The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

midnight city

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not having this. You're completely refusing to call out one side in their dishonesty.

I won't budge until you do. Then we can discuss BLM's dishonesty.

Much like the alt right there is no blm membership. From their comments on Facebook though they were certainly blm supporters and inspired by blm retoric.

rossie1977

They framed the wrong guy for yesterday's airport shooting http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/inside-the-alt-right-s-florida-airport-shooter-esteban-santiago-hoax.html

20Cent

Objecting to puff pieces designed to normalise fascism is controversial now?

Brian?

midnight city wrote: »

Much like the alt right there is no blm membership. From their comments on Facebook though they were certainly blm supporters and inspired by blm retoric.

So you're standing by the alt right lie that this was a BLM assault?

A disgraceful lie.

Jan_de_Bakker

Brian? wrote: »

I don't agree with Una here. The Irish Times can publish anything they like and exposing the alt right is great.

However, she is not being "fascist" in the least.

Serious question, if someone submitted an article on he merits of national socialism to the Irish Times, should they publish it in the name of free speech? Or should they decline to publish as its hate speech? Do you believe that all ideas have equal merit and deserve to be aired, no matter what?

Funny you should mention national socialism , the left want to give as much as a platform to a potentially more dangerous ideology then the Nazis (Islam) - but hey they mostly have brown skin so it would be "racist" not to.

And I don't see the connection with the Alt. Right and fascism ..

Jan_de_Bakker

And anyway, what if someone would argue ... my friend Bill ... you know he is a moderate peaceful Nazi, he has never harmed any Jewish people nor does he condone the holocaust ... don't be such a bigot and tar him with the same brush as all those horrible lads from the 1940s...

Jan_de_Bakker

20Cent wrote: »

Objecting to puff pieces designed to normalise fascism is controversial now?

What fascism ?

20Cent

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

What fascism ?

Exactly.
This is the type of misinformation about the alt write that needs to be exposed. Articles like the one Pell wrote in the IT portray it as kids making memes for fun. This is part of the normalisation of the concepts. The far right have been doing this for years, rebranding. The election of trump and his pick for chief advisor are also emboldening these people.

hatrickpatrick

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I see Una Mullaly had an article in the Irish Times saying how the IT should never have published the Alt. Right piece - does she not see the irony here ?

She will go on about this "fascism" yet she is the one trying to shut down free speech.

This is precisely what I mean when I refer to the regressive left. As a leftist, I personally find them to be a sickening and toxic element which I really wish more people would be vocal in condemning. I originally identified as a leftist in the 1990s precisely because the right, usually with religion or 'family values' as a justification, was all about censorship - anti porn, anti provocative music videos, anti dirty humour etc - while the liberal left was all about unfettered freedom of speech. Sometime during the last five years, this new and incredibly vocal movement on the left has emerged and left me and quite a few other people as "ideological orphans" - I don't want to identify with those assholes, but while I'm delighted that the alt-right are trolling and triggering the sh!te out of them, rubbing it in their faces that no matter how much they whine they cannot prevail against the untameable nature of the internet (for now, at least), I despise the alt-rights ideology with regard to pretty much everything except the censorship issue. And I'm very much opposed to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as an ideology.

In all honesty I'm just not sure what I identify as politically anymore. I've been called a closeted alt-rightist by SJWs because I support the alt-right's right to say anything it wants without being punished for it, and I've been called a 'cuck' by alt-rightists because I support left-wing civil liberties and economic policies.

I foresee a major split on the left with the emergence of a new identity for culturally libertarian, socially and economically liberal people (as opposed to the culturally authoritarian, socially and economically liberal nature of the regressive left) which states very clearly that one not only is not part of, but actively stands against the latter.

Jan_de_Bakker

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is precisely what I mean when I refer to the regressive left. As a leftist, I personally find them to be a sickening and toxic element which I really wish more people would be vocal in condemning. I originally identified as a leftist in the 1990s precisely because the right, usually with religion or 'family values' as a justification, was all about censorship - anti porn, anti provocative music videos, anti dirty humour etc - while the liberal left was all about unfettered freedom of speech. Sometime during the last five years, this new and incredibly vocal movement on the left has emerged and left me and quite a few other people as "ideological orphans" - I don't want to identify with those assholes, but while I'm delighted that the alt-right are trolling and triggering the sh!te out of them, rubbing it in their faces that no matter how much they whine they cannot prevail against the untameable nature of the internet (for now, at least), I despise the alt-rights ideology with regard to pretty much everything except the censorship issue. And I'm very much opposed to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as an ideology.

In all honesty I'm just not sure what I identify as politically anymore. I've been called a closeted alt-rightist by SJWs because I support the alt-right's right to say anything it wants without being punished for it, and I've been called a 'cuck' by alt-rightists because I support left-wing civil liberties and economic policies.

I foresee a major split on the left with the emergence of a new identity for culturally libertarian, socially and economically liberal people (as opposed to the culturally authoritarian, socially and economically liberal nature of the regressive left) which states very clearly that one not only is not part of, but actively stands against the latter.

Great post, pretty much describes me ... allthough I have been cutting my nose of to spite my face a bit in my "support" for the alt. right - as you say it's more the enemy of my enemy is my friend - not the best leg to stand on in politics sure

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

I don't agree with Una here. The Irish Times can publish anything they like and exposing the alt right is great.

However, she is not being "fascist" in the least.

Serious question, if someone submitted an article on he merits of national socialism to the Irish Times, should they publish it in the name of free speech? Or should they decline to publish as its hate speech? Do you believe that all ideas have equal merit and deserve to be aired, no matter what?

Not addressed to me, but I absolutely do, yes. While I support the paper's right to refuse to publish something, I personally wouldn't ever support denying a platform on ideological grounds. The problem is, who is the arbiter of "wrong" opinions? The mob? The educated? The politicians? Who?

In my view, it is impossible to enact any kind of ideology-based censorship without at least a certain amount of biased, wrongful censorship based on the personal prejudices of the person who presides over the publishing process. The lesser of two evils, in my view, is to censor nothing at all based on ideology.

My view is that everything should be allowed a platform, and that it's up to individual consumers of media, not publishers, to decide for themselves which ideologies to reject and which to support. If we allow a small handful of people - in this case, editors - to decide which ideologies are "right" or "wrong", we are placing an inordinate amount of political power in their hands. Personally, I don't like the idea of anybody wielding that kind of power in any capacity.

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Objecting to puff pieces designed to normalise fascism is controversial now?

There's a difference between simply criticising ("I vehemently disagree with this article") and advocating ideological censorship ("This article should not have been published / this person should not be allowed to speak") - because who the f*ck gives any individual the right to be arrogant enough to decide what "should" or "should not" be "allowed"?

20Cent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between simply criticising ("I vehemently disagree with this article") and advocating ideological censorship ("This article should not have been published / this person should not be allowed to speak") - because who the f*ck gives any individual the right to be arrogant enough to decide what "should" or "should not" be "allowed"?

Did she say it shouldn't have been published at all or in the Irish Times?
Difference there.
People expect a high degree of truthfulness from that paper.

Should an opinion piece advising parents not to vaccinate their children be published?
Old people shouldn't bother with flu shots?
How about advertisements disguised as stories.

Not as straightforward as "shutting down" or censorship.
More about quality.

Brian?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not addressed to me, but I absolutely do, yes. While I support the paper's right to refuse to publish something, I personally wouldn't ever support denying a platform on ideological grounds. The problem is, who is the arbiter of "wrong" opinions? The mob? The educated? The politicians? Who?

In my view, it is impossible to enact any kind of ideology-based censorship without at least a certain amount of biased, wrongful censorship based on the personal prejudices of the person who presides over the publishing process. The lesser of two evils, in my view, is to censor nothing at all based on ideology.

My view is that everything should be allowed a platform, and that it's up to individual consumers of media, not publishers, to decide for themselves which ideologies to reject and which to support. If we allow a small handful of people - in this case, editors - to decide which ideologies are "right" or "wrong", we are placing an inordinate amount of political power in their hands. Personally, I don't like the idea of anybody wielding that kind of power in any capacity.

You seem to see any type of editorial bias as censorship. I disagree. Publishing an article means that the editor of a newspaper has given tacit approval or at a bare minimum agreed that it's contents are intellectually robust. In your vision of a world free of editorial bias, all ideas will hold equal validity and worth. This simply isn't the case though. An article praising Hitler's dealings with the Jews doesn't deserve to be published by the Irish Times and I'm happy for the editor to dismiss it as not worth publishing.

There is no right to free speech in Ireland, unlike the US. There are hate speech laws that already prohibit publishing some types of opinion. I wouldn't like to see it changed.

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

You seem to see any type of editorial bias as censorship. I disagree. Publishing an article means that the editor of a newspaper has given tacit approval or at a bare minimum agreed that it's contents are intellectually robust. In your vision of a world free of editorial bias, all ideas will hold equal validity and worth. This simply isn't the case though. An article praising Hitler's dealings with the Jews doesn't deserve to be published by the Irish Times and I'm happy for the editor to dismiss it as not worth publishing.

There is no right to free speech in Ireland, unlike the US. There are hate speech laws that already prohibit publishing some types of opinion. I wouldn't like to see it changed.

Why isn't this simply the case though, because they disagree with your personal views? And everyone else should just agree with you.

Tudos on getting Hitler in that comment also.

marienbad

20Cent wrote: »

Did she say it shouldn't have been published at all or in the Irish Times?
Difference there.
People expect a high degree of truthfulness from that paper.

Should an opinion piece advising parents not to vaccinate their children be published?
Old people shouldn't bother with flu shots?
How about advertisements disguised as stories.

Not as straightforward as "shutting down" or censorship.
More about quality.

It is as straight forward as ''shutting down '' . You either agree with free speech or you don't so long as it is within the law .

midnight city

Left wing authoritarians are making an attempt to take over almost every facet of society. If you disagree with them they will shut you down if they can. I have my issues with the alt right but they are the only ones really fighting back against the authoritarian left.

HivemindXX

midnight city wrote: »

Left wing authoritarians are making an attempt to take over almost every facet of society. If you disagree with them they will shut you down if they can. I have my issues with the alt right but they are the only ones really fighting back against the authoritarian left.

It's great that people can believe anything they want now. The fact that the Irish Times isn't publishing this no doubt proves your point.

20Cent

Folks freedom of speech refers to freedom from government interference.
It doesn't mean everyone has to listen to your speech and not criticise or reply to it.

B_Wayne

20Cent wrote: »

Folks freedom of speech refers to freedom from government interference.
It doesn't mean everyone has to listen to your speech and not criticise or reply to it.

Also absolute freedom of speech rarely exists. People are criticising the Irish Times and that's a part of freedom. They lose readers and that's as a result of exercising their right to publish drivel.

midnight city

B_Wayne wrote: »

Also absolute freedom of speech rarely exists. People are criticising the Irish Times and that's a part of freedom. They lose readers and that's as a result of exercising their right to publish drivel.

I read the Irish times about once or twice a year. It's too right on for me. They need a few more right wing journalists who aren't afraid to speak out against the excesses of feminism and mass immigration. Nobody in that paper is speaking candidly on those issues.

Brian?

midnight city wrote: »

I read the Irish times about once or twice a year. It's too right on for me. They need a few more right wing journalists who aren't afraid to speak out against the excesses of feminism and mass immigration. Nobody in that paper is speaking candidly on those issues.

There are plenty of journalist in the Times "speaking candidly" on mass immigration and feminism, they just have opposing views to your own. So, like most people, you don't read the Irish Times because it challenges your thinking on the issues. So instead you read news sources that do agree with your thinking on issues like mass immigration and feminism, I'm guessing mainly US sources. This is exactly how you get sucked in to the right wing echo chamber.

I found myself doing the exact same thing with liberal/left wing sources when I lived in the US. So I stopped watching MSNBC in the evenings and switched to Foxnews. It mad me angry but at least I was being challenged. It's the same reason I post on here, I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs questioned.

So you're standing by the idea it was ok for the alt right to associate BLM with that assault even though they had nothing to do with it.

midnight city

Brian? wrote: »

There are plenty of journalist in the Times "speaking candidly" on mass immigration and feminism, they just have opposing views to your own. So, like most people, you don't read the Irish Times because it challenges your thinking on the issues. So instead you read news sources that do agree with your thinking on issues like mass immigration and feminism, I'm guessing mainly US sources. This is exactly how you get sucked in to the right wing echo chamber.

I found myself doing the exact same thing with liberal/left wing sources when I lived in the US. So I stopped watching MSNBC in the evenings and switched to Foxnews. It mad me angry but at least I was being challenged. It's the same reason I post on here, I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs questioned.

So you're standing by the idea it was ok for the alt right to associate BLM with that assault even though they had nothing to do with it.

I read very little American news. Like most people I get the headlines from irish and British TV and radio. I find the Irish times very stale though. And you are right in a way. I don't read people like una mullaly as she is a troll, unless I feel like winding myself up...

I read British papers like the guardian, telegraph and independent so I'm exposed to lots of opposing views. I find myself shaking my head quite often buy am glad when there are comment sections where the journalist is often disagreed with.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why isn't this simply the case though, because they disagree with your personal views? And everyone else should just agree with you.

Tudos on getting Hitler in that comment also.

Every idea does not have equal merit. Why is that a shock? Editors are free to decide which ideas have merit, you think they should be forced to publish any ail drivel?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Part of this is a very direct and obvious blowback against the regressive left's "some victims are more equal than others because of their demographic" bullsh!t over the last few years. There's no denying it...

I won't deny that it's blowback, but the idea that black people should have just shut up and accepted that they were disproportionately victims of police violence is abhorrent.

...and in my view there's no denying that this was an idiotic stance to take especially in the context of fighting for equality.

If you're fighting for equality in the context of gross inequality, it's not "idiotic" to point out that you are disproportionately disadvantaged.

The reason the alt-right are so delighted to have a white victim of a racist hate crime is because the regressive left have spent the last five years claiming that... a black individual cannot be racist against a white individual, a female individual cannot be sexist against a male individual, etc.

I probably should have read this far before replying.

I have never - not once, ever, in my entire life - seen the claim that a black person can't be racist against a white person. Maybe you have, but I very much doubt that you can substantiate the bizarre and egregious claim that the "regressive left" (a loaded and meaningless term if there ever was one) has collectively made such a claim.

The idea that BLM was responsible for this abhorrent hate crime is a bare-faced lie - and it's only made worse by self-styled "reasonable" people arguing that if black people would only shut up about their very real problems, they wouldn't have to worry about backlash from racists.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

There are plenty of journalist in the Times "speaking candidly" on mass immigration and feminism, they just have opposing views to your own.

Which is just another echo chamber albeit an elite echo chamber and therefore far more worrying.

So, like most people, you don't read the Irish Times because it challenges your thinking on the issues. So instead you read news sources that do agree with your thinking on issues like mass immigration and feminism, I'm guessing mainly US sources. This is exactly how you get sucked in to the right wing echo chamber.

I found myself doing the exact same thing with liberal/left wing sources when I lived in the US. So I stopped watching MSNBC in the evenings and switched to Foxnews. It mad me angry but at least I was being challenged. It's the same reason I post on here, I enjoy having my ideas and beliefs questioned.

So you're standing by the idea it was ok for the alt right to associate BLM with that assault even though they had nothing to do with it.

Pretty much all ideology is American ideology these days. White privilege. 3rd wage feminism. Neo conservstism. Alt rightism

It's not that surprising to me that you lived in the US, your ideology is entirely US driven - a leftism that supports one form of American imperialism (Clinton) over another (bush - trump).

Although the jury is still out on trump.

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

I won't deny that it's blowback, but the idea that black people should have just shut up and accepted that they were disproportionately victims of police violence is abhorrent. If you're fighting for equality in the context of gross inequality, it's not "idiotic" to point out that you are disproportionately disadvantaged. I probably should have read this far before replying.

I have never - not once, ever, in my entire life - seen the claim that a black person can't be racist against a white person. Maybe you have, but I very much doubt that you can substantiate the bizarre and egregious claim that the "regressive left" (a loaded and meaningless term if there ever was one) has collectively made such a claim.

The idea that BLM was responsible for this abhorrent hate crime is a bare-faced lie - and it's only made worse by self-styled "reasonable" people arguing that if black people would only shut up about their very real problems, they wouldn't have to worry about backlash from racists.

Really?

marienbad

midnight city wrote: »

Left wing authoritarians are making an attempt to take over almost every facet of society. If you disagree with them they will shut you down if they can. I have my issues with the alt right but they are the only ones really fighting back against the authoritarian left.

How can you seriously post this ??? Virtually every country in the democratic western world has moved to the right in the last 20 years , some of them seriously so .

Who does that leave ? repressive rulers in the arab world and former USSR . Then we have China and South America .

So where are all these left wing authoritarians ? And please don't come back with Chavez, Castro ,and the Kirchner gang .

It seems that any attempt to speak up against the prevailing capitalist orthodoxy is regarded as 'left wing authoritarianism ' , a meaningless phrase - a bit like 'militant atheist ' used to demonise dissent.

No, for the moment we live in a right wing world .

oscarBravo

Yourself isit wrote: »

Really?

Really.

Not that it would matter if I had; individuals can say all sorts of stupid things. The fact that someone may have claimed that black people can't be racist against white people doesn't negate the message of BLM, no matter how utterly desperate some people are to negate that message at all costs.

Because, let's face it, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of people who only too eager to reject out of hand the idea that black lives matter. Framing that rejection in empty truisms like "all lives matter" is just a way of saying "no, black lives don't matter" while still managing superficially not to look blatantly racist.

midnight city

marienbad wrote: »

How can you seriously post this ??? Virtually every country in the democratic western world has moved to the right in the last 20 years , some of them seriously so .

Who does that leave ? repressive rulers in the arab world and former USSR . Then we have China and South America .

So where are all these left wing authoritarians ? And please don't come back with Chavez, Castro ,and the Kirchner gang .

It seems that any attempt to speak up against the prevailing capitalist orthodoxy is regarded as 'left wing authoritarianism ' , a meaningless phrase - a bit like 'militant atheist ' used to demonise dissent.

No, for the moment we live in a right wing world .

We are talking about the west. The subject is the alt right. They are not in the countries you mention.