Or, are you under the impression that the media is truly independent and always tells the full truth in an unbiased manner, that no alternative media organization has ever legitimately exposed even a single mainstream narrative that was less than truthful?
How you can determine what I am or am not conflating based on my statement about a single media property and the guy behind it is beyond me.
We get it. You’re a fan. You don’t want to be a fan of an alt right guy. That’s your conundrum to work out, not mine.
Because you made up a serious accusation about someone, repeated it frequently, can't provide evidence to back it up, and that's disgusting?
> I haven't seen someone brag about their seniority on a website
Me neither! Who did that?
You seem to have confused me pointing out that your don't conform to expected behavior (because you don't) and saying you're new here (because you are) with bragging. It's just pointing out you're a bad person.
Have. Not your personal researcher.
>...don't conform to expected behavior...
And yet, my initial comment is doing just fine despite your suggestions people flag it. Hmm.
Comment moderation isn't a measure of ethics.
I thought this was about the expectations of a user on here? Now its about ethics? You must have strong legs to do all this jumping. You should try just saying what you mean the first time.
We don't want to have to ban you. Help us out and please stop and don't do this again.
Also, your recent comments have clearly been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That is also against HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please don't do that.
I was just asking, as there are people that truly seem to believe the "mainstream" media is indeed truthful. Some of my relatives, for example.
Some people think that this means they're "alt right", but all that means is that they don't know what "alt right" actually is at all. Both Curry and Dvorak are very classically liberal people, American individualists or perhaps libertarians, which is a totally different political theory than fascism. Of course, most people have no idea what "fascism" is, which is why they feel comfortable calling Totalitarian Liberalism fascism as though there were no differences.
No Agenda does encourage you to think about the news in a more nuanced way. But it deliberately supresses nuance in how it discusses the people in the news. Most of the people they discuss are not given any benefit of the doubt ever. That is not enlightening at all.
Ultimately I think there style has far more to do with feeding the community and generating donations than anything political.
Beyond that, and returning to the actual subject at hand, there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show. Perhaps in the early days. It has long since devolved in to a Trump apologist show, regurgitating Fox News and Breitbart talking points. You need only look to see where else Curry has appeared.
The alt-right is basically fascism, no? I don't mean in the normal online accusatory fashion, I mean in the "literally fans of Mussolini" fashion.
Or maybe we mean two different groups of people? I'm thinking of the folks involved with Charlottesville, etc. as opposed to the "alt lite" which is Ben Shapiro / Sargon / Cernovich and their ilk, who are distinct in the sense that they ostensibly disavow racism etc. and are more classical liberalists.
> , there is very little "deconstruction" -- to the extent that is a thing, in the show
That's a matter of opinion, I guess? I agree it has devolved since 2016, but there's still the occasional gem in there.
The 'purely media deconstruction' script was adopted when a Republican they liked became president. Suddenly the show became exclusively about criticizing the media's coverage of the Trump administration and all criticism of government was dropped or became about 'optics'.
Someone with a cynical streak would conclude that they always had an agenda.