And you believe that wikipedia entry for the Proud Boys is an unbiased presentation? Laughable.

The head of the Proud Boys is not white, so it's hard to imagine them being too serious about "white supremacy."

No, I of course believe the zero proof you presented.

3 seconds of googling, et voila:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio

Neither SPLC nor Wikipedia are authoritative sources, it is quite possible that the article on the latter is written and (to use a term which has become popular recently) "colonised" by people associated with the former. SPLC had their purpose when they fought the KKK but they lost track when that enemy was defeated. Now they are just like a label printer run amok, calling people like Maajid Nawaz (muslim, founder of Quilliam, wants to reform islam to get rid of its autocratic and violent tendencies) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "islamophobe" while raking in money.

Do you have a better source for calling the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? I realise it is hard to find an objective source on this subject but such a source is needed and a definition of what exactly is meant with "right-wing extremism" is needed as well. These terms are bandied about just like they don't mean anything, in the same way as "white ___" (fill in the blanks) and the terms "__-phobe" and "___ist" are used.

So, what makes the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? The fact that they mostly show up to fight "anarchist/left-wing extremists" like Antifa? That is not a good reason, Antifa uses the same tactics as the Italian black shirts and the SA (Sturmabteilung) - in other words, as the real fascists and fascism-inspired national socialists. Their political ideology may differ (they claim to be anarchists but they behave more like syndicalists) but that does not mean they should be allowed to roam free.

SPLC and Wikipedia are not authoritative. Your rambling comment devoid of sources, on the other hand, is academic material on the matter. It really makes you think to see so many accounts created a few minutes ago suddenly appearing to defend a neo-fascist movement.

Holy non sequitur, Batman! Are you really claiming that Proud Boys are fascist because felle_realist's account was recently created?

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.

Consider the following: the person who questioned the authority of my sources provided no evidence for doing so, but you, that don't have a dog in this fight, are specifically asking me to defend against this baseless criticism?

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 top post in this thread was someone asking what made Proud Boys far right. You responded with an accusation of bad faith, and supplied SPLC and Wikipedia as evidence. Then someone said that those sources weren't solid, and asked if you had better sources. You responded by criticizing both accounts for being new, and for not supplying sources themselves, but with no better evidence. (I note with some irony how new your own account is.)

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.

I don’t think you understood my position: I categorically refuse to waste time looking for more sources for someone who critised the first ones I used without providing sources themselves to back up that criticism. It just boils down to having self-respect. If you ever find yourself in my situation I advise you to do the same (I still find your position of asking me instead of them for more evidence to be weird, but I won’t try to understand it on account of the aforementioned not wanting to waste my time).