More Fake News! How Untrustworthy Are Hard Right Websites? THIS Untrustworthy….

How are these for headlines and web news stories?

Apparently the candidates debates have caused amass amnesia about what competitive debating is all about...

Apparently the candidates debates have caused amass amnesia about what competitive debating is all about…

Students support ‘affirmative suicide’ to combat ‘white privilege’ (Red Alert Politics) “The myths of white privilege and institutionalized racism have engulfed nearly every college campus in the country including Harvard University …”

VIDEO: Students debate at Harvard whether whites should kill themselves (eag news) “White lives do not matter, according to a student debater/activist …”

BLM activist advocates white genocide at Harvard  (All Lives Matter) “Video for Harvard white suicide…”

BLM activist advocates white genocide at Harvard … (Daily Wire)  “Debater At Harvard Says White People Should Kill Themselves… Harvard caught in anti-Trump, “death to whites” cover-up”

Debater At Harvard Says White People Should Kill Themselves Because Of Their White Privilege (Louder with Crowder) “Harvard Tries Hiding ‘Debate’ Video: ‘Kill Yourself over White Privilege …”

Activist: White People Should Kill Themselves to Atone For ‘White Privilege’ (Alex Jones’ Infowars): “Student debate highlights shocking anti-white racism at Harvard University”

Good heavens! What’s going on at Harvard?

The answer: Nothing whatsoever.

Despite the implications of the inflammatory deceit, misrepresentation and outright lies in the above online stories (and others):

  • Harvard students said nothing about suicide at all. The esteemed university was hosting a debate competition, and the statements that sparked this foolishness were made by debaters from the University of West Georgia


  • No Black Lives Matter activists were involved.


  • The statements about white suicide were not made in the context of activism, or is an attempt to promote suicide.


  • The “debate” was a formal collegiate competition held at Harvard.


  • The debaters were advocating an assigned position, which is what happens in a debate competition. This wasn’t like a candidates “debate.” The debaters’ arguments did not necessarily have any relationship with their real opinions or positions. Scholastic debating is designed to highlight advocacy skills.


  • Harvard wasn’t covering up anything. College students assigned to advocate controversial propositions  in a competition should not have to see their statements exploited for political smear value for the rest of their lives. Nobody has the right to see this video.


  • Most ludicrous of all, the debate competition took place in 2012! That’s right: before Black Lives Matter existed. Before the current political correctness and racial divisiveness outbreak in colleges across the country.

The entire story was manufactured to suggest something happened that didn’t, and to enrage and frighten the pathetically uninformed patrons of these far-right sites. I suppose, given the unprofessional and hysterical tone of these virtual rags on a daily basis, that the authors of the deceptive pieces might really misunderstand the academic activity called “debating,” perhaps because their own college diplomas came from matchbook cover special offers.

The whole point of debating competitions is to challenge students to advocate a proposition that they don’t believe in personally. I was on a debate team that had to advocate Communism as the “fairest” form of government. I was in junior high at the time. If there was a video, Alex Jones would headline this after school lark as “Kiddie Communists Indoctrinate Fellow Students In Massachusetts Suburb!”

The stories, in short, are complete fabrications—lies. This is not news, and the “facts” have been intentionally framed and distorted to to fit a political agenda.

Anyone who follows any of these sites is actively involved in making themselves stupid. A website that publishes a fake story like this should have no readers at all.


Pointer: joed68


10 thoughts on “More Fake News! How Untrustworthy Are Hard Right Websites? THIS Untrustworthy….

  1. Whatcha wanna bet the self proclaimed epitome of ethical behavior, Donald Trump, will reference this outrageously false story in a speech to inflame the throngs of idiots in his cult; oops, I meant to say, spread peace and harmony throughout the world.

    • I was thinking exactly the same thing. He might have re-tweeted it already. I saw one of these stories linked somewhere and thought, “What? This can’t be right.” Sure enough, it wasn’t.

  2. A few far right websites were also fooled last week by a terrible “satire” website which falsely claimed that a black Trump supporter was beaten to death by BLM activists outside a Trump rally. This was the same day those same websites were falsely accusing the moron who rushed Trump’s stage of being a part of ISIS. Too many people will believe whatever fits their narrative.

    • In those cases, it has nothing to do with ideology. Both stories are plausible, if awful, and one need not be an asshole or idiot to believe them; one could simply not be on guard at the exact moment the headline pops up, and think it true.

  3. The right-wing blogs made a big stink about this West Georgia team back in 2012-13. That team won a lot of debates and made it to the national finals using this argument. In competitive debate, success, not truth, is the measure of an argument’s value. In fact, the most outlandish arguments can sometimes be the most successful. Nobody in the debate world would assume that the argument reflects the speaker’s true beliefs.

    Thinking back on my own days in debate, I once saw a team from Harvard advocate “7-foot candles” as a means for addressing the oil crisis. I believe they claimed that a 7-foot candle with 4 wicks would provide cost-effective illumination for one month sufficient for comfortable reading in a 10-foot by 10-foot room. To opponents who argued that was preposterous, they said, “Prove it,” backing their claim with a blur of misleading data and broken syllogisms. It was a trap for unwary opponents, who could easily waste a big chunk of their allocated time untangling the bogus argument to prove its falsity.

    • I love it. Making an ignorant stink about debate propositions is bad enough at the time—coming back years later and doing it all over again is really bad. Seven foot candles, eh? Hmmmmm….

    • Well, now we know where all these deceitful news outlets learned how to confuse people: debate team!

      I recognize how valuable it is to give people practice in presenting decent arguments for any point of view, so that they can provide themselves and others with information they need to make a more informed decision. However, it is also being misused in order to give people the ability to find a superficially convincing argument for almost literally any opinion, so they don’t have to update their point of view. Is incentivizing deceit in pursuit of a designated agenda really something we want to do? Can we come up with a more constructive way to manifest the honorable practice of zealous advocacy? Or at least emphasize the honorable part?

  4. I don’t think anyone will ever be able to mention debates without my mind wandering to the operational abortion which was the 2014 CEDA finals.

    How this was sold by SJWs:

    “Cross-examination debate, also known as policy debate, is a notoriously elite, white academic sport.

    Unfortunately, Johnson’s and Ruffin’s auspicious victory has been marred by right-wing trolls in the debate community and well-meaning white liberals, too, who have mischaracterized and minimized their victory, attributing their win to white liberal guilt, rather than meritorious performance.”

    They called that vulgar throat singing a “meritorious performance.”

    “Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.”

    “Joe Leeson Schatz, Director of Speech and Debate at Binghamton University, is encouraged by the changes in debate style and community. “Finally, there’s a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others,” he said. “Arguments don’t necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experience.” ”

    The Director of Speech and Debate. At a University. Is Encouraged. By students throat screaming about “nigga authnticity” and breaking rules.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.