Whether they wrote "he's a racist" or not they are heavily implying it by associating him with racism, as you just did, and the alt-right. I don't see a meaningful difference, especially given the source.
Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative.
As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits.
But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.
My point is that you said they did. If they actually did not, then it comes across like you are putting words into their mouth. Do you see how this comes across as part of a criticism which says they themselves are over-interpreting the data?
"it seemed to me"
And it seemed to me it was an outright racist statement. Even if somehow it was not, it was definitely an own-goal given the heavy scrutiny he faces. I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm.
It's like the justification, after someone has made a horribly racist, bigoted, sexist, or otherwise insensitive statement that "it was only a joke" - where is the humor? Furthermore, people do use "jokes" as a way to test the water; a 'trial balloon'.
Since you don't think he's racist, then in the context of a thread on his seemingly racist statements, would it not be appropriate to address the topic at hand, rather than simply say that you don't think he's a racist?
"I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source."
Then you should have said so outright. Your previous statement only said that you didn't think there was enough information to conclude that he is a racist. I agree, the SPLC doesn't provide enough information to make that conclusion. But that wasn't their claim, nor did you say anything beyond their analysis of this one situation.
To restate your own words: "I don't really care to defend [the SPLC] and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content [they produce]. I do follow [others who do], and from what I've gathered, while certainly [more sensitive than I am and not immune to error], [they are not unusually dishonest or untrustworthy]."
> I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm.
Well, that is the root of the disagreement (and one of the main issues with this whole fiasco). When you isolate opposing side enough, you can paint them in whatever way you want, because "I cannot understand them, therefore I assume worst interpretation possible" sounds so logical to you . . .
But from the context given in comments I see just how bad the ban is, and how detached from reality are these judgments of Sargon et al. But you will keep shunning him, understand him even less, and make more opponents to progressive cause ...
Streissand effect in full power. It makes me really sad, as I hate modern right wing ideas.
Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative.
As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits.
But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.