In a tweet specifically meant to belittle their significance this strikes me as an exceedingly generous reading
-
-
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC @MattBors
i see it as meant to belittle how much media airtime/deference they get -- and with that comes the watered-down language used to describe them
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
I've always thought the term undeservedly imputes a kind of grand ideological vision to them, and thereby inflates their significance, which then leads to wildly disproportionate media attention
3 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
What term would you prefer? Is neonazi or white supremacist ok?
2 replies 0 retweets 32 likes -
How about "racist losers"?
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Ah what I suspected. We’re not allowed to use any labels that would correctly identify the threat they pose or the severity of their ideology. e.g. soft-peddling new-nazis, sort of your beat.
1 reply 3 retweets 98 likes -
I don't know, I've always felt that needlessly inflating their significance with undeserved media attention and elaborate, ideologically-dense labels was actually giving them exactly what they wanted
13 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Well most of them follow you so why don’t you ask them
7 replies 0 retweets 68 likes -
Just a pathetically bad faith attack that doesn't even warrant a response. I've always engaged you respectfully but apparently that's become impossible on Twitter
8 replies 1 retweet 36 likes
I appreciate his perspective as well and am dismayed at how quickly exchanges like this devolve into useless sniping
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.