> But if the (suspiciously articulate) kid goes from alt-right to antifa, I don't think that's any sort of progress to be applauded. I interpreted the article's point to be that alt-right is just emotionally hurt people venting online, and they do antics for attention and the media latches on to it to sell clicks, even if it's all BS.
I would point out that there is quite a difference between "anti-fa" and "counter-protester", just as there is between a conservative and being a white nationalist. One of those differences is the ability to see shades of grey in both "your side" and "the other side".
you say:
> I interpreted the article's point to be that alt-right is just emotionally hurt people venting online, and they do antics for attention and the media latches on to it to sell clicks, even if it's all BS.
I think it is less "emotionally hurt" and more "emotionally vulnerable and alienated". It also isn't all BS. There are nuggets of insight and truth buried in all the bile and lies.
the article says:
> Sam pledged fealty to the idea of men’s rights because, as he said, his former administrator had privileged girls’ words and experiences over boys’, and that’s how all of his troubles had started in the first place. I’d never in my life backed the “masculinist” cause or imagined that men needed protecting—yet I couldn’t help but agree with Sam’s analysis.
you say:
> But if that's the case, the best way to handle it is not to counter-protest, but just to hear out the fears and insecurities.
There is room for both and when done well, they are the same thing. A single brave counter protester helped open a young man's eyes with courage, integrity and compassion. Would a horde of black masked militant "anti-fa" protestors have had the same effect?
I strongly believe that using hate, rejection and isolation to fight against hate is counter-productive and destined to a a failure. Compassion and courage on the other hand...