That you are.
The alt-right was a doomed idea from the start - formed by Nazis and Neo-Nazis chomping at the bit to indulge every bit of rage and hate in their hearts...to, I'll borrow their phrase, chimp out. They were waiting, eagerly, to find a cause innocuously named enough to escape the stigma of what they were, and then be able to engage in violence. That is all they ever were, all they ever will be, and why nothing good will ever emerge from that festooning overgrown privy.
No argument here. They're racist bastards, no matter how they try to dress it up.
I am a white guy.
I'm not threatened in the least or intimidated by a bunch of rag articles written by people at Salon.
They do produce rage and fear in the hearts and minds of those too utterly feeble-minded to imagine a world that isn't what they grew up with. These articles you produced only incite fear in the hearts and minds of feeble-minded men who are by their words, nomenclature and actions named "louts".
I'd ask you to have a little empathy, but since you're literally incapable of that, I'm just going to say you sound like you're about to pitch eugenics.
And I have NO sympathy whatsoever from brawling Trump Supporters or those who get into action against Anti-Fa - they elected this rampaging moron, and so I will not feel a shred of sympathy for them at all.
As for the death of Rural America, I can't really say I care. I have family out there - still can't say I care.
Of course not. You're a self-admitted sociopath.
I suggest you don't give even this much of implied credit to Anal Paragon's stance by calling them "rag articles". In the context of the rest of the articles none of those headlines are offensive. Provocative, definitely. Yes, if a white writer wrote the same headlines about black people it would be a racist act even if the intended message wasn't. Privilege has its consequences and communication doesn't happen in a void where words and people have no social and historical context that influence the actual message sent.
Do you think "privilege" automatically negates racism? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like that's what you're implying. If I'm misunderstanding you, then I apologize in advance.
And no, it wasn't just the headlines that were offensive. Let's take a look at some choice quotes.
The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.
Collectively holding white men responsible for countless atrocities that have happened over the course of 500 years. If collectively holding Jews responsible for the death of Jesus is anti-Semitic, then isn't this racist?
By way of example, a recurring concern of those responding to the Times’ Woodrow Wilson op-ed was, “Where will it all end? Will we have to destroy Mount Rushmore?” some asked. Maybe we should. Not just because it honors slave owners Jefferson and Washington, Mount Rushmore is also a powerful symbol of brutality and racism toward indigenous people.
Not only does he dismiss Washington and Jefferson as mere "slave owners," but he outright says that maybe Mount Rushmore should be destroyed.
I could go on, but I'd like to think you'll get the point.
But if you want more than just articles,
the BBC had "ethnic-only" training placements last year. Before you ask, no, the rejected applicants were not actors seeking parts intended for characters of color. They were seeking script writing roles.