This is an excellent reply. I was about to say something similar.

My sense is that OP and a number of commenters in this thread are denouncing the article not because it has any truth to it, but simply because it exists.

There is a deep ideological belief amongst 'liberals' that automatically dismisses any notion put forward by 'alt-right' or opposing view using perjorative labels.

You're right here--the article is a glossary and guide to the memetic conventions the alt-right use in their internal culture. And there is no indication that any of the definitions are wrong. That means the article can be useful in understanding interaction with them when it happens.

But to be honest, it won't matter. No one on either side is interested in communication. We have reached an 'us versus them' point in which the battle lines are drawn and each has assembled their own frame of reference, facts, and truth.

How we can tell this is that despite the recent successes of groups perhaps linked to the alt-right in elections, and the growing nationalist movements in politics, 'liberals' patently refuse to do any meaningful interspection.

Instead of saying 'why aren't we appealing to people when we are clearly a better choice and force for good in the world', liberals are simply blaming the people who didn't come to this conclusion. They are intent on smearing them instead.

By the way 'cuck' did not mean 'race traitor'. It meant someone acting against their own interests. From what I saw it was used against conservatives who wouldn't join the cause and liberals of any kind.

TBH, if r/the_donald was anything to go by, the racism element was quite overblown by the 'liberal' msm as an easy fixation. Even if the alt-right are racist (not saying they aren't) the real driving force behind their movement is two things:

• a feeling that there is a growing movement to label white men as the source of all problems; also to punish them for being white men

• an assault on the normative way of life by SJWs and others intent on redefining it totally. The notion of PC fits here, immigration issues fit there, as well as religious (Islam) issues fit here. It also implies a move toward open borders and globalism that will further allow 'elites' to profit while the lives of hardworking people are destroyed.

For fear of this devolving into a discussion on whether the alt-right are motivated by hate or some 'ism', like any movement there are some elements of truth to some of their various points. In fact, without engaging in dialogue to identify and challenge the parts that are blatant lies, it simply makes it easy for both sides to dismiss the commentary of the other as being partisan 'spin'.

It seems to me that if 'liberals' want to stop the alt-right, they need to stop playing into their hand.