That's bullshit: a complete reversal of the actual argument.
I just said "conservative". And conservative = 40% of the nation, plus another 20% who are moderates with conservative leanings. Trekkin then jumps to "they bomb synagogues". Based on one word, "conservative".
Calling out far-right stuff is one thing, but you guys say you can't see any difference at all between a far right person and a center-right moderate. They're all synagogue-bombing murderers - a backhanded way of saying "everyone except our little band of card-carrying liberals are Nazis". Here's a note: there are a higher proportion of self-identifying conservative Democrats than self-identifying liberal Republicans. Go on, drive the "conservatives" out and see how that fares for your party.
Pointing out how dumb this is, is in no way the same as saying "Stop calling shitty people shitty people". You guys assume everyone except for the 20% of the nation who are liberals are just as shitty as the shittiest person, and that's counter-productive
to liberalism. It's sweet fucking gold to the far right however. I'm sure they're happy for you to keep carrying on attacking the moderates (who Trekkin apparently considers Nazi-lite).
the problem is the ideological purity bullshit that's taken over. For example, the "two genders" vs "gender spectrum" debate. The liberals have made it clear that anyone who believes there are two genders (a pretty standard belief mind you, since the dawn of history) is now "rebranded" as some sort of Nazi-sympathizer. That's the attitude. That's the sort of thing that is driving the rise of alt-right media on youtube and similar. The issue is that when balanced sources are willing to discuss both sides of the issue they get labeled as "alt-right". Even Laci Green is called "alt-right" now, because she debated people outside the "sjw though bubble". I wouldn't even consider the people she was debating with as being that far to the right. Many of them are skeptics about social justice movements, but their politics tends to be pretty left-leaning, e.g. socialists, anarchists, atheists, etc. By calling Philip DeFranco* or The Amazing Atheist "alt-right" you're basically
conceding an entire swathe of middle-ground to the "right" as their territory.
Youtube video: "Philip DeFranco - Alt-Right Racist"The backstory is a feminist group called a CNN reporter Alt-Right, because he didn't cover a story to their liking, then Philip DeFranco called out that group, because they support a historic black terrorist group who killed police officers. So, videos then get made saying that Philip DeFranco is an "alt-right racist" and that he's whitewashed the history. However, the person making
this video makes a number of glaring historical mistakes, for example saying that Cointelpro was by the CIA (actually, it was FBI). And the guy
also omits the
entire litany of violence acts which the black terrorist group actually carried out, and which includes planting bombs in the funerals of police officers, or setting off bombs as a diversion, then breaking into the near-deserted police station and murdering an officer working at a desk. The problem is that when the Alt-Right label is aimed at just about everyone, including
Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, then "alt-right" no longer means Nazi, it means "reasonable person". At that point, you've ceded that ground to the alt-right.