The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

ancapailldorcha

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're being a buttercup. You see how the other side can rile you up?

:pac:

AnGaelach wrote: »

Find me a working class person who believes in white privilege and I'll find you a unicorn

Brian? wrote: »

Hello, nice to meet you. Where's my unicorn?

Cut this sort of crap out please.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Looks like I've found two unicorns. That one has got to be down to my privilege.

So the first posters that respond to you happen to be what you say doesn't exist ! What does that say for your theory then ?

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

Apart from changes to legislation, I can see only rise of far rights

'apart from legislation '- That is a big exemption you are making there . Changing the law is the single biggest way we can improve society -

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

'apart from legislation '- That is a big exemption you are making there . Changing the law is the single biggest way we can improve society -

Do name a law that you think we should instate.

Discrimination under a plethora of categories is already covered by domestic and European laws.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

Do name a law that you think we should instate.

Discrimination under a plethora of categories is already covered by domestic and European laws.

So you just arbitrarily pick right now as the best time that suits your argument , which happens to be after decades of progress .

How about say we pick 1970 as an example and see what laws/regulations we have changed to better society ? I will just give you a few examples to get us going - married women had to leave the civil service/ no access to family planning/ inequality in social security provision .

And that is just in Ireland in the 70's .

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

So you just arbitrarily pick right now as the best time that suits your argument , which happens to be after decades of progress.

I didn't realise improving now meant having to refer to laws that are defunct.

marienbad wrote: »

How about say we pick 1970 as an example and see what laws/regulations we have changed to better society? I will just give you a few examples to get us going - married women had to leave the civil service/ no access to family planning/ inequality in social security provision .

How about we don't. It's not 1970 any more. Discuss things as they are.


Edit: I misread that string of conversations. I presumed you were talking about how we can improve going forward using the law. My bad.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

Source? Who's definition?

Urban dictionary. Similar pejorative definition in the Oxford Dictionary.

I don't really think the social justice warrior is real thing.

OK. The Oxford Dictionary thinks it is.

It's a label used to dismiss people's point of view without having to apply an critical thinking.

It is, its a pejorative.

It's not an equal and opposite reaction. It's an overreaction to a problem that doesn't exist.

So the online lynching of Matt Taylor for wearing an inoffensive shirt didn't happen?

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

I didn't realise improving now meant having to refer to laws that are defunct.



How about we don't. It's not 1970 any more. Discuss things as they are.

They are as they are because of years of agitating for change. You surely don't deny that ?

If you want to make an argument that change has gone far enough then fair enough , but to argue that it wasn't necessary ? Seriously ?
,

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

They are as they are because of years of agitating for change. You surely don't deny that

If you want to make an argument that change has gone far enough then fair enough , but to argue that it wasn't necessary ? Seriously ?
,

I misread your argument and edited my post already.

Just out of interest, do you believe change has gone far enough and if not, what would you like to see?

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

So you just arbitrarily pick right now as the best time that suits your argument

Er, unless this suddenly because the History forum, you think there's something extremely odd about discussing modern day events in a politics forum? Do we have to add what century, decade or exact year to all future posts to suit this stipulation of yours?

20Cent

Who is to blame for the alt right?
The alt right are of course.

Calling them a reaction to sjw's and blaming them is a cop out. Also there is a huge false equivalence comparing them. Wanting minority groups to be treated fairly and stopping bullying is very different to the Nazi type views coming from the alt right.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

I misread your argument and edited my post already.

Just out of interest, do you believe change has gone far enough and if not, what would you like to see?

No I don't think change can ever go too far as long as in is broadly instep or just ahead of the society from which it springs . But always moving forward

Seen as you quoted The Foundations earlier I can hazard a guess as to your age , so you know all the changes that have happened in Ireland since then are mostly for the good .

Going forward I would like to see real choice in education , a reduction in the influence of the RCC in health and education , Repeal the 8th , a break up of the professional cartels - law ,medicine etc . There is loads to be going on with .

I know from previous posts you won't agree with all of the above but we can have some common ground .

I don't agree with this whole rape culture in Ireland trend or basing education decisions on ideology rather than science etc

The problem today is the most arguments are taking place on the extremes on both sides instead of trying to solve the biggest problems for the biggest numbers .

legocrazy505

20Cent wrote: »

Who is to blame for the alt right?
The alt right are of course.

Calling them a reaction to sjw's and blaming them is a cop out. Also there is a huge false equivalence comparing them. Wanting minority groups to be treated fairly and stopping bullying is very different to the Nazi type views coming from the alt right.

The problem (and I'm left wing by the way before someone says otherwise) is they don't want fairness they want more than that. They clearly don't want people to stop bullying because in their quest to achieve "fairness" they bully to achieve that, just look at how they react on the countless YouTube videos you can find.

They like the alt-right think they are morally superior and that any view in any way disagreeing with them is racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc. like the alt-right think any opposing view comes from cucks or special snowflakes.

They like members of the alt-right (Milo actually seemingly will do this so credit to him and some here) don't want to discuss their views in a proper format. They want to shout it and drown out the voices of any moderates or logical arguments. They don't want free speech, they don't want public debate, they want you to take their view or suffer the consequences.

SJWs also want to tear down the "patriarchal system" while the alt-right call it "rigged" until one of them wins and then they will just claim the system is fine even though it hasn't changed at all. Look at Trump's victory, one minute they claim it's "rigged" with too much corruption and now Trump appoints the most corrupt, swamp filling cabinet and all is fine. They went on about Clinton and Goldman Sachs but now Trump has appointed Goldman Sachs executives to his cabinet they say nothing. Both of them are the pinnacle of hypocrites.

Sand

20Cent wrote: »

Who is to blame for the alt right?
The alt right are of course.

Calling them a reaction to sjw's and blaming them is a cop out. Also there is a huge false equivalence comparing them. Wanting minority groups to be treated fairly and stopping bullying is very different to the Nazi type views coming from the alt right.

They're basically cut from the same cloth. Almost entirely online presence, permanently outraged, obsessed with US identity politics, deeply held victim hood, dismissal of opposing views as being evil or bullying, unwillingness to accept opponents might have genuine motivations.

SJWs/Alt Right - they're just basically internet trolls tormenting each other and anyone silly enough to get dragged into their inconsequential nonsense. The one thing they ironically appear to agree on is that white people ought to have a racially based political awareness.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't think change can ever go too far as long as in is broadly instep or just ahead of the society from which it springs . But always moving forward

That's a type of fallacy that a lot of people have fallen into, they seem to believe history can only ever go one way and society only ever becomes more liberal.

marienbad wrote: »

Seen as you quoted The Foundations earlier I can hazard a guess as to your age , so you know all the changes that have happened in Ireland since then are mostly for the good

There are lots of changes I would find problem with.

marienbad wrote: »

I know from previous posts you won't agree with all of the above but we can have some common ground

I don't agree with this whole rape culture in Ireland trend or basing education decisions on ideology rather than science etc

There's little things we can agree on. I've no problem with denominational schools, or what you call the professional cartels, and don't want to see the 8th repealed. I do think we should maintain a strong welfare State and provide more funding for education.

marienbad wrote: »

The problem today is the most arguments are taking place on the extremes on both sides instead of trying to solve the biggest problems for the biggest numbers .

I do agree with you, but the extremes are pushing further and further apart. I used to consider myself left of centre, but now I would firmly put myself right of centre or right on most issues.

What irks me most is when people pretend that they only want a dialogue on something - right or left, they always give you this "we need to have a discussion about [insert]" line. It annoys me on two levels, one is that they don't actually care about any sort of discussion so they should rename it "listen to me yell about this and then we do what I want", and then they always seem to target non-issues like how there aren't enough minorities in a game set in 13th century Bohemia, or how their ****ty career opportunities is because of the evil European Union.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's a type of fallacy that a lot of people have fallen into, they seem to believe history can only ever go one way and society only ever becomes more liberal.



There are lots of changes I would find problem with.



There's little things we can agree on. I've no problem with denominational schools, or what you call the professional cartels, and don't want to see the 8th repealed. I do think we should maintain a strong welfare State and provide more funding for education.



I do agree with you, but the extremes are pushing further and further apart. I used to consider myself left of centre, but now I would firmly put myself right of centre or right on most issues.

What irks me most is when people pretend that they only want a dialogue on something - right or left, they always give you this "we need to have a discussion about [insert]" line. It annoys me on two levels, one is that they don't actually care about any sort of discussion so they should rename it "listen to me yell about this and then we do what I want", and then they always seem to target non-issues like how there aren't enough minorities in a game set in 13th century Bohemia, or how their ****ty career opportunities is because of the evil European Union.

Oh Never fear , I am under no illusion that society can move backward as well as forward .

If I might ask what are the changes that you would have a problem with ?

Completely agree on the Welfare State and education - we might disagree on what form that would take though . I would see myself as very liberal on social issues but probably becoming fiscally conservative .in certain areas .

On your last paragraph I completely agree , but the problem is the centre ground lets itself be drawn in and next thing you find yourself defending a esoteric point of view you probably never even knew you had until 5 minutes previously .

osmiumartist

AnGaelach wrote: »

I do agree with you, but the extremes are pushing further and further apart. I used to consider myself left of centre, but now I would firmly put myself right of centre or right on most issues.

Well there was a time when left and right were terms more tied to economic policy. What a lot of the new "alt-left" don't seem to grasp is that there's a lot of people our there who (like me) consider themselves economically left but can't stand the Blair or Clinton who aren't even bloody left in any way, shape or form anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Social: Relating to society or its organization.
Justice: The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.
Warrior: A brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

I'm ok with being called a Social Justice Warrior.

oscarBravo

legocrazy505 wrote: »

The problem (and I'm left wing by the way before someone says otherwise) is they don't want fairness they want more than that.

I'm sure many people will have seen a variation on this picture:



So, you're right: they want more than "fairness". When black people say "black lives matter", and white people counter with "all lives matter", at first it looks like a simple truism - but it's really just a way of shouting down anyone with the temerity to suggest that black lives do, indeed, matter. If it was a truism that all lives matter, then the BLM movement wouldn't have to exist.

They clearly don't want people to stop bullying because in their quest to achieve "fairness" they bully to achieve that, just look at how they react on the countless YouTube videos you can find.

Who is "they", exactly?

I'm sure I'm firmly on the SJW spectrum (I certainly have no problem with fighting for social justice). I don't recall ever bullying anyone on YouTube.

They like the alt-right think they are morally superior and that any view in any way disagreeing with them is racist, homophobic, misogynistic etc...

That's the sort of lazy generalisation that's a substitute for reasoned argument - with all due respect.

Do I think it's morally superior to want to see people treated with respect regardless of their sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or skin colour? Hell f*cking yeah, I do. If you want to argue that that's not a morally superior position to the barely-veiled suggestion in this very thread that getting rid of Jews might not be a bad idea, please feel free.

As for claiming that any view that disagrees with them is racist, misogynistic, homophobic - bollox. If I'm going to claim that a view that disagrees with me is racist, it's because it's racist, not because I disagree with it. If I'm going to call (say) Mike Pence a homophobe, it's because he walks and quacks like a very homophobic duck. Claiming that I call him homophobic because I disagree with him is just lazily dismissing the possibility that he has richly earned the moniker.

SJWs also want to tear down the "patriarchal system"...

Putting danger quotes around something doesn't make it fictional. You disagree with the notion - that's fair enough, if you can make a convincing case that patriarchy doesn't exist - but instead, you just dismiss what you disagree with as not worthy of discussion. That's better than allegedly dismissing what you disagree with as racist or homophobic... how?

Sand

Oscar - the problem with that is you are assuming SJW/Alt Right types are self aware. That they recognise in themselves when they dismiss someone arbitrarily as a racist that actually they were incorrect to do so. If someone is self aware - they're not a SJW/Alt Right. That's why SJW is a pejorative.

I thought the best question asked through the presidential debates was for Clinton and Trump to say something positive about one another. SJW/Alt Right types would equally struggle to say *anything* positive about each other because they completely dismiss each other as evil, disingenuous, bullying and deliberately dishonest and consider themselves to be entirely put upon and the real victims. And this justifies their online behaviour where they taunt, ridicule, dismiss and try to troll their evil twins over issues no one gives a damn about. Like is Caitlyn Jenner a hero.

legocrazy505

The problem here is OscarBravo is look for a second at the SJWs on YouTube and the modern day feminists. They don't believe what you or I may believe.

The traditional feminist movement is equality and equal representation of women, that's not what these new feminists desire. Traditional SJWs like yourself (I'm presuming this) want equal rights for minorities. I want those things too, who doesn't?

The problem is that's not what modern day feminists and SJWs are like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Brqo0vSNE

My post is directed at those people, not the people who actually stand up for equality. I'm talking about the SJWs and feminists who will try to silence the alt-right when being on the left they should be all for them talking because then we can engage in proper debate. Instead, these groups of people want safe spaces and want to take away freedoms because they don't like it when someone says something they find triggering.

Being on the left I honestly don't desire or enjoy combating people on the left but the kinds of people as seen above and the countless "cringe compilations" shows we've got a problem when it comes to how the far left have become ridiculous. I mean come on these people on the far left think universities shouldn't be a place where free thought and discussion is allowed, instead they want to be sheltered and kept in their bubble where they don't need to question their beliefs.

oscarBravo

legocrazy505 wrote: »

The traditional feminist movement is equality and equal representation of women...

How's that working out for women so far?

The problem with what you describe as "traditional" feminism is that, frankly, it's the form of feminism that men are comfortable with. It's the "you have the vote, what do you want?" form of, dare I say it, patriarchal feminism.

The "modern" feminism you deride by posting the most out-there examples you can find concerns itself with the fact that women don't and can't feel safe in situations that men take for granted, among many, many other subtle and not-so-subtle problems.

Male and female students are theoretically equal in terms of rights and opportunities - but studies have shown that when women talk 15% of the time in a lecture hall they are perceived by the men as having had an equal say, and when they talk more than that - but still less than half the time - they are perceived as having dominated the discussion.

If you think equality stops at legal non-discrimination, you need to spend a lot less time finding annoying modern feminists to deride and more time finding informative ones to learn from.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with what you describe as "traditional" feminism is that, frankly, it's the form of feminism that men are comfortable with. It's the "you have the vote, what do you want?" form of, dare I say it, patriarchal feminism.

Actually its the form of feminism that feminists like Camille Paglia are comfortable with. She sees deep patriarchal influences in the first world problems feminism so prevalent today.

legocrazy505

oscarBravo wrote: »

How's that working out for women so far?

The problem with what you describe as "traditional" feminism is that, frankly, it's the form of feminism that men are comfortable with. It's the "you have the vote, what do you want?" form of, dare I say it, patriarchal feminism.

The "modern" feminism you deride by posting the most out-there examples you can find concerns itself with the fact that women don't and can't feel safe in situations that men take for granted, among many, many other subtle and not-so-subtle problems.

Male and female students are theoretically equal in terms of rights and opportunities - but studies have shown that when women talk 15% of the time in a lecture hall they are perceived by the men as having had an equal say, and when they talk more than that - but still less than half the time - they are perceived as having dominated the discussion.

If you think equality stops at legal non-discrimination, you need to spend a lot less time finding annoying modern feminists to deride and more time finding informative ones to learn from.

I didn't say equality stops at legal non-discrimination anywhere if I recall. I think a female president was a missed opportunity for the US, promoting women in STEM is something we should continue doing, getting rid of the idea that women must just stay at home are another thing that I think needs to go and there are far more issues that still need to be combatted and addressed when it comes to equality between genders.

The problem is a growing movement that claims to be feminist and SJW and liberal when all they do is take their views to ridiculous levels and then refuse to do any critical thinking. We on the left need to combat this because it's not what we stand for. Those people should be supporting public debate, which they don't, freedom of speech, which they don't etc. They don't want you to question them but they will happily attack your views.

And if they call themselves feminists, SJWs and liberals then that's what they are called. We call the alt-right what they are so these people I'm talking about are feminists but they are taking feminism and making it something it's not.

This is the problem though with us on the left, I say something that questions the movements we are currently seeing and it's made out like I'm alt-right and don't believe in true equality. Sam Harris is another example of this but I'm sure someone will object to me bringing him up here. What we have on the far left though is a clear issue where questioning things like Islam, for example, is not allowed. Sam Harris and Ben Affleck here as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

This is what today's far left made up of safe-space, trigger warning, all CIS people are transphobic etc. do to people who are on the left.

K-9

This is about as good a piece on the alt right as I've read:

http://jezebel.com

Cue howls of derision without reading it!

I don't read jezebel, I'm subscribed to Lifehacker in my old fashioned newsreader and you get a daily summary of articles to read from the group which I usually ignore.

Somebody from the outside spent a year in the alt right arena and gives an objective view. It's hilarious at times, the Neo Nazi scene in Blues Brothers comes to mind!

It gives a warning not to dismiss the grouping as Neo Nazis. You've MRA, men's rights, red pillers and the usual Conspiracy Theorists in it.

The main message is this isn't going to be anything like birthers and the Tea Party. It's maybe 150,000 people who are exploiting the power that Twitter gives them.

The msm are as much to blame as they are giving empty vessels a platform. The media are in a rush to cover gamergate, Ghostbusters etc. In that rush some have give fake news legitimacy and a platform.

Wise advice for anybody in the current age is to step back from the smart phone, twitter, facebook, the FOMO generation. Journalists are so focused on not missing the latest, breaking story, they've lost the ability to fact and quality check. Sites must be updated every 2 hours with whatever latest troll war on twitter.

The alt right was always there. They aren't for anything in particular, they stand for what they are against. Feminism, do gooders, change, it was better in my day.

Milo was on the excellent Briefing Room podcast on BBC and that was exactly the impression I got. Some valid points (pc gone mad etc.), but when asked what he was for, he was at a loss.

In a years time they'll end up attacking each other, bit like Irish Republicanism, 100 groups with 3 members each! All with very important, intrinsic differences. Their attacks on Feminism and the elite will be in the ha'penny place

Amazingfun

Alt-Right female, Emily Youcis, has just released a pretty funny video

Emily was just fired from her job as "pistachio girl" in Philly, a job she loved--all because she attended/reported on the NPI conference in Washington.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

Completely agree on the Welfare State and education - we might disagree on what form that would take though . I would see myself as very liberal on social issues but probably becoming fiscally conservative .in certain areas

I'd be in favour of maintaining free/low cost education (though I can see an argument for increasing the prices, since the market is oversaturated with useless degrees), keeping child-raising costs as low as possible.

I'm very much a supporter of the traditional family and think the State should do everything it can to support it (as it has been directed to do by Bunreacht na hÉireann).

osmiumartist wrote: »

Well there was a time when left and right were terms more tied to economic policy. What a lot of the new "alt-left" don't seem to grasp is that there's a lot of people our there who (like me) consider themselves economically left but can't stand the Blair or Clinton who aren't even bloody left in any way, shape or form anyway.

If you are leaning too far left economically, your system crashes into the floor. I presume it's the reason why practically every Government within the developed world has some form of right-leaning economic policies.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How's that working out for women so far?

Very well I'd assume, considering they're infinitely less likely to kill themselves than men.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure many people will have seen a variation on this picture

And the problem lies therein. For some reason, everyone seems to think that you can just magic up enough resources to accommodate for everyone, but you just can't. Equality of opportunity is what I would agree with. Equality of outcome is what you are purporting under "fairness".

AnGaelach

K-9 wrote: »

Milo was on the excellent Briefing Room podcast on BBC and that was exactly the impression I got. Some valid points (pc gone mad etc.), but when asked what he was for, he was at a loss.

The one thing I actually despise about the alt-right are the people who are parroted as the champions and circle-jerked over. Milo is nothing more than a loud, contrarian idiot who screams to get attention because he's a flamboyant gay and not on the left. That Paul Watson character is what I would define as a forty-five year old dockyard worker trapped in the body of a tweenage atheist. Shapiro is so far up his own ass I'm sure Steve Bannon was surprised. The only person on the right who I would agree with on most issues (and still we disagree on much) is Peter Hitchens.

In Ireland, I'd be more in-line with Senator McDowell's old talking points (though he's still a bit too much of a West Brit for my liking).



After giving it some thought, maybe I'm the contrary one after all

Count Dooku

K-9 wrote: »

This is about as good a piece on the alt right as I've read:

http://jezebel.com

If Mike Cernovich represents typical alt right, then Louise Mensch is an average SJW
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/807727912153710594

Everybody can play the game of making judgments based on extremes

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Very well I'd assume, considering they're infinitely less likely to kill themselves than men.

Just take a step back and look critically at what you just did: you took one single data point and concluded from it that women are no worse off than men.

That makes as much sense as waving a snowball around on the Senate floor as proof that global warming is a myth.

What's even more painfully ironic is that you did it in the context of a conversation about shutting down debate - we're talking about feminism, and you pull a "men have problems too" trope. Yes, they do - and All Lives Matter.

And the problem lies therein. For some reason, everyone seems to think that you can just magic up enough resources to accommodate for everyone, but you just can't. Equality of opportunity is what I would agree with. Equality of outcome is what you are purporting under "fairness".

OK, so you did see the picture, but managed to skip straight over its point in order to find one to disagree with.

The point isn't about making sure everyone gets an apple. The point is that if you pay lip-service to equality in a way that doesn't actually achieve anything useful, it shouldn't be a surprise when it turns out the problems haven't been solved.