Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…1516182021…70

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    marienbad wrote: »
    I think you are missing the point . No one is under any illusion how pathetic and useless the MSM can be but they don't knowingly publish stuff which is lies .

    That is the difference.

    I take it by MSM you mean the US MSM (to move on from that deflection game of course you do)

    I see though we have we moved goalposts again. The burden of proof is now known culpability. We however can't know if American journalists knew the lies were lies, certainly European journalists were more forensic than the US. We can't see into their souls but they saw the same "proof" as other journalists in other nations.

    Nevertheless we definitely are talking about fake news. This news was fake. And the mainstream media reported the fake news. It didn't investigate it. It didn't do its job (or rather it did it's war-time job).

    The first casualty of war.

    And millions died.


  • Options
    #513
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    I take it by MSM you mean the US MSM (to move on from that deflection game of course you do)

    I see though we have we moved goalposts again. The burden of proof is now known culpability. We however can't know if American journalists knew the lies were lies, certainly European journalists were more forensic than the US. We can't see into their souls but they saw the same "proof" as other journalists in other nations.

    Nevertheless we definitely are talking about fake news. This news was fake. And the mainstream media reported the fake news. It didn't investigate it. It didn't do its job (or rather it did it's war-time job).

    The first casualty of war.

    And millions died.

    No I don't mean the US MSM ! Why do you think MSM only refers to the US ?

    And there is no change what so ever in the point I am continuously and consistently making , which is

    The MSM don't knowingly publish lies .

    You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference


  • Options
    #514
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    marienbad wrote: »
    The MSM don't knowingly publish lies.

    Omitting the truth, and avoiding speaking truth to power, is perhaps worse because it's more difficult to prove and is more insidious.


  • Options
    #515
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Omitting the truth, and avoiding speaking truth to power, is perhaps worse because it's more difficult to prove and is more insidious.

    Perhaps , but that is a completely different conversation .


  • Options
    #516
    midnight city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 531 ✭✭✭midnight city


    marienbad wrote: »
    Perhaps , but that is a completely different conversation .

    Maybe we could call that 'fake narrative'. The MSM are certainly guilty of that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Why do the "alt right" also deny climate change?

    Whats that about?


  • Options
    #518
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls.

    My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.

    Mod note

    Please dont call someone a troll in a thread. If you think someone is trolling please report it but please also bear in mind that this forum requires people to provide links for their assertions if asked.


  • Options
    #519
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    OK I can remedially explain and link to what is general knowledge. I hate "links please" trolls as it's a way to curtail debate. And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. And this is a diversion anyway.
    Get asked to prove your points, moan "trolling". Classic!
    Sticking to liberal media.

    Salon on the media failures in 2003.

    http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/
    You didn't read this, did you? It backs up what I said about the media failing to challenge BushCo's lies, and does not provide a single example of a fake news story they made.
    CNN being self critical

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure/
    Again, saying precisely what I was about a lack of challenging what BushCo was putting out there just like a lack of challenging the fake news stories biased toward Trump in this cycle. Again, not a single example given of the media creating fake news stories.
    Huff post on media cheerleaders 2003

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2954774
    Again no examples of the media making up fake stories.
    New York times agrees and is self critical too.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/nation-war-media-critics-iraq-war-say-lack-scrutiny-helped-administration-press.html
    You seriously didn't read any of these, did you? The NY Times does agree - with me.

    My statement: The main criticism I remember was a lack of real probing into the [BushCo] lies by US media, which is a completely different thing and not much different to their lack of probing into the fake news stories circulating during the recent election cycle.

    The first paragraph of this link: Some also blame the news media, asserting that they failed to challenge the administration aggressively enough as it made a shaky case for war.

    All of your links are doing nothing but backing up exactly what I said, and not a single one of them gives an example of them making up fake news stories like we saw during this election campaign. All they have done is point out a lack of challenging the lies made by BushCo, the same way they failed to challenge the lies made by the fake news cycles in this cycle. So thank you for making my point for me.

    This one doesn't only give, again, -zero- examples of fake news stories being made by the media, but also points out parts of the media like ABC being openly critical of the war prior to it happening (the very few that were willing to challenge).
    My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.
    Funny that you have proven nothing of your claim, and only managed to throw a tantrum while trying to label me a troll for insisting you provide proof of your claims - proof it turned out you couldn't provide.


  • Options
    #520
    TheOven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 222 ✭✭TheOven


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Why do the "alt right" also deny climate change?

    Whats that about?

    My guess would be because liberals agree with it.


    Even the latest Breitbart article on it looked more like a dig than trying to provide information. Lots of "why aren't the climate change shills talking about this, they are silent because it proves them wrong"


  • Options
    #521
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Why do the "alt right" also deny climate change?

    Whats that about?

    Yeah I have often wondered that myself? I do get the potentially more nuanced idea that globally we should be moving to more environmentally neutral processes but in a open trade world it needs to be a global response, e.g if you close a highly polluting heavy industry plant in Utah but a similarly bad plant opens in China all that occurs is a load of blue collar workers lose their jobs with no gain for the environment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    Pretty much as I suspected from the start of this thread, and to be honest right from when I first heard the phrase "alt right", it will henceforth be used as a conflationary catch-all signifying little more than "anybody who doesn't agree with me so I can make out they are Nazis".


  • Options
    #523
    TheOven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 222 ✭✭TheOven


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    Pretty much as I suspected from the start of this thread, and to be honest right from when I first heard the phrase "alt right", it will henceforth be used as a conflationary catch-all signifying little more than "anybody who doesn't agree with me so I can make out they are Nazis".

    Well alt right is just the PC term for neo nazis. You're welcome to point out the differences between the two.


  • Options
    #524
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Neo-nazism I would say is an ideology closely aligned to the aims of the Third Reich. Alt-rightism would be much broader in scope, more in touch with the problems facing today's society. I wonder if Hilary could go back would she have been so dismissive of it.


  • Options
    #525
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    TheOven wrote: »
    Well alt right is just the PC term for neo nazis. You're welcome to point out the differences between the two.

    I thought alt right was anyone who doesn't believe Hillary is/was the bestest? That's what it seems to have been turned into at least.


  • Options
    #526
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    I thought alt right was anyone who doesn't believe Hillary is/was the bestest? That's what it seems to have been turned into at least.

    Given that almost nobody on the election thread, whether they wanted Trump elected or not, had Clinton down as 'the bestest', then no... that's not it.


  • Options
    #527
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Given that almost nobody on the election thread, whether they wanted Trump elected or not, had Clinton down as 'the bestest', then no... that's not it.

    She was better, though. Mind you, that's not exactly high praise.


  • Options
    #528
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    She was better, though. Mind you, that's not exactly high praise.

    Oh she was, but against Trump that was pretty much a default status for almost anyone running. It's just funny how Trump fans have worked so hard to convince themselves that he is infallible and are so incapable of thinking in anything but complete black and white that they assume anyone who figured Clinton the better candidate must have assumed the same.

    Not necessarily saying that's the case with the poster I quoted, but was worth pointing out to them that most who were against Trump did absolutely not see Clinton as "the bestest".


  • Options
    #529
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,420 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Oh she was, but against Trump that was pretty much a default status for almost anyone running. It's just funny how Trump fans have worked so hard to convince themselves that he is infallible and are so incapable of thinking in anything but complete black and white that they assume anyone who figured Clinton the better candidate must have assumed the same.

    Not necessarily saying that's the case with the poster I quoted, but was worth pointing out to them that most who were against Trump did absolutely not see Clinton as "the bestest".
    Clinton was a terrible candidate but the Trump supporters have demonised her to such an extent that no matter what Trump does, they'll be able to convince themselves that Hillary would have been worse


  • Options
    #530
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Clinton was a terrible candidate but the Trump supporters have demonised her to such an extent that no matter what Trump does, they'll be able to convince themselves that Hillary would have been worse

    Oh I know, it's kind of telling that their seeming only rebuttal to the mounting evidence that Trump's campaign was one big con is "but but but... BUT HILLARY!" despite the election being finished over a month ago.


  • Options
    #531
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Neo-nazism I would say is an ideology closely aligned to the aims of the Third Reich. Alt-rightism would be much broader in scope, more in touch with the problems facing today's society. I wonder if Hilary could go back would she have been so dismissive of it.

    Ah yes, hot topics such as, "That brown person stole my seat at the front of the bus," "Twitter banned me for spamming gory rape porn at anyone vaguely leftist," and "The cops arrest you instead of joining in when you do a sneak attack on LGBT people."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    Not sure if Geert Wilders is considered Alt Right really, as he is very pro-Israel, but he was just convicted of "hate speech/incitement" and his response to is it sure to energize many:




  • Options
    #533
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Clinton was a terrible candidate but the Trump supporters have demonised her to such an extent that no matter what Trump does, they'll be able to convince themselves that Hillary would have been worse

    So... are trump supporters automatically alt-right?

    Are those who don't necessarily support him but didn't go out and riot when he won alt-right?

    Are those who recognise his victory in a democratic vote alt-right?


    Seems they are regarded as terrible terrible people here, but maybe not quite de facto alt-right?


  • Options
    #534
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Ah yes, hot topics such as, "That brown person stole my seat at the front of the bus," "Twitter banned me for spamming gory rape porn at anyone vaguely leftist," and "The cops arrest you instead of joining in when you do a sneak attack on LGBT people."
    You forgot "I don't want my kid going to the same school as Jews".
    Mary Louise Piccard said in a 2007 court declaration that Bannon didn't want their twin daughters attending the Archer School for Girls in Los Angeles because many Jewish students were enrolled at the elite institution.

    "The biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend," Piccard said in her statement signed on June 27, 2007.

    "He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews," Piccard wrote.

    Stephen Bannon, Trump campaign CEO, allegedly attacked ex-wife
    "I told him that there are children who are Jewish at (a competing school), and he asked me what the percentage was. I told him that I didn't know because it wasn't an issue for me as I am not raising the girls to be either anti-Semitic or prejudiced against anyone," she wrote.

    And while checking out yet another school, Bannon asked the director during a sit down why there were “so many Chanukah books in the library.”


  • Options
    #535
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    So... are trump supporters automatically alt-right?

    Are those who don't necessarily support him but didn't go out and riot when he won alt-right?

    Are those who recognise his victory in a democratic vote alt-right?


    Seems they are regarded as terrible terrible people here, but maybe not quite de facto alt-right?
    Not at all! A huge chunk of his vote was comprised of the rust belt workers who feel they have been screwed by every Republican and Democratic president going back to Reagan. I, and I would imagine the vast majority, can see why they would want to go for someone 'against the grain' (another huge reason the DNC can only blame themselves in pushing for Clinton to win the primaries over Sanders - he would have cut into that segment considerably, whereas Clinton is about as 'establishment' as 'establishment' gets).

    One could argue that it's still poor form on their end to ignore the outright disgusting comments he made consistently throughout the campaign. But the real problem is, they've been sold an outright con, and we're seeing prominent people at the likes of Carrier and Boeing pointing this out already. Not only pointing out his swamp-filling appointments with Goldman Sachs links all over them, just in the last 24 hours he has also appointed a secretary of labour who is not only a staunch enemy of the minimum wage or any increases in it, but who is also a big supporter of automation - something that threatens the positions manufacturing and production line staff more than perhaps any sector. The backlash as it continues to sink in among these everyday people that got so fervently behind Trump that they have been sold an absolute con is going to be potentially very troublesome on a number of levels.


  • Options
    #536
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Oh I know, it's kind of telling that their seeming only rebuttal to the mounting evidence that Trump's campaign was one big con is "but but but... BUT HILLARY!" despite the election being finished over a month ago.

    Has the alt-right been conned? There was always a wariness over Trump from the outset, given the Jewish connections in his family tree. Even post-victory, there's a disclaimer every time he's discussed, "He's not one of us". Defeating Hilary and what she stands for was the goal; getting Trump was a bonus. Don't see how getting what you want is being conned.


  • Options
    #537
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Has the alt-right been conned? There was always a wariness over Trump from the outset, given the Jewish connections in his family tree. Even post-victory, there's a disclaimer every time he's discussed, "He's not one of us". Defeating Hilary and what she stands for was the goal; getting Trump was a bonus. Don't see how getting what you want is being conned.
    The rust belters have been conned, not the alt right, they are two different demographics.

    The problem the alt right now has is that they cannot continue to simply shout baseless nonsense in an attempt to provoke a reaction once Trump is sworn in. They've hitched themselves to his wagon (or vice versa), and now will actually have accountability. Unlike Farage did with UKIP, they (and Trump) can't just run away in a cowardly fashion when it takes time to assume responsibility - the only way that would occur would be for Trump to decide to not assume his role in the White House after all. They have gained power, and with power comes expectation. The discomfort amongst the alt right about this is clearly evident, even on boards, as they continue to try to shout 'but but but.... BUT Hillary!' as their go to defense of Trump, over a month after the the election has finished.


  • Options
    #538
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Neo-nazism I would say is an ideology closely aligned to the aims of the Third Reich. Alt-rightism would be much broader in scope, more in touch with the problems facing today's society. I wonder if Hilary could go back would she have been so dismissive of it.
    Ok, so they're not into Nazi-ism, just what it stood for on a fundamental basis.

    What is it that they say about a rose by any other name...


  • Options
    #539
    beans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Ok, so they're not into Nazi-ism, just what it stood for on a fundamental basis.

    What is it that they say about a rose by any other name...

    In fairness, the comparison immediately de-legitimises any points a group may have. It shuts down the conversation. That's why I don't like the 'Nazi' label... unless you're talking about the actual NSGWP.

    No problem labelling them 'fascist'.


  • Options
    #540
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The discomfort amongst the alt right about this is clearly evident, even on boards, as they continue to try to shout 'but but but.... BUT Hillary!' as their go to defense of Trump, over a month after the the election has finished.

    Where's the discomfort? I follow a lot of the alt-right news and podcasts and they seem quite happy with Trump. The election is done and dusted. The only people I've seen still discussing it are the 'popular vote' moaners and Jill Stein.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Where's the discomfort? I follow a lot of the alt-right news and podcasts and they seem quite happy with Trump. The election is done and dusted. The only people I've seen still discussing it are the 'popular vote' moaners and Jill Stein.
    Two examples of the discomfort is there in the deafening silence when it comes to addressing items like Trump's cabinet appointments, and in the deafening silence about what they would want or expect from Trump's presidency in order to call it a success or failure.

    Time and again I (and others) asked Trump fans what they wanted to see from his presidency on this forum and in the AH forum following the election. And time and again, good as none answered. They likely want to see what Trump does first, before saying what they want, so they can claim they were all in favour of 'option a' if/when he goes with it, or claim they were in favour of 'option b' if/when he goes with it, such has been the modus operandi throughout the campaign. The directed messaging from above also does not appear to have come in yet, hence the also clinging to excuses like "I don't care, not Clinton so that's all I care about". That makes sense if those people were claiming they did not like Trump prior to the election, but liked Clinton even less - though for many, that was not the case.

    There is a clear discomfort in setting any expected standards because they know well he might fail to live up to it, and they know exactly how that would look after their rhetoric and placing of him on such a pedestal over the last while.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement