I've done the research, and watched the videos...but they still don't address any of Slam's specific questions.

Further, posting videos as if they were a response to questions and then calling that person "champ" for questioning whether they specifically addressed any of their points are hardly examples of the mature and rational responses that all further posts were asked to meet. 

Further demeaning behavior will get no warnings, and that goes for all parties.

Hmmmm

There's a big difference between not supporting Antifa, in fact I abhor their tactics, and putting forward the types of videos that you seem to enjoy as if they were bits of objective journalism. The former is a reaction that disproves of violence while the latter suggests that the views of those putting together those videos might mirror your own.

I'm only gonna say this once: There have been far too many combative comments or personal attacks made in this thread already today. If folks can't keep their language civil and discuss politics in a mature, sensible manner, without resorting to snarky attacks on each another, then this thread will be locked without warning. Attack the policies and the politicians, but not your fellow posters.

I'm not getting into this argument; but, elements remind me of exactly why I don't go to visual mediums for my current events. It seems like visual imagery provokes quicker responses, and less critical assessment. It is a passive activity and doesn't require your brain to do much work, vs reading a more thorough article, with definite sources that can be checked or consulted for expansion, allowing you to make more informed opinions and reactions. It seems that video manipulation has gotten far worse to attack one's political enemies or to put an exclamation point on one's views, in absence of more reasoned debate. The lack of contact involved in social media seems to escalate things further, as there are no additional sensory inputs that help form perception of ideas and statements and no immediate consequences. In other words, video input seems to turn people up to 11 far faster than print and the internet just tends to magnify, rather than defuse or refute.

I certainly prefer longer, well thought out pieces but I don't mind short snippets either; they just require you to evaluate them before deciding to take in their information. 

For instance, in the video above that wished to portray that the people at the rally were all ignorant, after watching it for a little while it became obvious that the source could not be trusted. Firstly, fascism is not a terribly difficult term to define( though slightly more difficult to apply but that wasn't the question) and is taught in most grade school history classes so being that this rally took place at a university then it's obvious they have high school diplomas making it a fair assumption that they would in fact know how to define fascism in a general way. Using Occam's Razor is it then simpler to assume that those present could define it, or that the education systems that all those present passed through are failures? I'd say the latter would require a much more complicated answer to justify thus making it the less likely of the two options.
Secondly, you then have to look at sample size and in this video the presenter favors the same small groups over and over again. When the rally is so vast why show case the same small groups again and again?

The answer?

Because these people gave the desired answer, and the way the presenter kept wording the questions and commentating between interviews made that answer obvious. 

So taken together it's easy to see that what was presented should be taken with a grain of salt. 

It's not hard to do these types of evaluations, but there are those who simply don't want to. And lest anyone think there's a bias here because I used a conservative video to pick apart, the same can be said from some clips from CNN and MSNBC as well; you always have to stop and evaluate your news sources before making up your mind what the news being presented to you means.