> who are not representing the real emotions people feel here. Which is almost certainly tolerant indifference.
Is that indifference coming from a place of awareness, or a place of ignorance of the whole situation? If the content of these websites was brought to light - without any sort of commentary - do you seriously think the public would still look at these sites with indifference?
> They're telling people how to think, not what is happening. People who do that are untrustworthy.
It depends on intention. And also: what is happening here that they aren't reporting?
Nazi-ism won an election and had lots of influential foreigners who supported it. Communism also had widespread support. "Popularism" is currently a dirty word because the plebs often vote for the wrong person.
I just went over to look at one of the sites in question. Even with those sorry facts in mind, I still think the Daily Stormer would get indifference. It isn't a very inspiring website and the content appears to be stupid. Their current feature article is "Women are So Ugly" which is unlikely to do well at sparking a ... whatever it is they are meant to spark. Can't go very far without women.
Is that indifference coming from a place of awareness, or a place of ignorance of the whole situation? If the content of these websites was brought to light - without any sort of commentary - do you seriously think the public would still look at these sites with indifference?
> They're telling people how to think, not what is happening. People who do that are untrustworthy.
It depends on intention. And also: what is happening here that they aren't reporting?