the hell we are going to stop FAANG from enumerating through every socially destructive set of lucrative dark patterns before this stops.
Edit: clarification
Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience, it seems likely that their algorithms should represent the population.
68% pro Trump does not.
Young people stay away from Facebook by the droves... that is until they get married and start having kids. By then they're older and <gasp> more conservative.
The “ish” does a lot of work there.
> Unless Facebook has a strongly biased audience is
If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
In what way? The US is proveably 51.3% Democrat, 46.5% Republican. I was reducing significant digits because I don’t know the specific split for people who didn’t vote.
> If it doesn't, it would be one of the few media sources that didn't. Why wouldn't it?
Not sure your source on this one. Even Fox is only 53% Republicans, and MSNBC is only 62% Democratic (https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-...). This blows them away.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/328193/donald-trump-michelle-ob...
> Overall, 18% of Americans name Trump, 15% name Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci.
I do find it a tad bit curious that Biden, with a mere 6% approval rate, was certified to have won the election and Trump apparently lost it when he had thrice Biden's approval rate.
> Eighteen percent of the survey's respondents named Trump as their most admired man, compared to 15 percent who named Obama and 6 percent who named President-elect Joe Biden.
Going from "named the most admired by a plurality" to "the most admired" is exactly the same flaw as in first-past-the-post voting.