> That's funny, because I was just thinking the problem was the tendency for people to look at an opinion and immediately apply partisan politics to it.

I don't think we disagree here. I think another way to state what you said is that one of the problems is a failure to recognize nuance, a tendency to reduce everything to binary choices.

> Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it

I rejected the question because, to me, it implied a binary "is racist/is not racist" choice. After all, when it comes to the media and public opinion, that issue is binary. There's no "a little bit racist," or "can seem racist from some perspectives," or "some people think he's racist but there's room to disagree on the interpretation"--no, when it comes to the media, it's either 100% racist, or not racist at all. And to be safely declared the latter, one must avoid even mentioning certain words and phrases, any one of which means being permanently, irreversibly labeled with one of several different -isms. It's like the media's equivalent of a sex offender list: say the wrong thing, and you're on it for life.

Anyway, if you want to ask a more nuanced question, or clarify what you meant, I don't mind discussing it further.

> I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.

It's disappointing that it seems that way, yes. I certainly disagree with both, even though I lean toward one platform more than the other.

> I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic.

Okay. I've been watching that mockery for the last 8 years--you know, with the IRS being turned into a political weapon; the DoJ being used to incite societal unrest; State sending our avowed enemies, who call for "death to America!", many millions of dollars in cash on a secret overseas flight; the DoE issuing decrees to local school districts, threatening to recall federal funding unless they run their bathrooms a certain way--things like that. Those things disturb and embarrass me as an American.

> The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did.

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the "alt-right" is simply a concoction of the media (and Wikipedia is heavily biased toward the left, so I reject it as a source). No one was talking about it before the election season. No one mentioned it during the primaries. It's yet another made-up basket that the leftist media can toss people into whom they want to denigrate. It's basically their pet bogeyman, which they feed with lies and half-truths, fattening it up for the continual slaughter in an endless cycle. In a few months they'll realize that, just as with their constant chanting of "racist/sexist/bigot/deploraphobe", most of the public isn't listening anymore, and then they'll invent a new basket to toss people into.

So, anyway, thanks for the civil discussion. It's more than some people around here are willing or capable of. :/

The problem is it's impossible to have a discussion with you. Any source of information that I have is going to be discredited as biased (based on what proof? I don't know, I guess just that "this election proves it" - whatever the hell that means).

So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased? What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes? How'd you find it and how do you verify it?

You're being unfair here.

> The problem is it's impossible to have a discussion with you.

I have explicitly agreed to continue the discussion if you will ask more-specific questions. You respond by saying that it's impossible to have a discussion with me. Which of us is now refusing discussion?

> Any source of information that I have is going to be discredited as biased

You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does. You then leaped to the conclusion that any source you provide will be discredited. Again, it is you who are refusing to further the discussion, and you are making up excuses to try to justify it. Why bother responding at all if this is how you're going to respond?

Note that I haven't provided any references of my own, nor have I requested that you do so. This isn't an academic journal, it's a casual discussion on the Internet. There isn't any audience now, and neither of us have anything to prove to anyone. If you want to talk some more, have a pleasant, civil discussion, share ideas and hopefully come to a better understanding of each other's views, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. But if you're not, please don't make up excuses based on unfounded accusations to make it sound like I'm at fault.

It's beginning to sound like you are avoiding discussion because I have challenged your views and made you uncomfortable. Whether that's the case or not, of course, only you can say. But if you're really interested in searching for the truth, understanding other perspectives, etc, then you're going about it the wrong way.

> (based on what proof? I don't know, I guess just that "this election proves it" - whatever the hell that means).

Now you're putting words in my mouth. You are imagining that you are having a discussion with someone else, someone you actually know or have discussed with before. I am not that person, and I haven't said those things.

> So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased?

Every source is biased, because every person is biased. That's how humans are. The questions are then, 1) to what extent a source is biased, and 2) whether you have explored a variety of sources to attempt to compensate for bias. If you only read sources that are biased in a certain way, then your own views are probably going to be similarly biased.

> What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered

I read and listen to a variety of sources, as I hope you do.

> while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes?

If you really want to talk about this, it would be better to talk about specific topics. Sweeping statements about one group or the other being generally deceived aren't very useful, whether accurate or not; they are nearly always "preaching to the choir" and not useful for overcoming bias.

> How'd you find it and how do you verify it?

This, of course, is the most important question: with the overwhelming amount of information available to us, how do we verify the information we take in? Books have been written about this. Suffice to say here that the first step is to be skeptical of everything you hear, especially on the Internet, and especially regarding politics, and especially surrounding an election, and especially given how the recent election has demonstrated the media's extreme bias (remember, even the media itself has admitted this; see Will Rahn's commentary on CBS News, the recent op-ed by the NYT, etc).

Ok, anyway, if you want to keep talking, cool. If not, cheers.

You just move the goal post 10 yards in a different direction every time you respond. That's not a discussion.

When I see responses like this:

>You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does.

It's pretty clear you don't understand the basics of how wikipedia works. There's no point in discussing with you.