Or do I misread your post?
Even if I misread that point, you didn't answer the question. The question was, do you have evidence beyond SPLC and Wikipedia. And you responded with... something that certainly wasn't evidence.
Note well: I don't have a dog in this fight. Proud Boys may well be fascist, far right, alt-right, or whatever. All I'm saying is, the request was for evidence, and you assumed the conclusion, but didn't supply evidence.
My question for you is: why aren't you, renowned dog non-haver in this fight, asking for evidence for the only person in this conversation who provided none?
As to the first part of your comment, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you misinterpreted my observation like that.
The original article made a claim. I don't think, in discussing such an article, that it's fair to immediately assume that it's bad faith to ask for evidence for the claim. Nor do I think that, when someone points out that your evidence is shoddy, and asks if you have any better evidence, that the correct answer is "you didn't supply any". (The actual answer to the question would appear to be "No, I don't".)
So I don't like your style of argument here. You're awfully quick to accuse the other side; that's not a good attitude to bring to HN. (They may in fact have been "just asking questions", but that shouldn't have been your assumption right out of the gate. "Assume good faith", as the HN guidelines say.)
> As to the first part of your comment, I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you misinterpreted my observation like that.
Well, then we're even, because I couldn't figure out what
>> Your rambling comment devoid of sources, on the other hand, is academic material on the matter.
was trying to say. I made a guess - apparently a wrong one. But even knowing that the guess was wrong, I don't know what you were actually trying to say.