It's an alternative fact when you make a blanket statement that includes "ever, all, never, etc" and when you tell other people to verify it for you, with Google, YouTube, etc. Or your reply is along the lines of "c'mon dude, just look around, haven't you been paying attention?" That's not dealing with facts or truth.

It comes across like a college freshman who is repeating something that rolls off the tongue, then goes blank when challenged on it. Do some post-grad work on your claims, do some research, do your homework.

Oh you....

And your silly alternative facts...

That is the part that I find worrisome though, is that his 'argument' is far from compelling. His very starting point is based on a completely false moral equivalency between the rule of Stalin, Mao and modern day America. As if dictatorships where the law enforcement would execute you for criticising the leader or being born to the wrong class or parents are no different or worse than America having 'sobriety checkpoints'. That's not compelling, it's idiocy.

Furthermore, as @drradon pointed out the alternative to a state is anarchy. Anarchy isn't a utopia even though the speaker almost seems to pretend that it is. The only 'justice' or 'law' in anarchy is might makes right, and throughout human history thugs, thieves and warlords dominate. A democratic state like America is vast improvement and beacon of light by comparison. Vehemently claiming otherwise is a blatant lie, not an 'alternative' view point. Unless we want to start accepting alternative facts...

Alternative facts are fun!

Don't confuse bobknight33 with your alternative facts.

*animation
Now is a good time for 'alternative facts'
*promote never end the world as we know it

Alternative Facts is a term coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984. It Implies that the government makes stuff up and makes it a crime to argue with them.

1984 is now the best-selling book on Amazon. Hmm.

If you start typing "Alte" it into Google right now the third auto suggestion is "Alternative Fact Orwell" - At least for my google bubble anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point regarding conspiracy theorists about cherry-picking facts to support a predefined belief.

But that just as easily cuts the other way. Looking for an explanation as to how the towers fell and completely convinced that it was caused by the impact of the planes, experts then began to compile facts around that conclusion. They overlooked many of the other facts and failed to explain them because it didn't support their main theory divined from predetermined beliefs. Thus, they left the door open for these questions to be asked, for these alternative facts to be presented, when they failed to take into account the full picture in their investigations and reports.

My point has been (and will continue to be) that exactly what happened that day is not known. I don't think the official reports are right. I don't think every 9/11 conspiracy theory is right. But what I won't do is automatically dismiss any attempt to discover the facts and hide my ignorance behind a supposed "respect for the dead."