The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

The big issue is that Trump, a wealthy populist from liberal NYC, has basically played to the far right, alt right and all sorts of disgruntled types to get to the Whitehouse.

I don't think he played to them. I think he played them.

As they will learn over the next 4 years as Trump and his buddies get even richer.

Lt Dan

Lt Dan wrote: »

Snowflakes has become a very well defined term actually. It is a pretty good description of the attitudes of the people today, in particular the youth of today. So not sure about how it is a meaningless word

SJW is also pretty well defined as well

Of course, then you have the left wing groups and their need to shout "racism", " sexist", "bigot" , yet, a lot of the times, whatever disagreeable statement is made, it falls short of the true definition. Oh, and "hate" has be taken onto another level

Free speech is not being restricted by someone shouting those "cringey" words. That speaker has not been stopped from speaking. There are no laws against Snowflakes or SJW''s. In fact, there are laws against the speech of bigots, racists, sexists etc. All of that is fine, no issue with that. The issue is however, the over eagerness for those seeking to shut down the "alt right" even where their statements fall way short of the dictionary and legal meaning of the aforementioned terms

This is very true.

The trivialisation and abuse of words which ought to be reserved for the heinous activities and ideologies that they represent is becoming a serious problem.

Its a little like the boy who cried wolf, there is far too much use of terms which are not applicable in the context that they are used, so much so that they have almost totally drowned out the actual correct usage.

legocrazy505

Lt Dan wrote: »

Did and does Trump really have many in the Republicans truly behind him?

Republicans and Democrats will sell out to anyone if they shove their policies down the throats of Americans. Hardly any of them will stand on principals besides the likes of Bernie who has had a far more consistent record.

Establishment Dems and Reps will bow at the alter of power which is now Trump's America. The only people will be on the fringes, the Bernie Sanders and Rand Pauls of the world.

Tony EH

Lt Dan wrote: »

Did and does Trump really have many in the Republicans truly behind him?

The question really is, is Trump behind the Republicans.

The president is only a shop front. The real business goes on in the back.

Billy86

Lt Dan wrote: »

Snowflakes has become a very well defined term actually. It is a pretty good description of the attitudes of the people today, in particular the youth of today. So not sure about how it is a meaningless word

SJW is also pretty well defined as well

Yet your post failed to provide any definition as to what they are. They seem to be used rather freely along with 'PC' as catch-all terms for 'people I don't agree with' from what I have seen, to be honest. Sure with PC I've seen it used to define a car (not an hybrid/electric car or anything... just a car) and just the other day people who think assault on men should be treated the same as assault on women (which if anything would be closer to the opposite of the definition of the term).

Would 'special snowflake' apply to the type of person who thinks people shouldn't say certain things that might offend, should adhere to safe spaces, etc?

GreenFolder2

Lt Dan wrote: »

If Trump, and this is a big if, lifts the economy, a lot of the problems will be swept under the carpet. You know what Clinton's people said, "economy , stupid".

Can Trump really be blamed for the rise of the Alt Right? It clearly was already present. At least we know that Trump is really a liberal and even a Democrat in disguise. He can be reasoned with, he may well be a little more predictable compared to the true leaders of the Alt Right

Yes, he can be blamed for emboldening it, strengthening it and giving it a sense of legitimacy and support from officialdom that it never had before.

So, most definitely he can be blamed. Some of the stuff he said pre-election was just unprecedented rabble rousing aimed at the far-right and alt-right.

To me the "alt-right" terminology is just a bit of window dressing for what is a rag-tag collective of individuals that range from nationalists, to supremacists and everything else in between. I don't really think it's anything other than the traditional 'hard right' without a formal leadership.

He's not the first to do this though, the Republican Party itself has been playing with the religious fundamentalist movements, gun lobby, homophobic lobby, conspiracy theorists, etc etc for years.

Eventually, these movements will just consume the party, or backlash against it and I think that's very much where Trump is bringing them.

Ultimately, the Republicans will just alienate the middle ground entirely and I'm not quite sure where it's going to go. Some may go to the democrats, but more is likely to be just expressed as voter apathy and non-participation which is really unhealthy for a democracy.

InTheTrees

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

To me the "alt-right" terminology is just a bit of window dressing for what is a rag-tag collective of individuals that range from nationalists, to supremacists and everything else in between. I don't really think it's anything other than the traditional 'hard right' without a formal leadership.

Its the remains of the "tea party". They're blindly stumbling around looking for an issue to be passionate about, they're not sure on actual policies and so they've latched on to being anti-feminism.

Eventually they're going to have to explain their position on taxes, healthcare, etc.

I expect thats when they'll start to fade off into the background.

Lt Dan

Billy86 wrote: »

Yet your post failed to provide any definition as to what they are. They seem to be used rather freely along with 'PC' as catch-all terms for 'people I don't agree with' from what I have seen, to be honest. Sure with PC I've seen it used to define a car (not an hybrid/electric car or anything... just a car) and just the other day people who think assault on men should be treated the same as assault on women (which if anything would be closer to the opposite of the definition of the term).

Would 'special snowflake' apply to the type of person who thinks people shouldn't say certain things that might offend, should adhere to safe spaces, etc?

I also pointed out the over use of racism etc and incorrect understanding of same and pointed out the over use of it. Funny , you never asked me for those definitions

I am sure you can find a good online dictionary and Wikipedia do solid efforts to explain the terms, their use, and the history of their use.

No, the PC term is not used as a catch all "for 'people I don't agree with" .You may well have seen people use it inappropriately, but, they are just as idiotic as the left. In most cases, there is validity when the terms get shouted out. But, you are welcome to show us examples of where the terms were used and it was inappropriate.

You know what, you are onto something

Personally, I believe that all sections of websites dealing with social issues should have a sticky thread. A thread that contains the dictionary and legal definition of common terms.

If people use terms inappropriately (bearing in mind how serious such labels can be) they should be banned. People get banned by moderators for "being rude" or "argumentative" despite waffling about not minding heated debates (yet their actions contradict that) Where is the ban for stupidity?

We can get words, provide the legal and dictionary definitions - definitions that most of the regular contributors agree with, stick the thread and require all who discuss on the threads, to read them

"Troll" /"Trolling"/ "Hate"/"Racist"/"Racism"/"Fascism"/"Fascist"/"Sexist"/"homophobic"/"bigot"/"nazi"/"politically correct"/"PC"/"Discrimination"/SJW/"Social Justice Warrior"/"Liberal" (gets seriously abused especially by Americans) / "Left wing"/"right wing"/ "socialist"/"communists" etc

If mods could start with those, with detailed legal and dictionary definitions. Anyone who abuses the terms should be banned.

Lt Dan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its the remains of the "tea party". They're blindly stumbling around looking for an issue to be passionate about, they're not sure on actual policies and so they've latched on to being anti-feminism.

Eventually they're going to have to explain their position on taxes, healthcare, etc.

I expect thats when they'll start to fade off into the background.

Just going to mention the Tea Party, whatever happened to them?

ancapailldorcha

Lt Dan wrote: »

Did and does Trump really have many in the Republicans truly behind him?

The thing is that the GOP is more like a grand coalition than a single party. You have your NRA types, Christians, hawks, etc...Trump is too divisive to unite all of them but he'll have an easier time than Obama when it comes to passing legislation.

Yourself isit

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Yes, he can be blamed for emboldening it, strengthening it and giving it a sense of legitimacy and support from officialdom that it never had before.

So, most definitely he can be blamed. Some of the stuff he said pre-election was just unprecedented rabble rousing aimed at the far-right and alt-right.

To me the "alt-right" terminology is just a bit of window dressing for what is a rag-tag collective of individuals that range from nationalists, to supremacists and everything else in between. I don't really think it's anything other than the traditional 'hard right' without a formal leadership.

He's not the first to do this though, the Republican Party itself has been playing with the religious fundamentalist movements, gun lobby, homophobic lobby, conspiracy theorists, etc etc for years.

Eventually, these movements will just consume the party, or backlash against it and I think that's very much where Trump is bringing them.

Ultimately, the Republicans will just alienate the middle ground entirely and I'm not quite sure where it's going to go. Some may go to the democrats, but more is likely to be just expressed as voter apathy and non-participation which is really unhealthy for a democracy.

Ultimately there won't be a middle ground.

Yourself isit

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its the remains of the "tea party". They're blindly stumbling around looking for an issue to be passionate about, they're not sure on actual policies and so they've latched on to being anti-feminism.

Eventually they're going to have to explain their position on taxes, healthcare, etc.

I expect thats when they'll start to fade off into the background.

Not that either.

The new tea party were small state conservatives as far as I can see. The new trump supporters are, often as not, disaffected ex democrats from traditionally democratic leaning states.

Although the alt right != all trump supporters of course.

We did have a guy who knew their philosophy but he was banned so the conversation will be one sided.

K-9

Nope, he wasn't banned AFAIK. No oppression there!

Chips Lovell

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

The term Lugenpresse (Lying Press) predates the Nazis by decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press

As it happens, there's a piece about the surprising revival of the term in this week's Economist:

Lügenpresse has a long and ugly history in Germany. It was first used after the failed revolutions of 1848, mainly in Catholic polemics against the liberal press. From the start it implied that the media were controlled by Freemasons or Jews. After the Franco-Prussian war, the term was directed at the French press for its alleged lies. During the first world war, after Germany got a thrashing in foreign newspapers for what they called the “rape of Belgium”, Allied (and especially British) newspapers earned the moniker. That set a usage pattern that holds till today: Lügenpresse refers to any medium that does not reflect the user’s own worldview, and must therefore be propagated by a hated “Other”.

Rjd2

Pretty good interview with Ben Shapiro when he discusses the alt right, Milo, Bannon etc. Obviously its not exactly a subject that has not been covered recently, but good to get a conservative viewpoint also.

(small part of the interview below)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top



. As soon as Milo was banned from Twitter—by the way, I don’t favor bans on Twitter generally. Twitter’s a private company, and it can do what it wants, but I don’t like people getting banned on Twitter unless there’s active harassment. I think it’s dangerous territory. But I can say this: When Milo was thrown off of Twitter, 70 percent of the anti-Semitism in my feed disappeared immediately.

Amazingfun

Hard-hitting piece in The Guardian, well worth a read:

Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist


It started with Sam Harris, moved on to Milo Yiannopoulos and almost led to full-scale Islamophobia. If it can happen to a lifelong liberal, it could happen to anyone

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia?CMP=share_btn_tw

beans

Amazingfun wrote: »

Hard-hitting piece in The Guardian, well worth a read:




https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia?CMP=share_btn_tw

Surely you jest? This was written by a chap named Godfrey Elfwick as a joke.

https://twitter.com/GodfreyElfwick/status/803694945852866560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Raise the standard please.

TheOven

If a person wants to learn about the alt right they have a lovely bunch of places you can see them discussing issues like how women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5ggn67/women_shouldnt_be_allowed_to_vote/

But remember, we can't call them sexist.

PopePalpatine

The alt-righters here must be cursing Elitistpig for blowing their ideological cover. :pac:

I had a look at that linked subreddit, it's funny how they bitch about censorship...and then ban an undefined "leftist agitation". :pac:

TheOven

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The alt-righters here must be cursing Elitistpig for blowing their ideological cover. :pac:

I had a look at that linked subreddit, it's funny how they bitch about censorship...and then ban an undefined "leftist agitation". :pac:

Someone needs to stand up to identity politics

Another core principle of the Alt-Right is Identitarianism. Identitarianism is the prioritization of social identity, regardless of political persuasion.

Oh. They have managed to take the worst aspects of SJWs and adopted it themselves. Can barely tell the difference between the two. They aren't racist though, expect for thinking black people are stupid and referring to a smart black person as science fiction

https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5gm16w/dat_gap_nsfw/

NSFW, no nudity but women in underwear. Will be interesting for the apologists to explain these.

Kai123

TheOven wrote: »

Someone needs to stand up to identity politics



Oh. They have managed to take the worst aspects of SJWs and adopted it themselves. Can barely tell the difference between the two. They aren't racist though, expect for thinking black people are stupid and referring to a smart black person as science fiction

https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/5gm16w/dat_gap_nsfw/

NSFW, no nudity but women in underwear. Will be interesting for the apologists to explain these.

Isn't /r/the_donald more representative of what the alt-right is? Its a movement in flux anyway, it will probably not be something definitive until a year or so, at which point it might even be dead regardless.

osmiumartist

The "alt right" label suits the left conflation narrative perfectly.
You can clearly articulate your reasons for being anti-immigration? Then you are alt right.
You wear a Nazi armband and want to kill all Jews? You are alt right.
Therefore if you are against immigration you are a Nazi. Job done.

osmiumartist

Amazingfun wrote: »

Hard-hitting piece in The Guardian, well worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia?CMP=share_btn_tw

Usual Guardian twaddle. If you listen to anything other than us you'll end up a Nazi. Good luck waiting for any sort of counterargument. Or user comments on articles like that which were universally demolished BTL for months until they pulled down the shutters.
Utter utter rag now and I was a daily reader for years. Glad they'll be dead soon.

TheOven

Kai123 wrote: »

Isn't /r/the_donald more representative of what the alt-right is? Its a movement in flux anyway, it will probably not be something definitive until a year or so, at which point it might even be dead regardless.

There would be a lot of overlap but /r/the_donald is mostly 14 year old from 4chan trying to be edgy. Neither is made up of the brightest minds but /r/altright would have an ideology it sticks to, /r/the_donald needs to know what Trump said in the past 5 minutes to tell them what they think.

frostyjacks

The weekly podcasts, such as The Daily Shoah and Fash The Nation are actually quite informative and entertaining. They're a refreshing change to the mainstream media, which proved itself to be completely out of touch with reality during the election.

beans

frostyjacks wrote: »

The weekly podcasts, such as The Daily Shoah and Fash The Nation are actually quite informative and entertaining. They're a refreshing change to the mainstream media, which proved itself to be completely out of touch with reality during the election.

Agreed, once you can get past all the 'gas the kikes / race-war now' talk. They provide a glimpse into a sub-culture that otherwise tends to remain shrouded in hyperbole and half-truths.

I don't necessarily think some of the characters (Kevin McDonald / Andrew Anglin etc) they advocate are any more in-touch with reality than anyone else, but at a time when a lot of energy and focus is being directed at furthering this agenda, getting a view from that side of the fence is certainly informative.

20Cent

beans wrote: »

Agreed, once you can get past all the 'gas the kikes / race-war now' talk. They provide a glimpse into a sub-culture that otherwise tends to remain shrouded in hyperbole and half-truths.

I don't necessarily think some of the characters (Kevin McDonald / Andrew Anglin etc) they advocate are any more in-touch with reality than anyone else, but at a time when a lot of energy and focus is being directed at furthering this agenda, getting a view from that side of the fence is certainly informative.

So "gas the kikes / race-war now' talk" isn't a dealbreaker for you?

beans

20Cent wrote: »

So "gas the kikes / race-war now' talk" isn't a dealbreaker for you?

I can be disgusted by someone's ideology and still find value in studying how they think, what drives them. Know your enemy. I thought mentioning my distaste for Kevin McDonald would have been enough to signal that I wasn't on-board with the antisemitism.

Chips Lovell

I don't know. I think some people have a tendency to get sucked into the goldfish bowl of small corners of the internet and accord too much significance to what's going on there, projecting that onto the broader world.

Time and again I've seen people do things such as paint Twitter spats as being emblematic of feminism, or see some ruckus on a college campus as proof of how left wing politics is losing its way. It's the same with this alt-right thing. Sure some of the people bracketed as alt-right have become influential, but they're just a small sliver of the coalition that rowed in behind trump.

That Reddit thread is a classic case-in-point. It's a pure trolling expedition and unworthy of attention.