Read an interesting article today.

Heywood · Feb 24, 2020

Pete F said:
The flip-side is that if they called it what it was, Facebook and Twitter would have shut it down in a heartbeat.

I am not condoning their ideals, but in order to exhibit their 1st Amendment rights, they have to use innocuous terms and language.

Exactly. People use the terms so they don't get censored by the tech giants.
if They use terms like civil war or uprising or revolution they get flagged and possibly banned..

it is also true that many are just doing the memewar thing, deliberately making the mainstream crap all over the airwaves. Kind of like the people making the OK symbol a "secret white supremacist sign" which makes the lefty media crazy, which they find hilarious, Because it is....they actually fell for it and they don't even know it.
Even now people are actively trying to make the # sign a white supremacist symbol, which would be even more hilarious, hope they succeed.

Xaevian · Feb 24, 2020

DizzyJ said:
I've heard the term before but never really understood what it meant I guess.

One can certainly see bias in the article depending on your viewpoint of the subject matter.

How do you interpret the information as presented?

How do you think people who are NOT staunch pro-2nd amendment will interpret the info?

Read the part about indoctrination. I think it's true and goes both ways.

Opinions?

What is the 'boogaloo?' How online calls for a violent uprising are hitting the mainstream

The article is clearly and heavily biased. The same things in the article about this recent phenomenon could be said about the BLM movement from a few years ago, or the antifa movement right now. It is intentionally alarmist and broad-brushed to sidestep, attack, and marginalize the real issue: there is already a war going on, just not with physical violence. It is a propaganda war, ideology war, power war, and a cold war of sorts. But not a race war.

Once again, like what almost always happens, the liberal media and think tanks focus on the "what" and ignore the "why". I don't know how they can call this investigation journalism or those collections of statistics "reports". Where is the analysis? What does all that info mean? They don't answer that question. And, they write this opinion piece in such a way that they don't allow the reader to come up with their own answers.

Indoctrination? This article is fearmongering, intimidation, oppression, and unwelcome social engineering all rolled together. It's not about opening a dialogue but shutting one side down, and advocating violence using government agencies to do so.

Indoctrination: noun. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. From Oxford.

Pot calling the kettle black, glass houses, let he who hath no sin, et al. Both sides of the 2A debate are guilty of this, though. But the anti side is the populous movement right now.