What you are saying is you do in fact "take issue" with them voicing their opinions because they are RW and for that reason you erroneously believe they cannot support their opinions with facts. You are further assuming that facts are the sole property of you and your "party" and there isn't a conservative on the planet who can produce one.

Shall we even mention the thousands of sites frequented, if not haunted, by LW nut cases?

As the wise man said, "There are two sides to every story, but only one side to every fact."

Well, this is America so you're free to remain ignorant, biased, and bigoted at your own peril. You have plenty of company. I always thought liberals were supposed to be so open-minded and search for t***h, no matter where it originates. I guess that is just another l*****t talking point to fool people. I take the time to look at and consider the links you post. You could have the same consideration if you're really sincere about wanting honest, t***hful, and open discussion. But obviously, you don't. Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you are afraid your entire worldview may be shaken to its core and you'll find out you have been wrong about many things?

Continued 2/2

Wikipedia wrote:

"Parler is noted for its far-right and alt-right,[12] antisemitic,[15] and anti-feminist content.[28] Posts also include anti-Muslim content,[28] although Parler also has a substantial user base of Saudi nationalists who support Crown Prince and de facto prime minister of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.[4] Both The Independent and The Forward have noted the presence of antisemitic content on the site.[7][11] Parler CEO John Matze told The Forward he was unaware of antisemitic content on Parler, but was unsurprised that it was there. He believes removing h**eful content only further radicalizes people, saying, "If you're going to fight these peoples' views, they need to be out in the open.... Don't force these people into the corners of the internet where they're not going to be able to be proven wrong." Political scientist Alison Dagnes has said of Parler's stance on speech on the platform: "I don't think you can have it both ways.... There is no such thing as civilized h**e speech."[7] Extremism expert Chip Berlet said of Matze's opinions on h**eful content: "I think he’s full of it.... I think he knows exactly what he’s creating, he’s encouraging people who basically don’t like other folks in the country... it's bologna, this is a place for people to fester in their own bigotry."[7]

Many posts on Parler contain misinformation and conspiracy theories.[19] Parler has said they will not fact check posts on the platform, a decision BBC News says has allowed misinformation to spread more easily on the platform than on mainstream social networks. In particular, BBC News noted the presence of posts spreading the Q***n conspiracy theory, as well as misinformation surrounding the 2020 US p**********l e******n, C****-**, child trafficking, and v*****es.[5] The Verge noted in November 2020 that Parler had become a "central hub" for the "Stop the Steal" conspiracy theory relating to the 2020 US p**********l e******n.[50] The Forward and The Bulwark observed the presence of antisemitic conspiracy theories as well as others.[9][7]

Parler has served as an echo chamber for far-right or pro-Trump content, according to The Independent, the New Statesman, and Fast Company.[8][57][58] In mid-2020, alt-right activist and Trump supporter Jack Posobiec compared the service to a Trump rally, saying that Parler lacks the "energy" that Twitter draws from having communities of people with differing viewpoints.[29][59] Around the same time, extremism researcher and professor Amarnath Amarasingam said of Parler, "talking to yourself in the dark corners of the internet is actually not that satisfying," and that he was skeptical Parler would excite the far right without left-leaning users with whom they can interact and fight.[24] In June 2020, Matze said he wanted to see more debate on the platform and offered a "progressive bounty" of $10,000 to liberal pundits with at least 50,000 Twitter or Facebook followers who would join; receiving no takers, he later increased this amount to $20,000.[40][29]

Jason Blazakis, the director of the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute, told The Hill in November 2020 that he thought that extreme users migrating to Parler was a good thing: "these people are leaving those platforms and no longer trying to red pill individuals to see their conspiracy theories on large platforms like Facebook and Twitter". He said that Parler's size might result in a smaller audience for those pushing conspiracy theories and spreading misinformation.[60] Angelo Carusone, president of the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America, has said of Parler, "The self-segmenting of this group to Parler will intensify their extremism. No doubt about that. But it will also weaken the influence of the right wing by siphoning off a segment of users, many of whom will be the most engaged users."[18]

Parler is one of a number of alternative social network platforms, including Minds, MeWe, Gab, and B***hute, that are popular with people banned from mainstream networks such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and Instagram.[61][62] Deen Freelon and colleagues writing in Science characterized Parler as among alt-tech websites and services that are "dedicated to right-wing communities", and listed the service along with 4chan, 8chan, B***hute, and Gab. They noted there are also more ideologically neutral alt-tech services, such as Discord and Telegram.[63]"


Awful lot of mentions of "Donald Trump supporters", "conservatives", "right-wing extremists", "far-right", "conspiracy theories like Q***n", "popular among people who have been banned from mainstream social networks or oppose their moderation policies.", "Parler markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks", " Dan Bongino", "conservative activist Candace Owens", "The service initially attracted some Republican personalities including former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, Utah Senator Mike Lee, and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and some who were banned from other social media networks such as the far-right activists and commentators Gavin McInnes, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos.", "alt-right", "antisemitic" and "anti-feminist", to believe it is anything but a meeting place for wingnuts. There was much more but I got tired of copying and pasting...

What you are saying is you do in fact "take issue" with them voicing their opinions because they are RW and for that reason you erroneously believe they cannot support their opinions with facts. You are further assuming that facts are the sole property of you and your "party" and there isn't a conservative on the planet who can produce one.

Shall we even mention the thousands of sites frequented, if not haunted, by LW nut cases?

As the wise man said, "There are two sides to every story, but only one side to every fact."